# [Game-Debate] Playstation 4 is like a 5 Year Old PC Holding Back Game Dev says A Way Out Creator



## iARDAs

Quote:


> Fares claims the PlayStation 4 is the equivalent of a five-year-old PC and it's holding back game developer.
> 
> "You want the honest truth? This machine is not so strong as you think," Fares said to Engadget. "This is like a five-year-old PC. If consoles were as powerful as PCs are today, you would see all different games. Most of the work developers put out there is to make them work on consoles."
> 
> That's a damning indictment we don't usually see game developers talk about so candidly. Sony's console is of course over three years old, so the parts were probably finalised about five years ago. Since then Sony has released the upgraded PS4 Pro. However, all games must also run on the base PS4, and the potential for improved AI, increased player counts, or deeper complexity, is hampered by the slightly modified and ageing CPU used in both.


source


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Games are more than just graphics. PS4 offers enough graphical power to tell amazing stories.


----------



## mouacyk

^









Plus, a console isn't exactly mean to be upgraded component-by-component -- people buying them should know that and especially developers, whose lives are made easier having to target only a specific set of hardware with heavily OPTIMIZED APIs.


----------



## Butthurt Beluga

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Games are more than just graphics. PS4 offers enough graphical power to tell amazing stories.


You know what requires 0 graphics power and can tell infinitely better stories?
A book.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> You know what requires 0 graphics power and can tell infinitely better stories?
> A book.


Not really. Game have to power to tell a way better story than a Book.


----------



## Chargeit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> You know what requires 0 graphics power and can tell infinitely better stories?
> A book.


Just cause you know how to read you've got to be throwing it in our faces.









It's amusing reading this. Seems like just yesterday they were saying the same thing about the ps3/360. Though those things did have some age on them by the time devs were sick of them holding them back.


----------



## Slomo4shO

How many PCs actually have the graphics power of a high end GPU from 5 years ago?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Duh....
Quote:


> The console was released on *November 15, 2013* in the United States and Canada, followed by further releases on November 29, 2013. By the end of 2013, the PS4 was launched in more European, Asian and South American countries The PS4 released in Japan at ¥39,980 on *February 22, 2014.*


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4

It is 4+ years old.

Why is he not complaining about the even weaker Xbox One?


----------



## LancerVI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> You know what requires 0 graphics power and can tell infinitely better stories?
> A book.


Yep.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Not really. Game have to power to tell a way better story than a Book.


I've yet to see a game or system that has the CPU/GPU horsepower to develop the scenes created in my minds eye when I read a good book.


----------



## twitchyzero

captain obvious fanboy-flamebait article at best

saying that the PS4 is a 1/2 decade old PC is actually a compliment...a i7-3770K and HD7970 for example can probably still hold its own for 4K if it had console-level API

8GB of unified GDDR5 was unheard of when PS4 was announced over 4 years ago.

Is the CPU aging not as well...may be...but the ICE team and Naughty Dog negates other studios' complaints.

at the end of the day, it's the games that count. IMO the single player titles on PlayStation obliterates what's available on PC as exclusives.


----------



## mouacyk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> You know what requires 0 graphics power and can tell infinitely better stories?
> A book.


Good one. IMHO, Andrzej Sapkowski would like to teach you his life's regret.


----------



## Imouto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Duh....
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4
> 
> It is 4+ years old.


It is not. Last time I checked we are still mid 2017.

It is 3 years and 7 months.


----------



## twitchyzero

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imouto*
> 
> It is not. Last time I checked we are still mid 2017.
> 
> It is 3 years and 7 months.


announced over 4 year ago
which meant hardware specifications were probably finalized 5 years ago

interesting how I haven't seen any studios openly criticize Switch's 1TF capabilities in 2017


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imouto*
> 
> It is not. Last time I checked we are still mid 2017.
> 
> It is 3 years and 7 months.


February 2014 Global launch. Also specs weren't made up on launch


----------



## Raghar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mouacyk*
> 
> Good one. IMHO, Andrzej Sapkowski would like to teach you his life's regret.


Asking for all licence money immediately, and refusing to get less money immediately and percentage from sold games.

Actually his life regret is he can't drink heavily whole year. His wife said it hurts his health and watched him closely to not lose him to alcohol induced health problems.


----------



## Imouto

I don't really picture myself saying at Volta launch that it is a 4 years old uarch because it was announced in 2013.


----------



## SpankyMcFlych

Isn't this just common sense knowledge? Consoles are out of date hardware day 1 of release and it only gets worse as time goes by. Consoles always hold back PC gaming and it only gets worse the farther we get into a console generations lifespan. It's just a normal part of the industry.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imouto*
> 
> I don't really picture myself saying at Volta launch that it is a 4 years old uarch because it was announced in 2013.


How is that even the same thing? So we should go all the way back to when piledriver and GCN was announced then?









PS4 is way older then.


----------



## Artev

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Games are more than just graphics. PS4 offers enough graphical power to tell amazing stories.


so did the SNES. hell, lets just go back to 8-bit


----------



## sugalumps

I don't agree on the graphics, gameplay over graphics and on that note I will say they are heavily held back on FPS. It's the sole reason I can't touch consoles is after years of 120+ fps it feels and looks awful.

They really should be aiming at 1080p 60fps and even pushing for 120 instead of 40k 30fps, I remember bloodborn making me feel ill it was that much of a blurred slide show at times.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sugalumps*
> 
> I don't agree on the graphics, gameplay over graphics and on that note I will say they are heavily held back on FPS. It's the sole reason I can't touch consoles is after years of 120+ fps it feels and looks awful.
> 
> They really should be aiming at 1080p 60fps and even pushing for 120 instead of 40k 30fps, I remember bloodborn making me feel ill it was that much of a blurred slide show at times.


Agreed, but no other way to enjoy family/friend couch gaming....

WiiU has some of the worst graphics across multiplat titles. I still enjoy them though


----------



## GorillaSceptre

It's a mixed bag.. It's undeniable that they hold PC back, but it's also undeniable that they give us access to more software.. It isn't a straight forward answer.

Devs aren't talking about the GPU's either, it's those pathetic CPU's.. There is virtually nothing different compared to the 360/PS3 days besides a bump in visuals - Physics, lobby size, etc., is virtually the same. I guess if people don't want "more of the same" then consoles aren't only irrelevant, but they are actually a detriment, others may be content with more of the same, and just want the same formula/gameplay but with different story's, so for them consoles bring a lot more games to PC. One of the only games trying to do anything unique physics-wise lately is SC, and there's a reason they said it can't run on consoles (Hint: it's not the GPU).

Unless the PS5/Xbox two-ee have decent CPU's then I doubt I'll be picking up a console again. The same thing in a different wrapper is getting old..

Curious, as I see a lot of posts about this, if couch gaming is so important then why don't people build SFF PC's? It's not like consoles are the only ones that can use gamepads or can connect to a TV, half my playtime is on the couch..


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> It's a mixed bag.. It's undeniable that they hold PC back, but it's also undeniable that they give us access to more software.. It isn't a straight forward answer.
> 
> Devs aren't talking about the GPU's either, it's those pathetic CPU's.. There is virtually nothing different compared to the 360/PS3 days besides a bump in visuals - Physics, lobby size, etc., is virtually the same. I guess if people don't want "more of the same" then consoles aren't only irrelevant, but they are actually a detriment, others may be content with more of the same, and just want the same formula/gameplay but with different story's, so for them consoles bring a lot of games to PC. One of the only games trying to do anything unique physics-wise lately is SC, and there's a reason they said it can't run on consoles (Hint: it's not the GPU).
> 
> Unless the PS5/Xbox two-ee have decent CPU's then I doubt I'll be picking up a console again. The same thing in a different wrapper is getting old..
> 
> Curious, as I see a lot of posts about this, if couch gaming is so important the why don't people build SFF PC's? It's not like consoles are the only ones that can use gamepads or can connect to a TV, half my playtime is on the couch..


What is stopping them from doing the work to improve the PC version?

Greed and money. Not consoles.


----------



## Artev

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> What is stopping them from doing the work to improve the PC version?
> 
> Greed and money. Not consoles.


or like, business viability? i guess they could bankrupt themselves making a great version for the lowest selling version?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artev*
> 
> or like, business viability? i guess they could bankrupt themselves making a great version for the lowest selling version?


Come on man lol. No logic please.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> What is stopping them from doing the work to improve the PC version?
> 
> Greed and money. Not consoles.


Bit of both I'd say, I guarantee you if the PS5/Xbox next have beefier CPU devs wouldn't have to spend so much time/money using tricks to work around these CPU's. There's a reason devs can ship PC ports off to a port-house of 10 guys for chump change and a months work..
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artev*
> 
> or like, business viability? i guess they could bankrupt themselves making a great version for the lowest selling version?


You want to have a look at the sales of the average multiplat? PC more often than not outsells Xbox, and nips at PS4's heels, even outselling it in a few games.. "Games don't sell on PC" is a myth.


----------



## Artev

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Bit of both I'd say, I guarantee you if the PS5/Xbox next have beefier CPU devs wouldn't have to spend so much time/money using tricks to work around these CPU's. There's a reason devs can ship PC ports off to a port-house of 10 guys for chump change and a months work..
> You want to have a look at the sales of the average multiplat? PC more often than not outsells Xbox, and nips at PS4's heels, even outselling it in a few games.. "Games don't sell on PC" is a myth.


ok, my point still stands... do they want to bankrupt themselves on the extra time, cost and work to make a superior version of something that is only 1/3rd of their sales?


----------



## philhalo66

I always love articles like this, They assume every PC gamer has a 10,000 dollar gaming rig, when in reality most don't even have the power of a ps4 or xbox one.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Bit of both I'd say, I guarantee you if the PS5/Xbox next have beefier CPU devs wouldn't have to spend so much time/money using tricks to work around these CPU's. There's a reason devs can ship PC ports off to a port-house of 10 guys for chump change and a months work..
> You want to have a look at the sales of the average multiplat? PC more often than not outsells Xbox, and nips at PS4's heels, even outselling it in a few games.. "Games don't sell on PC" is a myth.


It still leads back to laziness and or greed. Or some might say efficient multi platform development.


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> I always love articles like this, They assume every PC gamer has a 10,000 dollar gaming rig, when in reality most don't even have the power of a ps4 or xbox one.


Yeah, like someone here said: "the majority of Steam users are Russians playing Dota on 720p laptops".


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artev*
> 
> ok, my point still stands... *do they want to bankrupt themselves on the extra time*, cost and work to make a superior version of something that is only 1/3rd of their sales?


No, of course not.. That isn't what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is currently 2/3rd's of their market takes most of the resources just to get things to work. More powerful CPU's in the consoles would mean PC would get optimized along with them, with out all the special techniques that need to get used on consoles. It isn't that PC would get extra time, it's that PC would share more in common with the optimization time already spent on the consoles. We've already seen this the moment consoles went to x86, PC ports and optimization is better than ever.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> It still leads back to laziness and or greed. Or some might say efficient multi platform development.


I doubt it's laziness.. Devs are usually worked like dogs, the problem is consoles take 90% of their optimization time.


----------



## Artev

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> No, of course not.. That isn't what I'm saying.
> 
> What I'm saying is currently 2/3rd's of their market takes most of the resources just to get things to work. More powerful CPU's in the consoles would mean PC would get optimized along with them, without all the special techniques that need to get used on consoles. It isn't that PC would get extra time, it's that PC would share more in common with the optimization time already spent on the consoles. We've already seen this the moment consoles went to x86, PC ports and optimization is better than ever.


so we're not disagreeing about anything


----------



## Imouto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> You want to have a look at the sales of the average multiplat? PC more often than not outsells Xbox, and nips at PS4's heels, even outselling it in a few games.. "Games don't sell on PC" is a myth.


Xbox is a failed console, I wouldn't take too much pride in outselling them. I also don't know where are you getting that "nips at PS4 heels". If you count BF1 played hours at Battlefield Tracker you can see the PS4 doing three times the hours of PC for example.

And publishers don't want any of the refunds and complaining coming from PC players because their games don't work in every single PC configuration. I was at Steam's NieR: Automata forums for a while and the place is a frigging mess. It is usally PC what gives publishers bad rep for doing a piss poor job yet when there is a really good port consoles outsell the PC in the ratios I was talking before.

It is only natural for them not to care about PC. Too much effort for little returns.


----------



## caswow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artev*
> 
> or like, business viability? i guess they could bankrupt themselves making a great version for the lowest selling version?


the same could be said about sony and ms. they could have done more powerful consoles but at a higher pricepoint.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

I won't reply to all of you as some don't seem to actually be reading my posts.. Back up the things you say with facts or don't quote me and rather move on.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> Yeah, like someone here said: "the majority of Steam users are Russians playing Dota on 720p laptops".


Posts like this are disingenuous to say the least..

We're talking about consoles holding back mid-high end PC's, not the average across 170 Million Steam users..

If you want to talk about "all" PC's then you must look at the revenue across all of them, and in that case PC crushes consoles:



Or, we can look at the numbers which everyone knows we're really talking about, which are hardcore gamers playing premium titles:



I'm also not flat out saying PC sells the most games, just pointing out the rhetoric that PC gamers don't buy games/high-end machines is laughably incorrect. It's is by *far* the fastest growing platform..


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Games are more than just graphics. PS4 offers enough graphical power to tell amazing stories.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpankyMcFlych*
> 
> Isn't this just common sense knowledge? Consoles are out of date hardware day 1 of release and it only gets worse as time goes by. Consoles always hold back PC gaming and it only gets worse the farther we get into a console generations lifespan. It's just a normal part of the industry.


I really hope they keep going like this, in a matter of 10 years consoles will disappear


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

All that work being done on CPU optimization would have to be done eventually anyway.

Not to mention the only other options would cost a lot more money. For the modern example look at the transistor count between Bulldozer and Ryzen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count
Bulldozer gets about 150 million transistors per core (and yes I understand that this number is split across the entire chip and the "cores" themselves are a very small part of that number. Practically speaking you need the entire chip though).
Compared with Ryzen at 600 million transistors per core, AMD's latest architecture is not space efficient, that's a bad choice for a mass consumer product.

Skylake does 437 million transisters per core, except that has an iGPU taking up about a third of the chip, the real number for a pure CPU is probably 291 million transistors. Intel has decent single thread scaling for the increase in transistors, but that's still a 95 Watt CPU, _not_ an option for consoles.
The best they would really be able to do in a console is probably an i3. Considering this would also have to be a chip from before 2013, looking at an i3 from the Ivy Bridge era, it has very similar total performance, though still about 3x better single thread performance than the PS4
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+A4-5100+APU&id=2547 (AMD A4-5100 is 4 cores at the same clock as the PS4, basically half a PS4 CPU)
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-3240+%40+3.40GHz
It's still on the hot side but developers would probably be very happy using that chip instead of Jaguar.

Oppositely though, _I would not be happy_, and chances are you wouldn't be either.

The worst part is that console games using all that single thread performance would usually still aim for 30fps, and then your best overclocked CPU today probably wouldn't even hit 45fps in those games.
It would also mean that even Quad Core CPU's would effectively be useless, everyone would be clamoring for overclocked i3's, or an i5 at most. Maybe that sounds like budget gamer's dream come true, but it would be impossible to run anything at 120hz, that side of PC gaming would be virtually nonexistent.
Multi-core CPU optimization in games would also be stuck at the same place it was ten years ago, an i3 based PS4 would probably have 1 full core saturated all the time, that would mean running 3 primary threads at best.

Right now you can go buy an i7 and get really high framerates on pretty much any game, that possibility exists almost entirely because of slow single thread performance and high multi-thread optimization on consoles.


----------



## andrews2547

Yeah? This is not exactly a new thing.

The PS4 was announced over 4 years ago and the hardware used would have been decided at the very least, 12 months earlier. Unless Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo release a new console annually, which let's be honest, won't happen for multiple reasons, consoles will always hold back what PCs are capable of. This has been the case since the very first game consoles.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imouto*
> 
> Xbox is a failed console, I wouldn't take too much pride in outselling them. I also don't know where are you getting that "nips at PS4 heels". If you count BF1 played hours at Battlefield Tracker you can see the PS4 doing three times the hours of PC for example.
> 
> And publishers don't want any of the refunds and complaining coming from PC players because their games don't work in every single PC configuration. I was at Steam's NieR: Automata forums for a while and the place is a frigging mess. It is usally PC what gives publishers bad rep for doing a piss poor job yet when there is a really good port consoles outsell the PC in the ratios I was talking before.
> 
> It is only natural for them not to care about PC. Too much effort for little returns.


No idea where you pulled "too much effort" from.. Most big studios leave the PC version to port houses, a PC port costs them hardly anything next to the amount of time consoles take. And as for "returns", I just posted how much devs make on PC (not far behind consoles on premium titles, and that's combined consoles btw.) I can easily pull up a comparison of sales between the PS4 and PC in multiplats.. Cherry-picking BF1 tells us nothing. Nor did I claim outsells PS4, just that it's a lot closer than people think.

The context of my reply was to this "or like, business viability? i guess they could bankrupt themselves making a great version for the *lowest selling version*?" So on one hand PC shouldn't get a equal share of the dev time because it's the lowest selling version, but on the other xbox 1 is a failure so it doesn't matter if PC sells more? Okay..

You're reading to much into my post.. I'm sticking to the topic of the thread, not which platform has x or y problem.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> No, of course not.. That isn't what I'm saying.
> 
> What I'm saying is currently 2/3rd's of their market takes most of the resources just to get things to work. More powerful CPU's in the consoles would mean PC would get optimized along with them, with out all the special techniques that need to get used on consoles. It isn't that PC would get extra time, it's that PC would share more in common with the optimization time already spent on the consoles. We've already seen this the moment consoles went to x86, PC ports and optimization is better than ever.
> I doubt it's laziness.. Devs are usually worked like dogs, the problem is consoles take 90% of their optimization time.


Agreed although it is like you are promoting unoptimized games for PC. I would assume these console ports should be blazing fast on PC. But they arent.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> I won't reply to all of you as some don't seem to actually be reading my posts.. Back up the things you say with facts or don't quote me and rather move on.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> Yeah, like someone here said: "the majority of Steam users are Russians playing Dota on 720p laptops".
> 
> 
> 
> Posts like this are disingenuous to say the least..
> 
> We're talking about consoles holding back mid-high end PC's, not the average across 170 Million Steam users..
> 
> If you want to talk about "all" PC's then you must look at the revenue across all of them, and in that case PC crushes consoles:
> 
> 
> 
> Or, we can look at the numbers which everyone knows we're really talking about, which are hardcore gamers playing premium titles:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm also not flat out saying PC sells the most games, just pointing out the rhetoric that PC gamers don't buy games/high-end machines is laughably incorrect. It's is by *far* the fastest growing platform..
Click to expand...

Other sources say differently: https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/the-global-games-market-will-reach-108-9-billion-in-2017-with-mobile-taking-42/

It would be interesting to see how these people come up with their statistics.


----------



## qlum

I think graphics have been fine with this generation, yes more performance can give you better graphics but personally I think the strive for higher framerates should be the way to go. I don't mind the graphical stall as much. Back at the end of the ps3 and x360 era this stall was much much worse for the pc. with improvements on graphics diminishing returns are clearly a very big thing.

Starting at the snes

going to the ps1 is a gigantic leap. you can have reasonable 3d graphics, 2d games look a lot more detailed.

going to the ps2 you can get much bigger more open 3d worlds, much less blocky games and 2d games reach the point where there is not a lot to improve

going to the x360 you can viabily have open world games, higher levels of detail on 3d games. you can do a lot more with simulation and create more immersive games with that.

going to the ps4 era you get much better distant terrain, fancy visual effects, dynamic lighting finally starts to become the standard and overal games can look better

now you can see that the difference gets smaller every generation so a 5 year old graphics card really is not a big deal.

So personally I think that its not a problem.

Hell I am still using a 7950 be it one I oc'd from 830mhz to 1.1ghz.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Artev*
> 
> ok, my point still stands... *do they want to bankrupt themselves on the extra time*, cost and work to make a superior version of something that is only 1/3rd of their sales?
> 
> 
> 
> No, of course not.. That isn't what I'm saying.
> 
> What I'm saying is currently 2/3rd's of their market takes most of the resources just to get things to work. More powerful CPU's in the consoles would mean PC would get optimized along with them, with out all the special techniques that need to get used on consoles. It isn't that PC would get extra time, it's that PC would share more in common with the optimization time already spent on the consoles. We've already seen this the moment consoles went to x86, PC ports and optimization is better than ever.
Click to expand...

All you would get with consoles running PC like performance is worse performing PC games. What we have now is very nearly the ideal situation.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> All that work being done on CPU optimization would have to be done eventually anyway.
> 
> Not to mention the only other options would cost a lot more money. For the modern example look at the transistor count between Bulldozer and Ryzen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count
> Bulldozer gets about 150 million transistors per core (and yes I understand that this number is split across the entire chip and the "cores" themselves are a very small part of that number. Practically speaking you need the entire chip though).
> Compared with Ryzen at 600 million transistors per core, AMD's latest architecture is not space efficient, that's a bad choice for a mass consumer product.
> 
> Skylake does 437 million transisters per core, except that has an iGPU taking up about a third of the chip, the real number for a pure CPU is probably 291 million transistors. Intel has decent single thread scaling for the increase in transistors, but that's still a 95 Watt CPU, _not_ an option for consoles.
> The best they would really be able to do in a console is probably an i3. Considering this would also have to be a chip from before 2013, looking at an i3 from the Ivy Bridge era, it has very similar total performance, though still about 3x better single thread performance than the PS4
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+A4-5100+APU&id=2547 (AMD A4-5100 is 4 cores at the same clock as the PS4, basically half a PS4 CPU)
> http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i3-3240+%40+3.40GHz
> It's still on the hot side but developers would probably be very happy using that chip instead of Jaguar.
> 
> Oppositely though, _I would not be happy_, and chances are you wouldn't be either.
> 
> The worst part is that console games using all that single thread performance would usually still aim for 30fps, and then your best overclocked CPU today probably wouldn't even hit 45fps in those games.
> It would also mean that even Quad Core CPU's would effectively be useless, everyone would be clamoring for overclocked i3's, or an i5 at most. Maybe that sounds like budget gamer's dream come true, but it would be impossible to run anything at 120hz, that side of PC gaming would be virtually nonexistent.
> Multi-core CPU optimization in games would also be stuck at the same place it was ten years ago, an i3 based PS4 would probably have 1 full core saturated all the time, that would mean running 3 primary threads at best.
> 
> Right now you can go buy an i7 and get really high framerates on pretty much any game, that possibility exists almost entirely because of slow single thread performance and high multi-thread optimization on consoles.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Duh....
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> The console was released on *November 15, 2013* in the United States and Canada, followed by further releases on November 29, 2013. By the end of 2013, the PS4 was launched in more European, Asian and South American countries The PS4 released in Japan at ¥39,980 on *February 22, 2014.*
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_4
> 
> It is 4+ years old.
> 
> Why is he not complaining about the even weaker Xbox One?
Click to expand...

The Xbox One runs at 1.75Ghz, all they have to do is run the same games at 900p and they'll get better framerates than the PS4.
Both systems are very similar, but the PS4 CPU is technically the bottom of the barrel.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Other sources say differently: https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/the-global-games-market-will-reach-108-9-billion-in-2017-with-mobile-taking-42/
> 
> It would be interesting to see how these people come up with their statistics.


No idea how "newzoo" does it, or where their numbers come from. But I know I'd take Superdata and JPR's word over them..

Keep in mind, even with their numbers that's all consoles, MS/Sony, and Nintendo vs PC.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> All you would get with consoles running PC like performance is worse performing PC games. What we have now is very nearly the ideal situation.


You've said this a number of times in a few threads, makes no sense why that would be the case.. More powerful CPU's would make the consoles a more balanced system, devs wouldn't have to use all sorts of special rendering techniques in order to take pressure off the CPU's. If devs still target 30fps then the bottleneck would lean toward the GPU, in which case PC would still have an advantage.

I have no problem with consoles closing the gap as we'd have far more unique games, I like PC for more reasons than just "power".


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imouto*
> 
> If you count BF1 played hours at Battlefield Tracker you can see the PS4 doing three times the hours of PC for example.


But that's because we got better games to play than BF1


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Other sources say differently: https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/the-global-games-market-will-reach-108-9-billion-in-2017-with-mobile-taking-42/
> 
> It would be interesting to see how these people come up with their statistics.
> 
> 
> 
> No idea how "newzoo" does it, or where their numbers come from. But I know I'd take Superdata and JPR's word over them..
> 
> Keep in mind, even with their numbers that's all consoles, MS/Sony, and Nintendo vs PC.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> All you would get with consoles running PC like performance is worse performing PC games. What we have now is very nearly the ideal situation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've said this a number of times in a few threads, makes no sense why that would be the case.. More powerful CPU's would make the consoles a more balanced system, devs wouldn't have to use all sorts of special rendering techniques in order to take pressure off the CPU's. If devs still target 30fps then the bottleneck would lean toward the GPU, in which case PC would still have an advantage.
> 
> I have no problem with consoles closing the gap as we'd have far more unique games, I like PC for more reasons than just "power".
Click to expand...

If consoles were running at 4Ghz you would need something with twice the single thread performance to get up to 60fps in most games.
That technology simply does not exist.

High framerates on PC absolutely require lowering console targets because 90% of console developers refuse to run high framerates.

Developers will aim to saturate 100% of any hardware you give them, assuming that they're going to leave a bunch of free CPU overhead just because of a small GPU is ridiculous.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Artikbot*
> 
> But that's because we got better games to play than BF1


Terrible argument.


----------



## Cryosis00

Nice sensational article by a small development studio using a platform that reaches 60 million users/units sold. I mean, he could have, you know, developed his title as a PC exclusive.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Terrible argument.


I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm. The "







" gave it away.


----------



## lombardsoup

Quote:


> Fares claims the PlayStation 4 is the equivalent of a five-year-old PC


Yup. And even keeping that in mind, I still enjoy the platform for its content.

I'll send him some tissues.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> *If consoles were running at 4Ghz you would need something with twice the single thread performance to get up to 60fps in most games.
> That technology simply does not exist.*
> 
> High framerates on PC absolutely require lowering console targets because 90% of console developers refuse to run high framerates.
> 
> Developers will aim to saturate 100% of any hardware you give them, assuming that they're going to leave a bunch of free CPU overhead just because of a small GPU is ridiculous.


*If you're CPU limited*.. Also not sure where all your data is coming from.

Unless PC and PS5 are at 1080P in a few years I don't know why that would be the case.. Not to mention I'm not asking for consoles to get 4Ghz i7's.. Just something better than 1.6Ghz Jaguar cores..


----------



## Mand12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Games are more than just graphics. PS4 offers enough graphical power to tell amazing stories.


While true, that doesn't mean the story ends at the minimum level of graphics required.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> *If consoles were running at 4Ghz you would need something with twice the single thread performance to get up to 60fps in most games.
> That technology simply does not exist.*
> 
> High framerates on PC absolutely require lowering console targets because 90% of console developers refuse to run high framerates.
> 
> Developers will aim to saturate 100% of any hardware you give them, assuming that they're going to leave a bunch of free CPU overhead just because of a small GPU is ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> *If you're CPU limited*.. Also not sure where all your data is coming from.
> 
> Unless PC and PS5 are at 1080P in a few years I don't know why that would be the case.. Not to mention I'm not asking for consoles to get 4Ghz i7's.. Just something better than 1.6Ghz Jaguar cores..
Click to expand...

Games being CPU limited is the entire point of this whole discussion, now you're suggesting that developers _not_ use 100% of the CPU power?

Now that you've admitted that you don't want consoles to have something exactly equivalent to a high end CPU, why don't you take that thought to its logical conclusion and admit that at best, consoles should have _half_ the single thread performance of PC's, because that's the most power you can give a console without compromising 60fps in every game running on PC.

As soon as anyone wants to run 120hz then consoles are required to have 1/4 as much power, which is pretty much where they sit right now.


----------



## Artikbot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm. The "
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> " gave it away.


It was.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mand12*
> 
> While true, that doesn't mean the story ends at the minimum level of graphics required.


Thats what we should tell developers. They make the games.

Also I think Intel and Nvidia damaged PC gaming more than consoles.


----------



## jmcosta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Thats what we should tell developers. They make the games.
> 
> Also I think Intel and Nvidia damaged PC gaming more than consoles.


intel and nvidia didn't ported games that were designed for console

the culprit before console and then the suits in the gaming development, was microsoft a decade ago (a bit more than a decade ago). Im sure a lot of people have the knowledge of this


----------



## ozlay

Well consoles have always held back gaming graphics. Some say graphics aren't everything. But it depends on the game.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ozlay*
> 
> Well consoles have always held back gaming graphics. Some say graphics aren't everything. But it depends on the game.


Exactly this. If graphics don't matter like a lot of people like to spout, games like TLOU, the Uncharted series, Forza/Gran Turismo, etc. would still look like an early PS1 game.

I've found that most of the time when people say graphics don't matter, it's usually console gamers comparing graphics with the same game on PC. But when it's console vs console, more often than not those same people who say graphics don't matter have arguments over which console has the better graphics without mentioning story (if the game has one) or gameplay.


----------



## phenom01

Considering the Xbox One is overall much slower than the PS4 why is it the PS4 that is holding back the gaming industry?


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phenom01*
> 
> Considering the Xbox One is overall much slower than the PS4 why is it the PS4 that is holding back the gaming industry?


I think it's obvious that he's including all consoles by implication.


----------



## prznar1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LancerVI*
> 
> Yep.
> I've yet to see a game or system that has the CPU/GPU horsepower to develop the scenes created in my minds eye when I read a good book.


Immers yourself to the game as you do to the book. And somehow im backing up words about story games better than books. Some games have incredibly good story to tell. Legacy of Kain for example.


----------



## Imouto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> Exactly this. If graphics don't matter like a lot of people like to spout, games like TLOU, the Uncharted series, Forza/Gran Turismo, etc. would still look like an early PS1 game.


Graphics don't matter. They're pushed when tech and economy allow it and mainly because companies try to one up the competition. You have masterpieces not pushing graphics at all. Hell, you even have masterpieces done today in 8-bit style like Undertale.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> I've found that most of the time when people say graphics don't matter, it's usually console gamers comparing graphics with the same game on PC. But when it's console vs console, more often than not those same people who say graphics don't matter have arguments over which console has the better graphics without mentioning story (if the game has one) or gameplay.


People like to make a lot of noise. I swear most people just enjoy their games and don't worry about irrelevant things like these.


----------



## thegreatsquare

If a full fledged new console came out now with current hardware i7/Ryzen5-7 CPUs, we'd all need new $3000 rigs with 16c/32t processors. Current/Recent i5/i7/Ryzen would be obsolete on the PC side of things when the same hardware receives console optimization.

...enjoy the console plateau while it lasts.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ozlay*
> 
> Well consoles have always held back gaming graphics. Some say graphics aren't everything. But it depends on the game.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly this. If graphics don't matter like a lot of people like to spout, games like TLOU, the Uncharted series, Forza/Gran Turismo, etc. would still look like an early PS1 game.
> 
> I've found that most of the time when people say graphics don't matter, it's usually console gamers comparing graphics with the same game on PC. But when it's console vs console, more often than not those same people who say graphics don't matter have arguments over which console has the better graphics without mentioning story (if the game has one) or gameplay.
Click to expand...

On that subject, there really is an entire untapped market of modern games with simplistic graphics that could still push technology in other ways.
Minecraft is one example, and we've seen a few other indie titles that try to play with Voxels, but I'm still confident that the games being made today are really only scratching the surface of the potential current hardware has, even on consoles.
One of my biggest disappointments in recent years is that no-one made any serious effort to make a Minecraft competitior. There are dozens of them on mobile, but nothing on PC using C++ that actually tries to push the concept further. At least Microsoft hasn't totally abandoned the idea of refining Minecraft, but they don't seem interested in doing anything more than maintaining the same basic concept.


----------



## phenom01

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I think it's obvious that he's including all consoles by implication.


It was a comment on the terrible writer of the article. The quote from the Dev said "consoles". Somehow the clickbait article writer turned that in into PS4 Is holding back gaming and a quote from the first paragraph. "Joes Fares, the Hazelight founder who was up on stage during EA's E3 2017 press conference to reveal co-op adventure A Way Out, has absolutely laid into Sony's PlayStation 4 during a recent interview." This shouldn't even be a topic here. This is already wildly overly debated about but this guys a clickbait article and BOOM front page news.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jmcosta*
> 
> intel and nvidia didn't ported games that were designed for console
> 
> the culprit before console and then the suits in the gaming development, was microsoft a decade ago (a bit more than a decade ago). Im sure a lot of people have the knowledge of this


Nvidia tried and is trying to segregate gamers with propitiatory software.

Intel kept PC gamers locked to dual core and quad cores for a decade. so even though consoles are using more than 4 cores most games the past 2 years ago and before are still only able to use 4 cores.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Nvidia tried and is trying to segregate gamers with propitiatory software.
> 
> Intel kept PC gamers locked to dual core and quad cores for a decade. so even though consoles are using more than 4 cores most games the past 2 years ago and before are still only able to use 4 cores.


Yet they didn't have any trouble running ports of PS3/360 games.
I think it has to do more with rising development costs more than anything. So called AAA games these days costs as much as some of the most expensive blockbuster movies, requiring more menpower than ever before. People wants better graphics and higher production values but they come at a huge expense, so they have to release games on as many platforms as possible to maximize sales.
Surely you can create greatest looking game ever requiring high end 8 cores and latest graphics card but you won't ever recoup the costs that way.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> Yet they didn't have any trouble running ports of PS3/360 games.
> I think it has to do more with rising development costs more than anything. So called AAA games these days costs as much as some of the most expensive blockbuster movies, requiring more menpower than ever before. People wants better graphics and higher production values but they come at a huge expense, so they have to release games on as many platforms as possible to maximize sales.
> Surely you can create greatest looking game ever requiring high end 8 cores and latest graphics card but you won't ever recoup the costs that way.


Ports were terrible for Xbox 360 and PS3 also. There just was not many of them.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Games are more than just graphics. PS4 offers enough graphical power to tell amazing stories.


Except games by design cannot tell amazing stories.


----------



## HMBR

short memory, remember the last gen? a 2005 console being the main platform until 2013.
it's nothing new,.

it gives the opportunity to the PC to run 30FPS games at 60+
and enable clean image quality (very high res and anti aliasing methods), if games were pushing the PC hard, console style, you would have a lot more problems with that.


----------



## n4p0l3onic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> Except games by design cannot tell amazing stories.


You must be playing all the wrong games then.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iARDAs*
> 
> source


I suppose this guy expects everyone to simply spend thousands of dollars on current hardware (which only remains "current" for about 6 months before it too becomes outdated) so these developers can make good games? I would argue that limitations of the technology actually spur more innovation rather than having hardware that can just brute force everything. Its a lazy mentality that I actually think is more to blame for the current state of game development than any deficiencies in the hardware. Look at the sort of games Nintendo was able to make on the original NES for example.

Having said that, I do agree in principle that consoles hold back development of cutting edge tech implementation, but even PC gaming still has to reconcile with the fact that the vast majority of PC gamers are using PC hardware that is no more powerful than a 5-year old PC. No matter how resource-intensive an application is designed to be, it can always be scaled back to work on whatever hardware if the developer is willing to put the time and effort in.


----------



## cdoublejj

Isn't that why they made the PS4 Pro?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

At least the current consoles are x86 now so it should be a simpler process to develop for PC first and then port to consoles with scaled back resource-usage to run on the slower hardware. That's what everybody was talking about when the PS4 was first announced: Thank God no more CELL processor!


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> consoles will always hold back what PCs are capable of. This has been the case since the very first game consoles.


To be nitpicky, that's not actually true.

First generation consoles like the Atari 2600 = better graphics and sound than PCs of the time
Third generation consoles like the Famicom = better graphics and sound than PCs of the time

Not just better graphics and sound but also better controllers in the case of the NES generation. The digital gamepad was a huge improvement over the generally poor-quality joysticks PCs had. Look at the Color Computer joysticks for the worst game controller ever made. Of course, there were horrible controllers on some consoles, too, like the Atari 5200. But, with the NES, all of that changed. The digital gamepad offered tremendously improved precision and functionality.

The one advantage PCs had over consoles like the NES was that some had floppy drives. Computers with floppy drives could have deeper games, like Ultima IV. Despite being a bit deeper, though, because of the ability to use a keyboard, the NES version of that game has better graphics and sound.

IBM PCs with EGA, the Macintosh, the Amiga, and the Atari ST became competitive with consoles in terms of graphics and sound but that was quite a while after consoles and personal computers had been around.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imouto*
> 
> Graphics don't matter.


Graphics do matter but what matters a lot more is artistic quality. That involves more than just the graphics. Final Fantasy 7 is considered a great game in large part because of the high quality of its music. Final Fantasy 8 had much better graphics but the story, characters, music, and gameplay are clearly subpar by comparison. The best thing in that game is the card minigame.

In terms of your point, the clunkiness of the FF7 graphics added to the charm but, at the same time, the more colorful Playstation backgrounds made scenes look better (as compared with the PC version). The game's artists used the Playstation to construct their vision and the PC version is a port. The midi sound of the PC is also less atmospheric, even with the better-grade midi option enabled.

There is so much detail in FF7 and that's what makes it so influential, despite its flaws (anticlimactic third disc, annoying stereotyping, confusing story presentation, tonal confusion between cartoonish elements such as Cait Sith and seriousness, suspension of disbelief destroying moments like the scorpion boss that tells you how to fight it, too-limited dialogue choices, and abandonment of the more interesting "you're a terrorist" theme in favor of the banal "save the planet from monsters" theme).


----------



## HMBR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> Isn't that why they made the PS4 Pro?


PS4 Pro is a minority, after the Pro launched 70% of the PS sold were still the standard model,
also the Pro is good but not amazing, still Jaguar cores @ 2.1GHz, and 4TFlops Radeon, also limited memory, it has 8GB but only 6 or so can be used by games, and that's total, not just for GPU stuff.

it's basically a PS4 for higher resolution, not vast changes to game, like framerate (from 30 to 60 not really realistic), physics and level designs need to respect the standard PS4 because well, there's just not that much extra power in the end for that, just for pushing more pixels for the higher res TVs, and games have to be compatible with the standard machine...

same with Xbox One X, it has 6Tflops but Jaguar cores and games have to be compatible with the 1.3TFlop base model (but less memory problems, and the upgrade overall to the hardware seems better)


----------



## MadRabbit

Is it a must these days for a dev to release a game on a console? No. So how about release it for PC only and duh, problem solved.

And complaining, funny. TLOU has an exceptional story coupled with amazing graphics (remastered one), so maybe he should look at himself first. Spend more time optimizing the game then maybe?

Hurr-durr consoles ruin everything! - Meh.

Bad publicity is still publicity it seems.

It's funny though, he talks like every PC out there is equipped with Titans and X series CPU's - while in reality A LOT of the PC's are actually in the PS4/Xbox One territory.

Sleeping Dogs handled this pretty well, made a new patch for High Res textures and be done with it. For these guys, complaining is easier. I'll pass.


----------



## Lass3

Yeah if the $250 consoles were as fast as $5000 gaming pc's we would see all different games. No ****.

The majority of PC builds on Steam are worse than base PS4 and Xbox One. Most of these PC gamers play esport and indie games.

Gameplay > Graphics. Just focus on making good games and stop whining.


----------



## starliner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> You know what requires 0 graphics power and can tell infinitely better stories?
> A book.


What's a.. book? Oh, you mean ebooks? Those still require 2D graphics renders


----------



## Buris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Games are more than just graphics. PS4 offers enough graphical power to tell amazing stories.


I really don't think the problem with the PS4 is it's GPU or anything to do with graphics. The PS4 has a CPU that *might* be just ever-so-better than the cell.

Which came out over 11 years ago. You can say the Xbox One has a better CPU but really it's only *just* slightly better. The reality of the situation is that the CPU is what's holding back advancement right now.

Let's not even start on the switch and how monumentally stupid it was to put a 28/20nm processor/GPU on a new MOBILE device when a 14nm, 16nm cards had been out for over 6 months and the PS4 pro using 14nm had been out for a few months. I don't even comprehend that level of stupidity. They intentionally reduced clockspeeds, battery life, overall performance, future-proofing, etc. for what?! two dollars per console saved? to be out a month earlier than they otherwise would have been? Not to mention anyone with half a brain knows for a fact that Nintendo has no supply shortage, they do this at the beginning of every one of their consoles lifespan regardless of whether it's successful simply to milk more sales.

Nintendo could have made the switch on par with the xbox one and PS4, at least when plugged in, allowing plenty of ports and multi-plats to be on the switch. But I guess they think the only reason anyone should ever buy a nintendo console is for 1st party titles that have been gimped due to the hardware.


----------



## superstition222

PS Pro probably should have been Zen-based. Zen is not that expensive to make (is it?), especially when using harvested chips and polymer TIM. Jaguar should have probably been put to pasture.


----------



## Bytales

They should make a new PS5 with a custom CPU/GPU based on ZEN 16 core running 3.5ghz and a VEGA GPU with 32 or 64GB HBM shared Memory for everything on on large interposes. The Memory should serve as ram and vram in the same time, and slap a water cooler on the whole contraption.

Or something else that should last 5 to 10 years, but that would probably impossible to design.

Something like a 32core hyperthreaded 4ghz ZEN chip together a custom vega core featuring 16536 cores together near 128GB HBM 3 Memory on a massive 10x10 cm interposer.

That should hold at least 10 years, if properly coded for, Software wise. Oh, and wire a couple of terabites NVMe Flash Memory directly to said contraption through a Special Interface (that should be replaced as needed.

Now that would probably be good enough for years to come.


----------



## Buris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> PS Pro probably should have been Zen-based. Zen is not that expensive to make (is it?), especially when using harvested chips and polymer TIM. Jaguar should have probably been put to pasture.


There's absolutely no reason to put something like Zen into either the PS4 Pro or the Xbox one X. They are still playing the same basic games as their lower-powered counterparts.

If Zen comes to console it will be on a new platform, and while it could easily play older titles, they would have to drop support for newer titles to support a more powerful CPU properly.

Perhaps in 2 or 3 years the "base" model of the Playstation or Xbox lineup will be the Pro and X, something along the lines of Apple products, but that's probably not going to happen either.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bytales*
> 
> They should make a new PS5 with a custom CPU/GPU based on ZEN 16 core running 3.5ghz and a VEGA GPU with 32 or 64GB HBM shared Memory for everything on on large interposes. The Memory should serve as ram and vram in the same time, and slap a water cooler on the whole contraption.
> 
> Or something else that should last 5 to 10 years, but that would probably impossible to design.
> 
> Something like a 32core hyperthreaded 4ghz ZEN chip together a custom vega core featuring 16536 cores together near 128GB HBM 3 Memory on a massive 10x10 cm interposer.
> 
> That should hold at least 10 years, if properly coded for, Software wise. Oh, and wire a couple of terabites NVMe Flash Memory directly to said contraption through a Special Interface (that should be replaced as needed.
> 
> Now that would probably be good enough for years to come.


That console would cost 1500$. It would also be outclassed in a year and would have no games created for it as there would be no install base.


----------



## Mygaffer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Not really. Game have to power to tell a way better story than a Book.


I very much disagree. Books and movies are much better at telling stories. They can much more easily weave together multiple characters, plot points, exposition, dialogue, all the thing that tend to take you out of the action in video games.

Video games are all about the gameplay, or the stories we have that time we were low on health, the last guy standing on our team, but still took out the three opponents that were there. While some of them have done good jobs telling actual fictional narratives it is decidedly NOT games strong suite.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> PS Pro probably should have been Zen-based. Zen is not that expensive to make (is it?), especially when using harvested chips and polymer TIM. Jaguar should have probably been put to pasture.


Zen was not ready back then. Xbox One X uses same CPU arch as Pro or base PS4 / Xbox One for that matter. Just higher clocked.

I think it's because of price and especially, *compatibility*.

In the end consoles don't hold PC's back.. Dev's are just lazy. PC ports everywhere, lack of settings, FOV slider should be mandatory, even on console versions.
Most dev's focus on consoles, because it's where the money is (AAA game wise).


----------



## HMBR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MadRabbit*
> 
> Is it a must these days for a dev to release a game on a console? No. So how about release it for PC only and duh, problem solved.


it actually is, it's foolish not to if you can,
that's like 80+ mil potential customers for your game.

back in the day when consoles were to weak (like really weak and different architectures and games required more optimization), it made sense to make PC exclusives, nowadays, not really, they might be 5 years old PCs, but that's close enough.


----------



## luisxd

Those comparations are what hurt the gaming community. I remember back in the day when i did not care about how many fps my PS2 or XBOX could handle. When console gaming and PC gaming were two different environments ,for obvious reasons







. But now everything saddly has turned into an e-peen-FPS race. Thanks guys for ruining it


----------



## Skrillex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iARDAs*
> 
> source


Not sure why this is aimed at the PS4 when it's also the exact same case with the Xbox One.

In fact you could argue it's worse in the Xbox case as the base PS4 is more powerful than a base Xbox One.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *starliner*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> You know what requires 0 graphics power and can tell infinitely better stories?
> A book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's a.. book? Oh, you mean ebooks? Those still require 2D graphics renders
Click to expand...

If you think about it, even videogames can be played in Pen and Paper form.

Player input is still just a set of action points per frame.
To the computer, time basically doesn't exist, everything is based on the amount of math that can be done in a clock cycle, millions of calculations per frame.
Even graphics engines could be fully represented in long hand math, it just might take a few weeks to write out one frame.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Curious, as I see a lot of posts about this, if couch gaming is so important then why don't people build SFF PC's? It's not like consoles are the only ones that can use gamepads or can connect to a TV, half my playtime is on the couch..


When I do build a desktop, its always SFF.

Otherwise I am on laptops

I like stories I can get heavily immersed within, and there hasnt been a whole lot of that on PC of late.

Lots and lots of multiplayer focused games, which is fine but it just cant fill that RPG itch in me lol


----------



## LoLomgbbq

Why is it still a surprise to people that consoles are not as powerful as the latest pc hardware?


----------



## luisxd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> If you think about it, even videogames can be played in Pen and Paper form.
> 
> Player input is still just a set of action points per frame.
> To the computer, time basically doesn't exist, everything is based on the amount of math that can be done in a clock cycle, millions of calculations per frame.
> Even graphics engines could be fully represented in long hand math, it just might take a few weeks to write out one frame.


Then it would be papergames and not *video*games


----------



## Glottis

Awaiting incredible games from this developer on PC where he won't be held back.

Sarcasm aside, this dev is an idiot. Maybe he should check average system specs on Steam and what most played PC exclusive games look like.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> Awaiting incredible games from this developer on PC where he won't be held back.
> 
> Sarcasm aside, this dev is an idiot. Maybe he should check average system specs on Steam and what most played PC exclusive games look like.


I'm sure most of the people who exclusively play Dota 2 and CSGO on Steam are using 6950Xs paired with dual 1080Tis









Dota 2 and CSGO combined have more peak players for today than the next 57 games combined. Neither of those games exactly have high system requirements and I really doubt 15% of PC gamers (what Steam Hardware Survey says) are using Intel HD graphics and a 2.3-2.7GHz (19%) dual core CPU (45%) to play games like GTA V, Fallout 4, PUBG, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege, etc.


----------



## luisxd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Curious, as I see a lot of posts about this, if couch gaming is so important then why don't people build SFF PC's? It's not like consoles are the only ones that can use gamepads or can connect to a TV, half my playtime is on the couch..


Cuz they want Ryzen 7 + 2x1080ti + 32Gb DDR4 performance + all the console benefits at $300usd...

p.d. also because they will always complain no matter what


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *luisxd*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Curious, as I see a lot of posts about this, if couch gaming is so important then why don't people build SFF PC's? It's not like consoles are the only ones that can use gamepads or can connect to a TV, half my playtime is on the couch..
> 
> 
> 
> Cuz they want Ryzen 7 + 2x1080ti + 32Gb DDR4 performance + all the console benefits at $300usd...
> 
> p.d. also because they will always complain no matter what
Click to expand...

If more PC games had split screen I might try to use PC for couch gaming but as of yet 99.999% of the games with split screen are console exclusive.
Heck, even the Switch has split screen on Minecraft, but PC and Mobile don't.

For that matter, we should really be asking why so many individuals own PC's. Even Linux is generally only designed to run one desktop at a time. With the new wave of 16 core CPU's coming up it should be increasingly worthwhile to ask "How many people can use this computer at once?"
You should be able to run an entire CS:GO tournament from one box with that much power (Yes I've seen the LTT vidoes).

I suppose I should read up on VM's, but right now consoles of all things are actually at the forefront of allowing multiple people to play on the same box at the same time (at least by default).
Even among people who are fluent in these functions, it's virtually never done.


----------



## umeng2002

No one is forcing developers and Publishers from making the PC versions of their games SIGNIFICANTLY more advanced than the console versions.








That was a marketing department decision instituted by large publishers over 10 years ago.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *n4p0l3onic*
> 
> You must be playing all the wrong games then.


Note that I said they cannot "tell" amazing stories not that the stories aren't good. Gameplay gets in the way of the story. That's inevitable. Mass Effect for instance has excellent writing and dare I say fun gameplay but the moments you game actually kill the pacing of the story and all these sidequests make it come to a screeching halt at times. Games are an interactive medium. It's literally impossible for them to tell stories the same way books, films or even music do. You cannot tell a story all the while playing. One has to come at the expense of the other.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> *Games being CPU limited is the entire point of this whole discussion*, now you're suggesting that developers _not_ use 100% of the CPU power?
> 
> Now that you've admitted that you don't want consoles to have something exactly equivalent to a high end CPU, why don't you take that thought to its logical conclusion and admit that at best, consoles should have _half_ the single thread performance of PC's, because that's the most power you can give a console without compromising 60fps in every game running on PC.
> 
> As soon as anyone wants to run 120hz then consoles are required to have 1/4 as much power, which is pretty much where they sit right now.


No.. The whole point of this discussion is this;
Quote:


> "You want the honest truth? This machine is not so strong as you think," Fares said to Engadget. "This is like a five-year-old PC. *If consoles were as powerful as PCs are today, you would see all different games[/B]. Most of the work developers put out there is to make them work on consoles."*


You're treating hardware and software in such simple terms.. It's not as simple as CPU does x while GPU does y, developers make the _whole system work together_ as efficiently as possible. A lot of PC's current processing power is used to brute-force its way through code optimized for consoles in _very_ specific ways.

This was your statement:
Quote:


> If consoles were running at 4Ghz you would need something *with twice the single thread performance to get up to 60fps* in most games.
> That technology simply does not exist.


How can you possibly come to that conclusion? Developers having more processing power to do interesting things with physics doesn't mean those systems are now suddenly limited to 30fps..

A CPU being bottlenecked in a *specific* way doesn't mean you would require twice the power to get twice the framerate.. There's a ton of different ways a CPU could be bottlenecked. You're also building a straw-man that says optimization (or lack thereof) on PC would remain the same, while consoles would equal a high-end PC's processing power.. My whole point was that the _closer_ consoles get to the average PC, the more PC will benefit from the _code already optimized to those consoles_.

It's like me saying PC would need to require a 6.4GHz processor to double the framerate of a 30fps game running on the 3.2 GHz Cell in the PS3. That's apples and oranges as the code is optimized to run on the PS3 as a _whole_..

The next consoles are almost certainly going to be a Ryzen/Vega APU, we'll see whether your "consoles are required to have 1/4 as much power" holds true. I already know it won't as they'll be even more similar to PC, but it's pointless going back and forth about it anymore, lets agree to disagree.


----------



## Silent Scone

Not news, just the repetition of history.


----------



## iTurn

Hope the dev is releasing a PC only game so it's not held back...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mygaffer*
> 
> I very much disagree. Books and movies are much better at telling stories. They can much more easily weave together multiple characters, plot points, exposition, dialogue, all the thing that tend to take you out of the action in video games.
> 
> Video games are all about the gameplay, or the stories we have that time we were low on health, the last guy standing on our team, but still took out the three opponents that were there. While some of them have done good jobs telling actual fictional narratives it is decidedly NOT games strong suite.


You have not played the right games. You can same a game to just be about narrative. Movies are too short to tell anything in depth and those that try spread out into 2-3 movies. Books while spark your imagination I can say that those days for me are gone. The worlds in games have already surpassed that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iTurn*
> 
> Hope the dev is releasing a PC only game so it's not held back...


Like Dota 2, CS:GO, LoL etc. Talk about graphical powerhouses.


----------



## pokerapar88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Agreed, but no other way to enjoy family/friend couch gaming....
> 
> WiiU has some of the worst graphics across multiplat titles. I still enjoy them though


You kidding right? never heard XBOX controllers work on PC? You can even use the bluetooth ones and forget about cables and comfortably sit on the couch. If you think that opening a game with a mouse an keyboard is too much of a hassle for you, then you should rethink if laziness is a problem in your life.


----------



## pokerapar88

I wish games were made for PC first, then ported to consoles.


----------



## iTurn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> You have not played the right games. You can same a game to just be about narrative. Movies are too short to tell anything in depth and those that try spread out into 2-3 movies. Books while spark your imagination I can say that those days for me are gone. The worlds in games have already surpassed that.
> Like Dota 2, CS:GO, LoL etc. Talk about graphical powerhouses.


LOL exactly.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pokerapar88*
> 
> You kidding right? never heard XBOX controllers work on PC? You can even use the bluetooth ones and forget about cables and comfortably sit on the couch. If you think that opening a game with a mouse an keyboard is too much of a hassle for you, then you should rethink if laziness is a problem in your life.


How many games can split screen on PC? (READ what he typed and don't just fire off a reply.)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pokerapar88*
> 
> I wish games were made for PC first, then ported to consoles.


I wish console games weren't ported to PC... problem solved.


----------



## Mand12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phenom01*
> 
> Considering the Xbox One is overall much slower than the PS4 why is it the PS4 that is holding back the gaming industry?


That's kind of like talking about who has the faster tortoise, isn't it?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iTurn*
> 
> LOL exactly.
> How many games can split screen on PC? (READ what he typed and don't just fire off a reply.)
> I wish console games weren't ported to PC... problem solved.


Reason got my Xbox 360 was Split Screen to play with friends. These days though it seems consoles offer less and less of that.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mand12*
> 
> That's kind of like talking about who has the faster tortoise, isn't it?


Yet most PC's on steam are even slower.


----------



## pokerapar88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iTurn*
> 
> LOL exactly.
> How many games can split screen on PC? (READ what he typed and don't just fire off a reply.)
> I wish console games weren't ported to PC... problem solved.


I get why consoles exist. I just don't think they should be targeted as the main platforms in the gaming industry.
Also, split screen gaming sucks. Games should be designed so you should be able to see everything in the same screen (except for racers or any vehicle sims).


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> I'm sure most of the people who exclusively play Dota 2 and CSGO on Steam are using 6950Xs paired with dual 1080Tis
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dota 2 and CSGO combined have more peak players for today than the next 57 games combined. Neither of those games exactly have high system requirements and I really doubt 15% of PC gamers (what Steam Hardware Survey says) are using Intel HD graphics and a 2.3-2.7GHz (19%) dual core CPU (45%) to play games like GTA V, Fallout 4, PUBG, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Siege, etc.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Yet most PC's on steam are even slower.












Most PC's on Steam are only used to play Dota 2 and/or CSGO.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pokerapar88*
> 
> I get why consoles exist. I just don't think they should be targeted as the main platforms in the gaming industry.
> Also, split screen gaming sucks. Games should be designed so you should be able to see everything in the same screen (except for racers or any vehicle sims).


When PC's get targeted as the main platform you get amazing looking games like CS:GO and LoL. Most PC's are complete junk and even slower at running games than the standard PS4 let alone the Pro.


----------



## umeng2002

Honestly though, blame MS and Sony for using AMD Jaguar CPUs.

Nothing forced them to use APUs.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pokerapar88*
> 
> You kidding right? never heard XBOX controllers work on PC? You can even use the bluetooth ones and forget about cables and comfortably sit on the couch. If you think that opening a game with a mouse an keyboard is too much of a hassle for you, then you should rethink if laziness is a problem in your life.


Why would I put a pc in the living room when consoles exist?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> Honestly though, blame MS and Sony for using AMD Jaguar CPUs.
> 
> Nothing forced them to use APUs.


It was easy to develop for and FX was trash. They could not really use i3/5/7 from 2012 because of price. Next gen consoles with Zen will be a huge upgrade.


----------



## jprovido

Persona 5 is the best game I've played and it took me 110 hours to finish the game (probably still have hangover for just finishing the game a couple of weeks ago but this is how I feel right now) graphics isn't everything. Persona 5 is a ps3 game too afaik and it was a masterpiece. stop making excuses game devs


----------



## jprovido

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Why would I put a pc in the living room when consoles exist?


I have a ps4 pro, xbox one and a Ryzen 1700x + gtx 1080 (with oculus rift) in my living room and no one is complaining. I'm not gonna lock myself down to one platform but tbh out of the three the xbox one is the one collecting the most dust. it's literally useless to me. no exclusives at all

look at all the controller I have in my living room lol


----------



## Offler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iARDAs*
> 
> source


Quote:


> This is like a five-year-old PC. If consoles were as powerful as PCs are today


I like people with wishful thinking, but consoles were NEVER as powerfula s PCs. They key for console game development was high efficiency in coding and optimizing. I heard a lot of devs who worked on console titles earlier that they could tailor the game to fit the hardware, use as much of the hardware potential and capabilities as possible.(eg. low level coding in assembler)

Current PCs dont offer this. You need far more hardware resources to archieve similar results, as the code simply cannot be optimized that much. On other hand, PC platform is more open to innovactions due possibility of replacing components.

Whoever this mr Fares is, he simply shows his lack of competence and experience in gaming market.

Anyway, I am a PC player. I would not expect I will defend consoles in discussion of any sort.

Edit: Just one note... PS4 use Sony developed memory controller which allows CPU to access GDDR5 memory for the system.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Offler*
> 
> I like people with wishful thinking, but consoles were NEVER as powerfula s PCs. They key for console game development was high efficiency in coding and optimizing. I heard a lot of devs who worked on console titles earlier that they could tailor the game to fit the hardware, use as much of the hardware potential and capabilities as possible.(eg. low level coding in assembler)
> 
> Current PCs dont offer this. You need far more hardware resources to archieve similar results, as the code simply cannot be optimized that much. On other hand, PC platform is more open to innovactions due possibility of replacing components.
> 
> Whoever this mr Fares is, he simply shows his lack of competence and experience in gaming market.
> 
> Anyway, I am a PC player. I would not expect I will defend consoles in discussion of any sort.
> 
> Edit: Just one note... PS4 use Sony developed memory controller which allows CPU to access GDDR5 memory for the system.


Did you just enter the gaming world?

What was faster than the Xbox 360 at time of release? Name the "pc" parts please.


----------



## Kriant

I agree with his statement, but don't see this as an issue, because, well, at this point it's probably has been 5 years since the specs where internally finalized. With that said, Devs such as Naughty Dog managed to produce some impressive results on this hardware. I wouldn't want Sony/MS to produce console generation every 2-3 years, because this would mean that there's literally no time to develop a good library on any given console, and as such, I see a loss of perceived value in the product, after all - the console is only as good as the games in its library.


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> You know what requires 0 graphics power and can tell infinitely better stories?
> A book.


Yeah if you like jumping references and what not, at which point why not just make a webpage with hyperlinks. A linear story that reads sequential only is rather boring and offers no interactivity and mainly no choice, meaning it's all premade, something many games suffer from as well, lack of choice and options to deviate/alter.

PS4 and all other consoles, are nothing more than a cheap proprietary PC running a custom OS. It sure can have it's audience but the hardware limitations are real, either be ok with them or not buy it or develop for it.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> Note that I said they cannot "tell" amazing stories not that the stories aren't good. Gameplay gets in the way of the story. That's inevitable. Mass Effect for instance has excellent writing and dare I say fun gameplay but the moments you game actually kill the pacing of the story and all these sidequests make it come to a screeching halt at times. Games are an interactive medium. It's literally impossible for them to tell stories the same way books, films or even music do. You cannot tell a story all the while playing. One has to come at the expense of the other.


That's not true. You can with games like Persona,or Zero Escape,games in wich have visual novel parts and gameplay parts. Also Until Dawn,Heavy Rain,etc.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> That's not true. You can with games like Persona,or Zero Escape,games in wich have visual novel parts and gameplay parts. Also Until Dawn,Heavy Rain,etc.


Yeah and most of these except for Persona are considered subpar as games. The gameplay part of all the games you named is below average. A game with strong gameplay will put it at the forefront. It won't sacrifice it for telling a story the player may or may not care about. Persona is also over 100hrs long and again, the story comes to a screeching halt or is heavily slowed down when you explore palaces. Hell, at some points I wanted to just get done with the dungeons so the story could move forward. These are examples of how much the game parts can be a nuisance to a story.

Games like Until Dawn and Heavy Rain are interactive dramas. Again the "game" parts are nothing short of awful.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> Honestly though, blame MS and Sony for using AMD Jaguar CPUs.
> 
> Nothing forced them to use APUs.


Cost and size did. If they released a console with an i5/i7 and a high-ish end GPU, it would be expensive and either overheat under load or be too big for most people.


----------



## Kriant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> Cost and size did. If they released a console with an i5/i7 and a high-ish end GPU, it would be expensive and either overheat under load or be too big for most people.


Soo true. The prices would've been around $599 a pop or more, because they'd still be trying to make profit.

P.S. I am taking that price by looking back at PS3 price on release. Nothing more substantial than that.


----------



## keikei

While I applaud this dev's honesty, why would he shoot himself in the foot by saying this? I dont hear devs like Kojima throwing consoles under the bus. Unless its a pcmr exclusive, all devs have to work with the same restrictions and limitations. It sounds like an excuse, if his game tanks, he can blame the restriction of the console because he couldnt make the game he wanted. Article also a little sensationalist, but it brings up a good debate. This argument should be moot when ps5 is launched...hopefully.


----------



## paulerxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Not really. Game have to power to tell a way better story than a Book.


lol never played a game with a story that's better then oh let's say...Any of the A Song Of Ice And Fire novels...Don't kid yourself.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> *Games being CPU limited is the entire point of this whole discussion*, now you're suggesting that developers _not_ use 100% of the CPU power?
> 
> Now that you've admitted that you don't want consoles to have something exactly equivalent to a high end CPU, why don't you take that thought to its logical conclusion and admit that at best, consoles should have _half_ the single thread performance of PC's, because that's the most power you can give a console without compromising 60fps in every game running on PC.
> 
> As soon as anyone wants to run 120hz then consoles are required to have 1/4 as much power, which is pretty much where they sit right now.
> 
> 
> 
> No.. The whole point of this discussion is this;
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> "You want the honest truth? This machine is not so strong as you think," Fares said to Engadget. "This is like a five-year-old PC. *If consoles were as powerful as PCs are today, you would see all different games[/B]. Most of the work developers put out there is to make them work on consoles."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're treating hardware and software in such simple terms.. It's not as simple as CPU does x while GPU does y, developers make the _whole system work together_ as efficiently as possible. A lot of PC's current processing power is used to brute-force its way through code optimized for consoles in _very_ specific ways.
> 
> This was your statement:
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> If consoles were running at 4Ghz you would need something *with twice the single thread performance to get up to 60fps* in most games.
> That technology simply does not exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can you possibly come to that conclusion? Developers having more processing power to do interesting things with physics doesn't mean those systems are now suddenly limited to 30fps..
> 
> A CPU being bottlenecked in a *specific* way doesn't mean you would require twice the power to get twice the framerate.. There's a ton of different ways a CPU could be bottlenecked. You're also building a straw-man that says optimization (or lack thereof) on PC would remain the same, while consoles would equal a high-end PC's processing power.. My whole point was that the _closer_ consoles get to the average PC, the more PC will benefit from the _code already optimized to those consoles_.
> 
> It's like me saying PC would need to require a 6.4GHz processor to double the framerate of a 30fps game running on the 3.2 GHz Cell in the PS3. That's apples and oranges as the code is optimized to run on the PS3 as a _whole_..
> 
> The next consoles are almost certainly going to be a Ryzen/Vega APU, we'll see whether your "consoles are required to have 1/4 as much power" holds true. I already know it won't as they'll be even more similar to PC, but it's pointless going back and forth about it anymore, lets agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

"All else being equal" console CPU's need to be half as fast as PC CPU's if we're going to maintain high FPS in PC games.

I don't think console makers or anyone in the industry actually cares about that, I'm not making any predictions, I'm telling you to be careful what you wish for. Don't sit there and assume that everything about modern PC's will carry over to games in a few years.

Traditionally it just happens to work out that the low clocks and low performance CPU's that consoles generally use give PC users the expectation of high framerates. People clamoring for the best tech to be put in consoles would probably hate the result if they got their wish.


----------



## Cirdan

I don't mind consoles being underpowered. Heck, I expect them to be for the low price they are sold at.

The problem comes when developers try to cram 4k rendering, massive textures, ultra high poly counts, etc. into their games on these consoles....causing 5 minute loading screens and 30 frames per second. I would rather have slightly worse graphics and 60fps than trying to not puke from slide show 30 fps.

But they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They've backed them selves into a corner. They can't go back on graphics to deliver better gameplay. So now Sony is stuck delivering sub-par gaming experiences, holding back everyone else. This is why Nintendo ultimately always wins.


----------



## Raghar

30 FPS is decent speed. I'd more complain about DRM which causes your games go poof when console goes poof. And which basically prevents 5$ sales or getting them as a promo, or as a game changed to freeware, for free.


----------



## Juicin

Plenty of games come out for PC only...

Devs are also constrained by the hardware their consumers own.

That guy has no * idea what he's talking about

And what do we need all this extra CPU power for? None of the games I can imagine playing but one like battliefield with a massive amount of physics would ever need more than that.

Maybe a few sims after I've coated the map in a city or empire

"if only we had more cpu power our games wouldn't be crap"

The only time it's gonna matter is in a multiplayer game with all sorts of crap being done by you and more than a dozen other guys on the same map. No new genres are going to come from more CPU power, and nothing will change.

Devs will just get lazier with optimization


----------



## Rmerwede

I am pretty sure a i7-3820 with dual GTX 680s would wipe the floor with any console. That was what I was running 5 years ago.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rmerwede*
> 
> I am pretty sure a i7-3820 with dual GTX 680s would wipe the floor with any console. That was what I was running 5 years ago.


Sure when they work in SLI and aren't held back by their 2-4GB of VRAM. Not to mention the awful bandwidth that would make them struggle at higher resolutions. An X1X would beat that set up whenever it is not too heavily CPU-bound which is its real problem.


----------



## FatalProximity

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juicin*
> 
> And what do we need all this extra CPU power for? None of the games I can imagine playing but one like battliefield with a massive amount of physics would ever need more than that.


Imagine having an open world single player game where the AI isn't brain dead. Where you can talk to an NPC without having to select from 3 options of what to say. NPCs could have personality traits and goals that affect how you interact with them without limiting your imagination. The game world could dynamically change around you. I'd love to see something like the nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor taken to a whole new level. AI really hasn't advanced at all in a very long time.


----------



## Juicin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FatalProximity*
> 
> Imagine having an open world single player game where the AI isn't brain dead. Where you can talk to an NPC without having to select from 3 options of what to say. NPCs could have personality traits and goals that affect how you interact with them without limiting your imagination. The game world could dynamically change around you. I'd love to see something like the nemesis system from Shadow of Mordor taken to a whole new level. AI really hasn't advanced at all in a very long time.


In an open world you can have all the phsyics you want if your'e alone

An i5 is enough for that, if it's not the game is poorly optimized.

You need again a dozen people to stress modern CPUs when a wall breaks and bombs flying.

Shadow of mordor would look no different, just take up more resources because we all had better CPUs


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> Sure when they work in SLI and aren't held back by their 2-4GB of VRAM. Not to mention the awful bandwidth that would make them struggle at higher resolutions. An X1X would beat that set up whenever it is not too heavily CPU-bound which is its real problem.


I used a 680GTX 4GB Classified not too long ago. I was actually pleasantly surprised how well it held up at 1440p. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't spectacular ...


----------



## FatalProximity

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juicin*
> 
> In an open world you can have all the phsyics you want if your'e alone
> 
> An i5 is enough for that, if it's not the game is poorly optimized.
> 
> You need again a dozen people to stress modern CPUs when a wall breaks and bombs flying.
> 
> Shadow of mordor would look no different, just take up more resources because we all had better CPUs


Sorry, where did I mention Physics? Since when did the consoles have an i5?

Shadow of mordor would look very different. As it was the enemies basically stood in a certain area and waited for you to come kill them. What if they had their own goals and objectives that they were working towards? As I said before, the world becomes much much more dynamic and less predictable.


----------



## Juicin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FatalProximity*
> 
> Sorry, where did I mention Physics? Since when did the consoles have an i5?
> 
> Shadow of mordor would look very different. As it was the enemies basically stood in a certain area and waited for you to come kill them. What if they had their own goals and objectives that they were working towards? As I said before, the world becomes much much more dynamic and less predictable.


WHat?>

The point is no one is going to give you extra mechanics. They can do that already, they choose not to

If they wanted the map to change after you did something, all they'd have to do is lock it behind a load screen and use the resources the consoles have. They don't because they don't want to add waht you're talking about

How you think that would work I have no idea. You think changing some assets out with some others is resource intensive?

People on this forum have such delusions about hardware...New hardware is not going to change gaming at all but new resolutions and different targets for optimization.

It's not going to spawn new genres, we're not jumping to 3d. And even when we did almost all the games we play could be pretty well reproduced in 2d


----------



## BESTHARDWARE

The dev quoted in the OP is absolutely right, but there is no reason to single out Playstation 4 as if it is the only culprit. It's not. _All_ consoles suffer from the same problem of constituting the lowest common denominator, and within the last couple of decades, all consoles have caused/do cause games for the superior platform, PC, to be downgraded and dumbed-down for the console's lowest common denominator.

Corporate decisions to downgrade & dumb-down games to the LCD console level and then port those pieces of crap to the PC (this is standard practice across the industry now) is by far the worst thing that has ever happened to PC gaming and video gaming in general, and that is the main reason why 99% of modern video games - _especially_ AAA titles - are garbage.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> Except games by design cannot tell amazing stories.


Of course games can tell amazing stories. However, that rarely ever happens, because for the past ~20 years, the reigning philosophy of game publishers has been: "we want to sell the most copies possible, therefore you developers must make your games as dumb as possible."


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Zen was not ready back then..


That's the most reasonable justification. I already thought of it but there was also the option of releasing the PS4 Pro later to compensate. Or, Sony could have helped AMD to speed up Zen a bit.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Xbox One X uses same CPU arch as Pro or base PS4 / Xbox One for that matter. Just higher clocked.
> 
> I think it's because of price and especially, *compatibility*.


Compatibility isn't an issue between Jaguar and Zen. Zen can run anything Jaguar can, better.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buris*
> 
> There's absolutely no reason to put something like Zen into either the PS4 Pro or the Xbox one X. They are still playing the same basic games as their lower-powered counterparts.
> 
> If Zen comes to console it will be on a new platform, and while it could easily play older titles, they would have to drop support for newer titles to support a more powerful CPU properly.
> 
> Perhaps in 2 or 3 years the "base" model of the Playstation or Xbox lineup will be the Pro and X, something along the lines of Apple products, but that's probably not going to happen either.
> That console would cost 1500$. It would also be outclassed in a year and would have no games created for it as there would be no install base.


Reasons

1) Better justification for people to purchase the PS4 Pro.

2) Better compatibility with PS5. Sony could reduce the hobbling on PS4 Pro in the future to smooth the boundary between the PS4 Pro and the PS5 for devs. Sony could have even designed the PS4 Pro to have the ability to have an add-on external GPU and additional RAM to make the PS4 Pro upgradable to a quasi PS5.

3) Jaguar sucks.

Zen shouldn't be that costly to make, especially in a highly harvested form. All the PS4 Pro would have needed is half of the Zen die working and polymer TIM.


----------



## aweir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Games are more than just graphics. PS4 offers enough graphical power to tell amazing stories.


Somehow I feel like that's a weak argument. So the PS4 is good for playing back pre-rendered cut scenes, or realtime cutscenes and not actual gameplay?


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aweir*
> 
> Somehow I feel like that's a weak argument.


It is because graphics can greatly enhance a game experience. They aren't always necessary. It's possible to make a game with minimal or no graphics that's compelling. But, if a game is designed so that graphics are needed then they're needed.

It's like the old argument for and against putting illustration/pictures in books. It's unresolvable because both sides are right.

It comes down to the game.

The real argument here is how the limitations of the graphics and/or CPU power limit the options of designers.

An example of that is comparing SimCity SNES to Chrono Trigger. Chrono Trigger didn't need the CPU power SimCity needs so it runs great on SNES hardware. SimCity, by contrast, had big problems because of the CPU, including a bug that makes it impossible to get the largest city type after saving and restarting the game - because the CPU is too slow. It comes down to the game. A complex sim may need more CPU power than a game like Chrono Trigger that relies more on graphics and sound to make it compelling. The SNES, therefore, was a limiting factor for sim designers more than it was for RPG designers. That isn't about which genre is more compelling. It's about the options available to SNES game developers.

This difference can be more easily seen in an unbalanced console design like the SNES, where the graphics and sound capability were much more advanced than the CPU. If a console is relatively equally limited then the difference isn't as important. However, a sim that needs a lot of CPU could be designed to not need much graphics/sound so the difference can still be very important.

If a designer wants to design a game that relies very heavily on visual impact then graphics capability is clearly important. Similarly, if a designers wants immersive music and the system can only chirp at people then that's a limitation.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> "All else being equal" *console CPU's need to be half as fast as PC CPU's if we're going to maintain high FPS in PC games.*
> 
> I don't think console makers or anyone in the industry actually cares about that, I'm not making any predictions, I'm telling you to be careful what you wish for. Don't sit there and assume that everything about modern PC's will carry over to games in a few years.
> 
> *Traditionally it just happens to work out that the low clocks and low performance CPU's that consoles generally use give PC users the expectation of high framerates.* People clamoring for the best tech to be put in consoles would probably hate the result if they got their wish.


Okay, because if you say that enough times it will make it true, right? Why don't you back that up with some data?

Lol, does the history of consoles begin with the PS4/X1 to you? Even last gen the 360/PS3 were pretty beastly when they released, look at the PS3's CPU for the time, or the 360's GPU.. This is the only gen where consoles were as weak as they are relative to PC.

Consoles are now locked down x86 PC's, MS and Sony cannot keep up/couldn't make anything better than the chips Intel, Nvidia and AMD make. PC's constant iteration beat out console generations, they now have no choice but to hop on the bandwagon, or they will continue to fall further and further behind - so why wouldn't I assume things will carry over? What am I wishing for? You're the one who's been building the 4GHz, etc., hyperbolic straw-mans.. Who has said consoles need the "best tech"? Asking for more than a 1.6GHz tablet CPU isn't the same as asking for a 4GHz i7 + a 1080Ti..


----------



## Asisvenia

As a PC gamer, I can surely say to you; PS titles are better than any other title in the gaming industry since 2014. They are unique and masterpiece.

Also I think eighth generation was one of the failest and irregular generation that I've ever seen. I didn't like it and everything has been ruined because of the VR and 4K garbages. Why the hell console gamer would like to play VR titles ? And those triple AAA games on 4K resolution ?


----------



## cdoublejj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HMBR*
> 
> PS4 Pro is a minority, after the Pro launched 70% of the PS sold were still the standard model,
> also the Pro is good but not amazing, still Jaguar cores @ 2.1GHz, and 4TFlops Radeon, also limited memory, it has 8GB but only 6 or so can be used by games, and that's total, not just for GPU stuff.
> 
> it's basically a PS4 for higher resolution, not vast changes to game, like framerate (from 30 to 60 not really realistic), physics and level designs need to respect the standard PS4 because well, there's just not that much extra power in the end for that, just for pushing more pixels for the higher res TVs, and games have to be compatible with the standard machine...
> 
> same with Xbox One X, it has 6Tflops but Jaguar cores and games have to be compatible with the 1.3TFlop base model (but less memory problems, and the upgrade overall to the hardware seems better)


I remember on the N64 if the expansion module was detected, some games would load the higher res textures or something along those lines.


----------



## Juicin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> I remember on the N64 if the expansion module was detected, some games would load the higher res textures or something along those lines.


Some games wouldn't' start if you didn't have it

None of them were loaded with extra textures. THe cartridges didn't have the room.

THat's why the n64 failed.


----------



## alltoasters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> I remember on the N64 if the expansion module was detected, some games would load the higher res textures or something along those lines.


Turok 2 springs to mind. Donkey Kong 64 only required the expansion because of a crash the programmers couldn't track down, but found that it didn't affect systems with an expansion pak installed, so they made it mandatory and bundled the game with it.

IIRC even the PS1 had different hardware revisions the games needed to detect. Most of them were much faster at dealing with alpha blending or something like that than the very early units. In order to pass Sony's tests before publishing each game needed to be tested on all 3 revisions.

The PS4 pro exists for the same reasons. It will still run all the typical PS4 code but the games can detect the pro and take advantage of its power. A bit like graphics options on a PC but dumbed down to choosing with plain money rather than an options menu.

I don't see PS5 happening for a long time. Why make a new console when they can just keep upgrading like a PC, and keep backwards compatibility, which equals a bigger library? Future hardware updates seem much more marginal now than they did 10 or 20 years ago. I highly suspect this is the reason both Sony and Microsoft went with x86.

I think this console generation more than any other is suffering from its own graphical bloat. It's getting too expensive and time consuming, and therefore too risky to develop anything truly ground breaking while making the most of the systems power. It doesn't even matter all that much if it's as slow as a 5 year old PC, that is still so fast it is very time consuming to create all the content to display at that detail.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> "All else being equal" *console CPU's need to be half as fast as PC CPU's if we're going to maintain high FPS in PC games.*
> 
> I don't think console makers or anyone in the industry actually cares about that, I'm not making any predictions, I'm telling you to be careful what you wish for. Don't sit there and assume that everything about modern PC's will carry over to games in a few years.
> 
> *Traditionally it just happens to work out that the low clocks and low performance CPU's that consoles generally use give PC users the expectation of high framerates.* People clamoring for the best tech to be put in consoles would probably hate the result if they got their wish.
> 
> 
> 
> ....
Click to expand...

Good job highlighting everything but the part that I added to clarify the statement.

This concept is not hard to understand. I'll use more words, and speak slower.

If a console, and a PC, have the exact same CPU.

And both systems, run at the same clock speed.

And both systems, play the exact same game.

In that case, both systems, will run that game, at the exact same framerate.

Most of the time, that would be 30fps.

If the console is equipped with a top of the line CPU, at high clock speeds, there is nothing that any PC user would be able to do to play that game at 60fps. It would be utterly impossible.

Intel's IPC increases at a rate of about 10% per year, unless we have a big breakthrough in multi-threading, it would take *10 years* for PC's to get back to playing new games at 60fps.


----------



## spinFX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chargeit*
> 
> Just cause you know how to read you've got to be throwing it in our faces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


LOL!


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> "All else being equal" *console CPU's need to be half as fast as PC CPU's if we're going to maintain high FPS in PC games.*
> 
> I don't think console makers or anyone in the industry actually cares about that, I'm not making any predictions, I'm telling you to be careful what you wish for. Don't sit there and assume that everything about modern PC's will carry over to games in a few years.
> 
> *Traditionally it just happens to work out that the low clocks and low performance CPU's that consoles generally use give PC users the expectation of high framerates.* People clamoring for the best tech to be put in consoles would probably hate the result if they got their wish.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, because if you say that enough times it will make it true, right? Why don't you back that up with some data?
> 
> Lol, does the history of consoles begin with the PS4/X1 to you? Even last gen the 360/PS3 were pretty beastly when they released, look at the PS3's CPU for the time, or the 360's GPU.. This is the only gen where consoles were as weak as they are relative to PC.
> 
> Consoles are now locked down x86 PC's, MS and Sony cannot keep up/couldn't make anything better than the chips Intel, Nvidia and AMD make. PC's constant iteration beat out console generations, they now have no choice but to hop on the bandwagon, or they will continue to fall further and further behind - so why wouldn't I assume things will carry over? What am I wishing for? You're the one who's been building the 4GHz, etc., hyperbolic straw-mans.. Who has said consoles need the "best tech"? Asking for more than a 1.6GHz tablet CPU isn't the same as asking for a 4GHz i7 + a 1080Ti..
Click to expand...

You keep trying to act like I'm saying something wrong and then in the end you agree with my main point. Make up your mind.

Nothing new needs to be said here except that you're trying to make an argument out of something you've already admitted to.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Now that you've admitted that you don't want consoles to have something exactly equivalent to a high end CPU, why don't you take that thought to its logical conclusion and admit that at best, consoles should have _half_ the single thread performance of PC's, because that's the most power you can give a console without compromising 60fps in every game running on PC.
> 
> As soon as anyone wants to run 120hz then consoles are required to have 1/4 as much power, which is pretty much where they sit right now.


----------



## cdoublejj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juicin*
> 
> Some games wouldn't' start if you didn't have it
> 
> None of them were loaded with extra textures. THe cartridges didn't have the room.
> 
> THat's why the n64 failed.


I wouldn't say the N64 failed, just about every household had one, at least in the mid west. Command Conquer 64 has enhanced graphics mode that only works with the expansion module. There were a number of games that had enhancements if the expansion pack was present or like you said didn't work at all.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BESTHARDWARE*
> 
> Corporate decisions to downgrade & dumb-down games to the LCD console level and then port those pieces of crap to the PC (this is standard practice across the industry now) is by far the worst thing that has ever happened to PC gaming and video gaming in general, and that is the main reason why 99% of modern video games - _especially_ AAA titles - are garbage.
> Of course games can tell amazing stories. However, that rarely ever happens, because for the past ~20 years, the reigning philosophy of game publishers has been: "we want to sell the most copies possible, therefore you developers must make your games as dumb as possible."


They can't simply because storytelling and gaming conflict. They simply don't go hand in hand. There have been efforts to make them merge together better but it always comes at the expense of one or the other. You can write a great story for a game but you cannot tell it in a great fashion. Something that could have been written with perfect pacing and read in 3 hours will take 20 hours of game time and those 20 hours will be broken up by player's interference and mired by stoppage in the storytelling to let the game be a game.

At best games can be not awful at telling a story but they cannot tell amazing stories without killing or hindering them because well, they're games.


----------



## Juicin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cdoublejj*
> 
> I wouldn't say the N64 failed, just about every household had one, at least in the mid west. Command Conquer 64 has enhanced graphics mode that only works with the expansion module. There were a number of games that had enhancements if the expansion pack was present or like you said didn't work at all.


If by just about every household you mean upper middle class houses with small children in them like ours, sure

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Nintendo_64

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/PlayStation

Sony sold 4 times as many as the 64. And while N64's library is pretty good it's not very deep relative to the psx. Mostly because no one wanted to develop games on a cartridge


----------



## cdoublejj

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juicin*
> 
> If by just about every household you mean upper middle class houses with small children in them like ours, sure
> 
> http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Nintendo_64
> 
> http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/PlayStation
> 
> Sony sold 4 times as many as the 64. And while N64's library is pretty good it's not very deep relative to the psx. Mostly because no one wanted to develop games on a cartridge


i've read that before but, idk if that's world wide or US only. Idk if it was upper middle class only, then again most everyone i knew was 1 generation behind, they either has play station or N64 or play station 2.


----------



## n4p0l3onic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> Note that I said they cannot "tell" amazing stories not that the stories aren't good. Gameplay gets in the way of the story. That's inevitable. Mass Effect for instance has excellent writing and dare I say fun gameplay but the moments you game actually kill the pacing of the story and all these sidequests make it come to a screeching halt at times. Games are an interactive medium. It's literally impossible for them to tell stories the same way books, films or even music do. You cannot tell a story all the while playing. One has to come at the expense of the other.


By that logic, movies and tv shows are also guilty at halting the stories, we have to wait for months to years for sequels and next seasons, and they also can have fillers and different focus on the stories.

Even written stories can have sequels that we have to wait for years.

Cliffhanger is even a real term you know.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *n4p0l3onic*
> 
> By that logic, movies and tv shows are also guilty at halting the stories, we have to wait for months to years for sequels and next seasons, and they also can have fillers and different focus on the stories.
> 
> Even written stories can have sequels that we have to wait for years.
> 
> Cliffhanger is even a real term you know.


Fillers suck so that's out of the way.

Your example makes no sense. The fact that LOTR II came out over a year after the first one doesn't impact the quality of the first one. You have to look at each film of the franchise individually. You can say LOTR has bad pacing in and on itself. Not that the LOTR franchise has bad pacing because the third one came out too late for your test. Each installment has to be judged separately.

The point about cliffhanger is irrelevant.

If I'm playing a game and am in the middle of a major point, throwing an uninteresting dungeon in my face doesn't help the story.


----------



## Juicin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> Fillers suck so that's out of the way.
> 
> Your example makes no sense. The fact that LOTR II came out over a year after the first one doesn't impact the quality of the first one. You have to look at each film of the franchise individually. You can say LOTR has bad pacing in and on itself. Not that the LOTR franchise has bad pacing because the third one came out too late for your test. Each installment has to be judged separately.
> 
> The point about cliffhanger is irrelevant.
> 
> If I'm playing a game and am in the middle of a major point, throwing an uninteresting dungeon in my face doesn't help the story.


A good game narrative should build the story as you go along

You have a halo avatar...Dat sound track


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juicin*
> 
> A good game narrative should build the story as you go along
> 
> You have a halo avatar...Dat sound track


And many games try that but it doesn't change the fact the gameplay gets in the way of the story. For instance The Witcher 3 has fantastic writing but often times you'll have to do gamey things while the plot is unfolding which halt the story. An example that stood out for me was when I was with Dijkstra in the sewer and was investigating his lost treasure. I needed a potion to proceed further. As a result I had to leave the area, gather the ingredients and brew the potion. That's a textbook example of how gameplay can hinder a good story even in a game with top notch writing.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> It's a mixed bag.. It's undeniable that they hold PC back, but it's also undeniable that they give us access to more software.. It isn't a straight forward answer.
> 
> Devs aren't talking about the GPU's either, it's those pathetic CPU's.. There is virtually nothing different compared to the 360/PS3 days besides a bump in visuals - Physics, lobby size, etc., is virtually the same. I guess if people don't want "more of the same" then consoles aren't only irrelevant, but they are actually a detriment, others may be content with more of the same, and just want the same formula/gameplay but with different story's, so for them consoles bring a lot more games to PC. One of the only games trying to do anything unique physics-wise lately is SC, and there's a reason they said it can't run on consoles (Hint: it's not the GPU).
> 
> Unless the PS5/Xbox two-ee have decent CPU's then I doubt I'll be picking up a console again. The same thing in a different wrapper is getting old..
> 
> *Curious, as I see a lot of posts about this, if couch gaming is so important then why don't people build SFF PC's? It's not like consoles are the only ones that can use gamepads or can connect to a TV, half my playtime is on the couch..*


Because a lot of people DO NOT WANT A PC in the living room, simple as that. My XB One S can be turned on with a button press on the controller and at the home screen almost instantly. I don't have to install drivers or other software to make it work properly. I didn't have to put it together and then hope everything worked; just plugged it in and started playing. It is almost silent and smaller than almost any SFF build you could make. I don't have to troubleshoot it when it crashes because it doesn't crash. And most importantly, its cheap to buy and never needs to be upgraded to play current games for it.


----------



## umeng2002

A Zen APU would have to be for the PS5 and Xbox Two... There's just too much different between the Jaguar and Zen architecture. It would break some games or at least make them run "differently"... faster, probably, but there might be some random bugs and stuff that would require studios to dust off old PS4 and X1 source code and fix.

But the PC handles it well, Sony and MS would just have to get over the games running a little differently on the PS5 compared to the PS4 compared to the PS5 Pro, etc.


----------



## voice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> They can't simply because storytelling and gaming conflict. They simply don't go hand in hand. There have been efforts to make them merge together better but it always comes at the expense of one or the other. You can write a great story for a game but you cannot tell it in a great fashion. *Something that could have been written with perfect pacing and read in 3 hours will take 20 hours of game time and those 20 hours will be broken up by player's interference and mired by stoppage in the storytelling to let the game be a game.*
> 
> At best games can be not awful at telling a story but they cannot tell amazing stories without killing or hindering them because well, they're games.


I strongly disagree with your argument. Games are not inherently bad at telling stories, and in fact, have the potential to be amazing, but their potential is hindered by consumer demand, publisher's fear of risk, developers inability to truly innovate, and perhaps most importantly, lazy and poor writing by the writing staff. I have a set of theories about why the writing is so poor for video games, which I think would probably be too long to go into here. Suffice to say I think the root of the problem is that anyone who is writer aspires to be an author or a journalist (or another respected writing profession), and those that fail to achieve this go into games because the standards are low and it's easy to get into.

The section I boldened in your statement is an example of *bad* storytelling in a game, but is probably the most common way to tell a story within it. It is an awful way to tell stories, and fails to capitalise on the thing that makes games great, interactivity. It fails to merge the mechanics, the narrative and the environment into one seamless and integrated experience that is greater than the sum of its parts. Instead (as you have correctly identified) it breaks it up into sections of "gameplay" and "narrative" and never the two shall meet anywhere in-between. This concept can be seen readily in Bioshock Infinite, which literally has 3 to 4 hours of shooting with cut scenes and interrupted with 20 minutes to 1 hour of world building & story telling.

However, *this is not the only way,* and I hope that with the rise of indie titles actually trying new ideas, we begin to move toward a more expressive medium capable of telling powerful stories, instead of trying to imitate what already exists. Your argument about games just not being a good medium to tell stories in was also used when film started in the early 20th century, and we all know how powerful the storytelling in films can be.

I think if the narrative in games is to truly find its place, developers need to embrace the interactivity of the medium and utilise that in the storytelling. The world and the environment should tell the story as the player travels through the world, it should respond the players actions (within reason - not trying to go full Peter Molyneux here) and provide them with a sense of purpose. I think Journey, Braid and Bloodborne all manage to do this amazingly well. They all have environments which describe the world, its history, its people and feed the player the story simply by them travelling through it. In each of them, their mechanics are defined by the world in which they exist, instead of designing a bunch of "cool" mechanics and then building a world & story around that. This means the mechanics & gameplay of each title are deeply integrated into the world, and by extension the story as well. They help tell the story of the player, their mindset and the world.

One example of this is the life stealing mechanic in bloodborne. If you get hit in bloodborne you have the chance to regain some of that health by attacking the creature that hit you. As a creature dies, you can continue hitting it to regenerate your health back. This is an intended behaviour that the player will do by increasing amounts throughout the game *without being prompted or informed of its existance*. In the game, all hunters eventually go mad from gaining too much knowledge or "insight" and develop an insatiable thirst for bloodlust. This mechanic was intended to convey this same sense of depravity and bloodlust as the player-character progresses through the game.

There is a great piece by the Hitbox Team (a team of developers) on their blog which I recommend anyone interested in this stuff to read: http://hitboxteam.com/designing-game-narrative They touch on the same points here and make some strong arguments for the death of cutscenes and integration of gameplay, narrative and mechanics to create a fuller experience for the player.

tl;dr: Game narrative needs to be less prescriptive and more interactive and dynamic.


----------



## Juicin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> And many games try that but it doesn't change the fact the gameplay gets in the way of the story. For instance The Witcher 3 has fantastic writing but often times you'll have to do gamey things while the plot is unfolding which halt the story. An example that stood out for me was when I was with Dijkstra in the sewer and was investigating his lost treasure. I needed a potion to proceed further. As a result I had to leave the area, gather the ingredients and brew the potion. That's a textbook example of how gameplay can hinder a good story even in a game with top notch writing.


Most RPGs will allow you to just cruise through the missions on the "main" story quest

The witcher doesn't have top notch writing

And there are point and click games that are literally all story.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cirdan*
> 
> I don't mind consoles being underpowered. Heck, I expect them to be for the low price they are sold at.
> 
> The problem comes when developers try to cram 4k rendering, massive textures, ultra high poly counts, etc. into their games on these consoles....causing 5 minute loading screens and 30 frames per second. I would rather have slightly worse graphics and 60fps *than trying to not puke from slide show 30 fps.*
> 
> But they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They've backed them selves into a corner. They can't go back on graphics to deliver better gameplay. So now Sony is stuck delivering sub-par gaming experiences, holding back everyone else. This is why Nintendo ultimately always wins.


Knock it off with the sensationalist hyperbole. There is absolutely nothing "slideshow" about 30 FPS. It is an absolutely adequate frame rate in order to functionally play a game, and has been forever. You may not LIKE 30 FPS but it is not a slideshow. 10 FPS is a slideshow, stop lying.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rmerwede*
> 
> I am pretty sure a i7-3820 with dual GTX 680s would wipe the floor with any console. That was what I was running 5 years ago.


And just one of your 680's cost more back then than an entire PS4, much less the cost of the rest of the PC. Also, your PC from 5 years ago would have been in the top 1% of powerful PC's at the time; far from the average PC from 5 years ago. Get it?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And just one of your 680's cost more back then than an entire PS4, much less the cost of the rest of the PC. Also, your PC from 5 years ago would have been in the top 1% of powerful PC's at the time; far from the average PC from 5 years ago. Get it?


I get the felling people that complain about consoles power are mostly like too lazy to optimize. Optimization has always been a huge part of game development. Brute forcing games is a terrible idea.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *voice*
> 
> Suffice to say I think the root of the problem is that anyone who is writer aspires to be an author or a journalist (or another respected writing profession), and those that fail to achieve this go into games because the standards are low and it's easy to get into.


Can you link to some posted writing jobs in the gaming industry? If it's so easy to land a writing job I'd like to see these postings.

Writing isn't valued as much as it used to be. That's why the quality of sitcom writing, for instance, is as low as it can go. ABC has about fifteen sitcoms that all sound like they're written by the same team of C-grade writers. Sci-Fi TV is another example. It's all no-brain superhero "action" like Dark Matter. I laughed out loud a bunch of times when I saw that show. The alternative is to watch re-runs of Star Trek, which is the entirety of the channel BBC America HD. Or, one can flip through 1000 braindead "reality" shows. The only good writing I've seen from television in recent times is Black Mirror and that's British.

People want to become the next JK Rowling because it's groovy to be able to afford a castle. I'm not sure journalism is particularly respected since a person can bodyslam a reporter and get elected to Congress (and not be thrown out).


----------



## prjindigo

PS4 is a five year old LAPTOP, not equivalent to a PC.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *prjindigo*
> 
> PS4 is a five year old LAPTOP, not equivalent to a PC.


A laptop is a PC.


----------



## tpi2007

This isn't news. This has been known since the beginning; everybody saw how throwing a modern looking open world game at either the PS4 or the Xbox One made them both struggle to keep their target 1080p @30 fps and 900p @30 fps respectively.

It's been known since the beginning that the PS4 is slightly faster than a mid-range Radeon HD 7850 (more cores but slower clocked) and was engineered to be just barely capable to get to 1080p at 30fps and that the Xbox One has the horsepower of either a cut-down entry level HD 7790 or the R7 260 non X (same number of cores but clocked slower, probably makes up the difference because of less overhead) and had its clocks, both CPU and GPU, pushed right before release, along with Microsoft releasing the Kinect reserved resources after the console's launch to be able to more consistently get to 900p at 30fps.

If the PS4 is like a 5 year old [mid-range] PC, then the Xbox One is like a 6 or 7 year old one and is arguably holding back the industry even more because both consoles are part of the same generation and the industry designs around the lowest common denominator - and in fact will be even more of a problem because the upcoming games for the Xbox One X will have to be playable on the Xbox One. The CPU limited scenarios will be more visible on the PS4 of course, where the cores run at 1.6 Ghz, but in the grand scheme of things the Xbox One's 1.75 Ghz CPU speed isn't going to enable a different kind of experience, only less stutter in CPU bound scenarios.


----------



## Offler

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Did you just enter the gaming world?
> 
> What was faster than the Xbox 360 at time of release? Name the "pc" parts please.


I would go with Athlon X2 which were released in May 2005, definitely NOT go for Intel P4 (and derivates). I would go for ATI x850xt.

But because we are comparing x64 vs PowerPC and 3 core vs 2 core, and dedicated graphics vs on-die graphics, i believe its comparing apples to oranges.

And I didnt just entered gaming world. I know people who were developing games for 8-bit computers. Those people knew that each of the computers in that era had fixed configuration. Exactly same processor, exactly same amount of ram, and they can tailor the game exactly to the hardware. Consoles share this.

PCs on the other hand are almost every time, unique combination of amount of ram, CPU amounts and frequency, and so on. Its not possible to do 100% of all possible optimizations for one system, because the product would not even run on all other PCs. We already see that certain games are better optimized for Nvidia GPUs, other for AMD GPUs.

Edit:

to tpi2007;
Whats holding back the industry even more is the lost art of optimization. I would put as an example Mantle titles, the way how they could utilize PC hardware and the really good output, or compare "Standard" editions of Skyrim and the one with new engine.

Original engine for Skyrim was designed to run on 2 CPUs, and even configuration of PS4 would end up underutilized. If we are discussing just FullHD resolution and FPS, the question isnt whether FPS is low and struggling, but WHY its low and struggling.


----------



## alltoasters

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> They can't simply because storytelling and gaming conflict. They simply don't go hand in hand. There have been efforts to make them merge together better but it always comes at the expense of one or the other. You can write a great story for a game but you cannot tell it in a great fashion. Something that could have been written with perfect pacing and read in 3 hours will take 20 hours of game time and those 20 hours will be broken up by player's interference and mired by stoppage in the storytelling to let the game be a game.
> 
> At best games can be not awful at telling a story but they cannot tell amazing stories without killing or hindering them because well, they're games.


Story telling and gaming conflict? I can think of so many counter examples to this I don't know where to begin. I can even think of a few modern examples.

Spec Ops: The line might be a good place to start. Most of its story is pretty simple and would work just fine as a film, but the ending only works as a game, because it clearly points to the player being responsible for their bad actions, rather than a character. This would fall flat and seem meaningless and out of the blue if it were being told through a non-interactive medium, but as it's a game, you really were responsible.

The Stanley Parable would make an awkward read or watch, but as a game it works because it lets you choose where you want to go. It's a story in a fairly loose sense, but one that only functions because of the inevitable human curiosity to explore.

Undertale offers you a choice whether to kill everyone on a genocidal spree, selectively kill a few, or spare everyone. The actions of others depend heavily on which you choose. It isn't even a matter of just changing dialogue, the game is quite markedly different between runs.

None of these are the best example of the kinds of stories games can tell, but they are easy to find, modern ones.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Can you link to some posted writing jobs in the gaming industry? If it's so easy to land a writing job I'd like to see these postings.
> 
> Writing isn't valued as much as it used to be. That's why the quality of sitcom writing, for instance, is as low as it can go. ABC has about fifteen sitcoms that all sound like they're written by the same team of C-grade writers. Sci-Fi TV is another example. It's all no-brain superhero "action" like Dark Matter. I laughed out loud a bunch of times when I saw that show. The alternative is to watch re-runs of Star Trek, which is the entirety of the channel BBC America HD. Or, one can flip through 1000 braindead "reality" shows. The only good writing I've seen from television in recent times is Black Mirror and that's British.
> 
> People want to become the next JK Rowling because it's groovy to be able to afford a castle. I'm not sure journalism is particularly respected since a person can bodyslam a reporter and get elected to Congress (and not be thrown out).


The guy who wrote Black Mirror started out his career as a game journalist in the 90s, before moving into newspaper columns and TV. He appears every now and again on British TV, and at the end of every year does a look back on the events that happened. 2016 wipe was so depressing, I wonder what he'll have to say about this one.


----------



## sumitlian

And these silly devs excuse as if they've been making epic games for high end PC LOL, I ask these devs, you have been having highest end gears in PC but name a single great PC exclusive game that required so much processing power to assemble a great gameplay, story, music and sound effects. I recall 0 games in last 5 years.

In 80-90s, with limited hardware and processing power, they were able to make great games, and with great _Music_, music that was born from one syntheziser and fitted into couple of KB of memory. Music that permanantly enchanted you with memories you can never forget. But unfortunately nobody talks about it. Because it is all about photorealism now.

Nowadays, so called game developers who can't design good gameplay, can't create a good story, don't know a thing about music and its relation to game dynamics, excuse about graphics hardware.
What do they want to achieve ?
Another Watch Dogs like garbage with Ultra Texture. Are these devs calling that a game ?
Then what about Skyrim that is quintillion times better in every single thing. Hell they used ancient SIMD instructions from 90s(x87) for vectorization that provided nearly 100% backward compatibility in terms supporting x86 CPUs. And Skyrim ran even on Intel HD at console fps. And it came with epic soundtracks. Them I call developers. And similar have been Fallout and Far Cry.

I may be biased, but I am biased toward feelings games used to give.
Here an example, it is not very correct representation of todays developers, but it ressembles sort of it.
Right: Who seeks photorealism and shows what is obvious.
Left: In addition to photorealisam, this picture consists of many questions, Questions that seek story, demand situations to be explained. It is full of feelings.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## philhalo66

How exactly is this news? Current gen was behind PC since day 1 so why are we just now seeing hit pieces?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Offler*
> 
> I would go with Athlon X2 which were released in May 2005, definitely NOT go for Intel P4 (and derivates). I would go for ATI x850xt.
> 
> *But because we are comparing x64 vs PowerPC and 3 core vs 2 core, and dedicated graphics vs on-die graphics, i believe its comparing apples to oranges.*
> 
> And I didnt just entered gaming world. I know people who were developing games for 8-bit computers. Those people knew that each of the computers in that era had fixed configuration. Exactly same processor, exactly same amount of ram, and they can tailor the game exactly to the hardware. Consoles share this.
> 
> PCs on the other hand are almost every time, unique combination of amount of ram, CPU amounts and frequency, and so on. Its not possible to do 100% of all possible optimizations for one system, because the product would not even run on all other PCs. We already see that certain games are better optimized for Nvidia GPUs, other for AMD GPUs.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> to tpi2007;
> Whats holding back the industry even more is the lost art of optimization. I would put as an example Mantle titles, the way how they could utilize PC hardware and the really good output, or compare "Standard" editions of Skyrim and the one with new engine.
> 
> Original engine for Skyrim was designed to run on 2 CPUs, and even configuration of PS4 would end up underutilized. If we are discussing just FullHD resolution and FPS, the question isnt whether FPS is low and struggling, but WHY its low and struggling.


Uhh did you not do any research on the xbox 360? First of all the triple core CPU was 3.2GHz and could outpace any dual cores at its time of release and easily match 1000 dollar processor all day long. And the graphics chip in the xbox was not on die as you put it it was a dedicated chip very similar to the X1900 series mostly based on the R520 chip. Not to mention the console had 512MB of ram and in 2005 90% of PC's had 256 at most except the very high end systems.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> How exactly is this news? Current gen was behind PC since day 1 so why are we just now seeing hit pieces?


Behind high end PC's yes. PC's that were way more expensive.

Most PC's on Steam are much worse than the best consoles.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Behind high end PC's yes. PC's that were way more expensive.
> 
> Most PC's on Steam are much worse than the best consoles.


Back when the xbox 360 and ps3 were launched only the enthusiast PC's even came close, current gen is a failure in the hardware department.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Back when the xbox 360 and ps3 were launched only the enthusiast PC's even came close, current gen is a failure in the hardware department.


Many PC's on steam are still worse than current gen. Lowest denominator.


----------



## Clocknut

games these days are not revolutionary in graphics & AI.

Game dev just keep making sequel that just a refinement of the old one.

Some argue, graphic & AI isnt everything, they said gameplay is important. If I wanted gameplay I would have replaying the same old masterpiece title.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Back when the xbox 360 and ps3 were launched only the enthusiast PC's even came close, current gen is a failure in the hardware department.
> 
> 
> 
> Many PC's on steam are still worse than current gen. Lowest denominator.
Click to expand...

There is one argument to be made, well two in one actually; the first is that there is this aspiration to get on a console what the best of PCs can do, which is nowadays impossible, but was pretty much doable in 2005 / 2006, and the second that ties to the first is that the elephant in the room called power envelope for discrete GPUs has changed dramatically since the Xbox 360 and PS3 days. Considering single GPU cards only, we passed the 100w barrier, 200w, 250w, the 275w one (AMD Fury X / Fury / R9 390X / 390) and even the 290w one with the R9 290X and 290. Even if we stick with a stock high-end Nvidia card, we're at 250w TDP.

Back in 2005 we had just transitioned from AGP cards to PCIe ones, and even those were still nowhere near as power hungry as they later became with the 8800 GTX; mid-range PCIe GPUs didn't even need an auxiliary PCIe connector. Try running a GTX 1060 or an RX 580 in those conditions now. Also, back then the most sold CPU architecture was the inefficient Pentium 4 and Pentium D, so of course it was way easier to come up with something competitive on that front too. It was way easier to build a powerful and affordable console back then that matched what the best PC could do.

Nowadays, a small, living room friendly, relatively quiet and affordable domestic appliance like a console can't match a modern high-end PC. Maybe if both Sony and Microsoft go back to making big consoles, like the original Xbox and the original PS3, and place big vents with multiple fans, a proper vapour chamber cooler and strict placing guidelines so the vents can expel the heat properly, maybe they can keep up with what a mainstream gaming PC can do for more than a year.

That's not to say that the majority of PC gamers will have that so called mainstream gaming PC at a certain point in time; the PC audience is diverse and ranges from people using IGPs or entry level discrete GPUs to play F2P games that are not very demanding, to high-end gamers on the latest 4K screen and a 1k+ GPU.

But when you see a PC gamer maxing out a game at 4K and putting the gameplay video on YouTube (which was just starting in 2005, btw, with its then possible low quality SD footage), what is the console consumer to do? People will want to get as close to that as possible; people won't look at statistics of how many people are actually able to get there. People on lesser PCs can always dream of upgrading parts to improve performance (even if they never do), but a console buying decision is a one time, ecosystem tying thing for a few years. There is this unavoidable disconnect and thus a lot of expectation management. Hence why 30 fps is the norm, because it's the only way to keep visuals more or less on par with PCs and with it comes all sorts of manure rhetoric, such as 30 fps being cinematic and other nonsense to avoid admitting that there is no _panacea_, no miracles; consoles don't run on magic and at the end of the day there are necessary compromises that need to be made.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *voice*
> 
> I strongly disagree with your argument. Games are not inherently bad at telling stories, and in fact, have the potential to be amazing, but their potential is hindered by consumer demand, publisher's fear of risk, developers inability to truly innovate, and perhaps most importantly, lazy and poor writing by the writing staff. I have a set of theories about why the writing is so poor for video games, which I think would probably be too long to go into here. Suffice to say I think the root of the problem is that anyone who is writer aspires to be an author or a journalist (or another respected writing profession), and those that fail to achieve this go into games because the standards are low and it's easy to get into.


I think your pointed out why AAA games have been stagnating. Games like Mass Effect and The Witcher series don't have poor writing at all but again, the storytelling falls prey to the gameplay or vice-versa. Some guys like David Cage try to tell an amazing story but then the gameplay is completely cast aside. Interactive and passive are contradictory terms. It's practically impossible to do both at the same time well. Let alone merge them well for hours on end.

Quote:


> One example of this is the life stealing mechanic in bloodborne. If you get hit in bloodborne you have the chance to regain some of that health by attacking the creature that hit you. As a creature dies, you can continue hitting it to regenerate your health back. This is an intended behaviour that the player will do by increasing amounts throughout the game *without being prompted or informed of its existance*. In the game, all hunters eventually go mad from gaining too much knowledge or "insight" and develop an insatiable thirst for bloodlust. This mechanic was intended to convey this same sense of depravity and bloodlust as the player-character progresses through the game.


But Bloodborne is lousy at storytelling and its merit mostly rests on its shoddily explained lore and the fact that many things are left to the player's imagination because they aren't explained properly. That's why there is a huge community online trying to make sense of the lore. Furthermore, Bloodborne is a perfect example of a game sacrificing its story for the game element. If you want to understand the story in Bloodborne you have to literally stop and read item descriptions or lore notes scattered about. This is NOT a great example of storytelling and gameplay being merged together. It's the exact opposite. To even have a chance at understanding the story you gotta stop everything you do, go in the menu and read the items. For a game with no "Pause" feature, it's even worse. A friend of mine beat the game and doesn't understand what happened at all because he didn't bother stopping to read every item he had in his possession and I can't blame him. I did the same. I had to go on the wiki and online to understand what the hell was going on in the game.
Quote:


> tl;dr: Game narrative needs to be less prescriptive and more interactive and dynamic.


I agre but good luck with that. Great mechanics require attention and dedication from the player and adding a story on top of it will give so many things to focus on at once the player will be lost. At best you can try to mitigate the impact the game side has on the story side. You cannot merge them seamlessly. You cannot merge passivity and interactivity. It's contradictory. Can you give an example of a game marrying both perfectly? An example that doesn't get in the way of the gameplay or the story?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alltoasters*
> 
> Spec Ops: The line might be a good place to start. Most of its story is pretty simple and would work just fine as a film, but the ending only works as a game, because it clearly points to the player being responsible for their bad actions, rather than a character. This would fall flat and seem meaningless and out of the blue if it were being told through a non-interactive medium, but as it's a game, you really were responsible.


And that's your major mistake. Spec Ops: The Line story is an average military one. What it excels at is giving a SOCIAL COMMENTARY which is completely different from telling a story. The developer also deliberately made the game generic to increase the impact of what he was trying to convey with the game. It's purposely mindless. He sends hordes and hordes of soldiers after the player and has the player kill them in order to mimic most modern shooters and their irresponsibility towards violence. This commentary would have never worked as a film because a film is not interactive. It hasn't got the viewer taking control of the experience. Don't get it twisted, the story telling is the standard lousy one. You fight waves of enemies, you get a cutscene, you fight enemies again, rinse repeat. That's typical gaming storytelling. There's nothing great about that. What is great is how the interactivity of the medium was used to tell a commentary about how it is misused. It makes the player responsibility for their actions. Also the gameplay in Spec Ops: The Line sucks. It doesn't marry story and gameplay because once again, it sacrificed its gameplay to give its commentary.

Quote:


> Undertale offers you a choice whether to kill everyone on a genocidal spree, selectively kill a few, or spare everyone. The actions of others depend heavily on which you choose. It isn't even a matter of just changing dialogue, the game is quite markedly different between runs.


That's the thing. It doesn't "offer" you the choice. It lets you choose and uses the interactivity of the medium to let the player do what he wants to do. Once again this is not great storytelling. This is typical game storytelling except it is done far more subtlety. Fable does the exact same thing but is all in your face about it by having an alignment system and very obvious choices of good and evil. Undertale at least tries to marry the battle system with the storytelling by actually moving the story forward during battles.(an example is the first fight with Toriel where I believe the key is to NOT fight back or something, I forgot.)
Quote:


> None of these are the best example of the kinds of stories games can tell, but they are easy to find, modern ones.


No they aren't. Most don't tell a story better than your typical game and don't even have better writing. Spec: Ops might be the best example at combining the storyline and the game to send a message but again the story is broken up by the gameplay parts and the gameplay parts are stopped to let the story move forward.

Still my issue with games lies with the *storytelling*. Not the story itself. I already conceded there is nothing preventing a game from having a very good story. There really isn't. However there is something preventing games from delivering stories in a great fashion and that is the gameplay because its interactivity gets in the way of a story's passivity.


----------



## outofmyheadyo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Butthurt Beluga*
> 
> You know what requires 0 graphics power and can tell infinitely better stories?
> A book.


Wrong.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outofmyheadyo*
> 
> Wrong.


Nah he's completely right lol. A writer has complete freedom to tell what he wants with a book. He's at the mercy of the gameplay when writing for a video game.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> games these days are not revolutionary in graphics & AI.
> 
> Game dev just keep making sequel that just a refinement of the old one.
> 
> Some argue, graphic & AI isnt everything, they said gameplay is important. If I wanted gameplay I would have replaying the same old masterpiece title.


Too much risk to make new IP that are different. Look at Sony. All their IPs is target to 1 type of gamer.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Clocknut*
> 
> If I wanted gameplay I would have replaying the same old masterpiece title.


I really hope you're joking with that.


----------



## Thready

I would like someone to adequately (and that may be hard) explain using facts and figures, how the PS4 is holding back gaming WITHOUT (seeriously without) talking about the power of the APU inside of it or the amount of RAM.

I wonder why a developer would think this.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thready*
> 
> I would like someone to adequately (and that may be hard) explain using facts and figures, how the PS4 is holding back gaming WITHOUT (seeriously without) talking about the power of the APU inside of it or the amount of RAM.
> 
> I wonder why a developer would think this.


That is the exact reason though. You're telling us to explain it, while at the same time not explaining it.

Because the PS4 (and Xbox One, not sure why the developer specifically said PS4) have relatively weak APUs, the developers (of all games) make textures, physics, how smart the AI is to a point where it they're good but is still able to reach a target frame rate on those platforms. They then copy those same textures, physics and AI onto the PC version (which can have significantly more power than all consoles including the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X).

Now, the developers could make a PC specific version with significantly better textures, physics and AI, but they'd spend more money on that than they'd get back in sales. So instead, they just use the PS4/Xbone versions which have already been created.

A good example of how consoles can hold back PCs is ARMA 3. I've yet to see any game be as graphically impressive as this on consoles










Sure, the textures aren't as good as Uncharted 4, but I doubt even Naughty Dog could get a game to look as good as this on this sort of scale on the PS4 Pro.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> That is the exact reason though. You're telling us to explain it, while at the same time not explaining it.
> 
> Because the PS4 (and Xbox One, not sure why the developer specifically said PS4) have relatively weak APUs, the developers (of all games) make textures, physics, how smart the AI is to a point where it they're good but is still able to reach a target frame rate on those platforms. They then copy those same textures, physics and AI onto the PC version (which can have significantly more power than all consoles including the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X).
> 
> Now, the developers could make a PC specific version with significantly better textures, physics and AI, but they'd spend more money on that than they'd get back in sales. So instead, they just use the PS4/Xbone versions which have already been created.
> 
> A good example of how consoles can hold back PCs is ARMA 3. I've yet to see any game be as graphically impressive as this on consoles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, the textures aren't as good as Uncharted 4, but I doubt even Naughty Dog could get a game to look as good as this on this sort of scale on the PS4 Pro.


Have you seen Horizon Zero Dawn running on PS4 Pro on a proper 4K HDR TV? I don't think so, because then you would not ask this question.

Decina engina is impressive. I've never seen any console game look this good. Draw distance is insane for such a "weak". I suspect they might take use of FP16 (Vega feature).


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> It's a mixed bag.. It's undeniable that they hold PC back, but it's also undeniable that they give us access to more software.. It isn't a straight forward answer.
> 
> Devs aren't talking about the GPU's either, it's those pathetic CPU's.. There is virtually nothing different compared to the 360/PS3 days besides a bump in visuals - Physics, lobby size, etc., is virtually the same. I guess if people don't want "more of the same" then consoles aren't only irrelevant, but they are actually a detriment, others may be content with more of the same, and just want the same formula/gameplay but with different story's, so for them consoles bring a lot more games to PC. One of the only games trying to do anything unique physics-wise lately is SC, and there's a reason they said it can't run on consoles (Hint: it's not the GPU).
> 
> Unless the PS5/Xbox two-ee have decent CPU's then I doubt I'll be picking up a console again. The same thing in a different wrapper is getting old..
> 
> Curious, as I see a lot of posts about this, if couch gaming is so important then why don't people build SFF PC's? It's not like consoles are the only ones that can use gamepads or can connect to a TV, half my playtime is on the couch..


Why would I have a pc in my living room?

That's so ghetto


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Have you seen Horizon Zero Dawn on a proper 4K HDR TV? I don't think so, because then you would not ask this question.












Draw distance is significantly shorter and they cover it up with fog to make it appear longer than it is. It's a standard trick that developers have been using since the PS2 era.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Draw distance is significantly shorter and they cover it up with fog to make it appear longer than it is. It's a standard trick that developers have been using since the PS2 era.


Haha, no. Draw distance is fine. The fog is intentional. It depends on the time of the day, and weather.

That screenshot looks like the normal PS4 gameplay. It's def not the Pro. Or it's compressed as hell. It looks like garbage compared to the real thing in 4K CB + HDR.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Haha, no. Draw distance is fine. The fog is intentional. It depends on the time of the day, and weather.
> 
> That screenshot looks like the normal PS4 gameplay. It's def not the Pro.


12km/7.5 mile draw distance with detail draw distance (grass, small rocks, etc.) of up to 6km/3.75 mile? I don't think so, otherwise images (from the official trailer Sony put out using the PS4 Pro where that image is from) would have come up. Instead, all I could find where images similar to that with fog roughly around 0.2-0.3km/0.125-0.187 miles away from where the character is.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Draw distance is significantly shorter and they cover it up with fog to make it appear longer than it is. It's a standard trick that developers have been using since the PS2 era.


You mean since the N64 era.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> You mean since the N64 era.


Well, I remember PS1 games where the developers put no effort at all into hiding the low draw distance.


----------



## Sir Beregond

"A console that is a few years old now is a few years behind in tech."

Well gee...ya don't say?


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> 12km/7.5 mile draw distance with detail draw distance (grass, small rocks, etc.) of up to 6km/3.75 mile? I don't think so, otherwise images (from the official trailer Sony put out using the PS4 Pro where that image is from) would have come up. Instead, all I could find where images similar to that with fog roughly around 0.2-0.3km/0.125-0.187 miles away from where the character is.


If you get to see the game on a Ultra HD Premium certified TV at some point, you might change your mind about that the Pro is capable of. I have not seen many PC games that can match or beat those graphics lately (atleast not on my outdated PC in sig). HDR makes a huge difference, which can't be seen on screenshots. Can't wait to get HDR on my PC too. Obviously high end PC's will be faster and be able to have higher draw distance. HZD have been a 10/10 experience for me. Last PC title that comes even close is Skyrim. But OK, I'll take gameplay over graphics any day of the week, but good graphics don't hurt


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Because a lot of people DO NOT WANT A PC in the living room, simple as that. My XB One S can be turned on with a button press on the controller and at the home screen almost instantly. I don't have to install drivers or other software to make it work properly. I didn't have to put it together and then hope everything worked; just plugged it in and started playing. It is almost silent and smaller than almost any SFF build you could make. I don't have to troubleshoot it when it crashes because it doesn't crash. And most importantly, its cheap to buy and never needs to be upgraded to play current games for it.


So because people don't want to means PC can't? My point wasn't about people making a choice, it was about the fallacy that PC is unable to be used from a couch. There are ways of making a PC boot into a "console-like" environment if that's what people want.

Installing drivers is a piece of cake and takes like a minute.. If downloading software is such a big deal, then why not point out all the apps you need for certain features on the console? Before you can watch a Blu-Ray or DVD you need to download their app for it (which is a piece of garbage, constant issues with DLNA and others), and good luck watching movies at all if your internet goes down for a week (I know because I have one), what about _having_ to do firmware updates whenever they tell you before you can play online? What about games getting constant updates/patches? Consoles are now just locked down PC's, in the old days of consoles you would of had a point. PC and consoles are very similar now, difference is Origin and co can't compete with MS/Sony's pre-built systems.









Doesn't crash and needs no troubleshooting? Lol that's false, both PS4 and X1 games crash all the time. Both have needed hard resets too.. Google around for all the problems people have on consoles, while I don't doubt they have less problems because people have far less options and choices, therefor less things can go wrong, they definitely aren't trouble free these days. If people don't have consoles then all they'll of needed to see I'm not a rare case, is to tune in to Twitch/watch Youtube..

The only reason PC would need constant upgrades is if someone *chooses* to play at the cutting edge constantly. All I've upgraded since *2011* is my GPU, we're now half way through 2017.. If someone is content with playing games at 792P at <30fps, and that's all a PC build needs to compete with then there's no need upgrading from a 750Ti/RX460, etc., class builds. Building a virtually silent SFF machine with hardware like that isn't exactly difficult..

Price is apples to oranges, but sure - in most cases you can't build an aesthetically pleasing PC for the price of a console. But you can for $100/200 more, and that opens up far more options, you don't have to spend $70 in online fees per year, you have the choice to upgrade individual components instead of having to buy an entirely different system, and you get to have a full-PC.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> If you get to see the game on a Ultra HD Premium certified TV at some point, you might change your mind about that the Pro is capable of. I have not seen many PC games that can match or beat those graphics lately (atleast not on my outdated PC in sig). HDR makes a huge difference, which can't be seen on screenshots. Can't wait to get HDR on my PC too. Obviously high end PC's will be faster and be able to have higher draw distance. HZD have been a 10/10 experience for me. Last PC title that comes even close is Skyrim. But OK, I'll take gameplay over graphics any day of the week, but good graphics don't hurt
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


I'm not saying the PS4 Pro isn't a capable console, I'm saying it's not as good as a PC can be, and anyone who understands how hardware works (including yourself seeing as you just said it) agrees. But even in these screenshots, you can tell the draw distance is well under 12km like it can be in ARMA 3 if you have a powerful enough PC.

This is what the developer is talking about. Unless Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo release annual consoles with high-end PC hardware, consoles will always hold back what PCs are capable of due to development costs.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> If you get to see the game on a Ultra HD Premium certified TV at some point, you might change your mind about that the Pro is capable of. I have not seen many PC games that can match or beat those graphics lately (atleast not on my outdated PC in sig). HDR makes a huge difference, which can't be seen on screenshots. Can't wait to get HDR on my PC too. Obviously high end PC's will be faster and be able to have higher draw distance. HZD have been a 10/10 experience for me. Last PC title that comes even close is Skyrim. But OK, I'll take gameplay over graphics any day of the week, but good graphics don't hurt


I am going to see the PS4 version today. My friend told me its one of the best looking games out there.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> I'm not saying the PS4 Pro isn't a capable console, I'm saying it's not as good as a PC can be, and anyone who understands how hardware works (including yourself seeing as you just said it) agrees. But even in these screenshots, you can tell the draw distance is well under 12km like it can be in ARMA 3 if you have a powerful enough PC.
> 
> This is what the developer is talking about. Unless Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo release annual consoles with high-end PC hardware, consoles will always hold back what PCs are capable of due to development costs.


Then I agree. For me draw distance is not the most important thing tho. That said, HZD have a much higher draw distance than any console game I've ever seen. It's getting better and better and it's really not an issue. CPU is still weak in current gen, and draw distance is mostly CPU. That's why I said decima engine was great. These graphics and this draw distance on such "weak" hardware is a fine acomplishment. I've stopped up many times and just looked at the gorgeous graphics.

I can't wait to replace my PC monitors with (proper) HDR ones, but I want at least 100 Hz too and it's not available yet..


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I am going to see the PS4 version today. My friend told me its one of the best looking games out there.


I own pretty much all the PS4 exclusives at this point, and it's def the best looking game of them all. It's also the first game to be made particularly with the Pro in mind.

Naugthy Dog said they will try to beat the graphics with Uncharted the Lost Legacy, we'll see in a few months


----------



## mothergoose729

Modern games are boring as hell. I don't need 16 more players in a 50 percent larger map. I want novel and innovative gameplay. There are a lot if good games released more than five years ago. You don't need a super computer to power a memorable experience.

Also, a crap game rendered in 4k is still crap.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> Well, I remember PS1 games where the developers put no effort at all into hiding the low draw distance.


They didn't. N64 did. See Rogue Squadron.


----------



## Lass3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mothergoose729*
> 
> Modern games are boring as hell. I don't need 16 more players in a 50 percent larger map. I want novel and innovative gameplay. There are a lot if good games released more than five years ago. You don't need a super computer to power a memorable experience.
> 
> Also, a crap game rendered in 4k is still crap.


Yep, but we have pretty much seen it all at this point. And we're getting older. I loose interest in most single player games within a few hours. I feel most SP experiences on PC are the same again and again.

It's been a long time since I've enjoyed a SP game on PC, Skyrim and Witcher 3 comes to mind, but I've enjoyed multiple on my PS4 Pro already, which I only use for SP exclusives. These games have managed to keep me interested, even tho graphics are worse than what my PC can do, and fps is lower. I tend to stay away from 1st person games tho. For MP shooters I always use my PC.


----------



## rbarrett96

My biggest complaint is that this holds PC games back when the PC isn't the lead platform. Then all we have is dumbed down graphics and horribly optimized games.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rbarrett96*
> 
> My biggest complaint is that this holds PC games back when the PC isn't the lead platform. Then all we have is dumbed down graphics and horribly optimized games.


Not really. If games where only made for PC it would be like Crysis.


----------



## Juicin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Back when the xbox 360 and ps3 were launched only the enthusiast PC's even came close, current gen is a failure in the hardware department.


The PS3 si an anomaly

Never use it as an example for anything

Sony had just retired the most successful console that will ever exist

We will never see hardware sold that cheap again in console form

They were selling those devices at a loss, microsoft too to a less degree. And they planned to make up for that by taxing you on software..


----------



## Superplush

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Yep, but we have pretty much seen it all at this point. And we're getting older. I loose interest in most single player games within a few hours. I feel most SP experiences on PC are the same again and again.
> 
> It's been a long time since I've enjoyed a SP game on PC, Skyrim and Witcher 3 comes to mind, but I've enjoyed multiple on my PS4 Pro already, which I only use for SP exclusives. These games have managed to keep me interested, even tho graphics are worse than what my PC can do, and fps is lower. I tend to stay away from 1st person games tho. For MP shooters I always use my PC.


I completely agree, we have all this talk of MMO's and open-worlds. I've yet to play a game like Skyrim, Fallout 4, The Witcher 3 or Just cause 3 and be able to co-op with 1-3 extra people. -Those- are the types of games I'd be interested in, a fully co-op Elder scrolls would be something special. As for the rest of the genres, I feel you.. being into 'gaming' since Atari 2600, it feels hard to be excited and I roll my eyes at all the screaming when watching reveals like E3.

I like how the Article posts about the PS4 being 'weak'. Forgive me for saying but the XB1 is still the weakest console and with the XB1X not being released yet, it means Microsoft has the worst console out so far so why not get on about that, even CDPR complained that they dulled down TW3 for the XB1.

Not only that but, by the time the XB1X rolls out, it'll be a year behind the PS4P and cost pretty much double the price with no titles ( that I know of ). Right now I can get a 1TB PS4P with Horizon: Zero dawn, Uncharted 4 and Wipeout: Omega collection for £349. The XB1X is retailing at £450 day 1 so far, on it's own. I'm interested to see what games they pull out but as I've said many-a-time. Hardware isn't where M$ was failing horribly, it was it's game line-up more than anything just see the Nintendo switch, it isn't the strongest thing but it's games are why people buy it.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Yep, but we have pretty much seen it all at this point.


No, you haven't. The problem is that the gaming industry is risk averse and also tends to hire the same type of people. The result of that is a lot of copycat products. Hollywood and television are the same. Entertainment content makers like to copy instead of innovate.

People didn't think Star Wars would be a successful film. People weren't sure the first Terminator would be profitable. But, suits think putting out another copy of Battlefield, Tekken, or Call of Duty will rake in the cash.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> And we're getting older.


That is a problem. The older one gets the more demanding one tends to be in terms of quality.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juicin*
> 
> The PS3 si an anomaly
> 
> Never use it as an example for anything
> 
> Sony had just retired the most successful console that will ever exist
> 
> We will never see hardware sold that cheap again in console form
> 
> They were selling those devices at a loss, microsoft too to a less degree. And they planned to make up for that by taxing you on software..


Cell was also not directly comparable with PC processors. It was very weak in logic. Its strength was in streaming. Pretty graphics, basically.

The Cell in the PS3 would have been even more impressive, too, had it been fully-enabled instead of reduced to improve yields.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alltoasters*
> 
> The guy who wrote Black Mirror started out his career as a game journalist in the 90s, before moving into newspaper columns and TV. He appears every now and again on British TV, and at the end of every year does a look back on the events that happened.


Okay.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juicin*
> 
> The PS3 si an anomaly
> 
> Never use it as an example for anything
> 
> Sony had just retired the most successful console that will ever exist
> 
> We will never see hardware sold that cheap again in console form
> 
> They were selling those devices at a loss, microsoft too to a less degree. And they planned to make up for that by taxing you on software..


So forget the PS3 then..

What about the 360? It was also pretty damn powerful relative to PC, what about the OG Xbox? What about the PS2? Etc., etc. The odd ones out are the PS4 and X1..

Console manufacturers cannot compete against the likes of Intel, Nvidia, or AMD. They have no choice but to use the same hardware PC does from now on, albeit the lower-end stuff.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> What about the 360? It was also pretty damn powerful relative to PC


512 MB of RAM was small. That's more like a 2001 PC.


----------



## Cybertox

The only thing holding developers back is themselves, not a console.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> The only thing holding developers back is themselves, not a console.


That's not true. I wrote a fairly lengthy post about it but the real issue is that *hardware limitations limit the options developers have*.

Imagine you're trying to put Skyrim on a Fairchild VES. Tell me how it would be the developer's fault for the result to be pathetic.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> The only thing holding developers back is themselves, not a console.


Thank you.... Finally someone gets it.

+rep


----------



## Cybertox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> That's not true. I wrote a fairly lengthy post about it but the real issue is that *hardware limitations limit the options developers have*.
> 
> Imagine you're trying to put Skyrim on a Fairchild VES. Tell me how it would be the developer's fault for the result to be pathetic.


It limits them when developing for consoles, but nobody is limiting them when developing games specifically for PC or porting them to it.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> It limits them when developing for consoles, but nobody is limiting them when developing games specifically for PC or porting them to it.


Of course the PC platform has limitations. Compare PC games from 1997 with those of today, in terms of graphics, sound, CPU requirements, and storage requirements.


----------



## Cybertox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Of course the PC platform has limitations. Compare PC games from 1997 with those of today, in terms of graphics, sound, CPU requirements, and storage requirements.


Everything has limitations if you wanna go there. Developers like to complain about how hard things are and how limited the hardware is without putting any effort or work into their software. The capacity of computers dating back even 5 years has not been utilized to its fullest potential, same applies to consoles like PS4 and Xbox One. Not even talking about the hardware we have now. There is much more you can accomplish with this hardware, but nobody wants to code and support multiple cores, nobody wants to dedicate time for proper memory usage, nobody wants to support multiple GPUs scaling because apparently its all too "hard" and there are too many "limitations". Look at the new Spiderman, it runs on PS4 and looks better than 99% of all PC games. Its just requires competent people, effort and a big budget.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Everything has limitations if you wanna go there.


You went there with this false statement:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> The only thing holding developers back is themselves, not a console.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Developers like to complain about how hard things are and how limited the hardware is without putting any effort or work into their software.


_Ad hominem_ fallacy.

It should be noted, too, that having to put extra work into something is also something worth complaining about sometimes. Why make extra effort when one could make less effort and have an equivalent or superior result. Toiling "just because" is irrational.

No business is going to say "Let's have our programmers take twice as long to complete a project just so we can get a thrill from using outdated hardware".

And, the bottom line here is that Jaguar is an outdated CPU that was weak when it came out.


----------



## Juicin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> So forget the PS3 then..
> 
> What about the 360? It was also pretty damn powerful relative to PC, what about the OG Xbox? What about the PS2? Etc., etc. The odd ones out are the PS4 and X1..
> 
> Console manufacturers cannot compete against the likes of Intel, Nvidia, or AMD. They have no choice but to use the same hardware PC does from now on, albeit the lower-end stuff.


Relative to a PC worth it's sticker price. Not something we would buy as a battlestation


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> 512 MB of RAM was small. That's more like a 2001 PC.


Yeah that's true, but their systems were extremely specialized and had custom hardware to overcome those problems (look what they could achieve with GTA V, etc.). It's a lot harder to make comparisons with the older consoles, because they weren't X86 based. It's far easier with PS4/X1 as they are. I guess I should of specifically said GPU/CPU.

MS and Sony still have some options for customizing their systems today, but their options with AMD are far more limited than they were in the past. They just can't compete against the constant iteration of PC anymore. "If you can't beat them, join them" - x86 consoles.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> You went there with this false statement:
> 
> _Ad hominem_ fallacy.
> 
> It should be noted, too, that having to put extra work into something is also something worth complaining about sometimes. Why make extra effort when one could make less effort and have an equivalent or superior result. Toiling "just because" is irrational.
> 
> No business is going to say "Let's have our programmers take twice as long to complete a project just so we can get a thrill from using outdated hardware".
> 
> And, the bottom line here is that Jaguar is an outdated CPU that was weak when it came out.


So if they do not want to do extra work, then stop making games for consoles or PC and make less money.

Problem solved....


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> You went there with this false statement:
> 
> _Ad hominem_ fallacy.
> 
> It should be noted, too, that having to put extra work into something is also something worth complaining about sometimes. Why make extra effort when one could make less effort and have an equivalent or superior result. Toiling "just because" is irrational.
> 
> No business is going to say "Let's have our programmers take twice as long to complete a project just so we can get a thrill from using outdated hardware".
> 
> And, the bottom line here is that Jaguar is an outdated CPU that was weak when it came out.


Not saying that Jaguar isn't weaker relative to current gen CPUs in single thread scalar IPC.
But do we even have any proof that most developers have problems with current console hardware or are we bashing consoles due to an opinon of one sad game developer ?


----------



## mothergoose729

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> No, you haven't. The problem is that the gaming industry is risk averse and also tends to hire the same type of people. The result of that is a lot of copycat products. Hollywood and television are the same. Entertainment content makers like to copy instead of innovate.
> 
> People didn't think Star Wars would be a successful film. People weren't sure the first Terminator would be profitable. But, suits think putting out another copy of Battlefield, Tekken, or Call of Duty will rake in the cash.
> That is a problem. The older one gets the more demanding one tends to be in terms of quality.


The problem with modern games is that they are all walk along movies. The visuals and the story are prioritized over gameplay, to create impressive trailers for E3 and appease all the graphics junkies.

Video games are not and should not be like films. The pacing is all wrong. You can explore deep topics in games, but only as a tie in and an enhancement to gameplay.

Too many games aren't really much of a game. That is why they feel boring and empty.

Go back and play some classics again. Like way, way back. NES is a good one to try. There has been something lost from games in the last ten years, or rather AAA titles anyhow. I could go on about this for a length (any coincidence that indie games are so popular now ?); It just rubs me the wrong way when devs complain about hardware as an excuse for holding back game development. It isn't. It hasn't for some time now.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Thank you.... Finally someone gets it.
> 
> +rep


Except, no.

For example, say a developer has a budget of $100,000,000 to develop a game (excluding marketing) for three platforms. PS4, Xbox One and PC. They go and spend $95,000,000 on making the best AI, physics and graphics they can for the two platforms where they know they will get make a profit. Those platforms are the PS4 and Xbox One. They then spend the remaining $5,000,000 on bringing it to PC where they won't get anywhere near as many sales but they'd still like to make a profit. That $5,000,000 remaining isn't going to be enough to make large improvements to AI, physics or textures.

They could increase their budget to $200,000,000 and split it 50/50 between the console development and PC development. Then you have a game that has the best AI, physics and textures for PS4/Xbox One and the best AI, physics and textures that the highest-end PC can put out. Except, if they did this, they'd get back $150,000,000 from the console sales and $20,000,000 back from PC sales if they're lucky. That's a profit of -$20,000,000.

Take a look at GTA V. One of the most successful games on both consoles and PC. They've sold 80 million copies as of 23rd of May 2017 and as of 23rd of June 2017 they've only sold 7.2 million copies on Steam and maybe another 2-5 million sold directly from Rockstar/physical copies.

It's just not profitable for developers to do the best they can with PC hardware, otherwise they'd do it. Why would they limit themselves on purpose with games not as good as they could be? Because if they did, they'd be out of business within 1 week of their first game being launched.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> Except, no.
> 
> For example, say a developer has a budget of $100,000,000 to develop a game (excluding marketing) for three platforms. PS4, Xbox One and PC. They go and spend $95,000,000 on making the best AI, physics and graphics they can for the two platforms where they know they will get make a profit. Those platforms are the PS4 and Xbox One. They then spend the remaining $5,000,000 on bringing it to PC where they won't get anywhere near as many sales but they'd still like to make a profit. That $5,000,000 remaining isn't going to be enough to make large improvements to AI, physics or textures.
> 
> They could increase their budget to $200,000,000 and split it 50/50 between the console development and PC development. Then you have a game that has the best AI, physics and textures for PS4/Xbox One and the best AI, physics and textures that the highest-end PC can put out. Except, if they did this, they'd get back $150,000,000 from the console sales and $20,000,000 back from PC sales if they're lucky. That's a profit of -$20,000,000.
> 
> Take a look at GTA V. One of the most successful games on both consoles and PC. They've sold 80 million copies as of 23rd of May 2017 and as of 23rd of June 2017 they've only sold 7.2 million copies on Steam and maybe another 2-5 million sold directly from Rockstar/physical copies.
> 
> It's just not profitable for developers to do the best they can with PC hardware, otherwise they'd do it. Why would they limit themselves on purpose with games not as good as they could be? Because if they did, they'd be out of business within 1 week of their first game being launched.


If their budget is too small, then they need more budget or drop a platform.

Consoles didn't cause that, their budget did.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mothergoose729*
> 
> The problem with modern games is that they are all walk along movies. The visuals and the story are prioritized over gameplay, to create impressive trailers for E3 and appease all the graphics junkies.
> 
> Video games are not and should not be like films. The pacing is all wrong. You can explore deep topics in games, but only as a tie in and an enhancement to gameplay.
> 
> Too many games aren't really much of a game. That is why they feel boring and empty.
> 
> Go back and play some classics again. Like way, way back. NES is a good one to try. There has been something lost from games in the last ten years, or rather AAA titles anyhow. I could go on about this for a length (any coincidence that indie games are so popular now ?); It just rubs me the wrong way when devs complain about hardware as an excuse for holding back game development. It isn't. It hasn't for some time now.


Apples and oranges fallacy

apples = developers are making boring games right now
oranges = hardware doesn't limit developers' options

Developers' options are limited by the limitations of hardware regardless of what games they're making within those limitations.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> If their budget is too small, then they need more budget or drop a platform.
> 
> Consoles didn't cause that, their budget did.


It was an example. It doesn't matter what the budget is or what platforms they're making the game for unless it's a PC exclusive where they have an absolutely huge budget (Star Citizen, but this is an exception, not the rule), they're always going to be held back based on what consoles can do.

It's not financially viable for developers to either make a PC exclusive that can push the latest and greatest hardware to the limit or to make a multiplatform game where it's significantly better on one platform than it is for the others.

Going back to Star Citizen, it's another good example of how consoles can hold back PCs. Star Citizen just isn't possible on consoles due to hardware limitations. But again, Star Citizen is an exception, not the rule. If they didn't get $150 million+ in crowd funding, it wouldn't exist. No publisher would be crazy enough to give them those sorts of funds just for development because they wouldn't make a profit on it.


----------



## superstition222

The budget of Final Fantasy VII was pretty massive for its time. The number of people who worked on that game is also massive. Despite the budget and staffing the game felt rushed and incomplete on discs 2 and 3 (in comparison with disc 1). Even disc 1 could have been more fleshed out.

Console games can have big budgets but they're the exception not the rule. Most games for the PS1 did not have the budget and staffing of FF VII.

Square committed to that level of budget and staffing because it felt, based on the performance of its prior games, that the risk was worthwhile. That's what it comes down to. Cost/benefit ratio calculations by corporations stuffed with MBAs.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Imouto*
> 
> Your logic is broken.
> 
> You ask for better graphics and developers show you the middle finger. You blame consoles when it is actually the laughable PC sales.
> 
> People don't care about graphics. I honestly don't look back and regret playing any game with the quality available at that time. Would I like a FFVII remake? Absolutely. Do I regret playing it with poor graphics, loading times and stuff? Hell no, it was one of the most fabulous experiences while playing videogames I ever had.
> 
> So you're just like spoiled children demanding everything ever right now. Grow up, seriously.










Nice ad hominems..

I've already proved in this thread that PC's sales aren't "laughable", premium game sales are only behind the PS4, and not by a huge amount either. In non-premium games PC revenue outdoes all consoles combined. No single platform is big enough to get a large amount of special treatment, 3rd party developers make investments based on all the platforms they will support.

If you actually read my posts in context you'd see I wasn't blaming consoles, just discussing the topic of the OP, if people want to make arguments based on false equivalencies then I'll point it out.. That doesn't mean I blame or hate consoles.. Nor does stating the obvious, which is that they do hold PC back, but they also contribute to the industry in other ways - which is what I said in my first post in this thread.

People don't care about graphics, really? This entire generation has had PS fans mocking X1 owners, now it will have X1X owners mocking Pro owners. It's the first and almost only thing console fans look at these days.. The only time graphics don't matter is when PC joins the conversation, and everyone who's honest knows it..









Play whatever you want, I don't care, what are you even babbling on about? If some PCMR slob somewhere traumatized you, then go take it out on them. My posts aren't meant to stop you from having "fabulous experiences".


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> It was an example. It doesn't matter what the budget is or what platforms they're making the game for unless it's a PC exclusive where they have an absolutely huge budget (Star Citizen, but this is an exception, not the rule), they're always going to be held back based on what consoles can do.
> 
> It's not financially viable for developers to either make a PC exclusive that can push the latest and greatest hardware to the limit or to make a multiplatform game where it's significantly better on one platform than it is for the others.
> 
> Going back to Star Citizen, it's another good example of how consoles can hold back PCs. Star Citizen just isn't possible on consoles due to hardware limitations. But again, Star Citizen is an exception, not the rule. If they didn't get $150 million+ in crowd funding, it wouldn't exist. No publisher would be crazy enough to give them those sorts of funds just for development because they wouldn't make a profit on it.


And how is any of what you stated the consoles fault?

I do not agree and wont agree.

All it comes down to is money, so finance and profit are the reasons, not consoles.

Dice have released great games on both PC and consoles.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Not saying that Jaguar isn't weaker relative to current gen CPUs in single thread scalar IPC.
> But do we even have any proof that most developers have problems with current console hardware or are we bashing consoles due to an opinon of one sad game developer ?


It's objectively true that the Jaguar CPU limits developers' ability to make impressive games. The same goes for its GPU. Both look old and weak when compared with midrange PC hardware.

Take the Jaguar CPU. It's substantially weaker than Piledriver, a 2011/2012 design that has been widely criticized for having been too weak when it was launched.

Why developers are unhappy with Jaguar shouldn't be so surprising. Then, there is the GPU side. Graphics have long been the primary focal point of console developers. Consumers tend to pick games with fancy graphics based on the "judge a book by its cover" method of shopping. Developers tend to be exposed to PC graphics so when they have to try to work within the uglier console confines they'll chafe.

It was the case, in the past, that console graphics and sound were equivalent or better than PC graphics and sound. Compare the expensive Apple IIe with the Famicom. Compare IBM PC with VGA with the SNES.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> And how is any of what you stated the consoles fault?


Companies decided to abandon the loss leader console/game marketing approach. Instead of giving gamers powerful consoles sold at a loss they give us weak consoles sold at a profit.

The loss leader approach is not new. Even the Intellivision was sold at a loss when it was introduced in the late 70s.


----------



## Kriant

Just so that we can put a rest to the "Premium games don't sell on PC" nonsense:

For 2016 sales:
Quote:


> Premium game revenues on the PC hit $5.4 billion for the year, not too far off of the $6.6 billion earned across consoles.


http://www.pcgamer.com/pc-gaming-market-worth-36-billion-in-2016/


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> They just can't compete against the constant iteration of PC anymore. "If you can't beat them, join them" - x86 consoles.


Moore's Law has slowed. Look at how long we were stuck on 28nm for graphics. Look at how long Piledriver was in the marketplace. It's still for sale, even.

No, consoles could have better equipment but console makers decided to abandon the loss leader approach in favor of making a profit on the hardware.


----------



## andrews2547

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> And how is any of what you stated the consoles fault?
> 
> I do not agree and wont agree.
> 
> All it comes down to is money, so finance and profit are the reasons, not consoles.
> 
> Dice have released great games on both PC and consoles.


Because, if the PS4 and Xbox One was as powerful as a PC with a Ryzen R1800X or i7 6950X paired with a GTX 1080Ti and they get annual hardware updates to match the latest PC has to offer, then developers would make games to push the limits of the consoles (which they're doing now) which in turn, means PC gets significantly higher quality games (at least as far as AI, physics and graphics go) than we're getting now.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kriant*
> 
> Just so that we can put a rest to the "Premium games don't sell on PC" nonsense:
> 
> For 2016 sales:
> http://www.pcgamer.com/pc-gaming-market-worth-36-billion-in-2016/


A vast majority of that $36 billion comes from F2P games such as LoL, Dota 2 and WoT. None of them are "premium" games.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kriant*
> 
> Just so that we can put a rest to the "Premium games don't sell on PC" nonsense:
> 
> For 2016 sales:
> http://www.pcgamer.com/pc-gaming-market-worth-36-billion-in-2016/


Just to add to that, too. A lot of people like to take the average of all PC's on Steam to prove a false equivalency, while ignoring that all those weak machines generate an enormous amount of revenue.



People who aren't being disingenuous know when someone is talking about gaming PC's, they aren't talking about grandma's Dell..

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> A vast majority of that $36 billion comes from F2P games such as LoL, Dota 2 and WoT. None of them are "premium" games.


That's why he specified "*premium* game revenue".


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> Because, if the PS4 and Xbox One was as powerful as a PC with a Ryzen R1800X or i7 6950X paired with a GTX 1080Ti and they get annual hardware updates to match the latest PC has to offer, then developers would make games to push the limits of the consoles (which they're doing now) which in turn, means PC gets significantly higher quality games (at least as far as AI, physics and graphics go) than we're getting now.


Here is what console makers should be using, to balance profitability with performance:

Ryzen quad, 4/8, with polymer TIM
8 GB 3200 DDR4
GTX 1060 (I would have said an AMD Polaris but mining has made supply too tight)

Talking about 1800X and 1080TI is completely unrealistic. Consoles should have midrange PC hardware.


----------



## Juicin

Star Citizen isn't possible anywhere where people are trying to actually put out a finished product...

I wish all the best to those of you who kick started that, but that is never getting finished as the devs have described it.

And thus it doesn't really work as an example. As it is, it's nothing impressive


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> It's objectively true that the Jaguar CPU limits developers' ability to make impressive games. The same goes for its GPU. Both look old and weak when compared with midrange PC hardware.
> 
> Take the Jaguar CPU. It's substantially weaker than Piledriver, a 2011/2012 design that has been widely criticized for having been too weak when it was launched.
> 
> Why developers are unhappy with Jaguar shouldn't be so surprising. Then, there is the GPU side. Graphics have long been the primary focal point of console developers. Consumers tend to pick games with fancy graphics based on the "judge a book by its cover" method of shopping. Developers tend to be exposed to PC graphics so when they have to try to work within the uglier console confines they'll chafe.
> 
> It was the case, in the past, that console graphics and sound were equivalent or better than PC graphics and sound. Compare the expensive Apple IIe with the Famicom. Compare IBM PC with EGA with the SNES.
> Companies decided to abandon the loss leader console/game marketing approach. Instead of giving gamers powerful consoles sold at a loss they give us weak consoles sold at a profit.


Do you realize you are not providng any proof if most developers really have any problems with that CPU ? All you have written is your opinion and already presumed Jaguar's performance by wrong logic. But I am still not saying that you may be totally wrong.
I just need hard proof in terms of MIPS numbers of add, multiplication, division and other arithmatic calculations as well as vector performance of Jaguar on PS4, so that we can compare it to CPUs on windows.

Jaguar may be slower in Windows as compared to x86 CPUs on Windows. But one just can not compare Jaguar's IPC that running on highly optimized Kernel that has obviously been specifically optimized for that CPU's registers and memory architecture, to a CPU running on Windows. It just doesn't work this way.


----------



## superstition222

Whether or not some, or most, developers feel too limited by Jaguar isn't relevant to the point I made. The point I made is that it's a very weak outdated CPU, which it is. That can be seen by comparing it with Bulldozer/Piledriver.

Stick an 8350 CPU from 2012 into a console and you've blown Jaguar out of the water.


----------



## Cybertox

People fail to understand that hardware is far from being the main limitation, it has always been software, the respective developers and resources such as time and money as well as human capital. Consoles do impose certain hardware limitations but look at Uncharted, Last of Us, Killzone and the upcoming new Spiderman game, those games alone look better than 99% of games on PC, but why, PC has drastically more capable hardware, well because it has nothing to do with hardware limitations, it has to do with efficient hardware utilization and proper optimization which require very skilled technical engineers, enough development time, a reasonable budget and proper development prioritizations. Optimization is the most difficult task at hand, and most people do not even understand how it works. More efficient and shorter code does not directly result with better in-game performance and hardware utilization, no. You can have more effective coding which will not net you additional performance, yes the code can be considered mathematically more efficient and "clean" but wont result in an instant 25% performance improve or any of that non-sense. Also making a certain portion of code which lets say takes 3% of the overall compiling effort more efficient by letting it compile in 1.5% requires quite a lot of effort but nets you only slight improvements in performance or in some cases none-at all.

The 4930K and 1080Ti argument is just laughable and only proves my counter-argument. Tell me how come even with the highest end hardware available on the market, I cannot max out every game, even those with lesser graphical complexity. Well, exactly for the reasons I just mentioned. My 4930K is almost 4 years old, and I have yet to see at least one game to utilize all of its 6 cores, 12 threads to optimal levels.


----------



## Poisoner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Whether or not some, or most, developers feel too limited by Jaguar isn't relevant to the point I made. The point I made is that it's a very weak outdated CPU, which it is. That can be seen by comparing it with Bulldozer/Piledriver.
> 
> Stick an 8350 CPU from 2012 into a console and you've blown Jaguar out of the water.


You have no idea what you are talking about. Jaguar is better than Piledriver and Bulldozer at the clock speed and power envelope the consoles target.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poisoner*
> 
> You have no idea what you are talking about. Jaguar is better than Piledriver and Bulldozer at the clock speed and power envelope the consoles target.


You're changing the subject. Geode is better than Piledriver and Bulldozer at the power envelope it targets.


----------



## the w3rd

I don't know to many people who want to own a PS4.. they are just stuck with them. Afraid of the next step in adulthood...


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Whether or not some, or most, developers feel too limited by Jaguar isn't relevant to the point I made. The point I made is that it's a very weak outdated CPU, which it is. That can be seen by comparing it with Bulldozer/Piledriver.
> 
> Stick a 2012 8350 CPU into a console and you've blown Jaguar out of the water.


Again, 0 proof. You didn't get it, at all what I was making you understand. There is still no technical proof that supports your statements. I am ready to learn if it is true. I just need proof.
Will you be satisfied by benchmark numbers of a CPU A running on MS Windows vs a CPU B running on an OS that is specially optimized for CPU B ?
You will then say, "platform is different and it doesn't work that way".








Yeah exactly!

I am not defending Jaguar, I am just being technically logical.
Jaguar definitely is a bottleneck for games in Windows, but there doesn't exist any proof that it shows any kind of serious bottleneck in a highly optimized custom compiled OS, i.e PS4's OS.
If there is, feel free to show me links.


----------



## Poisoner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> You're changing the subject. Geode is better than Piledriver and Bulldozer at the power envelope it targets.


I'm not changing the subject. If Bulldozer or Piledriver would have been a better choice Sony and AMD would of put it in the PS4.


----------



## Poisoner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Again, 0 proof. You didn't get it, at all what I was making you understand. There is still no technical proof that supports your statements. I am ready to learn if it is true. I just need proof.
> Will you be satisfied by benchmark numbers of a CPU A running on MS Windows vs a CPU B running on an OS that is specially optimized for CPU B ?
> You will then say, "platform is different and it doesn't work that way".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah exactly!
> 
> I am not defending Jaguar, I am just being technically logical.
> Jaguar definitely is a bottleneck for games in Windows, but there doesn't exist any proof that it shows any kind of serious bottleneck in a highly optimized custom compiled OS, i.e PS4's OS.
> If there is, feel free to show me links.


Not to mention that the Xbox One also uses a Jaguar based CPU...


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Poisoner*
> 
> Not to mention that the Xbox One also uses a Jaguar based CPU...


Yeah, Indeed Indeed.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> What about the 360? It was also pretty damn powerful relative to PC
> 
> 
> 
> 512 MB of RAM was small. That's more like a 2001 PC.
Click to expand...

512 MB of RAM in a 2001 desktop PC was for high-end PCs that cost upwards of $ 3000 and was even rarer in laptops.

512 MB of RAM only became common in mid-range PCs in 2003 / 2004. By the second half of 2005 though, 1 GB was common to find in mid-range desktops.

But I'll say this: for late 2005 / 2006 and looking into the future, pairing both the Xbox 360 (shared memory pool) and the PS3 (256 MB system memory + 256 MB VRAM) with 512 MB memory was a mistake; they should have put 1 GB total in them. Speaking of mid-range GPUs in 2005 alone, they were already paired with 256 MB of VRAM. The saving grace on both consoles was the above average GPU power on the one hand and the multi-threaded CPU power that the PC had yet to explore, so that gave these imbalanced consoles some extra time in the beginning, but they didn't end on a high note in terms of visuals because of the constrained buffer size.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Superplush*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> Yep, but we have pretty much seen it all at this point. And we're getting older. I loose interest in most single player games within a few hours. I feel most SP experiences on PC are the same again and again.
> 
> It's been a long time since I've enjoyed a SP game on PC, Skyrim and Witcher 3 comes to mind, but I've enjoyed multiple on my PS4 Pro already, which I only use for SP exclusives. These games have managed to keep me interested, even tho graphics are worse than what my PC can do, and fps is lower. I tend to stay away from 1st person games tho. For MP shooters I always use my PC.
> 
> 
> 
> I completely agree, we have all this talk of MMO's and open-worlds. I've yet to play a game like Skyrim, Fallout 4, The Witcher 3 or Just cause 3 and be able to co-op with 1-3 extra people. -Those- are the types of games I'd be interested in, a fully co-op Elder scrolls would be something special. As for the rest of the genres, I feel you.. being into 'gaming' since Atari 2600, it feels hard to be excited and I roll my eyes at all the screaming when watching reveals like E3.
> 
> I like how the Article posts about the PS4 being 'weak'. Forgive me for saying but the XB1 is still the weakest console and with the XB1X not being released yet, it means Microsoft has the worst console out so far so why not get on about that, even CDPR complained that they dulled down TW3 for the XB1.
> 
> Not only that but, by the time the XB1X rolls out, it'll be a year behind the PS4P and cost pretty much double the price with no titles ( that I know of ). Right now I can get a 1TB PS4P with Horizon: Zero dawn, Uncharted 4 and Wipeout: Omega collection for £349. The XB1X is retailing at £450 day 1 so far, on it's own. I'm interested to see what games they pull out but as I've said many-a-time. Hardware isn't where M$ was failing horribly, it was it's game line-up more than anything just see the Nintendo switch, it isn't the strongest thing but it's games are why people buy it.
Click to expand...

Xbox One has 9% more CPU power than the PS4, it was a last minute decision to overclock the CPU to offset extra stress from Kinect. Microsoft very nearly had the worst console in every way but as soon as they ditched the motion controller then that overclock became an asset to them. "Technically" in a discussion about console CPU's the PS4 is the weakest system.

Practically the PS4 blows the Xbox One out of the water in every other way, but Microsoft at least did "one" thing right on the Xbox One.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> 512 MB of RAM in a 2001 desktop PC was for high-end PCs that cost upwards of $ 3000 and was even rarer in laptops.
> 
> 512 MB of RAM only became common in mid-range PCs in 2003 / 2004. By the second half of 2005 though, 1 GB was common to find in mid-range desktops.
> 
> But I'll say this: for late 2005 / 2006 and looking into the future, pairing both the Xbox 360 (shared memory pool) and the PS3 (256 MB system memory + 256 MB VRAM) with 512 MB memory was a mistake; they should have put 1 GB total in them. Speaking of mid-range GPUs in 2005 alone, they were already paired with 256 MB of VRAM. The saving grace on both consoles was the above average GPU power on the one hand and the multi-threaded CPU power that the PC had yet to explore, so that gave these imbalanced consoles some extra time in the beginning, but they didn't end on a high note in terms of visuals because of the constrained buffer size.


360/PS3 was already too expensive to manufacture, I don't think putting 1GB of Ram was even an option back then. Well, that also happened to be the last time console hardware featured fairly latest hardware.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Again, 0 proof. You didn't get it, at all what I was making you understand. There is still no technical proof that supports your statements. I am ready to learn if it is true. I just need proof.
> Will you be satisfied by benchmark numbers of a CPU A running on MS Windows vs a CPU B running on an OS that is specially optimized for CPU B ?
> You will then say, "platform is different and it doesn't work that way".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah exactly!
> 
> I am not defending Jaguar, I am just being technically logical.
> Jaguar definitely is a bottleneck for games in Windows, but there doesn't exist any proof that it shows any kind of serious bottleneck in a highly optimized custom compiled OS, i.e PS4's OS.
> If there is, feel free to show me links.


Google is your friend. Proving that Jaguar is weak is like proving water is wet.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Again, 0 proof. You didn't get it, at all what I was making you understand. There is still no technical proof that supports your statements. I am ready to learn if it is true. I just need proof.
> Will you be satisfied by benchmark numbers of a CPU A running on MS Windows vs a CPU B running on an OS that is specially optimized for CPU B ?
> You will then say, "platform is different and it doesn't work that way".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah exactly!
> 
> I am not defending Jaguar, I am just being technically logical.
> Jaguar definitely is a bottleneck for games in Windows, but there doesn't exist any proof that it shows any kind of serious bottleneck in a highly optimized custom compiled OS, i.e PS4's OS.
> If there is, feel free to show me links.


Not sure why someone on a tech-enthusiast website would need links to state the obvious.. Also just how many developers/companies do you think are willing to bash the hardware their products are running on? Or how many are willing to poke multi-Billion Dollar corporations?

But here's some links for you. If you need anymore Google is just a few clicks away.









Dice

Ubisoft
Quote:


> "We could be running at 100fps if it was just graphics, but because of AI, we're still limited to 30 frames per second."


Sucker Punch

A First-party studio..

Planetside 2

Bungie
Quote:


> *Even if they lower the resolution to 1080p*, it won't be possible to achieve 60 FPS no matter the platform.


----------



## Kriant

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *andrews2547*
> 
> Because, if the PS4 and Xbox One was as powerful as a PC with a Ryzen R1800X or i7 6950X paired with a GTX 1080Ti and they get annual hardware updates to match the latest PC has to offer, then developers would make games to push the limits of the consoles (which they're doing now) which in turn, means PC gets significantly higher quality games (at least as far as AI, physics and graphics go) than we're getting now.
> A vast majority of that $36 billion comes from F2P games such as LoL, Dota 2 and WoT. None of them are "premium" games.


I specifically quoted the following sentence from the article in my original post.









Quote:


> Premium game revenues on the PC hit $5.4 billion for the year, not too far off of the $6.6 billion earned across consoles.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> 360/PS3 was already too expensive to manufacture, I don't think putting 1GB of Ram was even an option back then. Well, that also happened to be the last time console hardware featured fairly latest hardware.


They traded firsts gen visuals by using more potent GPUs for the less dignified last years because of the lack of memory. They could have made more balanced systems in my opinion. Even a middle of the road solution, like 768 MB total memory would have helped.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> I upgraded a campus department to Dells with 512 MB of RAM in late 2001 or early-mid 2002 and they were not that high in price. I put out a few with 256 (web browsing machines) but the savings wasn't that substantial.


System RAM in 2001 was either the very lackluster PC133 that couldn't feed the then newest CPUs of the time properly or the very expensive Rambus that some Pentium 4 Willamette CPUs and chipsets were paired with.

2001 was the time when you could still buy a new Pentium 3 with Windows ME and 128 MB of PC133 RAM on it as Windows XP was only launched at the end of October of 2001 and Pentium 4 Willamette machines usually had inconsistent performance compared to the Pentium 3, so you had better go with a 1.7 Ghz version or higher to compensate.

256 MB of RAM was seen as ideal for a new XP rig in 2001, but some people went with 128 MB (which was the recommended amount btw; the official minimum for XP RTM is 64 MB, but that's like using Windows 95 with 4 MB of RAM).

If you were upgrading machines to 512 MB in 2001, that only made sense in a business environment with specific needs.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> If you were upgrading machines to 512 MB in 2001, that only made sense in a business environment with specific needs.


XP ran better in 512. It must have been 2002. In any case, it was well before the XBox 360. That was 2005.

I suppose I got a decent deal on RDRAM machines because of university pricing.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Not sure why someone on a tech-enthusiast website would need links to state the obvious.. Also just how many developers/companies do you think are willing to bash the hardware their products are running on? Or how many are willing to poke multi-Billion Dollar corporations?
> 
> But here's some links for you. If you need anymore Google is just a few clicks away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dice
> 
> Ubisoft
> Sucker Punch
> 
> A First-party studio..
> 
> Planetside 2
> 
> Bungie


Okay I believe you both now.







Can't ignore Ubisoft's word I admit.

P.S. I was being lazy. It seems shortcut sometimes to let someone fetch the proof.
Learning becomes easier this way sometimes.










But don't hate me this is why reps are given in forums.
+Rep.


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> If you were upgrading machines to 512 MB in 2001, that only made sense in a business environment with specific needs.
> 
> 
> 
> XP ran better in 512. It must have been 2002. In any case, it was well before the XBox 360. That was 2005.
> 
> I suppose I got a decent deal on RDRAM machines because of university pricing.
Click to expand...

2002 changes things considerably as the Pentium 4 Northwood became widely available then, along with a chipset with DDR support, which did away with the dilemma between the inadequate PC133 and the expensive and imbalanced Rambus RDRAM.

Of course if you got university pricing, that's another round of changes.

Anyway, yes, I concur that XP runs better with 512 MB, but in the beginning, in 2001 on RTM code, on a desktop with discrete graphics with dedicated VRAM, 256 MB of system RAM was enough for consumer use. Now, fast forward to 2004, when XP SP2 was introduced, and programs in general had gotten heavier and if you want to make things even worse, take a laptop with integrated graphics reserving 64 MB of system memory and running XP on 256 MB of memory from the usually slow laptop HDDs was a very sluggish experience. 512 MB of RAM after XP SP2 made a big difference in general and when it came to laptops it gave them a new life.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Okay I believe you both now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't ignore Ubisoft's word I admit.
> 
> P.S. I was being lazy. It seems shortcut sometimes to let someone fetch the proof.
> Learning becomes easier this way sometimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But don't hate me this is why reps are given in forums.
> +Rep.


I feel used..


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> I feel used..


hahaha...,but in a good way. Just believe you taught a stupid something good lol.

Also that post of yours actually is the best demonstration of what the context of this thread is about.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> hahaha...,but in a good way. Just believe you taught a stupid something good lol.
> 
> Also that post of yours actually is the best demonstration of what the context of this thread is about.


Lol, no problem.

No one is stupid for taking part in a discussion, that's all it is.


----------



## mothergoose729

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Apples and oranges fallacy
> 
> apples = developers are making boring games right now
> oranges = hardware doesn't limit developers' options
> 
> Developers' options are limited by the limitations of hardware regardless of what games they're making within those limitations.


I didn't mean to imply that hardware limitations do not impact development. The way developers have chosen to utilize additional processing power, in many games anyhow, has not actually made the games any better.

A great counter example to this is Doom 2016. The game has great graphics but more importantly great gameplay. What is the story? Who cares, it's Doom. Where are the fancy cutscenes and cinematic action sequences? You the player create them in an oragy of blood and violence. Excellent. Great graphics and technical prowess used to enhance good gameplay. If this dev has that in mind I'm all for it. I just doubt that is the case.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> People fail to understand that hardware is far from being the main limitation, it has always been software, the respective developers and resources such as time and money as well as human capital. Consoles do impose certain hardware limitations but look at Uncharted, Last of Us, Killzone and the upcoming new Spiderman game, those games alone look better than 99% of games on PC, but why, PC has drastically more capable hardware, well because it has nothing to do with hardware limitations, it has to do with efficient hardware utilization and proper optimization which require very skilled technical engineers, enough development time, a reasonable budget and proper development prioritizations. Optimization is the most difficult task at hand, and most people do not even understand how it works. More efficient and shorter code does not directly result with better in-game performance and hardware utilization, no. You can have more effective coding which will not net you additional performance, yes the code can be considered mathematically more efficient and "clean" but wont result in an instant 25% performance improve or any of that non-sense. Also making a certain portion of code which lets say takes 3% of the overall compiling effort more efficient by letting it compile in 1.5% requires quite a lot of effort but nets you only slight improvements in performance or in some cases none-at all.
> 
> The 4930K and 1080Ti argument is just laughable and only proves my counter-argument. Tell me how come even with the highest end hardware available on the market, I cannot max out every game, even those with lesser graphical complexity. Well, exactly for the reasons I just mentioned. My 4930K is almost 4 years old, and I have yet to see at least one game to utilize all of its 6 cores, 12 threads to optimal levels.


One of the most interesting trends I keep seeing in Star Citizen interviews is how many people came from studios that closed recently, I have to wonder how much affect "talent drain" has on games in active development or on the eventual decision to close entire studios.
Playground Games is another good example. We haven't see a lot of movement in the "arcade racing" genre this generation, and then all of a sudden Forza Horizon turns into one of the best racing games ever made.
Look at the talent pool they draw from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playground_Games
The developer history there includes Grid, Burnout, Project Gotham, Wipeout, Need For Speed, and many others.

Making groundbreaking games isn't just a matter of time and money, good talent in the videogame industry is not infinite. It's kind of scary to think that if you could track the careers of key individuals in game development you could probably estimate the maximum number of AAA games that could possibly be in development at any given moment.


----------



## Cybertox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> One of the most interesting trends I keep seeing in Star Citizen interviews is how many people came from studios that closed recently, I have to wonder how much affect "talent drain" has on games in active development or on the eventual decision to close entire studios.
> Playground Games is another good example. We haven't see a lot of movement in the "arcade racing" genre this generation, and then all of a sudden Forza Horizon turns into one of the best racing games ever made.
> Look at the talent pool they draw from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playground_Games
> The developer history there includes Grid, Burnout, Project Gotham, Wipeout, Need For Speed, and many others.
> 
> Making groundbreaking games isn't just a matter of time and money, good talent in the videogame industry is not infinite. It's kind of scary to think that if you could track the careers of key individuals in game development you could probably estimate the maximum number of AAA games that could possibly be in development at any given moment.


I do agree with you to some extent but bringing up Forza Horizon 3 as an example is probably the worst you can do. This is the most atrocious racing game I had the opportunity to play when it comes down to optimization, the absolute worst type of performance I have experienced, even on my 1080Ti.

The talent however is there, but studious much rather hire cheap human capital from Ukraine, Poland, China and Russia. Where people do not ask for high salaries but have limited competence. This is just a general observation, I am sure some of the people from those countries are very capable programmers and engineers but generally that is not so. This is why all the programming crap is being outsourced there.

I think human capital in game development is the most crucial resource you can have.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> I do agree with you to some extent but bringing up Forza Horizon 3 as an example is probably the worst you can do. This is the most atrocious racing game I had the opportunity to play when it comes down to optimization, the absolute worst type of performance I have experienced, even on my 1080Ti.


This is very strange.








Here is me demoing Forza Horizon 3 on 1.945 TFLOPS with only 1GB of VRAM running at 156 GB/s, 1080p custom settings average fps ~28-30. As compared to HD 7850, your GTX 1080 Ti has technically >5x more TFLOPS, 11x more VRAM running at 3x more speed + other DX12 optimizations.



Unless minimum requirement for you to call a game smooth is 100 fps at 2K resolution at max graphics settings, there is something wrong with your OS configuration or overclocking (if any) or anything similar.


----------



## Cybertox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> This is very strange.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is me demoing Forza Horizon 3 on 1.945 TFLOPS with only 1GB of VRAM running at 156 GB/s, 1080p custom settings average fps ~28-30. As compared to HD 7850, your GTX 1080 Ti has technically >5x more TFLOPS, 11x more VRAM running at 3x more speed + other DX12 optimizations.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless minimum requirement for you to call a game smooth is 100 fps at 2K resolution at max graphics settings, there is something wrong with your OS configuration or overclocking (if any) or anything similar.


I am telling you, I cant hit a steady 60 fps even on medium settings at 2560x1440 with AA off. And there are numerous other users with powerful GPUs like the GTX 1080 and Titan who report the same kind of atrociousness. I went quite into detail in the game's respective thread about all of that but dont wanna go there here, the game is disgusting. Dont even get me started on the Windows Store.

Nothing is wrong with my OS or any of my configurations. Other games run just fine.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tpi2007*
> 
> They traded firsts gen visuals by using more potent GPUs for the less dignified last years because of the lack of memory. They could have made more balanced systems in my opinion. Even a middle of the road solution, like 768 MB total memory would have helped.
> System RAM in 2001 was either the very lackluster PC133 that couldn't feed the then newest CPUs of the time properly or the very expensive Rambus that some Pentium 4 Willamette CPUs and chipsets were paired with.
> 
> 2001 was the time when you could still buy a new Pentium 3 with Windows ME and 128 MB of PC133 RAM on it as Windows XP was only launched at the end of October of 2001 and Pentium 4 Willamette machines usually had inconsistent performance compared to the Pentium 3, so you had better go with a 1.7 Ghz version or higher to compensate.
> 
> 256 MB of RAM was seen as ideal for a new XP rig in 2001, but some people went with 128 MB (which was the recommended amount btw; the official minimum for XP RTM is 64 MB, but that's like using Windows 95 with 4 MB of RAM).
> 
> If you were upgrading machines to 512 MB in 2001, that only made sense in a business environment with specific needs.


XP was unusable with 128MB.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> XP was unusable with 128MB.


Agreed!
XP was unusable with 256 MB with ms office installed, at least it has been for me back then, also I remember I couldn't play IGI 2 on my laptop at that time. Added another 512 MB and with 768 MB, it was smooth as hell.

Oh boy...IGI 2







, golden days of gaming.....!


----------



## Cybertox

And here I am with 64GBs of RAM and have yet to see a single game or software using more than 6 GBs.


----------



## Juicin

Have had 16 GB of ram for 5 years

Only time it has ever been used was modded bethesda games


----------



## tpi2007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> XP was unusable with 128MB.


Yeah, mostly, even in RTM form in 2001; I got a new system in late 2001 with XP and ordered 256 MB to go with it. Afterwards in 2002 with DDR on the scene, 256 MB held on for a while decently, but after XP SP2 in 2004 512 MB was the way to go. Then 1 GB in 2006 and the first half of 2007, but then 2 GB started to become necessary with games such as Crysis, or since early 2007 if you got on board with Windows Vista from the start.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Agreed!
> XP was unusable with 256 MB with ms office installed, at least it has been for me back then, also I remember I couldn't play IGI 2 on my laptop at that time. Added another 512 MB and with 768 MB, it was smooth as hell.
> 
> Oh boy...IGI 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , golden days of gaming.....!


The department I upgraded had a history of holding onto its equipment for a long time. It made sense to put 512 MB in for all production machines. Only the web browsing stations were 256. I did that when XP first was released and was, in fact, the first department on campus to deploy XP. I stand by both decisions, even though Novell lied about Netware being really ready for primetime with XP. Fortunately, I was able to bypass the problem by not using Workstation Manager. I got flack for that but oh well.


----------



## PhotonFanatic

They said this about the PS2, and the PS3. What now?

What did they expect? People to buy a $2500 PS4 that is running a couple of 1080's in SLI?


----------



## iARDAs

Ahh nevermind.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> I am telling you, I cant hit a steady 60 fps even on medium settings at 2560x1440 with AA off. And there are numerous other users with powerful GPUs like the GTX 1080 and Titan who report the same kind of atrociousness. I went quite into detail in the game's respective thread about all of that but dont wanna go there here, the game is disgusting. Dont even get me started on the Windows Store.
> 
> Nothing is wrong with my OS or any of my configurations. Other games run just fine.


Somethings don't make sense and I wanna talk more on this topic but, since forums are heavily influenced by market share of certain companies and so are the comments deleted. Hence lets end this topic in here.
I wish you best of luck for next time it should run a lot smoother than that, this is all I can say.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iARDAs*
> 
> Ahh nevermind.


Yeah yeah I remember. You and I were having conversations in one of the PS4 related threads back then, I was boasting about PS4 hardware about 3 years ago.
Which of the words did I use back then to support PS4..................was it "groundbreaking" or "breathtaking" ? LOL








Well, whatever, I guess you turned out to be true about that. (at least)CPU is literally holding back console's fps.


----------



## bucdan

The 8 GB GDDR5 was groundbreaking (even if shared). The 8 Core use was groundbreaking, the jaguar cores... were not. The 7850 equivalent, was not.

Though yeah, A custom/under clocked Piledriver would've been better with the 7850 than the jaguar cores. I think it could've been possible if Sony wasn't trying to keep it under 225W, just to keep the slim 2 prong power cable.

The next console will probably be a stronger 8 core/16 thread cpu with 16GB GDDR6 and a Navi era GPU.

Though, that has to scare you a bit. What if the devs get the mindset that they have so much power that they can just brute force it all on the console for 4k 60fps, instead of optimizing as they should like the last gen consoles? If they brute force it with such power, it'll be just like programming and developing for a PC!


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bucdan*
> 
> The 8 GB GDDR5 was groundbreaking (even if shared). The 8 Core use was groundbreaking, the jaguar cores... were not. The 7850 equivalent, was not.
> 
> Though yeah, A custom/under clocked Piledriver would've been better with the 7850 than the jaguar cores. I think it could've been possible if Sony wasn't trying to keep it under 225W, just to keep the slim 2 prong power cable.
> 
> The next console will probably be a stronger 8 core/16 thread cpu with 16GB GDDR6 and a Navi era GPU.
> 
> Though, that has to scare you a bit. What if the devs get the mindset that they have so much power that they can just brute force it all on the console for 4k 60fps, instead of optimizing as they should like the last gen consoles? If they brute force it with such power, it'll be just like programming and developing for a PC!


I thought jaguar ipc was higher than pile driver. Or equal???


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I thought jaguar ipc was higher than pile driver. Or equal???


It is better but not by much. Jaguar loses to the Intel Atom CPU.


----------



## Just a nickname

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> And many games try that but it doesn't change the fact the gameplay gets in the way of the story. For instance The Witcher 3 has fantastic writing but often times you'll have to do gamey things while the plot is unfolding which halt the story. An example that stood out for me was when I was with Dijkstra in the sewer and was investigating his lost treasure. I needed a potion to proceed further. As a result I had to leave the area, gather the ingredients and brew the potion. That's a textbook example of how gameplay can hinder a good story even in a game with top notch writing.


This is why I like Witcher 2 more. Once you're set on a path, you have to finish it. It also remove the issue of having dozen of potential quest altering the story or the difficulty of the game. Witcher 3 boss were a bit disappointing. Witcher 3 is a very good game but my experience has left me with some nostalgia of his predecessor.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> It is better but not by much.


Citation needed.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anand Lal Shimpi*
> The average number of instructions executed per clock (IPC) is still below 1 for most client workloads. There's a certain amount of burst traffic to be expected but given the types of dependencies you see in most use cases, AMD felt the gain from making the machine wider wasn't worth the power tradeoff. *There's also the danger of making the cat-cores too powerful*. While just making them 3-issue to begin with wouldn't dramatically close the gap between the cat-cores and the Bulldozer family, *there's still a desire for there to be clear separation between the two microarchitectures*.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Jaguar loses to the Intel Atom CPU.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anand Lal Shimpi*
> In its cost and power band, Jaguar is presently without competition. Intel's current 32nm Saltwell Atom core is outdated, and nothing from ARM is quick enough.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> I am telling you, I cant hit a steady 60 fps even on medium settings at 2560x1440 with AA off. And there are numerous other users with powerful GPUs like the GTX 1080 and Titan who report the same kind of atrociousness. I went quite into detail in the game's respective thread about all of that but dont wanna go there here, the game is disgusting. Dont even get me started on the Windows Store.
> 
> Nothing is wrong with my OS or any of my configurations. Other games run just fine.


That's because this game is coded awfully. Last I heard it was bogged down by its shoddy multithreading and CPU usage was complete garbage.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Citation needed.


Thanks


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Thanks


For posting info that suggests that Jaguar has lower IPC than Piledriver?

IPC isn't the only thing involved, anyway. It is possible to design a console to use a somewhat high TDP CPU without it breaking the bank but it needs to be bulky to have quiet and robust cooling.

The point was not that Sony and Microsoft should have put Piledriver into their consoles. The point was to demonstrate the weakness of Jaguar as it pertains to PC CPUs. Bulldozer and Piledriver, as I posted, were both criticized heavily for not being powerful enough, back when they were released - let alone in 2017.

Yet, if one were to take an 8320E and stick it into a console it would do a better job than the CPU in the PS4 Pro.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Yet, if one were to take an 8320E and stick it into a console it would do a better job than the CPU in the PS4 Pro.


True but the 8320E doesn't meet the power, price and compatibility targets.

Sony and Microsoft had no option but to use Jaguar again.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> For posting info that suggests that Jaguar has lower IPC than Piledriver?
> 
> IPC isn't the only thing involved, anyway. It is possible to design a console to use a somewhat high TDP CPU without it breaking the bank but it needs to be bulky to have quiet and robust cooling.
> 
> The point was not that Sony and Microsoft should have put Piledriver into their consoles. The point was to demonstrate the weakness of Jaguar as it pertains to PC CPUs. Bulldozer and Piledriver, as I posted, were both criticized heavily for not being powerful enough, back when they were released - let alone in 2017.
> 
> Yet, if one were to take an 8320E and stick it into a console it would do a better job than the CPU in the PS4 Pro.


I can't thank you for the info?


----------



## Pedros

replying to the OP:

- The problem is that if we look at PS4 and XBOX as "machines" yes, they are very low spec compared to mid-low gaming computers ... but it's not about just that ... it's the experience that counts.

For example ... i am/was a pretty hardcore gamer ... but over time my interest on FPS as gone down for example ... and now i prefer soccer games and racing. In that matter, the experience on a PS4 for a soccer game is way better than a PC, don't know why but it is. I play FIFA17 on my machine and on my kids PS4 ... and PS4 is just.... more fun!

Racing... yes ... PC has lots of racing simulators and yadda ... but yesterday I tried my G29 on my kids PS4 with Drive Club ... and it was so much better in terms of fun than an Assetto Corsa for example...

Another plus on the experience for consoles... they are light, have a small footprint, usually in the living room ... you don't need to be stuck in the office with a big tower and big screens ... you just use a TV, sit on your couch ... everything is much more relaxed.

So, at the end of the day, I didn't care if I wasn't playing with the highest settings ... I was just having fun.

That's the difference in consoles vs PC. They are not holding anything back ... these consoles were released 3-4 years with a price tag to attract big masses and give users a good experience... a flawless, fun experience.

Software houses know that ... no one is crazy enough to release a PC exclusive when they can target the consoles... if you sell 100.000 copies of a game for PC, you do 1.000.000 on consoles. That's a big ROI.

I like my PC a lot, yes, but I still look at my kid and say "can I play that Drive Club game again? It was fun!" ...


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lass3*
> 
> A laptop is a PC.


Barely.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> Barely.


My "barely PC" laptop is more PC than your PC, yet its still only 1" thick and portable.


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> My "barely PC" laptop is more PC than your PC, yet its still only 1" thick and portable.


They're crippled by thermal issues and power-saving settings.


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> They're crippled by thermal issues and power-saving settings.


My CPU is running over 4GHz and my GPU temperature is around 70C under load.


----------



## Cybertox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> My CPU is running over 4GHz and my GPU temperature is around 70C under load.


Good for you









The points he made still apply to the large majority of laptops.


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Good for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The points he made still apply to the large majority of laptops.


Yes, this what I mean. Most laptops throttle too much, have too much latency, etc. compared to a desktop PC running in High-Performance power mode.

Combined that 2 core "i5" laptop CPUs... and you get the idea, also.

Never mind the huge number of ultra-portables...


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Good for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The points he made still apply to the large majority of laptops.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> Yes, this what I mean.


Power saving settings can be overridden in the Windows Power settings and Intel XTU app, while the thermal cooling capacity depends on the laptop design itself just like any other PC out there.

Some laptops are designed to only be able to cool an i3 or i5 just like the Intel stock cooler on PCs, while others laptops can cool 500W+ worth of CPU and GPU power with no problems.


----------



## umeng2002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Power saving settings can be overridden in the Windows Power settings and Intel XTU app, while the thermal cooling capacity depends on the laptop design itself just like any other PC out there.
> 
> Some laptops are designed to only be able to cool an i3 or i5 just like the Intel stock cooler on PCs, while others laptops can cool 600W worth of CPU and GPU power with no problems.


Christ, I'm fully aware that a laptop is a PC made in a small form factor.

As I pointed out, it's the thermal and power savings trade offs... not to mention the lower-end parts used to save money that "barely make them a PC."


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *umeng2002*
> 
> Christ, I'm fully aware that a laptop is a PC made in a small form factor.
> 
> As I pointed out, it's the thermal and power savings trade offs... not to mention the lower-end parts used to save money that "barely make them a PC."


You are still not getting it, read the first line of my last reply please, your point about power savings and temperatures are 10 year old.

And laptops generally get better quality parts than a PC (better bins), as they need to meet a higher efficiency targets not to mention higher profits....etc.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> You are still not getting it, read the first line of my last reply please, your point about power savings and temperatures are 10 year old.
> 
> And laptops generally get better quality parts than a PC (better bins), as they need to meet a higher efficiency targets not to mention higher profits....etc.


Yeah I know how it feels when some of the keys suddenly stop working on the Keyboard.









Beside that, yeah I agree.


----------



## Cybertox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> Power saving settings can be overridden in the Windows Power settings and Intel XTU app, while the thermal cooling capacity depends on the laptop design itself just like any other PC out there.
> 
> Some laptops are designed to only be able to cool an i3 or i5 just like the Intel stock cooler on PCs, while others laptops can cool 500W+ worth of CPU and GPU power with no problems.


Override and see them fry.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Good for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The points he made still apply to the large majority of laptops.


I'm sure he said "his" laptop. Not anyone else's >.>


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Override and see them fry.


I had a laptop with an 4th gen i7 and GTX970M overclocked since release 3 years ago, sold it a 2-3 months ago to a friend, still working like new.

See them fry LMAO !! You sure know more than Intel as they release unlocked multiplier chips for laptops, they should hire you.

I made my point about this matter, you may continue with your ignorance.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Override and see them fry.


To be fair laptops have come along way in terms of cooling, now combine that with most modern laptop hardware being so efficient temps aren't really an issue. i recently replaced a cracked screen and cleaned out the fans on a friends laptop that had an i7 7820HK and a GTX 1080 and neither chip went above 75C under full load in firestrike extreme.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Override and see them fry.


Been pushing 1.2v on my m5100 for a cool 1100c/1500m, stock is 775c/1125m. I think I hit 75C on the GPU last I checked, been busy with other things.

Still works just fine and is my daily driver.

I also have a y510p that I push 1.2v on the 755m. 1300c/3000m iirc Stock is 1097c/2700m and even then its just an overclocked 750m anyways.

These would be considered dated laptops by todays standards

Like any other form of PC, you overclock what you can, and dont what you cant. You dont see many people here with prebuilt desktops overclocking _without modification_ do ya?


----------



## jmcosta

there aren't many coop as much now, most games are multiplayer round after round first/third person shooters, the quick action games with no context because people want to get right into it.
its where the cash is, just industries changing towards their audience, to move with different demographics.
and then there's the story driven, which most of them aren't rly games, its like pressing a button for the next scene lol.

games used to have both, with great mechanics/features with a story or a sim background, something to progress or fight for, but then the new generation came and the market moved towards console, where the low standards are, always been and the profits because lets be honest here
if you grew up with these games why would you know any better? they (new generation) don't know anything else, no basis for comparison. that is one of the reasons that the last Mass Effect andromeda and many other big IPs recently look and play so 'childish' and simple, formulative, predictable with overused ideas, target at youth of today. The easy targets. They see the advert, asks parents to get the game and that cycle keeps going. its not their money which means these games will always get bought. as long it has good graphics or a quality trailer it seems to be enough to hit that preorder

and now to make everything worse the gaming industry is filled with suits that barely know what gaming is, their only goal is to make a game that reaches even more people and there's only one way to do that is by compromise, which is the watering down. this is the current situation of triple A (not all of them but most are in this situation). its just about balancing the financial books, the problem is they also try to grow more each year, and their ceo will do what they have to to make more money even if it means cut up the game and sell it for more

Thankfully there is still good games here and there, made by talent people, that want to make games with good concepts, innovative, challenging, a good balance between graphics ang game play.... depending what you like ofc but yea they are rare.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pedros*
> 
> replying to the OP:
> 
> - The problem is that if we look at PS4 and XBOX as "machines" yes, they are very low spec compared to mid-low gaming computers ... but it's not about just that ... it's the experience that counts.
> 
> For example ... i am/was a pretty hardcore gamer ... but over time my interest on FPS as gone down for example ... and now i prefer soccer games and racing. In that matter, the experience on a PS4 for a soccer game is way better than a PC, don't know why but it is. I play FIFA17 on my machine and on my kids PS4 ... and PS4 is just.... more fun!
> 
> Racing... yes ... PC has lots of racing simulators and yadda ... but yesterday I tried my G29 on my kids PS4 with Drive Club ... and it was so much better in terms of fun than an Assetto Corsa for example...
> 
> Another plus on the experience for consoles... they are light, have a small footprint, usually in the living room ... you don't need to be stuck in the office with a big tower and big screens ... you just use a TV, sit on your couch ... everything is much more relaxed.
> 
> So, at the end of the day, I didn't care if I wasn't playing with the highest settings ... I was just having fun.
> 
> That's the difference in consoles vs PC. They are not holding anything back ... these consoles were released 3-4 years with a price tag to attract big masses and give users a good experience... a flawless, fun experience.
> 
> Software houses know that ... no one is crazy enough to release a PC exclusive when they can target the consoles... if you sell 100.000 copies of a game for PC, you do 1.000.000 on consoles. That's a big ROI.
> 
> I like my PC a lot, yes, but I still look at my kid and say "can I play that Drive Club game again? It was fun!" ...


Same for me. I have no interest in playing my console staples like Forza or Madden on my computer. Conversely I have no interest in playing BF1 or Crysis on a console. That's why its silly to simply wish for the demise of any platform because usage scenarios change from person to person and from situation to situation. More choice is always better than less, at least to me. I love my gaming rig and my One S both, but for totally different reasons.


----------



## PhotonFanatic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iARDAs*
> 
> Ahh nevermind.


Not sure if I'm replying right to your post but I'll go with this response:

Seriously, I remember reading such articles back in the PS2, and PS3 heydays. It seems like its a complaint that they always have. Its pretty much expected now. By me, anyway. Its safe to assume we'll be seeing the same thing with the PS5. And 6... and 7...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Just tried U4 and Horizon on PS4 and 100% confined a PC from 2012 cant play those games.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Just tried U4 and Horizon on PS4 and 100% confined a PC from 2012 cant play those games.


Even the last of us remastered wouldn't run nearly as good on a PC from 2012 unless it had a 690.

I kinda getting the feeling people are massively over estimating 2012 hardware. Just for a refresher course i upgraded from a GTX 680 and that wasn't even able to run DOOM 2016 at 1080P on any setting and still maintain 60 fps which it does on the PS4.


----------



## Tempest2000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Just tried U4 and Horizon on PS4 and 100% confined a PC from 2012 cant play those games.
> 
> 
> 
> Even the last of us remastered wouldn't run nearly as good on a PC from 2012 unless it had a 690.
> 
> I kinda getting the feeling people are massively over estimating 2012 hardware. Just for a refresher course i upgraded from a GTX 680 and that wasn't even able to run DOOM 2016 at 1080P on any setting and still maintain 60 fps which it does on the PS4.
Click to expand...

Ha, that reminds me. I started playing Doom on the my PC (max settings) for the first time right after I finished Uncharted 4 and I was like, damn, these Doom graphics aren't nearly as good as what people had been saying







. UC4 shat all over Doom maxed.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Ha, that reminds me. I started playing Doom on the my PC (max settings) for the first time right after I finished Uncharted 4 and I was like, damn, these Doom graphics aren't nearly as good as what people had been saying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . UC4 shat all over Doom maxed.


Meh i never liked the uncharted series, felt generic as heck. Graphics look good but just doesn't interest me. You missed my point though. If 2012 hardware cant play DOOM 2016 on console settings what makes people think Horizon Zero Dawn will?


----------



## Cybertox

If PCs from 2012 would have received the same type of optimization as Uncharted 4 for PS4, they would run it as good if not better. While I agree that Uncharted 4 looks breathtaking, you cannot draw comparisons between Uncharted and DOOM, two completely different games in terms of genre and prioritization of game elements.


----------



## Tempest2000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Ha, that reminds me. I started playing Doom on the my PC (max settings) for the first time right after I finished Uncharted 4 and I was like, damn, these Doom graphics aren't nearly as good as what people had been saying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . UC4 shat all over Doom maxed.
> 
> 
> 
> Meh i never liked the uncharted series, felt generic as heck. Graphics look good but just doesn't interest me. You missed my point though. If 2012 hardware cant play DOOM 2016 on console settings what makes people think Horizon Zero Dawn will?
Click to expand...

No I got your point - I just wasn't replying to you directly (I have nested quotes turned on). I was just saying that UC4 graphics are so much better than Doom maxed on PC that it was distracting when I started Doom.


----------



## Tempest2000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> If PCs from 2012 would have received the same type of optimization as Uncharted 4 for PS4, they would run it as good if not better. While I agree that Uncharted 4 looks breathtaking, you cannot draw comparisons between Uncharted and DOOM, two completely different games in terms of genre and prioritization of game elements.


That's the point I make all the time. PCs don't receive software that utilizes their hardware as well because of the nearly infinite hardware configuration possibilities. It's a major burden to developers. No one denies the potential power of high-end PCs, but it's the software that matters (and I'm not talking about subjective game quality, I'm talking about hardware utilization).


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> If PCs from 2012 would have received the same type of optimization as Uncharted 4 for PS4, they would run it as good if not better. While I agree that Uncharted 4 looks breathtaking, you cannot draw comparisons between Uncharted and DOOM, two completely different games in terms of genre and prioritization of game elements.


PC never gets any optimizaion updates, they always come from drivers. I been gaming on PC since 2007 and not once have i ever seen a game receive a optimization patch that takes it from unplayable to full 60 fps. Look at battlefield 1 you need a gtx 1070 to get same graphics and framerate as the ps4 pro does


----------



## Cybertox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> PC never gets any optimizaion updates, they always come from drivers. I been gaming on PC since 2007 and not once have i ever seen a game receive a optimization patch that takes it from unplayable to full 60 fps. Look at battlefield 1 you need a gtx 1070 to get same graphics and framerate as the ps4 pro does


Who even mentioned any updates? And even then you are wrong. The latest DX12 performance patch for ROTTR drastically increases performance on some systems and serves as a great example.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Who even mentioned any updates? And even then you are wrong. The latest DX12 performance patch for ROTTR drastically increases performance on some systems and serves as a great example.


you did.....







HA!! i lost over 50 fps in DX12 mode on ROTTR. that's a prime example of what im talking about. Plus the PS4 DOES NOT use DX12 so you cant compare the two. if you want to be fair you got to use openGL that's why i chose DOOM as a perfect example both systems use openGL.


----------



## Cybertox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> you did.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HA!! i lost over 50 fps in DX12 mode on ROTTR. that's a prime example of what im talking about. Plus the PS4 DOES NOT use DX12 so you cant compare the two. if you want to be fair you got to use openGL that's why i chose DOOM as a perfect example both systems use openGL.


Where? I have yet to see any mentions of updates prior to your post.

I dont care how much you have lost, I refer to benchmarks performed by people and posted on the forum and on YouTube, not to some random claims.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Where? I have yet to see any mentions of updates prior to your post.
> 
> I dont care how much you have lost, I refer to benchmarks performed by people and posted on the forum and on YouTube, not to some random claims.


You mentioned games recieve optimization which is a flatout lie for the past decade every single console port requires nearly double the hardware the consoles have to get similar graphics and framerates, And as an nvidia owner you should be well aware nvidia loses a significant bit of performance in every last dx12 benchmark compared to dx11 including tomb raider there's a reason there's a giant popup warning you alot of people see a significant loss in performance when enabling DX12 mode. and considering nvidia owns over 70% of the graphics card market share my point is still valid.

*EDIT* i mean look at GTA V i got it on PS4 and i ran it on a 3570K and a GTX 680 which is faster on paper yet i struggled to get a playable framerate above normal settings which looked worse than the ps4 version all around.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

The PS4 uses GNM as its low-level API, and GNMX for its high-level API..

The amount of fallacies in your posts is incredible..

"Look at battlefield 1 you need a gtx 1070 to get same graphics and framerate as the ps4 pro does"


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> The PS4 uses GNM as its low-level API, and GNMX for its high-level API..
> 
> The amount of fallacies in your posts is incredible..
> 
> "Look at battlefield 1 you need a gtx 1070 to get same graphics and framerate as the ps4 pro does"


have you ever played BF1 on PS4 Pro? if you honestly believe a gtx 680 will run it at 4K 60 fps ( even if it is 1440p checkerboard to 4k) then you need a serious reality check


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> have you ever played BF1 on PS4 Pro? if you honestly believe a gtx 680 will run it at 4K 60 fps ( even if it is 1440p checkerboard to 4k) then you need a serious reality check


What's a 680 got to do with this statement?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Look at battlefield 1 you need a *gtx 1070* to get same graphics and framerate as the ps4 pro does


What's your obsession with the 680 anyway? 2GB Vram was never going to stick around for long. Although at the time everyone said it would be fine for years..


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> PC never gets any optimizaion updates, they always come from drivers. I been gaming on PC since 2007 and not once have i ever seen a game receive a optimization patch that takes it from unplayable to full 60 fps. *Look at battlefield 1 you need a gtx 1070 to get same graphics and framerate as the ps4 pro does*


Actually, no. A GTX 1070 is able to hit 60+ fps average @ 1440p, details on Ultra. That's probably 50% higher performance than what a PS4 Pro is able to produce. I say that because BF1 is not locked at 60+ FPS on PS4 or Xbox One.

Also, BF1 is set to medium/high details on consoles.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> What's a 680 got to do with this statement?
> What's your obsession with the 680 anyway? 2GB Vram was never going to stick around for long. Although at the time everyone said it would be fine for years..


the article in the OP said the ps4 is as slow as a pc from 2012 but the GTX 680 is from 2012 and it was the most popular at the time. my point still stands. just because on the consoles are slower than most current high end gaming pc's does NOT mean a pc from 2012 will easily run the same games on console at the same settings and resolution.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Actually, no. A GTX 1070 is able to hit 60+ fps average @ 1440p, details on Ultra. That's probably 50% higher performance than what a PS4 Pro is able to produce. I say that because BF1 is not locked at 60+ FPS on PS4 or Xbox One.
> 
> Also, BF1 is set to medium/high details on consoles.


On PS4 Pro they claim it to be 4K 60 but its probably actually rendered around 1440P with checkerboard rendering to 4k and it does have solid 60 FPS on the Pro.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> the article in the OP said the ps4 is as slow as a pc from 2012 but the GTX 680 is from 2012 and it was the most popular at the time. my point still stands. just because on the consoles are slower than most current high end gaming pc's does NOT mean a pc from 2012 will easily run the same games on console at the same settings and resolution.
> On PS4 Pro they claim it to be 4K 60 but its probably actually rendered around 1440P with checkerboard rendering to 4k and *it does have solid 60 FPS on the Pro.*


No, it does not.






If framerates drop below 60 in single-player, it will be far worse in multiplayer.

I used to have a GTX 1070. It was very easy to run BF1 @ 1440p, ultra settings and get 60+ fps pretty much constantly.

I have the PS4 version of Battlefield 1. I know what I'm talking about.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> the article in the OP said the ps4 is as slow as a pc from 2012 but the GTX 680 is from 2012 and it was the most popular at the time. my point still stands. just because on the consoles are slower than most current high end gaming pc's does NOT mean a pc from 2012 will easily run the same games on console at the same settings and resolution.
> On PS4 Pro they claim it to be 4K 60 but its probably actually rendered around 1440P with checkerboard rendering to 4k and it does have solid 60 FPS on the Pro.


Wow, your arguments are all over the place.. If you were indeed talking about the OP then why were you talking about a GTX 1070, the PS4 Pro, and Battlefield 1?

I built my PC in 2011 save the GPU, a PC isn't only made up of GPU's.. Besides that, what games can't a 680 run as good as a standard PS4?

You mentioned GTA V, but from what I see it could easily smoke the PS4's 30fps (in the 20's sometimes) with equal or better fidelity:


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If framerates drop below 60 in single-player, it will be far worse in multiplayer.
> 
> I used to have a GTX 1070. It was very easy to run BF1 @ 1440p, ultra settings and get 60+ fps pretty much constantly.
> 
> I have the PS4 version of Battlefield 1. I know what I'm talking about.


Okay fair enough the fps drops lower than i thought i was wrong, but you will agree any GPU from 2012 will never come close to either system?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Wow, your arguments are all over the place.. If you were indeed talking about the OP then why were you talking about a GTX 1070, the PS4 Pro, and Battlefield 1?
> 
> I built my PC in 2011 save the GPU, a PC isn't only made up of GPU's.. Besides that, what games can't a 680 run as good as a standard PS4?
> 
> You mentioned GTA V, but from what I see it could easily smoke the PS4's 30fps (in the 20's sometimes) with equal or better fidelity:


You haven't been paying attention then. the article in the OP claims the ps4 is more comparable to a 2012 pc which is a lie. And just so you know high settings are actually medium in GTA V they name the settings weird, like normal is low high is medium and very high/ultra are max because they can't be like everyone else right?







as for games a 680 wont run how about horizon zero dawn, the last of us remastered. and if you want to compare the ps4 pro horizon runs at 4K or 1080P with an fps boost.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Okay fair enough the fps drops lower than i thought i was wrong, but you will agree *any GPU from 2012 will never come close to either system?*


I will agree with this. Games on PS4 and PS4 Pro are far more optimized, and in that regard, will outperform GPUs from 2012.

However, a GTX 1070 or even an RX 480/GTX 1060 will outperform a PS4 Pro. Xbox One X, though, will be a different story.

I will admit that BF1 on PS4 Pro is better than that of the base PS4. It still drops below 60 fps, though.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I will agree with this. Games on PS4 and PS4 Pro are far more optimized, and in that regard, will outperform GPUs from 2012.
> 
> However, a GTX 1070 or even an RX 480/GTX 1060 will outperform a PS4 Pro. Xbox One X, though, will be a different story.
> 
> I will admit that BF1 on PS4 Pro is better than that of the base PS4. It still drops below 60 fps, though.


thats the point i been trying to make, everyone seems to think 2012 hardware will match a ps4 in every aspect which simply isn't true.


----------



## Cybertox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> You mentioned games recieve optimization which is a flatout lie for the past decade every single console port requires nearly double the hardware the consoles have to get similar graphics and framerates, And as an nvidia owner you should be well aware nvidia loses a significant bit of performance in every last dx12 benchmark compared to dx11 including tomb raider there's a reason there's a giant popup warning you alot of people see a significant loss in performance when enabling DX12 mode. and considering nvidia owns over 70% of the graphics card market share my point is still valid.
> 
> *EDIT* i mean look at GTA V i got it on PS4 and i ran it on a 3570K and a GTX 680 which is faster on paper yet i struggled to get a playable framerate above normal settings which looked worse than the ps4 version all around.


Updates are not even required if the game is optimized right from the ground-up, you are the one who even mentioned anything "updates" related. If the same amount of effort was put into optimizing Uncharted 4 for PC as was put into optimzing it for the PS4, the PCs would run the game even butter and with even higher graphical fidelity. The reason why in some games it takes PCs twice the amount of hardware capacity than consoles is due to the optimization aspect I just explained. The claim that Nvidia loses a significant amount of performance with DX12 is a lie and is an entirely different thing having nothing to do with DX12. DX12 revolves mainly around reducing CPU overhead issues and at that it excels outstandingly.

I even took some of my precious time to run a benchmarks within ROTTR with DX11 and DX12, which clearly showcase significant performance improvements with DX12 even with my 1080Ti, an Nvidia GPU.

*DX12*










*DX11*










Now please tell me how DX12 is worse than DX11? Do you still have some more idiotic claims to make? Go home with your absurd statements.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Updates are not even required if the game is optimized right from the ground-up, you are the one who even mentioned anything "updates" related. If the same amount of effort was put into optimizing Uncharted 4 for PC as was put into optimzing it for the PS4, the PCs would run the game even butter and with even higher graphical fidelity. The reason why in some games it takes PCs twice the amount of hardware capacity than consoles is due to the optimization aspect I just explained. The claim that Nvidia loses a significant amount of performance with DX12 is a lie and is an entirely different thing having nothing to do with DX12. DX12 revolves mainly around reducing CPU overhead issues and at that it excels outstandingly.
> 
> I even took some of my precious times to run a benchmarks within ROTTR with DX11 and DX12, which clearly showcase significant performance improvements with DX12 even with my 1080Ti, an Nvidia GPU.
> 
> *DX12*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *DX11*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now please tell me how DX12 is worse than DX11? Do you still have some more idiotic claims to make? Go home with your absurd statements.


i'll take a page from your book i wont trust some random benchmark from some guy on the forums. i'll trust every professional review I've seen including my own personal experience. *Also there's no need to be rude, i never once insulted you.*


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> You haven't been paying attention then. the article in the OP claims the ps4 is more comparable to a 2012 pc which is a lie. And just so you know high settings are actually medium in GTA V they name the settings weird, like normal is low high is medium and very high/ultra are max because they can't be like everyone else right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as for games a 680 wont run how about horizon zero dawn, the last of us remastered. and if you want to compare the ps4 pro horizon runs at 4K or 1080P with an fps boost.


Your straw-mans and misdirection aren't working..

Once again:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Look at battlefield 1 you need a gtx 1070 to get same graphics and framerate as the ps4 pro does


That statement has nothing to do with the OP.

How is it a lie? The 750Ti matches or beats the OG PS4 easily, the 750Ti is weaker than a 660, and the 660 released in 2012.. Back up what you're saying with evidence, or quit spreading nonsense.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Your straw-mans and misdirection aren't working..
> 
> Once again:
> That statement has nothing to do with the OP.
> 
> How is it a lie? The 750Ti matches or beats the OG PS4 easily, the 750Ti is weaker than a 660, and the 660 released in 2012.. Back up what you're saying with evidence, or quit spreading nonsense.


Only one spreading nonsense is you PC elitists, the 750Ti cant even run DOOM at 1080P 60 fps period! the ps4 does. im done arguing you can keep cherry picking all you want.


----------



## Cybertox

Another quick note, I have never dropped below 60 fps since switching from DX11 to DX12 in ROTTR with everything maxed out completely at 2560x1440. With DX11 I would constantly drop below 60 to low 50s in some instances and even to low 40s in the Soviet Installation. With DX12 enabled, there is not a single drop below 60 fps regardless of location or whats going on in combat. This is without a doubt the most drastic improvement in performance I have personally witnessed solely by switching the API version. And taking into consideration that ROTTR is currently one of the most if not the most graphically complex game on PC, this is tremendously impressive. Additionally, the difference between PC and consoles in ROTTR is immense whether it is in terms of performance or graphical fidelity.


----------



## LoLomgbbq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thready*
> 
> I would like someone to adequately (and that may be hard) explain using facts and figures, how the PS4 is holding back gaming WITHOUT (seeriously without) talking about the power of the APU inside of it or the amount of RAM.
> 
> I wonder why a developer would think this.


Hardware isnt holding back gaming.

When the industry decided to target the mainstream with the PS360, they sacrificed gameplay for accessibility. Now the industry is stuck with a generation of gamers who only understand instant gratification and free XP weekends, amibos and micros-transactions.

Once gaming became more about visuals and digital materialism, theres was no longer a need for innovating gameplay, but instead a need to justify what little gameplay there is and they that by introducing dlc, cosmetics, achievements etc etc.

The gaming industry tried to control gamers attention spans and in doing so, broke it. So now you need to drip feed a constant reward stream (and the promise of content) and/or provide a pay 2 win model or you risk loosing your audience.

The gaming industry has no one but themselves to blame.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Only one spreading nonsense is you PC elitists, the 750Ti cant even run DOOM at 1080P 60 fps period! the ps4 does. im done arguing you can keep cherry picking all you want.


I didn't cherry pick.. I used GTA V because you were the one who picked it, you can't even keep up with your own posts..









How about all different types of games then?






Not to mention I picked a *low-end* GPU from 2012 to blow your arguments out the water.. The 680 and 7970 are on another level for the PS4 entirely.









You haven't proved a single thing you've said, I even had to correct you on the PS4's API.. I'm the one who's backed up my statements with fact, there's nothing elitist about it.


----------



## Cybertox

Software Optimization being equal, PCs will always come ahead of Consoles.

There is nothing bad about being a consoles enthusiast, but making absurd claims which cannot be backed-up is pathetic, especially when insisting you are right when you are clearly not. PCs always were and always will be more powerful than consoles, I dont understand how people are surprised by that. PCs and Consoles are more held back by optimization and hardware utilization in software than by anything else. Software and its respective optimization holds back PC more than any $300 console with hardware from the previous dynasty.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> I didn't cherry pick.. I used GTA V because you were the one who picked it, you can't even keep up with your own posts..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about all different types of games then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention I picked a *low-end* GPU from 2012 to blow your arguments out the water.. The 680 and 7970 are on another level for the PS4 entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't proved a single thing you've said, I even had to correct you on the PS4's API.. I'm the one who's backed up my statements with fact, there's nothing elitist about it.


The difference here is you cant get U4 and Horizon graphics out of a PC from 2012. Multi platform games these days do not give consoles much special treatment.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> The difference here is you cant get U4 and Horizon graphics out of a PC from 2012. Multi platform games these days do not give consoles much special treatment.


That wasn't my gripe with him, nor what I was arguing. It was his factually inaccurate statements..

Horizon and U4 are also brand new titles using brand new development techniques.. I don't deny that they look great, I own a PS4 and I've played them, I keep getting called an elitist just because I point out the facts.

Crysis 3 launched at the beginning of 2013, so close enough to the OP's statement. I think it holds up pretty good, and in some ways looks better imo.

Kick me


----------



## Cybertox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> *The difference here is you cant get U4 and Horizon graphics out of a PC from 2012*. Multi platform games these days do not give consoles much special treatment.


You can, if PCs from 2012 would get as much "special treatment" as the PS4 they would run the game as good if not better. Games like Uncharted and Horizon look good despite being limited by the hardware of consoles is because a bunch of technical engineers and programmers spend an immense amount of time optimizing the game and making it utilize every last bit the console has to offer. If the same amount of effort was put into the PC versions, we would see much more advanced and complex graphical representation in PC games, greatly surpassing the one of consoles.


----------



## LoLomgbbq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> You can, if PCs from 2012 would get as much "special treatment" as the PS4 they would run the game as good if not better. Games like Uncharted and Horizon look good despite being limited by the hardware of consoles is because a bunch of technical engineers and programmers spend an immense amount of time optimizing the game and making it utilize every last bit the console has to offer. If the same amount of effort was put into the PC versions, we would see much more advanced and complex graphical representation in PC games, greatly surpassing the one of consoles.


And the only reason that works is because the hardware specs are static.

So no, you cant achieve the same thing on pc.


----------



## Cybertox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LoLomgbbq*
> 
> And the only reason that works is because the hardware specs are static.
> 
> So no, you cant achieve the same thing on pc.


It most definitely renders things more difficult, but it doesnt make it unachievable. However it is one of the main reasons why PCs are not getting the same amount of optimization as consoles.


----------



## LoLomgbbq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> It most definitely renders things more difficult, but it doesnt make it unachievable. However it is one of the main reasons why PCs are not getting the same amount of optimization as consoles.


Well, until its done, youve nothing but wishful thinking to back it up.

You are simply not getting those visuals, performance and price range that the ps4 offers, with a dedicated pc.

If we look at a pc of the lowest spec possible as being the same platform as the highest spec pc possible, those with the lowest spec will not be seeing visuals and performance that the PS4 and highest spec pc users will, it doesn't matter how much you optimize.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

The 750Ti and PS4 are very similar spec wise, and look at the videos I posted. The x86 based consoles get nowhere near the advantage in optimization they used too.

3rd-party wise they are quite similar these days. People are forgetting that games like U4 and Horizon are first-party with enormous resources and the full expertise of Sony behind them.. Lets also not forget that Naughty Dog isn't your average studio..

So yes, the same (well at least close) could be achieved on PC with those particular games if given the resources, and one platform was the sole focus. A good test will be Star Citizen, we'll be able to see just how good the optimization of a massive AAA can get on PC with Vulkan.


----------



## Woundingchaney

We have this exact same discussion ever console generation...................................


----------



## LoLomgbbq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> The 750Ti and PS4 are very similar spec wise, and look at the videos I posted. The x86 based consoles get nowhere near the advantage in optimization they used too.
> 
> 3rd-party wise they are quite similar these days. People are forgetting that games like U4 and Horizon are first-party with enormous resources and the full expertise of Sony behind them.. Lets also not forget that Naughty Dog isn't your average studio..
> 
> *So yes, the same (well at least close) could be achieved on PC* with those particular games if given the resources, and one platform was the sole focus. A good test will be Star Citizen, we'll be able to see just how good the optimization of a massive AAA can get on PC with Vulkan.


No, its not possible.

Everyone who plays Uncharted 4 on the ps4 gets the same visual/perf experience.

If the lowest spec windows pc is considered to be the same platform as the highest specd pc, only those at the higher end will be able to enjoy the game with all the bells and whistles. It doesn't matter how much you optimize, an intel gpu isnt running U4 at ps4 iq levels.

Theres a reason that the ps4 and ps4 pro exists, regardless of the resources thrown at it, the vanilla ps4 isnt going to match the pro.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> The 750Ti and PS4 are very similar spec wise, and look at the videos I posted. The x86 based consoles get nowhere near the advantage in optimization they used too.
> 
> 3rd-party wise they are quite similar these days. People are forgetting that games like U4 and Horizon are first-party with enormous resources and the full expertise of Sony behind them.. Lets also not forget that Naughty Dog isn't your average studio..
> 
> So yes, the same (well at least close) could be achieved on PC with those particular games if given the resources, and one platform was the sole focus. A good test will be Star Citizen, we'll be able to see just how good the optimization of a massive AAA can get on PC with Vulkan.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHhPOvlnLGM

Watch this video and see what happens to something like 750 Ti. You now need GTX 960 to match HD 7790 lol. Keep in mind this was 2015 game. They have not done any new game test to see how PC fair to Console because their original Budged PC with Intel G35XX and 750 Ti was left to dust after couple of year. Console show their true power once they age compare to PC from around the same time frame.


----------



## LoLomgbbq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHhPOvlnLGM
> 
> Watch this video and see what happens to something like 750 Ti. You now need GTX 960 to match HD 7790 lol. Keep in mind this was 2015 game. They have not done any new game test to see how PC fair to Console because their original Budged PC with Intel G35XX and 750 Ti was left to dust after couple of year. Console show their true power once they age compare to PC from around the same time frame.


Exactly.

Theres a reason Gears 3 looks better and performs better than gears 1.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LoLomgbbq*
> 
> No, its not possible.
> 
> Everyone who plays Uncharted 4 on the ps4 gets the same visual/perf experience.
> 
> *If the lowest spec windows pc is considered to be the same platform as the highest specd pc, only those at the higher end will be able to enjoy the game with all the bells and whistles. It doesn't matter how much you optimize, an intel gpu isnt running U4 at ps4 iq levels.*
> 
> Theres a reason that the ps4 and ps4 pro exists, regardless of the resources thrown at it, the vanilla ps4 isnt going to match the pro.


If that's what you need to resort to in order to prove "it's not possible" then that speaks volumes in and of itself..









Developers target a minimum requirement, how many premium AAA's have you seen list an iGPU as a minimum requirement? So if I gave Naughty Dog $100 000 000, and that 750Ti build with 4 years to focus on that system and above they wouldn't get close? Yeah, I doubt that would be the case.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHhPOvlnLGM
> 
> Watch this video and see what happens to something like 750 Ti. You now need GTX 960 to match HD 7790 lol. Keep in mind this was 2015 game. They have not done any new game test to see how PC fair to Console because their original Budged PC with Intel G35XX and 750 Ti was left to dust after couple of year. Console show their true power once they age compare to PC from around the same time frame.


Now that's cherry picking..









You mind showing me the other numerous examples of it being "left in the dust"? RoTR is a poor port compared to the first games standard, it needed performance patches since the beginning.

Also look at that conversation in context.. I made a worst-case example of a PC from 2012.. The AMD cards from that time have aged far better, I was responding to him originally saying 680/7970 class couldn't compete with the PS4..

I also found a build on youtube that would stop me having to run around and grab benchmarks from all over the place.. I'd never choose that CPU and a 750Ti over stuff from AMD at that price range. Point is a 2012 PC can easily compete with the PS4, even that terrible system does in most games..


----------



## Cybertox

ROTTR is as of the latest patch, in my opinion the best looking and best performing game. I have yet to come across another game which runs at 60 fps with such complex graphical representation on my rig.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> ROTTR is as of the latest patch, in my opinion the best looking and best performing game. I have yet to come across another game which runs at 60 fps with such complex graphical representation on my rig.


I'll take your word for it, haven't played it since I beat it at launch.









The Nvidia GPU's from that time were always a poorer choice because of their Vram.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Only one spreading nonsense is you PC elitists, the 750Ti cant even run DOOM at 1080P 60 fps period! the ps4 does. im done arguing you can keep cherry picking all you want.


Yes makes no sense.


----------



## Cybertox

Also isnt that PS4 Pro 4K some made-up technique which is nowhere near the pixel density of native 3840x2160?


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Also isnt that PS4 Pro 4K some made-up technique which is nowhere near the pixel density of native 3840x2160?


Yeah, ~1440P checkerboarded to 1800P, and then up-scaled to "4K".


----------



## LoLomgbbq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> If that's what you need to resort to in order to prove "it's not possible" then that speaks volumes in and of itself..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


You strung that sentence together as if it makes a valid point.

You keep talking of possibilities and what ifs, yet you have no proof present or past to back it up.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LoLomgbbq*
> 
> You strung that sentence together as if it makes a valid point.
> 
> You keep talking of possibilities and what ifs, yet you have no proof present or past to back it up.


It did prove a point - That you had to turn to an extreme, and pretend that systems down to iGPU's is the usual situation developers have to deal with..

You're also the one who made the blanket statement of saying it's impossible, the onus of proof is on you. Of course it's what-ifs, it's unprecedented, and will never happen anyway..









But what I did show is a low-end system from 2012 keeping up with a PS4 despite its static hardware with ultra-optimization, the 750Ti is also weaker than the PS4 on paper.


----------



## LoLomgbbq

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> It did prove a point - That you had to turn to an extreme, and pretend that systems down to iGPU's is the usual situation developers have to deal with..
> 
> *You're also the one who made the blanket statement* of saying it's impossible, the onus of proof is on you. Of course it's what-ifs, it's unprecedented, and will never happen anyway..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But what I did show is a low-end system from 2012 keeping up with a PS4 despite its static hardware with ultra-optimization, the 750Ti is also weaker than the PS4 on paper.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> The 750Ti and PS4 are very similar spec wise, and look at the videos I posted. The x86 based consoles get nowhere near the advantage in optimization they used too.
> 
> 3rd-party wise they are quite similar these days. People are forgetting that games like U4 and Horizon are first-party with enormous resources and the full expertise of Sony behind them.. Lets also not forget that Naughty Dog isn't your average studio..
> 
> *So yes, the same (well at least close) could be achieved on PC with those particular games if given the resources, and one platform was the sole focus*. A good test will be Star Citizen, we'll be able to see just how good the optimization of a massive AAA can get on PC with Vulkan.


The only one making claims here is you.
_
"and one platform was the sole focus"_

The pc, regardless of hardware spec is one platform. If you're excluding certain hardware, then youre not targeting a single platform, youre only targeting a portion of it..


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LoLomgbbq*
> 
> *The only one making claims here is you.*
> _
> "and one platform was the sole focus"_
> 
> The pc, regardless of hardware spec is one platform. If you're excluding certain hardware, then youre not targeting a single platform, youre only targeting a portion of it..


Of course they only target a portion.. PC hardware is constantly moving forward, ever heard of minimum or recommended specs? You should of, because I mentioned that in my previous reply to you..

Lol, sure. You never made any claims at all..


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LoLomgbbq*
> 
> So no, *you cant achieve the same thing on pc*.








Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LoLomgbbq*
> 
> *You are simply not getting those visuals*, performance and price range that the ps4 offers, with a dedicated pc.
> 
> If we look at a pc of the lowest spec possible as being the same platform as the highest spec pc possible, those with the lowest spec will not be seeing visuals and performance that the PS4 and highest spec pc users will, *it doesn't matter how much you optimize*.






This silly argument stemmed from a deflection of the simple truth that a 2012 PC can in fact compete with a PS4. Whoever doesn't think that, especially being on a tech forum, is delusional.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Just tried U4 and Horizon on PS4 and 100% confined a PC from 2012 cant play those games.


You are right. You can not play those games on 2012 PC is because of no software/API support with older hardware, in other words, no backward compatibility. It doesn't mean 2012 hardware is technically not stronger or able to play those games. But the talk is about the claim that PS4 is like a 5 year old PC. In fact I I think, PS4 hw seem lot slower than that, it consist of a CPU of 2010 like performance(a rough comparison to a low clocked Phenom II X8, if it ever existed) with 2012 GPU technology (HD 7870). Imo, optimal gaming PC of 2012 is i5 2500k/i7 2600k(2011 CPU) + HD 7970. And PS4 is still slower than that. PS4 is actually slower than a 2012 gaming PC. Yes PS4's APU has more advanced instruction sets in terms of features and advanced memory architecture, but in the end, the IPC is probably still a lot slower than that i5/i7.

From one of the links that GorillaSceptre posted,
Quote:


> Ubisoft on AC:Unity: We could be running at 100fps if it was just graphics, but because of AI, we're still limited to 30 frames per second."


Do you really think i5 2500k or i7 2600k can only do ~30 fps in that game ? Because in reality, AC: Unity runs at 60+ fps on PC with those CPUs, with sufficient GPU of course.

In the end, in my opinion, I think it is safe to say at least CPU power of PS4 is even worse than a 5 year old gaming PC.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> You are right. You can not play those games on 2012 PC is because of no software/API support with older hardware, in other words, no backward compatibility. It doesn't mean 2012 hardware is technically not stronger or able to play those games. But the talk is about the claim that PS4 is like a 5 year old PC. In fact I I think, PS4 hw seem lot slower than that, it consist of a CPU of 2010 like performance(a rough comparison to a low clocked Phenom II X8, if it ever existed) with 2012 GPU technology (HD 7870). Imo, optimal gaming PC of 2012 is i5 2500k/i7 2600k(2011 CPU) + HD 7970. And PS4 is still slower than that. PS4 is actually slower than a 2012 gaming PC. Yes PS4's APU has more advanced instruction sets in terms of features and advanced memory architecture, but in the end, the IPC is probably still a lot slower than that i5/i7.
> 
> From one of the links that GorillaSceptre posted,
> Do you really think i5 2500k or i7 2600k can only do ~30 fps in that game ? Because in reality, AC: Unity runs at 60+ fps on PC with those CPUs, with sufficient GPU of course.
> 
> In the end, in my opinion, I think it is safe to say at least CPU power of PS4 is even worse than a 5 year old gaming PC.


2600K + HD 7970 was very high end. That is the problem PC gamer seem to forget. A PC from 2012 is one with GTX660 or HD 7850. Looking at top 5% is no way to represent the PC.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> 2600K + HD 7970 was very high end. That is the problem PC gamer seem to forget. A PC from 2012 is one with GTX660 or HD 7850. Looking at top 5% is no way to represent the PC.


I did emphasize on CPU performance, and did include i5 2500k as well, okay forget that, even if you include a cheapest locked i5, it is still able to do 45+ fps on that game.
Also developers did say PS4 GPU is able to push 100+ fps, but A.I.(CPU part) is slower, so ~ 2TFLOPs is still more than enough at least in AC: Unity's case.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> I did emphasize on CPU performance, and did include i5 2500k as well, okay forget that, even if you include a cheapest locked i5, it is still able to do 45+ fps on that game.
> Also developers did say PS4 GPU is able to push 100+ fps, but A.I.(CPU part) is slower, so ~ 2TFLOPs is still more than enough at least in AC: Unity's case.


Yeah but that is very closed mind view to look at consoles. The CPU is weak but still a lot of amazing games have come out with the weak CPU. What Unity tried to do really was too much even for PC.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Yeah but that is very closed mind view to look at consoles. The CPU is weak but still a lot of amazing games have come out with the weak CPU. What Unity tried to do really was too much even for PC.


I wasn't accounting for all games either. It was a specific situation and some developers may face similar results if they create A.I. like that.

But overall I agree, because this whole hardware argument is/continue in existence/to exist because we continue to compare console to a PC, only because somehow we are obsessed with the minimum 60 fps number for no real reason, which tbh should not even be happening in the first place.
Console is an efficient, a lot cheaper and still a great video gaming device. And it still brings great joy to a user regardless of fps or graphics as compared to a PC.


----------



## twitchyzero

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> PS Pro probably should have been Zen-based. Zen is not that expensive to make (is it?), especially when using harvested chips and polymer TIM. Jaguar should have probably been put to pasture.


that's not the point of PS4P

the lead architect said one of the main pillars was to remain 100% compatible with vanilla PS4....going with a new architecture will severely hurt that.

Anyways, I just realized this was made by A Way Out devs.

Their new game doesn't really seem to be trying to push technical boundaries...so this looks like a PR stunt at best.

I'll give them a break because their previous game was one of my favourites last gen and I''m looking forward to their upcoming title...but this Fares chap is increasingly coming off as annoying and arrogant.


----------



## 222Panther222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Yeah but that is very closed mind view to look at consoles. The CPU is weak but still a lot of amazing games have come out with the weak CPU. What Unity tried to do really was too much even for PC.


I noticed they remastered GTA III, Vice City, San Andreas and GTA 5 but never remaster the 4th one, maybe due to the physique engine being too demanding on the cpu?


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *222Panther222*
> 
> I noticed they remastered GTA III, Vice City, San Andreas and GTA 5 but never remaster the 4th one, maybe due to the physique engine being too demanding on the cpu?


It runs on PS3 with it's relatively low IPC CPU. PS4 has games with more complicated physics than GTA4, it would run it without problems.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> It runs on PS3 with it's relatively low IPC CPU. PS4 has games with more complicated physics than GTA4, it would run it without problems.


Thanks to the 8 core cpu


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> If PCs from 2012 would have received the same type of optimization as Uncharted 4 for PS4, they would run it as good if not better. While I agree that Uncharted 4 looks breathtaking, you cannot draw comparisons between Uncharted and DOOM, two completely different games in terms of genre and prioritization of game elements.


Not to mention one is 60fps and the other 30fps.
Uncharted shiould look twice as good, that's why they refused to make the game run 60fps in singleplayer.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alawadhi3000*
> 
> True but the 8320E doesn't meet the power, price and compatibility targets.
> 
> Sony and Microsoft had no option but to use Jaguar again.


No, we've been through this. Sony and Microsoft had the choice to use the loss on console profit on software sales model and decided not to. Moreover, price/power are not what my original post was about. It would also be interesting to know how much it would have cost Sony, for instance, to use something like an 8320E for the PS4 Pro. 32nm production is probably pretty cheap right now.

Compatibility is a bogus thing to cite. There is nothing in Jaguar that Piledriver can't run. In fact, as far as I know, the FMA support in Piledriver is beyond what Jaguar can run. Since Piledriver is faster than the Jaguar all Sony would have had to do is throttle it for compatibility, just like it did with the higher-clocked Jaguar it decided to use.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If framerates drop below 60 in single-player, it will be far worse in multiplayer.
> 
> *I used to have a GTX 1070. It was very easy to run BF1 @ 1440p, ultra settings and get 60+ fps pretty much constantly.*
> 
> I have the PS4 version of Battlefield 1. I know what I'm talking about.


And yet, at the end of the day, you are still talking about a single video card that costs as much or more than an entire PS4 Pro, never mind the cost of the rest of the PC. Obviously the 1070 is far, far more capable in games than the PS4 Pro or Xbox One X but nobody can build a console for the price people will pay for one that will rival the most powerful gaming PC's out there. Its just not possible (nor should it even be a goal of either MS or Sony at this point). The Pro and X both are targeting the AVERAGE PC that people game on these days and both perform competitively in that respect.


----------



## redfroth

Why are we debating the horse power of a console with hardware specs from 5 years ago? Any debate on this seems pointless...

Internet gonna Internet I 'spose.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If framerates drop below 60 in single-player, it will be far worse in multiplayer.
> 
> I used to have a GTX 1070. It was very easy to run BF1 @ 1440p, ultra settings and get 60+ fps pretty much constantly.
> 
> I have the PS4 version of Battlefield 1. I know what I'm talking about.


You showed how great a PS4 is. I'm impressed


----------



## iTurn

Never seen more "if"s in my life lol and then they accuse another poster of strawman. Also posting a video with the 750ti where DF themselves admits that its the CPU carrying the game for it's dominance over the consoles = cherry picked evidence is nothing else. We all know the consoles biggest weakness is CPU.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iTurn*
> 
> Never seen more "if"s in my life lol and then they accuse another poster of strawman. Also posting a video with the 750ti where DF themselves admits that its the CPU carrying the game for it's dominance over the consoles = cherry picked evidence is nothing else. We all know the consoles biggest weakness is CPU.


We're on a forum, anyone can go back and see where the back and forth started. Its very clear to see which people were using strawmans and deflecting, after stating completely false things..

Again stating I cherry-picked.. I picked a *worst-case* system from 2012, in response to someone saying the 680/7970 (or insinuating that any class machine from 2012 for that matter) couldn't compete with the PS4.. Instead of gathering benchmarks from all over the place I found a convenient video that demonstrated my point. DF's "budget build" is a poor one, AMD has far better CPU's/GPU's in that price range, it's a *worst-case* for my point, the opposite of "cherry picked".

What difference does it make what is carrying what? All that matters is does it get the job done.. Some games are CPU bound, others are GPU bound. So DF state the CPU is "carrying the games", but then zealotkiller argues that build is "left to dust" because of that CPU, while "Consoles show their true power once they age compare to PC from around the same time frame". Make up your damn minds.. Not to mention PC's from the same time-frame would be 2014 systems, not 2012..

How anyone on this forum can seriously argue that PC's from 2012 can't compete with the PS4 is hilarious. There's an endless amount of benchmarks and evidence that can debunk that nonsense. Time to un-sub from this thread, someone else can get called an elitist for pointing out baseless lies.


----------



## BESTHARDWARE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> And many games try that but it doesn't change the fact the gameplay gets in the way of the story. For instance The Witcher 3 has fantastic writing but often times you'll have to do gamey things while the plot is unfolding which halt the story. An example that stood out for me was when I was with Dijkstra in the sewer and was investigating his lost treasure. I needed a potion to proceed further. As a result I had to leave the area, gather the ingredients and brew the potion. That's a textbook example of how gameplay can hinder a good story even in a game with top notch writing.


Yes, most video games have at least some degree of filler gameplay. However...

Those quoted statements make it sound like stories told in text-only form have no filler, and spend 100% of their time actually telling the story/progressing the plot. That is absolutely not true in most cases. Most text-only stories, especially modern novels, are overflowing with long bouts of fluff/garbage filler/random ramblings which halt the plot and get in the way of the story.

Nothing makes storytelling via text inherently superior to storytelling in video games (or in any other medium). Stories in any medium can be told well, or poorly, or anywhere between those ends of the spectrum. And plot-halting filler occurs in _every_ storytelling medium.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Naa, I'm talking about games that've been out for a while now. I would easily place Uncharted 4, Horizon, and DriveClub in the top 5 best graphics ever.


Terrible LOD, AF changes between 4x and 8x, bad AO, lack of fully dynamic lighting, few physics objects in the game world, jaggy and low resolution and at low fps.

Basically covered UC4 and Horizon. No idea about DriveClub, but as a PS4 game - it is likely the same.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iTurn*
> 
> Never seen more "if"s in my life lol and then they accuse another poster of strawman. Also posting a video with the 750ti where DF themselves admits that its the CPU carrying the game for it's dominance over the consoles = cherry picked evidence is nothing else. We all know the consoles biggest weakness is CPU.


PS4 is proven to lose against a GTX 760 in almost all scenarios. A 7870 and especially 7950? That is like an Abrams tank going through a Trabant...


----------



## Cybertox

Say about Uncharted 4 what you want but it has the best AA technique I have ever seen in a game. No aliasing, no shimmering textures, no sub-pixel breakup. As smooth as it gets.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> Say about Uncharted 4 what you want but it has the best AA technique I have ever seen in a game. No aliasing, no shimmering textures, no sub-pixel breakup. As smooth as it gets.


Its pretty good, though 4A's AAA is also excellent, so is DOOM's TSSAA and Titanfall's solution. On PC, sheer SSAA which is a brute force method always obliterates anything else though.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHhPOvlnLGM
> 
> Watch this video and see what happens to something like 750 Ti. You now need GTX 960 to match HD 7790 lol. Keep in mind this was 2015 game. They have not done any new game test to see how PC fair to Console because their original Budged PC with Intel G35XX and 750 Ti was left to dust after couple of year. Console show their true power once they age compare to PC from around the same time frame.






and



Basically, the 760 beats the Xbox easily. The 1060 beats the PS4 Pro very easily. And 760 is a bad card. Now... imagine a second hand 7950 or even 7870 vs the Xbox or PS4 normal?
Yeah. Manchuria 1945 again. PC is the Soviets, consoles are the Japanese forces.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Basically, the 760 beats the Xbox easily. The 1060 beats the PS4 Pro very easily. And 760 is a bad card. Now... imagine a second hand 7950 or even 7870 vs the Xbox or PS4 normal?


While the argument is valid if you only take common games that are available on both types of devices, the comparison is still absurd imo, since there are many console exclusive games that are extremely good and not available on PC. And even the first original PS4 is a badass as compared to GTX 1080 Ti SLI, when you start to take Console Exclusive games into account.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BESTHARDWARE*
> 
> Yes, most video games have at least some degree of filler gameplay. However...
> 
> Those quoted statements make it sound like stories told in text-only form have no filler, and spend 100% of their time actually telling the story/progressing the plot. That is absolutely not true in most cases. Most text-only stories, especially modern novels, are overflowing with long bouts of fluff/garbage filler/random ramblings which halt the plot and get in the way of the story.
> 
> Nothing makes storytelling via text inherently superior to storytelling in video games (or in any other medium). Stories in any medium can be told well, or poorly, or anywhere between those ends of the spectrum. And plot-halting filler occurs in _every_ storytelling medium.


That's not what filler is.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> While the argument is valid if you only take common games that are available on both types of devices, the comparison is still absurd imo, since there are many console exclusive games that are extremely good and not available on PC. And even the first original PS4 is a badass as compared to GTX 1080 Ti SLI, when you start to take Console Exclusive games into account.


Several supposedly good (not to me) PS4 exclusives

vs

40 years of PC Games
RTS,RTT, Tycoons
PC exclusives,
All console games up to the 5th generation and Wii U

This is obvious...

It isnt a fair fight to me. Especially if someone can logically deduce that console exclusives are bad for gaming, long term, as an art form.


----------



## Tempest2000

Aside from decent sources for comparision, you've made it clear that you don't even have an eye for graphical fidelity.


----------



## iTurn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Several supposedly good (not to me) PS4 exclusives
> 
> vs
> 
> 40 years of PC Games
> RTS,RTT, Tycoons
> PC exclusives,
> All console games up to the 5th generation and Wii U
> 
> This is obvious...
> 
> It isnt a fair fight to me. Especially if someone can logically deduce that console exclusives are bad for gaming, long term, as an art form.
> Well its the last Console game I ever played. UC4 doesnt look that great and I stated why. Same for Horizon. Great animation work, but animation work and some good (up close) models do not make a game a graphical powerhouse.
> 
> BTW I have seen them in person. Whilst few sane people where I live would go for a console, our stores do have console demos running inside...sometimes.


We get it PC is superior for you... but i need consoles and a pc because I want to ;

*Play the games when they're current
*Not commit theft (cause if you don't own a console that's what you're doing piracy)
*Have the ability to resell the games I don't want to add to my collection
*Buy rare games, hold on to them and resell for profit
*Have good communities for racing and fighting games
*Get Japanese games
*Not have to port beg... (LOL spending all that money and have to port beg and then call yourself masterrace EL OH EL)


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Aside from decent sources for comparision, you've made it clear that you don't even have an eye for graphical fidelity.


You can always post what screenshots exist that impress you so much








I can school you about AO and lighting and LOD then (which actually is better in video but hey I cant be a chooser).

I mean if a CONSOLE game with its animations is all it takes to impress you...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iTurn*
> 
> We get it PC is superior for you... but i need consoles and a pc because I want to ;
> 
> *Play the games when they're current
> *Not commit theft (cause if you don't own a console that's what you're doing piracy)
> *Have the ability to resell the games I don't want to add to my collection
> *Buy rare games, hold on to them and resell for profit
> *Have good communities for racing and fighting games
> *Get Japanese games
> *Not have to port beg... (LOL spending all that money and have to port beg and then call yourself masterrace EL OH EL)


If the console is not in production, it is dead. At that point, emulating its games is part of art conservation and not piracy.
Reselling is the only somewhat major point in favor of consoles, but you are a person with a decent PC and a console, so I dont think its important to you personally. Not to mention the only reason console reselling even works so well is their limited modding ability.
Rare games should not be rare. its an art form, it must be on GOG at least. I mean I get the personal advantages for you but it is still bad for gaming.
There are de facto more Japanese games on PC than on any single console ever made.
Port beg?
As for playing the games when they are current... that only goes for a few console titles which are mostly movie-like anyway (UC4 and TLOU for example) and playing a good game now or later is the same damned thing. Hell I play mostly old games out of despair at how bad new games are...

Also consoles cost more than PC Gaming. Hence why Eastern Europe is PC gaming land (and no, iti isnt piracy as the X360 and PS3 could be hacked but those were still irrelevant to us ACTUALLY poor people).


----------



## Tempest2000

Once again, someone who says that "Uncharted 4 and Horizon don't look good" and then points to the animations for redemption of having never seen them in person clearly doesn't have an eye for graphical fidelity, nor an argument.


----------



## GTR Mclaren

That sounds like a mediocre developer.

Just look at Horizon Zero Dawn


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Several supposedly good (not to me) PS4 exclusives
> 
> vs
> 
> 40 years of PC Games
> RTS,RTT, Tycoons
> PC exclusives,
> All console games up to the 5th generation and Wii U
> 
> This is obvious...
> 
> It isnt a fair fight to me. Especially if someone can logically deduce that console exclusives are bad for gaming, long term, as an art form.


You were comparing high end PC parts to current gen consoles, now why do you have to go back to 40 years back to cover PC ?








Quote:


> 40 years of PC Games


Any 10 year old PC hardware is enough to smoothly play all those 30 years old games by emulation or backward compatibility if there is any, so you don't need to have any modern PC hardware to run all that. This is a little differnet talk.
Also people who have mindset of buying consoles are consious about what gaming generation they are targetting to play, i.e. they have a 100% mindset of playing latest, modern and future/upcoming games, they don't wanna look back otherwise why would the even think to buy new console !? And if they feel to play golden old games then you should know that a large portion of console owners happen to already have some if not all consoles of previous gen and the console exclusiveness exist in there as well( at least for PS3, for now). So old games arguments don't work againt them at all.
Quote:


> RTS,RTT, Tycoons
> PC exclusives,
> All console games up to the 5th generation and Wii U


Despite all that, there are thousands of PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One exclusive games you can't play on PC, even with i9 9999X @ 9GHz + Quad GTX 9999 Ti, because these games don't exist for PC. Also remember console buyers who don't play on PC give zero buck about old games. This is why they keep buying consoles in the first place.

_______________________________________________________

Look, we PC oriented gamers are more comfortable with configuration files, emulators, almost unlimited settings, etc, I get that. I too love this. This is why I'll probably always remain a PC gamer myself(not for now, I left gaming temporarily for couple of years) But so are console gamers, they find equivalent enjoyment in consoles regardless of fps/graphics, 99.999% of them don't even understand these terms, and I believe for the sake of just enjoying _fantasy_ of gaming world it is better if they don't even try to understand it, imo.

It is obvious PCs have more power overall but they target different users, even if you or I are one of them PC enthusiasts, it is litirally stupid to publicly criticze consoles hardware/games just to brag or show off the superiorness of graphics quality by bruteforce power of modern hardaware.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Can we stop cluttering the thread by arguing with this guy please...


----------



## Nvidia Fanboy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Not really. Game have to power to tell a way better story than a Book.


I've disagreed with a lot of posts on OCN over the years but I think I just found the top post I disagree with.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Once again, someone who says that "Uncharted 4 and Horizon don't look good" and then points to the animations for redemption of having never seen them in person clearly doesn't have an eye for graphical fidelity, nor an argument.


or perhaps I simply have more than you do and actually see the pop ups and lack of AF.
Animation is the impressive thing I see in them, all else is just careful art direction. They do NOT look better than all other games. And the console optimization BS is just that - BS.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> You were comparing high end PC parts to current gen consoles, now why do you have to go back to 40 years back to cover PC ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any 10 year old PC hardware is enough to smoothly play all those 30 years old games by emulation or backward compatibility if there is any, so you don't need to have any modern PC hardware to run all that. This is a little differnet talk.
> Also people who have mindset of buying consoles are consious about what gaming generation they are targetting to play, i.e. they have a 100% mindset of playing latest, modern and future/upcoming games, they don't wanna look back otherwise why would the even think to buy new console !? And if they feel to play golden old games then you should know that a large portion of console owners happen to already have some if not all consoles of previous gen and the console exclusiveness exist in there as well( at least for PS3, for now). So old games arguments don't work againt them at all.
> Despite all that, there are thousands of PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, Xbox One exclusive games you can't play on PC, even with i9 9999X @ 9GHz + Quad GTX 9999 Ti, because these games don't exist for PC. Also remember console buyers who don't play on PC give zero buck about old games. This is why they keep buying consoles in the first place.
> 
> _______________________________________________________
> 
> Look, we PC oriented gamers are more comfortable with configuration files, emulators, almost unlimited settings, etc, I get that. I too love this. This is why I'll probably always remain a PC gamer myself(not for now, I left gaming temporarily for couple of years) But so are console gamers, they find equivalent enjoyment in consoles regardless of fps/graphics, 99.999% of them don't even understand these terms, and I believe for the sake of just enjoying _fantasy_ of gaming world it is better if they don't even try to understand it, imo.
> 
> It is obvious PCs have more power overall but they target different users, even if you or I are one of them PC enthusiasts, it is litirally stupid to publicly criticze consoles hardware/games just to brag or show off the superiorness of graphics quality by bruteforce power of modern hardaware.


Because PC Gaming includes old games too. That is why it is never a fair comparison, a single console can never, no matter how much blood, sweat and tears are thrown into it - actually compete with a PC.

Who said that I believe you need a high end PC to be a PC Gamer? No one. In fact, by pointing out how even a low end PC can play most older games you are agreeing with me.

I am not arguing with the average plebeian that literally only cares for 2 games a year and doesnt care at all about gaming. I am talking to you and hardcore gamers on OCN. The old game argument should be key to you people... if it isnt then... why even bother calling yourself gamers?

Please, link me to a source for the thousands of PS3, X360, PS4 and Xbox One exclusives. I doubt that they are several thousand as you claim. ALso you do realize that UNLESS we can emulate them, those games are mortal, will die, and are proof we gamers with our nearsightedness are harming the art form?

I do not care for what is more powerful. Id rather use a 2001 PC than a console. I know those people dont care about power and fps and settings - but on PC they STILL dont have to care. That is my point.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Not really. Game have to power to tell a way better story than a Book.


... I think you need to both READ more books and PLAY more games. Even the top tier of gaming storytelling such as Planescape, Talos Principle, Witcher 3 HOS, SOMA... even the best gaming has is pretty darn simple compared to good literature, let alone classics.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nvidia Fanboy*
> 
> I've disagreed with a lot of posts on OCN over the years but I think I just found the top post I disagree with.


Never knew Id soundly agree with an Nvidia fanboy







!









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Can we stop cluttering the thread by arguing with this guy please...


Then win at least one argument with me.







Bring a good point, not emotion. I do not want to act badly, but this that you display here is arrogance. Far more than even I am capable of


----------



## Tempest2000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Once again, someone who says that "Uncharted 4 and Horizon don't look good" and then points to the animations for redemption of having never seen them in person clearly doesn't have an eye for graphical fidelity, nor an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> or perhaps I simply have more than you do and actually see the pop ups and lack of AF.
> Animation is the impressive thing I see in them, all else is just careful art direction. They do NOT look better than all other games. And the console optimization BS is just that - BS.
Click to expand...

I guess you expect someone who not only owns the games in question, but also used to design and write graphics engines and APIs, to believe you, a student who doesn't own and hasn't experienced the those games. Ok.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> I guess you expect someone who not only owns the games in question, but also used to design and write graphics engines and APIs, to believe you, a student who doesn't own and hasn't experienced the those games. Ok.


Yes, yes I do.

Its either that or your eyes need checking OR the general art style is so appealing to you that you dont notice. Even on youtube one can see the LOD and AO stuff...

Or do you seriously think that those companies are somehow magic and above id Software and 4A Games in terms of technology and can use what is essentially a 7850 to beat out PCs with 1080 Tis?

Perhaps they'd be magical enough to learn how to write an interesting story then...


----------



## Buris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> I guess you expect someone who not only owns the games in question, but also used to design and write graphics engines and APIs, to believe you, a student who doesn't own and hasn't experienced the those games. Ok.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Yes, yes I do.
> 
> Its either that or your eyes need checking OR the general art style is so appealing to you that you dont notice. Even on youtube one can see the LOD and AO stuff...
> 
> Or do you seriously think that those companies are somehow magic and above id Software and 4A Games in terms of technology and can use what is essentially a 7850 to beat out PCs with 1080 Tis?
> 
> Perhaps they'd be magical enough to learn how to write an interesting story then...


Youtube videos have an inherent lower image quality than the game being played on the host device, you should know this buddy.

The PS4 Pro version of Uncharted 4 and Horizon look very impressive! There are very few PC games that can take advantage of my 1080 Ti to look as good. It's not really about whether or not the hardware is more powerful but rather the games that are developed do not take advantage of that power. I'm sure if Uncharted and Horizon came out on PC I could push more frames and increase AA, etc. but oh well, It's an exclusive game.

All this power at my fingertips and here I am playing Original Xbox and Sega Saturn games at the moment


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buris*
> 
> Youtube videos have an inherent lower image quality than the game being played on the host device, you should know this buddy.
> 
> The PS4 Pro version of Uncharted 4 and Horizon look very impressive! There are very few PC games that can take advantage of my 1080 Ti to look as good. It's not really about whether or not the hardware is more powerful but rather the games that are developed do not take advantage of that power. I'm sure if Uncharted and Horizon came out on PC I could push more frames and increase AA, etc. but oh well, It's an exclusive game.
> 
> All this power at my fingertips and here I am playing Original Xbox and Sega Saturn games at the moment


Exactly. Even then I can see the lack of Ambient Occlusion







! That was the point of the "Even Youtube videos" part.

Fair enough if you think it looks that good, but this is seriously a game that could use a PC Version. Alas it wont get one so either emulators will save it for the ages or it will die, effectively being forgotten. Because we Gamers did this...

Yeah, I am about to play Anachronox from 2001 on my PC. I know the feeling of backwards compatibility, it is glorious! At 1440P as the dev's dreams intended







!


----------



## Buris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buris*
> 
> The PS4 Pro version of Uncharted 4 and Horizon look very impressive! There are very few PC games that can take advantage of my 1080 Ti to look as good. It's not really about whether or not the hardware is more powerful but rather the games that are developed do not take advantage of that power. I'm sure if Uncharted and Horizon came out on PC I could push more frames and increase AA, etc. but oh well, It's an exclusive game.
> 
> All this power at my fingertips and here I am playing Original Xbox and Sega Saturn games at the moment


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Exactly. Even then I can see the lack of Ambient Occlusion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ! That was the point of the "Even Youtube videos" part.
> 
> Fair enough if you think it looks that good, but this is seriously a game that could use a PC Version. Alas it wont get one so either emulators will save it for the ages or it will die, effectively being forgotten. Because we Gamers did this...
> 
> Yeah, I am about to play Anachronox from 2001 on my PC. I know the feeling of backwards compatibility, it is glorious! At 1440P as the dev's dreams intended
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !


Unfortunately those games got paid for by sony. If PC gaming truly had the same type of cash being thrown around towards game development we'd easily have amazing looking games, just look at how well crysis has aged despite being 10 years old now. The only reason it looks so good is because CryTek planned it from the beginning to sell game engine licenses.

Anachronox is a great game that looks like trash no matter what resolution you play in, but I'd probably prefer a pixel-perfect 1600x1200. I also use my 1440p 144hz panel by plugging it into my Dreamcast Via VGA connection. perfect 640x480 @60fps is glorious.


----------



## Cybertox

This video goes quite into depth about the technical aspects of Uncharted 4 for PS4.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cybertox*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This video goes quite into depth about the technical aspects of Uncharted 4 for PS4.


Seen it. Subbed to them, have been for years.
Its good...

For a toy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buris*
> 
> Unfortunately those games got paid for by sony. If PC gaming truly had the same type of cash being thrown around towards game development we'd easily have amazing looking games, just look at how well crysis has aged despite being 10 years old now. The only reason it looks so good is because CryTek planned it from the beginning to sell game engine licenses.
> 
> Anachronox is a great game that looks like trash no matter what resolution you play in, but I'd probably prefer a pixel-perfect 1600x1200. I also use my 1440p 144hz panel by plugging it into my Dreamcast Via VGA connection. perfect 640x480 @60fps is glorious.


The problem isnt money. Almost all PC versions of games outsell the PS4 versions (Note, both CONSOLES COMBINED sell more!) at least by a small amount. Also the most successful games like LoL, DOTA, CS GO, WOrld of Tanks are mainly on PC, games that have more people playing them at this moment than Uncharted 4 will have sales in total, probably.

Crysis 1 looks good, so does Clear Sky. So does DOOM 3 still. SO does Half Life 2... so does RTCW even. The devs were good at both art and technology.

I know Anachronox looks bad. It looked bad even when it came out. But as you said yourself - its a great game.
And it will look better at 1440P or 4K than at 640x480 lol.


----------



## Kevin Sia

Nothing new here. we know this for more than a decade. consoles are weak for a reason. nothing prevents sony from making very powerful console. but that's going to cost them a lot of money, and these consoles not going to be cheap for most gamers. so the only way for them is to make a console that acceptable from manufacturing cost, performance, and price tag. which means a console that lagging behind PC for a number of years.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And yet, at the end of the day, you are still talking about a single video card that costs as much or more than an entire PS4 Pro, never mind the cost of the rest of the PC. Obviously the 1070 is far, far more capable in games than the PS4 Pro or Xbox One X but nobody can build a console for the price people will pay for one that will rival the most powerful gaming PC's out there. Its just not possible (nor should it even be a goal of either MS or Sony at this point). The Pro and X both are targeting the AVERAGE PC that people game on these days and both perform competitively in that respect.


This is completely taken out of context. Let's rebuild the series of posts leading up to your reply.

*Original Post:*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> PC never gets any optimizaion updates, they always come from drivers. I been gaming on PC since 2007 and not once have i ever seen a game receive a optimization patch that takes it from unplayable to full 60 fps. Look at battlefield 1 *you need a gtx 1070 to get same graphics and framerate as the ps4 pro does*


*My response:*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Actually, no. A GTX 1070 is able to hit 60+ fps average @ 1440p, details on Ultra. That's probably 50% higher performance than what a PS4 Pro is able to produce. I say that because BF1 is not locked at 60+ FPS on PS4 or Xbox One.
> 
> Also, BF1 is set to medium/high details on consoles.


*This is the next response:*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> the article in the OP said the ps4 is as slow as a pc from 2012 but the GTX 680 is from 2012 and it was the most popular at the time. my point still stands. just because on the consoles are slower than most current high end gaming pc's does NOT mean a pc from 2012 will easily run the same games on console at the same settings and resolution.
> On PS4 Pro they claim it to be 4K 60 but its probably actually rendered around 1440P with checkerboard rendering to 4k and *it does have solid 60 FPS on the Pro.*


*My final response before you guys replied:*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> No, it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If framerates drop below 60 in single-player, it will be far worse in multiplayer.
> 
> I used to have a GTX 1070. It was very easy to run BF1 @ 1440p, ultra settings and get 60+ fps pretty much constantly.
> 
> I have the PS4 version of Battlefield 1. I know what I'm talking about.


That's where the GTX 1070 came from. No one here is going to debate about the value a PS4 Pro provides vs a gaming computer. Yes, a GTX 1070 is more powerful, but it also costs BY ITSELF roughly the same price as the PS4 Pro.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Seen it. Subbed to them, have been for years.
> Its good...
> 
> For a toy.
> The problem isnt money. *Almost all PC versions of games outsell the PS4 versions (Note, both CONSOLES COMBINED sell more!) at least by a small amount*. Also the most successful games like LoL, DOTA, CS GO, WOrld of Tanks are mainly on PC, games that have more people playing them at this moment than Uncharted 4 will have sales in total, probably.
> 
> Crysis 1 looks good, so does Clear Sky. So does DOOM 3 still. SO does Half Life 2... so does RTCW even. The devs were good at both art and technology.
> 
> I know Anachronox looks bad. It looked bad even when it came out. But as you said yourself - its a great game.
> And it will look better at 1440P or 4K than at 640x480 lol.


I don't think that is the case for most games on multiplatform.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> This is completely taken out of context. Let's rebuild the series of posts leading up to your reply.
> 
> *Original Post:*
> *My response:*
> *This is the next response:*
> *My final response before you guys replied:*
> That's where the GTX 1070 came from. No one here is going to debate about the value a PS4 Pro provides vs a gaming computer. Yes, a GTX 1070 is more powerful, but it also costs BY ITSELF roughly the same price as the PS4 Pro.


Try the 1060...




Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> I don't think that is the case for most games on multiplatform.


Well considering Platform licensing cost, how expensive it is to optimize for weak hardware...
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html

All a PC version needs to do is equal PS4 sales over time and it will make more money for the devs.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Well considering Platform licensing cost, how expensive it is to optimize for weak hardware...
> http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html
> 
> All a PC version needs to do is equal PS4 sales over time and it will make more money for the devs.


There is a good reason why publishers take priority on console releases despite platform licensing cost, because it sells lot more on console to justify the cost. It could be argued that PC version might catch up to console versions over period of time but that is usually due to heavy sales and barely makes very meaningful numbers for publishers.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> There is a good reason why publishers take priority on console releases despite platform licensing cost, because it sells lot more on console to justify the cost. It could be argued that PC version might catch up to console versions over period of time but that is usually due to heavy sales and barely makes very meaningful numbers for publishers.


Yeah. It is much easier to get a sale from a console gamer than a PC gamer.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Try the 1060...


Again, I said that a GTX 1070 was good for 1440P Ultra Settings @ 60+ FPS. The video you just showed is impressive, but it's a GTX 1060 that uses a mix of medium/high settings. This is very similar to that of the PS4 Pro's settings.

We're putting this one to rest. The GTX 1070 comparison was in response to someone else who was trying to say that a GTX 1070 was comparable to a PS4 Pro... it's not. A GTX 1060/RX 480 is far closer to the performance of a PS4 Pro. This has been proven multiple times, so it's time to move on.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Again, I said that a GTX 1070 was good for 1440P Ultra Settings @ 60+ FPS. The video you just showed is impressive, but it's a GTX 1060 that uses a mix of medium/high settings. This is very similar to that of the PS4 Pro's settings.
> 
> We're putting this one to rest. The GTX 1070 comparison was in response to someone else who was trying to say that a GTX 1070 was comparable to a PS4 Pro... it's not. A GTX 1060/RX 480 is far closer to the performance of a PS4 Pro. This has been proven multiple times, so it's time to move on.


A 1070 is not good for 1440p ultra @60fps


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> A 1070 is not good for 1440p ultra @60fps


You're right. It's not good... It's great. isn't it?


----------



## Boomer1990

Got Horizon: Zero Dawn last night for $40, so far the game looks amazing down-sampled on my monitor. I can't wait until I can try it on a 4k hdr monitor/tv instead of my cheap screen.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> You're right. It's not good... It's great. isn't it?


If all you play is battlefield then sure. 1070 is terrible at 1440p otherwise.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1070/6.html


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> If all you play is battlefield then sure. 1070 is terrible at 1440p otherwise.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1070/6.html


I see 4 games in there where the GTX 1070 fails to hit an average of 60 fps @ 1440p, one of which is Crysis 3, which is a graphics card destroyer. 4 games out of a list of 16 does not constitute a failing grade for the GTX 1070 @ 1440p.

Feel free to watch this video if you don't believe me.




You don't get to pick and choose in this case. 12 games out of 16 on that list show that a GTX 1070 works wonderfully @ 1440p - 60 fps.

Try again.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> This is completely taken out of context. Let's rebuild the series of posts leading up to your reply.
> 
> *Original Post:*
> *My response:*
> *This is the next response:*
> *My final response before you guys replied:*
> That's where the GTX 1070 came from. No one here is going to debate about the value a PS4 Pro provides vs a gaming computer. Yes, a GTX 1070 is more powerful, but it also costs BY ITSELF roughly the same price as the PS4 Pro.


Yeah, I was just responding to that one post, not the chain of posts that led to it. My apologies.









Consoles by their very nature are products designed to a specific (and very low) price point and shouldn't be expected to be able to perform the same as a PC that can cost literally ten times as much. That does not mean in any way that consoles are holding back gaming. They're all x86 now, what is stopping these developers from producing the best looking game possible for current high end PC hardware and then porting over to console at lowered enough settings to run on their older and less powerful hardware???


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I see 4 games in there where the GTX 1070 fails to hit an average of 60 fps @ 1440p, one of which is Crysis 3, which is a graphics card destroyer. 4 games out of a list of 16 does not constitute a failing grade for the GTX 1070 @ 1440p.
> 
> Feel free to watch this video if you don't believe me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to pick and choose in this case. 12 games out of 16 on that list show that a GTX 1070 works wonderfully @ 1440p - 60 fps.
> 
> Try again.


In the techpowerup review only battlefield managed 60fps and over.

I'm not sure who you are trying to fool here. 1070 is by means no way a 1440p card.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> In the techpowerup review only battlefield managed 60fps and over.
> 
> I'm not sure who you are trying to fool here. *1070 is by means no way a 1440p card*.


How is it not a 1440P card?

Ultra is rarely worth the performance penalty, few games actually optimize those settings, and in many cases you have to compare screenshots to show a meaningful difference. Ultra in many titles is also very rarely an improvement in textures, etc., maxing a game is usually just bucket loads of AA, and a few other settings involving shadows/others that no one can even notice..

So I agree, It isn't an *ultra* 1440p card @ 60+fps on _every game_, but in most titles setting them to ultra and turning down some of the more useless/ridiculous settings lets it handle them fine. Unless someone has a severe case of OCD then the 1070 is easily a 1440P card @ 60+fps..

The context of his posts was also vs the PS4 Pro, in that case a 1060 or 1070 doesn't need ultra @ 60fps, it just needs med-high @ 30fps with frame drops..


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> How is it not a 1440P card?
> 
> Ultra is rarely worth the performance penalty, few games actually optimize those settings, and in many cases you have to compare screenshots to show a meaningful difference. Ultra in many titles is also very rarely an improvement in textures, etc., maxing a game is usually just bucket loads of AA, and a few other settings involving shadows/others that no one can even notice..
> 
> So I agree, It isn't an *ultra* 1440p card @ 60+fps on _every game_, but in most titles setting them to ultra and turning down some of the more useless/ridiculous settings lets it handle them fine. Unless someone has a severe case of OCD then the 1070 is easily a 1440P card @ 60+fps..
> 
> The context of his posts was also vs the PS4 Pro, in that case a 1060 or 1070 doesn't need ultra @ 60fps, it just needs med-high @ 30fps with frame drops..


In case you havent been following th convo... We are talking about 1440p ultra @ 60fps.

If he said medium high settings I wouldn't be contesting it


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> In case you havent been following th convo... We are talking about 1440p ultra @ 60fps.
> 
> If he said medium high settings I wouldn't be contesting it


I have been following it..

From my point of view he clarified his stance multiple times.


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> The GTX 1070 comparison was in response to someone else who was trying to say that a GTX 1070 was comparable to a PS4 Pro... it's not. A GTX 1060/RX 480 is far closer to the performance of a PS4 Pro. This has been proven multiple times, so it's time to move on.






You worded your posts like this:



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> *If all you play is battlefield then sure.* 1070 is *terrible at 1440p otherwise*.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1070/6.html








Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> *In the techpowerup review only battlefield managed 60fps and over.*
> 
> I'm not sure who you are trying to fool here. 1070 is *by means no way* a *1440p card*.






That is false, the 1070 manages 1440P/[email protected] in more titles than it doesn't. You've worded your posts in a way that insinuates its terrible at 1440P besides Battlefield.. To me, if everything is on ultra except for 16xAA and other ridiculous settings, then I still consider it to be running ultra settings. In the *strictest* sense of Ultra - I already said I agree it can't do it in every title, and if your definition of terrible means it only has to fail to achieve it in a few games then so be it..


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Again, I said that a GTX 1070 was good for 1440P Ultra Settings @ 60+ FPS. The video you just showed is impressive, but it's a GTX 1060 that uses a mix of medium/high settings. This is very similar to that of the PS4 Pro's settings.
> 
> We're putting this one to rest. The GTX 1070 comparison was in response to someone else who was trying to say that a GTX 1070 was comparable to a PS4 Pro... it's not. A GTX 1060/RX 480 is far closer to the performance of a PS4 Pro. This has been proven multiple times, so it's time to move on.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> I have been following it..
> 
> From my point of view he clarified his stance multiple times.
> 
> You worded your posts like this:
> 
> 
> 
> That is false, the 1070 manages 1440P/[email protected] in more titles than it doesn't. You've worded your posts in a way that insinuates its terrible at 1440P besides Battlefield.. To me, if everything is on ultra except for 16xAA and other ridiculous settings, then I still consider it to be running ultra settings. In the *strictest* sense of Ultra - I already said I agree it can't do it in every title, and if your definition of terrible means it only has to fail to achieve it in a few games then so be it..


Thats what I replied to.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Thats what I replied to.


Yes, and? His clarification about the PS4 Pro is right there..

After spending years on forums, whenever people talk about how a game runs they will usually say "I run everything @ ultra except for x or y". He will have to clarify what he meant, but to me it seems reasonable to assume he didn't mean the strictest definition for Ultra, as no one really does when they talk about it. He said "*good* for 1440P Ultra Settings @ 60+ FPS", that implies he has his own definition of it.

Without being obtuse and focusing on semantics while ignoring the general point he was making, the 1070 is good for 1440P Ultra, unless it has to have 600xAA and uber shadows that no one can see.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> There is a good reason why publishers take priority on console releases despite platform licensing cost, because it sells lot more on console to justify the cost. It could be argued that PC version might catch up to console versions over period of time but that is usually due to heavy sales and barely makes very meaningful numbers for publishers.


Both conslows combined > PC. A conslow individually < PC
Its that simple.

Ultimately consoles are a force for evil in today's market though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> A 1070 is not good for 1440p ultra @60fps


It is very good.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Again, I said that a GTX 1070 was good for 1440P Ultra Settings @ 60+ FPS. The video you just showed is impressive, but it's a GTX 1060 that uses a mix of medium/high settings. This is very similar to that of the PS4 Pro's settings.
> 
> We're putting this one to rest. The GTX 1070 comparison was in response to someone else who was trying to say that a GTX 1070 was comparable to a PS4 Pro... it's not. A GTX 1060/RX 480 is far closer to the performance of a PS4 Pro. This has been proven multiple times, so it's time to move on.


Well the 1060 still does higher settings, higher FPS and overall smacks down the toybox but yeah, I agree. The 1070 is on another level compared to the consoles.

An RX470 generally wins vs PS4 Pro as well BTW.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Both conslows combined > PC. A conslow individually < PC
> Its that simple.


For vast majority of AAA titles, I am pretty sure even Xbone version outsells PC version considerably.







Some of the exceptions like Skyrim, Witcher 3, and Overwatch, they are PC titles at heart. But most of the other titles, PC sales accounts for less than 15%. You could argue that PC market has much higher revenue than console but they mostly come from F2P titles like LoL.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> For vast majority of AAA titles, I am pretty sure even Xbone version outsells PC version considerably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the exceptions like Skyrim, Witcher 3, and Overwatch, they are PC titles at heart. But most of the other titles, PC sales accounts for less than 15%. You could argue that PC market has much higher revenue than console but they mostly come from F2P titles like LoL.


*Looks at Steam DB*
*Where possible also takes into account possible GOG, Origin, Uplay sales, though lesser than Steam still matter*
*Few games are retail only or bought from their dev's site*

I mean, IDK but I doubt a single conslow version equals the PC version.

Apart from that... does PS Now concurrently have as many people total on it as League of Legend does ? That game has hit 8 million concurrent players (as in online at the same time). I know console movies combined cant equal that popularity, but perhaps the services can?


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> *Looks at Steam DB*
> *Where possible also takes into account possible GOG, Origin, Uplay sales, though lesser than Steam still matter*
> *Few games are retail only or bought from their dev's site*
> 
> I mean, IDK but I doubt a single conslow version equals the PC version.
> 
> Apart from that... does PS Now concurrently have as many people total on it as League of Legend does ? That game has hit 8 million concurrent players (as in online at the same time). I know console movies combined cant equal that popularity, but perhaps the services can?


Not sure about PS Now but PS Network does have 70m monthly active users as of Mar 2017, and Xbox Live about 52m. I have no idea about their cocurrent numbers.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> Not sure about PS Now but PS Network does have 70m monthly active users as of Mar 2017, and Xbox Live about 52m. I have no idea about their cocurrent numbers.


So probably similar... hmmm

Well good to know.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Thats what I replied to.


The 1070 reaches 60fps at 1440p in the vast majority of games. What are you on about?


----------



## alawadhi3000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> No, we've been through this. Sony and Microsoft had the choice to use the loss on console profit on software sales model and decided not to. Moreover, price/power are not what my original post was about. It would also be interesting to know how much it would have cost Sony, for instance, to use something like an 8320E for the PS4 Pro. 32nm production is probably pretty cheap right now.
> 
> Compatibility is a bogus thing to cite. There is nothing in Jaguar that Piledriver can't run. In fact, as far as I know, the FMA support in Piledriver is beyond what Jaguar can run. Since Piledriver is faster than the Jaguar all Sony would have had to do is throttle it for compatibility, just like it did with the higher-clocked Jaguar it decided to use.


95W is too much for the CPU only power for a console, since you are limited to 150W-200W for the whole console it was the wise decision to let the GPU eat the most of that budget.

PS4 still sold at a loss on launch.

Running PS4 games on a Jaguar doesn't necessarily means that it will run the same or better on a Piledriver, its not a PC, they have to optimize, which defeats the purpose of a no-hassle midlife refresh.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> For vast majority of AAA titles, I am pretty sure even Xbone version outsells PC version considerably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the exceptions like Skyrim, Witcher 3, and Overwatch, they are PC titles at heart. But most of the other titles, PC sales accounts for less than 15%. You could argue that PC market has much higher revenue than console but they mostly come from F2P titles like LoL.


Wow..


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> The 1070 reaches 60fps at 1440p in the vast majority of games. What are you on about?


He wants to somehow make the PS4 Pro better than a 1070.
Somehow. IDK how.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> He wants to somehow make the PS4 Pro better than a 1070.
> Somehow. IDK how.


PS4 Pro comes at $400 and it is a complete gaming (CPU/GPU/RAM/HDD,etc) system without a monitor.
GTX 1070 comes alone at $550+.
There is no comparison whoever was making that.

That thousands of games was by mistake, It should have been hundreds.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> PS4 Pro comes at $400 and it is a complete gaming (CPU/GPU/RAM/HDD,etc) system without a monitor.
> GTX 1070 comes alone at $550+.
> There is no comparison whoever was making that.
> 
> That thousands of games was by mistake, It should have been hundreds.


I know lol, a GTX 1070 is twice the speed of a PS4 Pro. And its more like 450, not 550. Even with miners.

It was some other guy on the forums, not you nor I, making that comparison.

Yeah I guess those consoles combined, for now still have a small number of exclusives which PC doesnt. Still, its a landslide for PC.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> PS4 Pro comes at $400 and it is a complete gaming (CPU/GPU/RAM/HDD,etc) system without a monitor.
> GTX 1070 comes alone at $550+.
> There is no comparison whoever was making that.
> 
> That thousands of games was by mistake, It should have been hundreds.


The 1070 is 399$. Don't let the cryptocurrency price hike fool you.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> The 1070 is 399$. Don't let the cryptocurrency price hike fool you.


Nothing has changed, The 1070 is still just a worthless device on its own, while PS4 Pro at same price is different story.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Nothing has changed, The 1070 is still just a worthless device on its own, while PS4 Pro at same price is different story.


One is a toy, the other is a very good GPU
*IF hard to find at its proper price


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> One is a toy, the other is a very good GPU
> *IF hard to find at its proper price


Imo, you implied it yourself.









Given a fixed amount say $400,
a Toy can be played with for as much time as you want. Toy comes cheaper and is ready to provide instant enjoyment.
A very good GPU is still 100% impractical to use just on its own.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Imo, you implied it yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Given a fixed amount say $400,
> a Toy can be played with for as much time as you want. Toy comes cheaper and is ready to provide instant enjoyment.
> A very good GPU is still 100% impractical to use just on its own.


If my amount of money is fixed, I will go for a cheap PC. G4560 and something low end and/or second hand. If its fixed and I have a choice to get a part for my PC or get a console, its the PC part. SOny has to pay me to use their console, else I wont touch it.

Toys dont damage art forms so yeah, the console isnt a toy. Its actually something bad whilst toys arent


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> The 1070 reaches 60fps at 1440p in the vast majority of games. What are you on about?


Again 1440p ultra @60 fps.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Again 1440p ultra @60 fps.


Consoles dont play Ultra.

Also Ultra is generally ... inefficient use of power. High settings is, in the vast majority of the time, what the developers were aiming to do.

And finally - The 1070 can do Ultra @ 60 fps @ 1440P in MANY games. In fact, when we look at all games that have ever released, only a percent of those will give the card pause. And some PCMR mods.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> If my amount of money is fixed, I will go for a cheap PC. G4560 and something low end and/or second hand. If its fixed and I have a choice to get a part for my PC or get a console, its the PC part. SOny has to pay me to use their console, else I wont touch it.


Agreed to some extent. Indeed a great PC enthusiast is unlikely to touch console, but many others will touch for obvious reasons.
Quote:


> Toys dont damage art forms so yeah, the console isnt a toy. Its actually something bad whilst toys arent


This may be true, but again there are many variable contribute to the object of a Toy. Imo, this is a talk of philosophy and the outcome always depends on different perceptions. No one can absolutely win in there.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Agreed to some extent. Indeed a great PC enthusiast is unlikely to touch console, but many others will touch for obvious reasons.
> This may be true, but again there are many variable contribute to the object of a Toy. Imo, this is a talk of philosophy and the outcome always depends on different perceptions. No one can absolutely win in there.


Well as a "poor" Bulgarian I am yet to see other "poor" people on consoles. Only know of one person (in real life) that has a PS4 and he uses it as a paper weight and to brag about how much money he has







.

None with an Xbox. I guess we poor, constantly looking for the most optimized experience peoples of Eastern Europe are by default PC Enthusiasts, as mathematics say we should be







!

The only way I see for one's philosophy to support consoles is... I guess not seeing gaming as an art form? Or believing strongly (for some insane reason) that the new is always better than the old? I can see the logic in the first even if I vehemently disagree but the second makes little sense.


----------



## e-gate

PS4 doesn't need to be super duper powerful to play good games. Like people already said games are more than just beautiful graphics. PS4 does the job just fine as a console. The PC will always be the premium platform but very few people can afford it so in the end it doesn't matter since Devs target the masses and not the elite few. PC unfortunately comes always second after consoles. It's not only that it's more expensive but because of the countless system configurations it's way easier to develop for console. The only thing that's annoying with current gen consoles is that they still can't deliver 1080p 60 FPS in all titles with gimmicks like "dynamic resolution". They still can't deliver what is a mainstream standard for PC for years now. Still they have way more exclusive games than PC which has very few exclusives and most of the rest are poor made console ports. PC great hardware consoles great games.


----------



## rcfc89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *e-gate*
> 
> PS4 doesn't need to be super duper powerful to play good games. Like people already said games are more than just beautiful graphics. PS4 does the job just fine as a console. The PC will always be the premium platform but very few people can afford it so in the end it doesn't matter since Devs target the masses and not the elite few. PC unfortunately comes always second after consoles. It's not only that it's more expensive but because of the countless system configurations it's way easier to develop for console. The only thing that's annoying with current gen consoles is that they still can't deliver 1080p 60 FPS in all titles with gimmicks like "dynamic resolution". They still can't deliver what is a mainstream standard for PC for years now. Still they have way more exclusive games than PC which has very few exclusives and most of the rest are poor made console ports. PC great hardware consoles great games.


PC had no real competition since they hit mainstream gaming about 10 years ago as far as graphics go. The PS4 is garbage but the Pro on the other hand is quite impressive as will be the Scorpio. With superior optimization over PC these newest console's have without a doubt shortened the gap. Enough to make me ditch PC anyways.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> PC had no real competition since they hit mainstream gaming about 10 years ago as far as graphics go. The PS4 is garbage but the Pro on the other hand is quite impressive as will be the Scorpio. With superior optimization over PC these newest console's have without a doubt shortened the gap. Enough to make me ditch PC anyways.


And you call yourself a PC Gamer?


----------



## rcfc89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> And you call yourself a PC Gamer?


I had a PC that was superior to 95% of the people on this forum so yes I would and my opinion on the matter having gamed on a high-end rig holds plenty of weight.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> I had a PC that was superior to 95% of the people on this forum so yes I would and my opinion on the matter having gamed on a high-end rig holds plenty of weight.


Having good hardware doesn't automatically make you a PC Gamer, and the way you talk suggests you're something far away from a true PC Gamer


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> Having good hardware doesn't automatically make you a PC Gamer, and the way you talk suggest you're something far away from a true PC Gamer


What's a true pc gamer?


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Well as a "poor" Bulgarian I am yet to see other "poor" people on consoles. Only know of one person (in real life) that has a PS4 and he uses it as a paper weight and to brag about how much money he has
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


A "poor" bulgarian is always likely to be richer than a "poor" Indian pos.








Yeah, so does happen in India if somebody has consoles.
Quote:


> None with an Xbox. I guess we poor, constantly looking for the most optimized experience peoples of Eastern Europe are by default PC Enthusiasts, as mathematics say we should be
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !


Can't say about other statements, but ^this is most _univarsally_ correct statement you have provided in here. No doubt on that.
Quote:


> The only way I see for one's philosophy to support consoles is... I guess not seeing gaming as an art form? Or believing strongly (for some insane reason) that the new is always better than the old? I can see the logic in the first even if I vehemently disagree but the second makes little sense.


I can again agree to some extent, but regardless you might not want to be the one who _vehemently disagree_ with yourself, since you were the one who visualized and called console as a toy first.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Again 1440p ultra @60 fps.


And it does reach 60fps at Ultra in most games. Games like AC Unity or the Division use exotic Gameworks features not present on consoles. Furthermore consoles seldom use something similar to the Ultra preset on PC. It doesn't reach 60fps in a handful of them at 1440p/Ultra but it does reach the target in the vast majority of them.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> And it does reach 60fps at Ultra in most games. Games like AC Unity or the Division use exotic Gameworks features not present on consoles. Furthermore consoles seldom use something similar to the Ultra preset on PC. It doesn't reach 60fps in a handful of them at 1440p/Ultra but it does reach the target in the vast majority of them.


Oh it does "reach 60fps" lol. That's not what's being argued.

Where did I mention anything about consoles?


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> What's a true pc gamer?


Someone that respects backwards compatibility, old games in general, emulation, modding and isnt a hardware elitist nor a proponent of ignorance. ALso loves gaming as an art form.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> A "poor" bulgarian is always likely to be richer than a "poor" Indian pos.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, so does happen in India if somebody has consoles.
> Can't say about other statements, but ^this is most _univarsally_ correct statement you have provided in here. No doubt on that.
> I can again agree to some extent, but regardless you might not want to be the one who _vehemently disagree_ with yourself, since you were the one who visualized and called console as a toy first.


Gaming = art form
Console = toys








To me the distinction is clear. Console GAMES, if emulatable are part of the art form too, if not - they must be defended from the console makers and eventually come on PC to stand the test of time.

All of my statements are at LEAST logically consistent. Most of them - true as well.







! Also thanks.

Yeah the "I hez money for PS4!" phenomenon aint unique to Eastern Europe.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Oh it does "reach 60fps" lol. That's not what's being argued.
> 
> Where did I mention anything about consoles?


Budgetgamer, if you twiddle enough with definitions even the 1080 Ti is not enough for 1080P gaming because it cant offer 60fps minimum on Metro Last Light with 4xSSAA and Ultra settings. Seriously man...


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Someone that respects backwards compatibility, old games in general, emulation, modding and isnt a hardware elitist nor a proponent of ignorance. ALso loves gaming as an art form.
> Gaming = art form
> Console = toys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To me the distinction is clear. Console GAMES, if emulatable are part of the art form too, if not - they must be defended from the console makers and eventually come on PC to stand the test of time.


Especially the part:

Gaming = art form
Consoles = toys


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> All of my statements are at LEAST logically consistent. Most of them - true as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !


Not denying that.
But so were mine.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Not denying that.
> But so were mine.


True.
Now join me as we make gaming batter*

*I cant promise we will win


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> True.
> Now join me as we make gaming batter*
> 
> *I cant promise we will win


I am already in, since I love gaming in PC too and this is after I have owned many of those 8-bit Nintendos, Sega Genesis upto PS1, but after becoming a PC enthusiast I know PC is better.








But it still took a long time for me to get the knowledge to efficiently build an affordable but univarsal PC which can (at least)play all those games which are available to it. Also It requires improvise > adapt > overcome approch to be able to finally built a nice gaming PC for a beginner _or_ unless the beginner is in contact with a PC oriented mentor to help build him/her a good PC, console turns out to be great for them.

PC is indeed great overall.

And that Console exclusive and PC exclusive titles is very subjective topic, and the topic is endless. Lets end it in here.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> I am already in, since I love gaming in PC too and this is after I have owned many of those 8-bit Nintendos, Sega Genesis upto PS1, but after becoming a PC enthusiast I know PC is better.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it still took a long time for me to get the knowledge to efficiently build an affordable but univarsal PC which can (at least)play all those games which are available to it. Also It requires improvise > adapt > overcome approch to be able to finally built a nice gaming PC for a beginner _or_ unless the beginner is in contact with a PC oriented mentor to help build him/her a good PC, console turns out to be great for them.
> 
> PC is indeed great overall.
> 
> And that Console exclusive and PC exclusive titles is very subjective topic, and the topic is endless. Lets end it in here.


There is a limit to gaming subjectivity







. That goes to all art forms. its STILL a subjective question, but it has many objective aspects and nuances.

I made my first PC (the old PC in my flare) in 2009 at 13 years of age







. I was proud as I had no idea what I was doing, just looked at the internet and manuals. Thankfully my English was already good enough to manage. These days I am making computers for my friends







!


----------



## Tempest2000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *e-gate*
> 
> The only thing that's annoying with current gen consoles is that they still can't deliver 1080p 60 FPS in all titles with gimmicks like "dynamic resolution". *They still can't deliver what is a mainstream standard for PC for years now.*


Actually, the consoles are way ahead of mainstream PC gaming based on statistical evidence.

First of all, according to Steam statistics, recently, the percentage of PC gamers at 1080P or above FINALLY eclipsed the percentage of PC gamers below 1080P. I can't remember if it was Jan/Feb of this year or Jan/Feb of last year, though. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with last year. That's about 1.5 years that PC has had 1080P+ as mainstream. A much shorter and later transition than the consoles.

...but even consoles have moved on. PS4 Pro has been out for a little while now and has native 4K games and 1440p-1800p native, upscaled to 4K, with the Scorpio incoming.

It sounds like mainstream PC has some catching up to do


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Actually, the consoles are way ahead of mainstream PC gaming based on statistical evidence.
> 
> First of all, according to Steam statistics, recently, the percentage of PC gamers at 1080P or above FINALLY eclipsed the percentage of PC gamers below 1080P. I can't remember if it was Jan/Feb of this year or Jan/Feb of last year, though. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with last year. That's about 1.5 years that PC has had 1080P+ as mainstream. A much shorter and later transition than the consoles.
> 
> ...but even consoles have moved on. PS4 Pro has been out for a little while now and has native 4K games and 1440p-1800p native, upscaled to 4K, with the Scorpio incoming.
> 
> It sounds like mainstream PC has some catching up to do


Sub-1080P resolutions can safely be attributed mostly (but not all) to notebooks and laptops.
Some people also keep their old PCs and hardware (like me) and may be counted with the obsolete hardware.

As for CPUs and GPUs... any AMD CPU above 6300 FX, and Intel CPU at or above G4560 is superior to the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X CPU. And any GPU above 7870 (AMD side) or GTX 760 (Nvidia side is superior to the base PS4, the RX 470 or above to the base PS4 Pro and an OCed RX 580 is a good bet against the Xbox One X.

Things like 1070s, i7s, Ryzen in general, Vega, Fury, 980 Ti... consoles cant even come close to those yet.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Actually, the consoles are way ahead of mainstream PC gaming based on statistical evidence.
> 
> First of all, according to Steam statistics, recently, the percentage of PC gamers at 1080P or above FINALLY eclipsed the percentage of PC gamers below 1080P. I can't remember if it was Jan/Feb of this year or Jan/Feb of last year, though. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with last year. That's about 1.5 years that PC has had 1080P+ as mainstream. A much shorter and later transition than the consoles.
> 
> ...but even consoles have moved on. PS4 Pro has been out for a little while now and has native 4K games and 1440p-1800p native, upscaled to 4K, with the Scorpio incoming.
> 
> It sounds like mainstream PC has some catching up to do


That's true, but if you want to use the over 125 Million active accounts on Steam alone (far higher than PSN + Xbox Live combined, and that was back in 2015) to fit your "consoles are way ahead" argument, then I'm sure you wouldn't be against using all those machines when comparing the revenue of console vs PC, would you?


----------



## Tempest2000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Sub-1080P resolutions can safely be attributed mostly (but not all) to notebooks and laptops.
> Some people also keep their old PCs and hardware (like me) and may be counted with the obsolete hardware.


Make whatever excuses you want. That's what mainstream PC gaming is








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Actually, the consoles are way ahead of mainstream PC gaming based on statistical evidence.
> 
> First of all, according to Steam statistics, recently, the percentage of PC gamers at 1080P or above FINALLY eclipsed the percentage of PC gamers below 1080P. I can't remember if it was Jan/Feb of this year or Jan/Feb of last year, though. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and go with last year. That's about 1.5 years that PC has had 1080P+ as mainstream. A much shorter and later transition than the consoles.
> 
> ...but even consoles have moved on. PS4 Pro has been out for a little while now and has native 4K games and 1440p-1800p native, upscaled to 4K, with the Scorpio incoming.
> 
> It sounds like mainstream PC has some catching up to do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true, but if you want to use the over 125 Million active accounts on Steam alone (far higher than PSN + Xbox Live combined, and that was back in 2015) to fit your "consoles are way ahead" argument, then I'm sure you wouldn't be against using all those machines when comparing the revenue of console vs PC, would you?
Click to expand...

LOL ok? I'm totally fine with that considering it has absolutely nothing to do with any points I've made, and does nothing to counter my point. I'm not the guy talking revenue.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Wow..


I would rather see proper argument if you think my statement is wrong. That is rather insulting.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Make whatever excuses you want. That's what mainstream PC gaming is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL ok? I'm totally fine with that considering it has absolutely nothing to do with any points I've made, and does nothing to counter my point. I'm not the guy talking revenue.


So I guess laptops and notebooks and people like me are just an excuse to you?

What else to expect from a Murican console gamer I guess


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> That's true, but if you want to use the over 125 Million active accounts on Steam alone (far higher than PSN + Xbox Live combined, and that was back in 2015) to fit your "consoles are way ahead" argument, then I'm sure you wouldn't be against using all those machines when comparing the revenue of console vs PC, would you?


And how many of them are bots?

Oh look, your using the same old info graphic but dont acknowledge that they are talking about DIGITAL DOWNLOADS and that it has nothing to do with physical sales numbers.

https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/the-global-games-market-will-reach-108-9-billion-in-2017-with-mobile-taking-42/


http://www.digi-capital.com/news/2015/05/games-leaders-to-dominate-45-billion-mobile-games-revenue-forecast-by-2018/


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> And how many of them are bots?
> 
> Oh look, your using the same old info graphic but dont acknowledge that they are talking about DIGITAL DOWNLOADS and that it has nothing to do with physical sales numbers.
> 
> https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/the-global-games-market-will-reach-108-9-billion-in-2017-with-mobile-taking-42/
> 
> 
> http://www.digi-capital.com/news/2015/05/games-leaders-to-dominate-45-billion-mobile-games-revenue-forecast-by-2018/


The irony is, I am still 100% certain that the combined gamers of Wargaming's titles (World of Tanks and WoWP), League of Legends, WoW and Steam's top 5 most played games are enough to match all of console gaming combined.

PC Gaming is massive. Yes, sure your cute console AAA movies have good marketing campaigns and can get between 5 and 10 million sales (and have lower long term sales) and get huge marketing campaigns, but it takes 2 or 3 DIFFERENT platforms COMBINED to fight off PC Gaming. And popularity-wise, PC Gaming is an Abrams , consoles are a T-72M1








https://www.jonpeddie.com/press-releases/details/pc-gaming-hardware-market-minting-billions


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> The irony is, I am still 100% certain that the combined gamers of Wargaming's titles (World of Tanks and WoWP), League of Legends, WoW and Steam's top 5 most played games are enough to match all of console gaming combined.
> 
> PC Gaming is massive. Yes, sure your cute console AAA movies have good marketing campaigns and can get between 5 and 10 million sales (and have lower long term sales) and get huge marketing campaigns, but it takes 2 or 3 DIFFERENT platforms COMBINED to fight off PC Gaming. And popularity-wise, PC Gaming is an Abrams , consoles are a T-72M1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.jonpeddie.com/press-releases/details/pc-gaming-hardware-market-minting-billions


Do you think that Sony and MS haven't made billions off of their consoles already? Thats nothing new for consoles.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Do you think that Sony and MS haven't made billions off of their consoles already? Thats nothing new for consoles.


I am sure they have. They are expert tier rip-off artists. I can only wish to be that good


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I am sure they have. They are expert tier rip-off artists. I can only wish to be that good


For providing an experience that people obviously want? Keep living in your bubble buddy.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> For providing an experience that people obviously want? Keep living in your bubble buddy.


Yeah that is exactly what i'd be telling them. That is step one though, two through eight are still unknown to me.


----------



## rcfc89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I am sure they have. They are expert tier rip-off artists. I can only wish to be that good


Actually those spending thousands of dollars on a PC to play games that were created and optimized for Console are the ones getting ripped off. I know because up until 2 month's ago I was one of them. But hey keep trying to convince yourself otherwise.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> Actually those spending thousands of dollars on a PC to play games that were created and optimized for Console are the ones getting ripped off. I know because up until 2 month's ago I was one of them. But hey keep trying to convince yourself otherwise.


Sorry mate, I have done the math as I am a "poor" Bulgarian. PC Gaming is cheaper.

And I dont even need to upgrade often, my previous PC with the ATI 5770 lasted me till 2015. 6 years and I upgraded because I could, it still can play games









So you are wrong on both counts, demonstrably so. Making excuses for being weak-willed and spending money where it wont give you happiness is not PC Gaming's fault. Its a possible choice, not a necessity.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Yeah that is exactly what i'd be telling them. That is step one though, two through eight are still unknown to me.


You should learn to practice what you preach.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Someone that respects backwards compatibility, old games in general, emulation, modding and isnt a hardware elitist *nor a proponent of ignorance*. ALso loves gaming as an art form.


If you cannot find the value in someone wanting a console for whatever reason you are just as ignorant as any other elitist.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I am sure they have. They are expert tier rip-off artists. I can only wish to be that good


Do you mean like Intel or nVidia? LOL at thinking PC gaming is not full of milking companies. Keep being oblivious as always.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> You should learn to practice what you preach.
> If you cannot find the value in someone wanting a console for whatever reason you are just as ignorant as any other elitist.


Or maybe there is no value, just misinformation and nostalgia? There are no objective reasons for people to continue console gaming these days

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Do you mean like Intel or nVidia? LOL at thinking PC gaming is not full of milking companies. Keep being oblivious as always.


AMD and Nvidia dont harm the art form. Even Intel doesnt.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Or maybe there is no value, just misinformation and nostalgia? There are no objective reasons for people to continue console gaming these days


Just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Like I said, your just as ignorant as the people you claim to not be.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> Actually those spending thousands of dollars on a PC to play games that were created and optimized for Console are the ones getting ripped off. I know because up until 2 month's ago I was one of them. But hey keep trying to convince yourself otherwise.


Now you're enlightened, do you feel enlightened ?


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Or maybe there is no value, just misinformation and nostalgia? There are no objective reasons for people to continue console gaming these days
> AMD and Nvidia dont harm the art form. Even Intel doesnt.


But they still are expert tier rip-off artists,more ever than Sony.

Also everytime you write about "the art form",lol just lol. It's just games,and only a bunch of games can be claimed to be art,the rest are not even close.

The Witcher 3,wouldn't have been possible without consoles. I wonder how many publishers wouldn't exist if it wasn't for consoles. After all,not everyone can afford a gaming PC or has the knowledge to build one,on top of that there's piracy.

So much for damaging the "art form".

A PS4 where i live costs 200-230 euros new. Even less used. Sorry you get screwed in your country,but what a surprise that most places where people don't get screwed,consoles are a success.

No wonder when you can't even purchase a CPU with that kind of money.


----------



## iTurn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Or maybe there is no value, just misinformation and nostalgia? There are no objective reasons for people to continue console gaming these days
> *AMD and Nvidia dont harm the art form. Even Intel doesnt.*


Whhhaaa??? wait wait wait put aside the console hate for a few... Nvidia gameworks and Intel's under the table deals sure as heck put a hurting to the art form.

Back to the console hate... People have listed lots of objective reasons, either your blind or you're ignorant to the definition of objective.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> But they still are expert tier rip-off artists,more ever than Sony.
> 
> Also everytime you write about "the art form",lol just lol. It's just games,and only a bunch of games can be claimed to be art,the rest are not even close.
> 
> The Witcher 3,wouldn't have been possible without consoles. I wonder how many publishers wouldn't exist if it wasn't for consoles. After all,not everyone can afford a gaming PC or has the knowledge to build one,on top of that there's piracy.
> 
> So much for damaging the "art form".


I agree on the fact that it's only a bunch of games that can be called art, but to be more precise, i'd say that from about 2007 to now, there's pretty much nothing that can be called that, and it's actually a weird coincidence that it's around when PS3 was released, won't you say?


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Just because you refuse to see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Like I said, your just as ignorant as the people you claim to not be.


Then what is the point? An objective one, not nostalgia and not something negative like hostage "games" that will be denied the attempt of immortality an art form deserves because a company wanted to have them exclusive.

The only one I guess is a slightly (as in under 50 dollars) lesser first time payment to get into them and the easier ability to resell games. But even then they are more expensive long term.

There is literally nothing in a console. If the PS4 were like 20 dollars and its games were half the price of PC ones, it might have a place but otherwise... its useless. Objectively useless.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> But they still are expert tier rip-off artists,more ever than Sony.
> 
> Also everytime you write about "the art form",lol just lol. It's just games,and only a bunch of games can be claimed to be art,the rest are not even close.
> 
> The Witcher 3,wouldn't have been possible without consoles. I wonder how many publishers wouldn't exist if it wasn't for consoles. After all,not everyone can afford a gaming PC or has the knowledge to build one,on top of that there's piracy.
> 
> So much for damaging the "art form".


All video games are an art form due to the simple fact that all of literature is one. There is very simple reasoning behind that, can you guess it?

How are they rip off artists worse than Sony? Are they stopping modding? Damaging cross-play like Sony ?
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-06-13-sony-defends-decision-to-block-cross-play-with-xbox-one-and-nintendo-switch

Bullying developers like Nintendo? Hell even the price/perf on a G4560 and a second hand 970/RX 570 (if you can find one, I admit mining is a current problem) makes a mockery of the PS4 Pro.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iTurn*
> 
> Whhhaaa??? wait wait wait put aside the console hate for a few... Nvidia gameworks and Intel's under the table deals sure as heck put a hurting to the art form.
> 
> Back to the console hate... People have listed lots of objective reasons, either your blind or you're ignorant to the definition of objective.


Intel is damaging technological progress. Nvidia's gameworks is a real issue but a small one compared to *making games mortal.*

Their objective reasons are usually disproved or a product of ignorance or Console propaganda and marketing.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> If the console is not in production, it is dead. At that point, emulating its games is part of art conservation and not piracy. Rare games should not be rare. its an art form, it must be on GOG at least.


The US Supreme Court ruled that Congress can take things in the public domain and put them back under copyright. In that kind of elitist environment don't expect much concern over what's best for the public domain.

Sonny Bono's ridiculously long copyright length wasn't good enough, apparently. Infinite copyright is the desire of the elites. IP serfdom is what I call it.


----------



## budgetgamer120

"The art form"


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> There is literally nothing in a console. If the PS4 were like 20 dollars and its games were half the price of PC ones, it might have a place but otherwise... its useless. Objectively useless.
> All video games are an art form due to the simple fact that all of literature is one. There is very simple reasoning behind that, can you guess it?
> 
> How are they rip off artists worse than Sony? Are they stopping modding? Damaging cross-play like Sony ?
> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-06-13-sony-defends-decision-to-block-cross-play-with-xbox-one-and-nintendo-switch
> 
> Bullying developers like Nintendo? Hell even the price/perf on a G4560 and a second hand 970/RX 570 (if you can find one, I admit mining is a current problem) makes a mockery of the PS4 Pro.


Lol yeah whatsoever. Im sure DOOM,or GTA where you basically shoot crap without a reason,is art.









You forgot that Steam now supports paid mods? You forgot the disgusting gambling-like game Steam has put out? (CS GO and their loot boxes)

LOL crossplay. Like any of that matters. And please,"bullying". Are you actually serious?

A PC with a a RX 570 or second hand 970 is still going to be more than 230 euros. Plus a second hand console is 150-180 euros. Keep trying.

You don't even make any sense. The hardware of the PS4 alone costs more than the 20 bucks you have cited. If you are not in a position to argue something without objective facts,then don't even bother.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> "The art form"


Laugh all you like but in IP law, things are referred to as art. You've never heard of "prior art"?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Lol yeah whatsoever. Im sure DOOM,or GTA where you basically shoot crap without a reason,is art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot that Steam now supports paid mods? You forgot the disgusting gambling-like game Steam has put out? (CS GO and their loot boxes)
> 
> LOL crossplay. Like any of that matters. And please,"bullying". Are you actually serious?


PC gaming has become a big money grab. That is why PC is now my secondary gaming platform.

Xbox One S then WiiU then PC.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Laugh all you like but in IP law, things are referred to as art. You've never heard of "prior art"?


Ive never heard one game being art form while the other is not.

Follow the arguments and contexts please


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Then what is the point? An objective one, not nostalgia and not something negative like hostage "games" that will be denied the attempt of immortality an art form deserves because a company wanted to have them exclusive.
> 
> The only one I guess is a slightly (as in under 50 dollars) lesser first time payment to get into them and the easier ability to resell games. But even then they are more expensive long term.
> 
> There is literally nothing in a console. If the PS4 were like 20 dollars and its games were half the price of PC ones, it might have a place but otherwise... its useless. Objectively useless.


Again you are refusing to see the value they have, just because they are useless to you does not mean they are useless to the millions of people that buy them. This is just your own ignorance getting in the way.

Guess what? Not everyone wants to build a pc. Some people like to buy physical only. Some people are ok with spending money for convenience (put in a disc and play). Some people do it for the social aspect because thats what all their friends play on. There are many reasons why one would want a console, just because you refuse to see them doesn't mean they don't exist.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Follow the arguments and contexts please


Make statements that are accurate. The statement I responded to mocked the concept of video games being considered an art form. If that wasn't your intention then write what you're trying to say.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Make statements that are accurate. The statement I responded to mocked the concept of video games being considered an art form. If that wasn't your intention then write what you're trying to say.


No it didn't.. You assumed that


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Lol yeah whatsoever. Im sure DOOM,or GTA where you basically shoot crap without a reason,is art.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You forgot that Steam now supports paid mods? You forgot the disgusting gambling-like game Steam has put out? (CS GO and their loot boxes)
> 
> LOL crossplay. Like any of that matters. And please,"bullying". Are you actually serious?


It is. I know you are laughing but GTA IV and V actually deal with some complex themes and ideas despite their insane gameplay. DOOM itself is a product of the 90s, its art direction and gameplay purity and manifestation of rage and energy, whilst primitive are an example of human art.

I mean IDK what schools you guys went to, but it seems the literary education at least wasnt that good.

Paid mods? Supports? Now? Globally? For all mods? Where?
So something a few games have on Steam, mostly organized by gamers is bad?

Cross-play matters... is this bait?
And yes, Nintendo has bullied developers in the past:

https://www.gamestm.co.uk/uncategorised/nintendont-the-darker-side-of-nintendos-history/
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> "The art form"


Yes. An art form. A pathetic one compared to literature, but so is cinema








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> The US Supreme Court ruled that Congress can take things in the public domain and put them back under copyright. In that kind of elitist environment don't expect much concern over what's best for the public domain.
> 
> Sonny Bono's ridiculously long copyright length wasn't good enough, apparently. Infinite copyright is the desire of the elites. IP serfdom is what I call it.


Just when my day was otherwise good...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Again you are refusing to see the value they have, just because they are useless to you does not mean they are useless to the millions of people that buy them. This is just your own ignorance getting in the way.
> 
> Guess what? Not everyone wants to build a pc. Some people like to buy physical only. Some people are ok with spending money for convenience (put in a disc and play). Some people do it for the social aspect because thats what all their friends play on. There are many reasons why one would want a console, just because you refuse to see them doesn't mean they don't exist.


They are useless to poor people. Useless to retro gamers. Useless to conservationists. Useless to modders. Useless to Hardware Enthusiasts. Useless to Strategy fans. Useless to high end gamers.

Who are they for?

Lol as if building a PC is a hard thing. And even if it was (it wasnt, if I can do it at 13 years of age, alone, without a clear gasp of the English language...) people have friends, stores can build PCs and surprisingly - pre-builts arent even that bad these days.

http://www.pcgamer.com/get-a-complete-cyberpower-gaming-pc-with-an-amd-radeon-rx-580-for-650/


----------



## iTurn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Then what is the point? An objective one, not nostalgia and not something negative like hostage "games" that will be denied the attempt of immortality an art form deserves because a company wanted to have them exclusive.
> 
> The only one I guess is a slightly (as in under 50 dollars) lesser first time payment to get into them and the easier ability to resell games. But even then they are more expensive long term.
> 
> There is literally nothing in a console. If the PS4 were like 20 dollars and its games were half the price of PC ones, it might have a place but otherwise... its useless. Objectively useless. *Again I question if you know the definition of objective, the consoles funded R&D for AMD, they also provided the most powerful APUs to date, that's something that can be carried over to PC gaming.*
> All video games are an art form due to the simple fact that all of literature is one. There is very simple reasoning behind that, can you guess it?
> 
> How are they rip off artists worse than Sony? Are they stopping modding? Damaging cross-play like Sony ?
> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2017-06-13-sony-defends-decision-to-block-cross-play-with-xbox-one-and-nintendo-switch
> *If I was Sony I'd do the same too, do some research Sony was the first to go for the cross platform play MS and Nintendo refused, so this says to me that there's something we the consumers aren't seeing that's the hitching point (you have to log in with LIVE so Sony could fear that they'll boost MS' MAU... for reference SF5 was to be cross platform, MS turned it down same with FFXIV.*
> Bullying developers like Nintendo? Hell even the price/perf on a G4560 and a second hand 970/RX 570 (if you can find one, I admit mining is a current problem) makes a mockery of the PS4 Pro.
> Intel is damaging technological progress. Nvidia's gameworks is a real issue but a small one compared to *making games mortal.*
> *
> Ok you admit they're harming the art form... I just wanted to make sure you're not blind with hate.*
> 
> Their objective reasons are usually disproved or a product of ignorance or Console propaganda and marketing.


_ob·jec·tive
əbˈjektiv/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts._

The console marketplace Fund games that would not be financially feasible otherwise; Witcher 3, Diablo 3s mass content, Street Fighter 5, Nex Machina...

That's one objective way that consoles benefit gaming.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> No it didn't.. You assumed that


Keep stonewalling. Your post is there for everyone to see. It says what it says, not what you claim it says.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> It is. I know you are laughing but GTA IV and V actually deal with some complex themes and ideas despite their insane gameplay. DOOM itself is a product of the 90s, its art direction and gameplay purity and manifestation of rage and energy, whilst primitive are an example of human art.
> 
> I mean IDK what schools you guys went to, but it seems the literary education at least wasnt that good.
> 
> Paid mods? Supports? Now? Globally? For all mods? Where?
> So something a few games have on Steam, mostly organized by gamers is bad?
> 
> Cross-play matters... is this bait?
> And yes, Nintendo has bullied developers in the past:
> 
> https://www.gamestm.co.uk/uncategorised/nintendont-the-darker-side-of-nintendos-history/
> They are useless to poor people. Useless to retro gamers. Useless to conservationists. Useless to modders. Useless to Hardware Enthusiasts. Useless to Strategy fans. Useless to high end gamers.
> 
> Who are they for?
> 
> Lol as if building a PC is a hard thing. And even if it was (it wasnt, if I can do it at 13 years of age, alone, without a clear gasp of the English language...) people have friends, stores can build PCs and surprisingly - pre-builts arent even that bad these days.
> /


I could argue that you are unhinged because you seem to think only your opinion matters,and worse of all that your opinion is fact.

Keep trying to downplay it. It's still a cash grab attempt. Not to mention on how you don't even own a single game you play in Steam,they are all licenses. Meanwhile you can sell and buy physical console games.

All PC games from 2009 to now i'd say have been following the license model. And you have the courage to talk about collectors.

You are trying way too hard to appear as some gaming guru or something.

Cross play does not matter at all,consoles have enough players on their own. I wonder if you could still find people playing Call Of Duty 4. Meanwhile it is a fact you would find them if you were to play it on a Xbox 360.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Keep stonewalling. Your post is there for everyone to see. It says what it says, not what you claim it says.


I made the post, then told you what I meant and you are still here arguing about it?


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iTurn*
> 
> _ob·jec·tive
> əbˈjektiv/Submit
> adjective
> 1.
> (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts._
> 
> The console marketplace Fund games that would not be financially feasible otherwise; Witcher 3, Diablo 3s mass content, Street Fighter 5, Nex Machina...
> 
> That's one objective way that consoles benefit gaming.


Witcher 3 is still worse than the books. All that money still wasnt enough
















consoles had a reason to exist till the end of the 90s. Till then they had a good, positive effect on gaming. If they had gotten phased out, even Witcher 3 would exist with its content... except better looking, less buggy and its audience would be the same as gamers would just switch to PC.

Also, the only reason Witcher 3 exists is due to Witcher 2's success which mostly sold on PC. The Witcher 2 exists because of Witcher 1 - a PC Exclusive. Witcher 1 exists because of Sapkowski, the author for the Witcher books and the game was bought by people like me - book fans at the start. That is object
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> I could argue that you are unhinged because you seem to think only your opinion matters,and worse of all that your opinion is fact.
> 
> Keep trying to downplay it. It's still a cash grab attempt. Not to mention on how you don't even own a single game you play in Steam,they are all licenses. Meanwhile you can sell and buy physical console games.
> 
> All PC games from 2009 to now i'd say have been following the license model. And you have the courage to talk about collectors.
> 
> You are trying way too hard to appear as some gaming guru or something.


I only have physical games. You dont own your console games, you cant even modify them.

I am a gaming guru *sigh*

@ Budgetgamer
Visit more literature classes. That will help you mate.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> I could argue that you are unhinged because you seem to think only your opinion matters,and worse of all that your opinion is fact.
> 
> Keep trying to downplay it. It's still a cash grab attempt. Not to mention on how you don't even own a single game you play in Steam,they are all licenses. Meanwhile you can sell and buy physical console games.
> 
> All PC games from 2009 to now i'd say have been following the license model. And you have the courage to talk about collectors.
> 
> You are trying way too hard to appear as some gaming guru or something.
> 
> Cross play does not matter at all,consoles have enough players on their own. I wonder if you could still find people playing Call Of Duty 4. Meanwhile it is a fact you would find them if you were to play it on a Xbox 360.


You have been covering all my reason.









Another reason I am leaving PC gaming behind is the digital distibution. I still have my PC game discs from back in the day. Along with tons of Xbox 360 and Xbox discs I can pop in anytime.

Consoles are annoying the the 20GB update needed when I want to play though.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I made the post, then told you what I meant and you are still here arguing about it?


We had this problem earlier in this thread. You posted something that implied something, more than it implied anything else. But, the post was vague. So, when I responded on the basis of the strongest implication you claimed the post was about something else.

This recent problem is worse yet. There is no wiggle room in the post to have an alternate interpretation. There is only one interpretation - the one I responded to.

You need to post what you are thinking instead of posting vague things and then expecting people to break out the crystal ball to read your mind.

This latest problem is caused by your post only appearing to mock the concept of video games as art. That is the only interpretation for the post. Your claimed meaning is not supported by what the post actually says.

This is the last time I'm going to tell you that you need to write posts that say what you claim they're saying, instead of sitting back and waiting for people to respond so that you can claim they don't know what they're talking about. It's a cheap trick.

If you don't know how to write what you're thinking then take a writing class. I can't program. My math skills are weak. But, there is one thing I'm extremely adept at. That is comprehending the English language. My GRE score in verbal logic left the Ivy League's in the dust. What was yours?


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Also, the only reason Witcher 3 exists is due to Witcher 2's success which mostly sold on PC. The Witcher 2 exists because of Witcher 1 - a PC Exclusive. Witcher 1 exists because of Sapkowski, the author for the Witcher books and the game was bought by people like me - book fans at the start. That is object
> I only have physical games. You dont own your console games, you cant even modify them.
> 
> I am a gaming guru *sigh*
> 
> @ Budgetgamer
> Visit more literature classes. That will help you mate.


The Witcher 3 exists because of consoles,and it is a fact. Not because of TW2.

http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Witcher-3-Wouldn-t-Exist-Consoles-72064.html

No,you are not. If you would be a gaming guru,you'd recognize that it's about the games,not the platform. What you are though is a PC elitist.

I do own my games. They are physical,they exist in real life unlike a license wich is all software based.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> They are useless to poor people. Useless to retro gamers. Useless to conservationists. Useless to modders. Useless to Hardware Enthusiasts. Useless to Strategy fans. Useless to high end gamers.
> 
> Who are they for?
> 
> Lol as if building a PC is a hard thing. And even if it was (it wasnt, if I can do it at 13 years of age, alone, without a clear gasp of the English language...) people have friends, stores can build PCs and surprisingly - pre-builts arent even that bad these days.
> 
> http://www.pcgamer.com/get-a-complete-cyberpower-gaming-pc-with-an-amd-radeon-rx-580-for-650/


You got ignorance in spades brother.

If you left your house and experienced the world outside of your little bubble you would realize that 90% of the general population is not technically inclined and people pay for convenience.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> We had this problem earlier in this thread. You posted something that implied something, more than it implied anything else. But, the post was vague. So, when I responded on the basis of the strongest implication you claimed the post was about something else.


The post right above the one I made, made fun of the art form argument. That should have been a clue.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> The post right above the one I made, made fun of the art form argument. That should have been a clue.


Tell that to your comp teacher when you get a C on your paper because you don't understand how to write what you intend to write and expect people to read your mind by following the trail of breadcrumbs you think makes your false statements correct.

One more stupid stonewalling post from you on this subject and I'm putting you on ignore.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> You have been covering all my reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another reason I am leaving PC gaming behind is the digital distibution. I still have my PC game discs from back in the day. Along with tons of Xbox 360 and Xbox discs I can pop in anytime.
> 
> Consoles are annoying the the 20GB update needed when I want to play though.


You literally own nothing in this day and age. Hell the fact that on PC no one can STOP me from owning my games and GOG existing are both good enough reasons. Add in modding and its obvious who has more overall control.

Hell part of my hope lies on courts (mostly EU ones as US ones are corporate) defending us gamers when the judgement case comes.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> We had this problem earlier in this thread. You posted something that implied something, more than it implied anything else. But, the post was vague. So, when I responded on the basis of the strongest implication you claimed the post was about something else.
> 
> This recent problem is worse yet. There is no wiggle room in the post to have an alternate interpretation. There is only one interpretation - the one I responded to.
> 
> You need to post what you are thinking instead of posting vague things and then expecting people to break out the crystal ball to read your mind.
> 
> This latest problem is caused by your post only appearing to mock the concept of video games as art. That is the only interpretation for the post. Your claimed meaning is not supported by what the post actually says.
> 
> This is the last time I'm going to tell you that you need to write posts that say what you claim they're saying, instead of sitting back and waiting for people to respond so that you can claim they don't know what they're talking about. It's a cheap trick.
> 
> If you don't know how to write what you're thinking then take a writing class. I can't program. My math skills are weak. But, there is one thing I'm extremely adept at. That is comprehending the English language. My GRE score in verbal logic left the Ivy League's in the dust. What was yours?


This is part of why literature has to be absolutely mandatory like math and history in schools. So people dont do such stuff...

He clearly was laughing at the notion of gaming as an art form, when confronted he can neither defend his position nor at least explain what the actual position was. UGh...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> The Witcher 3 exists because of consoles,and it is a fact. Not because of TW2.
> 
> http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Witcher-3-Wouldn-t-Exist-Consoles-72064.html
> 
> No,you are not. If you would be a gaming guru,you'd recognize that it's about the games,not the platform. What you are though is a PC elitist.
> 
> I do own my games. They are physical,they exist in real life unlike a license wich is all software based.


Let me guess. We have WW2 but no WW1, right?

It is about the games. I have stated that ten times already. Ultimately if console gamers want to waste their money and get dominated by evil companies, its THEIR choice to be stupid. But leave my games away from it!

So do mine. They exist physically. Next?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> You got ignorance in spades brother.
> 
> If you left your house and experienced the world outside of your little bubble you would realize that 90% of the general population is not technically inclined and people pay for convenience.


Actually they are poor enough to do the math and learn things if need be to get a better deal. Hence why MOST people here are PC Gamers.

I will admit, I am biased as I go to a Technical university, and my work also has me surrouned by tech-savvy people, but even then - I am yet to even SEE a console gamer. This is a phenomenon in richer, lazier lands.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Tell that to your comp teacher when you get a C on your paper because you don't understand how to write what you intend to write and expect people to read your mind by following the trail of breadcrumbs you think makes your false statements correct.
> 
> One more stupid stonewalling post from you on this subject and I'm putting you on ignore.


I graduated from university twice with honors.

Thanks









Anything else?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

@Charcharo

Like you said before, most PC gamers play games like LoL, Dota 2, CS:GO etc which make up 95% of PC gamers out there. So much for having graphics, processing power and features as the main priority of gaming. PC gamers that play AAA games are low in number. That is why Consoles exists.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Let me guess. We have WW2 but no WW1, right?
> 
> It is about the games. I have stated that ten times already. Ultimately if console gamers want to waste their money and get dominated by evil companies, its THEIR choice to be stupid. But leave my games away from it!
> 
> So do mine. They exist physically. Next?


Are you even serious? Have you read what i posted? It's straight from the dev's mouth and you are questioning it.

Yeah,just because it exists for you,it does not mean it's like that for everyone. As i said,most games from 2009 to now are nothing but licenses.

I can't believe you are really this egocentric. No one cares about your choices. We are talking about the big picture here.

You live in one hell of a fantasy world,pal.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> @Charcharo
> 
> Like you said before, most PC gamers play games like LoL, Dota 2, CS:GO etc which make up 95% of PC gamers out there. So much for having graphics, processing power and features as the main priority of gaming. PC gamers that play AAA games are low in number. That is why Consoles exists.


Considering AAA games come out on PC, this seems like a deficiency of AAA games









BTW the argument for people not needing a great PC is one I make all the time. I mean even a 5870 and/or GTX 480 Flamethrower are still good enough.

Here is my 5770 Playing Metro at high... at 900P, true but still



Here is an excellent video showing how the 5870 and GTX do in newer games:


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Are you even serious? Have you read what i posted? It's straight from the dev's mouth and you are questioning it.
> 
> Yeah,just because it exists for you,it does not mean it's like that for everyone. As i said,most games from 2009 to now are nothing but licenses.
> 
> I can't believe you are really this egocentric. No one cares about your choices. We are talking about the big picture here.
> 
> You live in one hell of a fantasy world,pal.


Considering what stuff they have said about the books I do question them in general...

But are you telling me Witcher 3 would exist without Witcher 2? Without Witcher 1? Without the books on which the entire series is based upon?

I mean there is a point where logic automatically wins against statements. You cant have a WW2 without WW1 after all









You talk of the big picture yet concentrate on small personal or illogical ways to make consoles appealing whilst MOCKING gaming's status as an art form and long term viability. Which is the LONG term picture.
Choose a single stance please.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> BTW the argument for people not needing a great PC is one I make all the time. I mean even a 5870 and/or GTX 480 Flamethrower are still good enough.


https://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page2.html

And that's a three years old game today. The GTX 660 is as fast as a GTX 580. Keep spreading FUD and enjoy your minesweeper on that GTX 480 LOL.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Anything else?


Yes, it proves that you're trying to trick people for sport or that you went to a very easy university, in terms of writing standards.

Also, welcome to my ignore list.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> https://www.techspot.com/review/1006-the-witcher-3-benchmarks/page2.html
> 
> And that's a three years old game today. The GTX 660 is as fast as a GTX 580. Keep spreading FUD and enjoy your minesweeper on that GTX 480 LOL.


I played Witcher 3 for the first time on my ATI 5770.
30 Fps locked (same as the PS4







) at low settings, 1650x1080. It was decent. Playable, stable. Some stutter when I moved between some areas of the map but it was always for a second.

My Fury does very well on Witcher 3 at 1440P now though. better than any Xbox One X or PS4 Pro ever will.


----------



## iTurn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> You literally own nothing in this day and age. Hell the fact that on PC no one can STOP me from owning my games and GOG existing are both good enough reasons. Add in modding and its obvious who has more overall control.
> 
> Hell part of my hope lies on courts (mostly EU ones as US ones are corporate) defending us gamers when the judgement case comes.
> This is part of why literature has to be absolutely mandatory like math and history in schools. So people dont do such stuff...
> 
> He clearly was laughing at the notion of gaming as an art form, when confronted he can neither defend his position nor at least explain what the actual position was. UGh...
> Let me guess. We have WW2 but no WW1, right?
> 
> It is about the games. I have stated that ten times already. Ultimately if console gamers want to waste their money and get dominated by evil companies, its THEIR choice to be stupid. But leave my games away from it!
> 
> So do mine. They exist physically. Next?
> Actually they are poor enough to do the math and learn things if need be to get a better deal. Hence why MOST people here are PC Gamers.
> 
> I will admit, I am biased as I go to a Technical university, and my work also has me surrouned by tech-savvy people, but even then - I am yet to even SEE a console gamer. This is a phenomenon in richer, lazier lands.


It's a PC forum of course most people here PC gamers... go to a console centred place and most people there will be console games...

Dang... according to you I'm dumb, rich, and lazy.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Actually they are poor enough to do the math and learn things if need be to get a better deal. Hence why MOST people here are PC Gamers.
> 
> I will admit, I am biased as I go to a Technical university, and my work also has me surrouned by tech-savvy people, but even then - I am yet to even SEE a console gamer. This is a phenomenon in richer, lazier lands.


Poor is generally synonymous with uneducated, when you have one, you have the other. I doubt that you live in a magical land of all pc gamers. I know that during both of my tours in Iraq I seen far more consoles then gaming pc's. Houses were loaded with ps1's and I am sure they are far poorer than where you are from.

Thats great that you are going to a technical university but once you have left there I hope you work supporting end users directly. Your view on the world and the knowledge of regular people will change drastically. Also just because you dont know a console gamer doesnt mean there are not people who play them.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Lol, Newzoo.. Any other no-name "forecasts" you want to dig up?
> 
> Carry on gents - "PC sells no gamez."


Yeah I didnt expect you to actually come up with a real rebuttal. Might as well of just posted "herp derp". Still didnt even acknowledge the fact that your info graphic was only talking about digital content sales and nothing regarding physical sales.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Considering what stuff they have said about the books I do question them in general...
> 
> But are you telling me Witcher 3 would exist without Witcher 2? Without Witcher 1? Without the books on which the entire series is based upon?
> 
> I mean there is a point where logic automatically wins against statements. You cant have a WW2 without WW1 after all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You talk of the big picture yet concentrate on small personal or illogical ways to make consoles appealing whilst MOCKING gaming's status as an art form and long term viability. Which is the LONG term picture.
> Choose a single stance please.


What the hell does war have to do with games? Are trolling at this point or what?

The witcher 3 would not exist without consoles as said by the game delevopers. Case closed,no amount of mental gymnastics is going to change that.

Consoles are appealing because of their price points and ease of use,and that's why they are succesfull.

I said the big picture,not long term. Your opinion is meaningless,because you are only one person.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iTurn*
> 
> It's a PC forum of course most people here PC gamers... go to a console centred place and most people there will be console games...
> 
> Dang... according to you I'm dumb, rich, and lazy.


I thought you meant people outside, IRL...

I dont visit console forums as I can neither help the people there nor talk about games with them. They wouldnt know enough (likely) or would not have the same passion I have. Also whilst I appreciate cinema, it isnt my forte so I dont think I can add much to discussing console exclusives.


----------



## iTurn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I played Witcher 3 for the first time on my ATI 5770.
> 30 Fps locked (same as the PS4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) at low settings, 1650x1080. It was decent. Playable, stable. Some stutter when I moved between some areas of the map but it was always for a second.
> 
> My Fury does very well on Witcher 3 at 1440P now though. better than any Xbox One X or PS4 Pro ever will.


I'm going to upgrade my PC and then tag you in the build thread, telling you to stop holding PC gaming back with your slow system...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I thought you meant people outside, IRL...
> 
> I dont visit console forums as I can neither help the people there nor talk about games with them. They wouldnt know enough (likely) or would not have the same passion I have. Also whilst I appreciate cinema, it isnt my forte so I dont think I can add much to discussing console exclusives.


Neogaf is console centered... guarantee most of the people there know more about computers than you, from a gaming and development level.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> What the hell does war have to do with games? Are trolling at this point or what?
> 
> The witcher would not exist without consoles as said by the game delevopers. Case closed,no amount of mental gymnastics is going to change that.


There is a popular meme about people who think WW2 happened but WW1 did not
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefield-1-ea-was-concerned-kids-didnt-know-ww1/1100-6440385/
This is the joke here.

You are doing that too. Witcher *3* can exist without Witcher 1 and 2 and without the books? How? Does CDPR rule over Math?

No amount of mental gymnasitcs overrules logic. Even if Sony's president comes and tells me 2+2 = 5, that doesnt make it correct. It means he is stupid or trolling or there is some interesting missing context.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iTurn*
> 
> I'm going to upgrade my PC and then tag you in the build thread, telling you to stop holding PC gaming back with your slow system...
> Neogaf is console centered... guarantee most of the people there know more about computers than you, from a gaming and development level.


From the little exposure I have had of that site, It didnt seem to be console centered.

its possible they might know from a gaming development point of view. But them being on consoles means they have lost the other arguments before they even started...


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Self proclaimed qualities on an internet forum. May aswell claim you're a billionaire and the most intelligent human being. Just lol.


Notice how for most things I claim there is a link or proof or at least a good, internally consistent logical thread that leads to that conclusion. There is emotion about gaming involved, but it isnt part of the thought process.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> In the techpowerup review only battlefield managed 60fps and over.
> 
> I'm not sure who you are trying to fool here. 1070 is by means no way a 1440p card.


Are you looking at the 4K tests accidentally? Because that review you linked shows it hitting 60 FPS in most cases.

It does so in Witcher 3, Just Cause 3, Fallout 4, Rainbow Six Siege, GTAV, Far Cry Primal, Arkham Knight and every Battlefield game.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> There is a popular meme about people who think WW2 happened but WW1 did not
> https://www.gamespot.com/articles/battlefield-1-ea-was-concerned-kids-didnt-know-ww1/1100-6440385/
> This is the joke here.
> 
> You are doing that too. Witcher *3* can exist without Witcher 1 and 2 and without the books.
> 
> No amount of mental gymnasitcs overrules logic.


You know someone is wrong when they start arguing semantics.

"_If the consoles are not involved there is no Witcher 3 as it is_"

There you go. Witcher 3 wouldn't exist as it is,it would not be The Witcher 3,it would be something else. So no it would not exist.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> You know someone is wrong when they start arguing semantics.
> 
> "_If the consoles are not involved there is no Witcher 3 as it is_"
> 
> There you go. Witcher 3 wouldn't exist as it is,it would not be The Witcher 3,it would be something else. So no it would not exist.


*Sigh*

So let me get this straight. Consoles existing = Witcher 3, but without consoles Witcher 3 would not exist? OK... yet then you say Witcher 2 and 1 are lesser factors to Witcher 3 existing?

No. That is a lie and it makes no sense.

If consoles didnt exist, CDPR's Witcher 3 you so much love, dear gamer, would be the same or better. As the amount of money they could make would be the same as the gamers would be about the same on number - just on PC.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> *Sigh*
> 
> So let me get this straight. Consoles existing = Witcher 3, but without consoles Witcher 3 would not exist? OK... yet then you say Witcher 2 and 1 are lesser factors to Witcher 3 existing?
> 
> No. That is a lie and it makes no sense.
> 
> If consoles didnt exist, CDPR's Witcher 3 you so much love, dear gamer, would be the same or better. *As the amount of money they could make would be the same as the gamers would be about the same on number - just on PC*.


_"We just cannot afford it, because consoles allow us to go higher in terms of the possible or achievable sales; have a higher budget for the game"_

What makes you think what you actually said is true?

Just go on,keep talking out of thin air.

It would not exist because it is not possible to have what makes the Witcher 3 without the income of consoles.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> "We just cannot afford it, because consoles allow us to go higher in terms of the possible or achievable sales; have a higher budget for the game"
> 
> What makes you think what you actually said is true?
> 
> Just go on,keep talking out of thin air.
> 
> It would not exist because it is not possible to have what makes the Witcher 3 without the income of consoles.


Because people that are gamers and proud of that wont stop gaming because someone wisely stopped making their toy box. They'd move to PC and become PC Gamers.

"We cannot count to 3 so we created a new method of counting. 3 is the first number. 1 and 2 do not exit and are Eastern European PCMR propaganda. Oh wait we are Polish..."


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> "We just cannot afford it, because consoles allow us to go higher in terms of the possible or achievable sales; have a higher budget for the game"
> 
> What makes you think what you actually said is true?
> 
> Just go on,keep talking out of thin air.
> 
> It would not exist because it is not possible to have what makes the Witcher 3 without the income of consoles.


There is no point arguing with him. He cant tell the difference between the fact that we all know PC Gaming is the higher end experience but most big budged games are played by Console gamers.

95% of PC gamers play F2P + Hats
4% Wait for a good sale
1% Buy games Day 1 + Pre-Order.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> There is no point arguing with him. He cant tell the difference between the fact that we all know PC Gaming is the higher end experience but most big budged games are played by Console gamers.
> 
> 95% of PC gamers play F2P + Hats
> 4% Wait for a good sale
> 1% Buy games Day 1 + Pre-Order.


Link to proof of that please. With statistics.

Because SteamDB and the few official Origin and GOG figures we have do not line up with this...


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Because people that are gamers and proud of that wont stop gaming because someone wisely stopped making their toy box. They'd move to PC and become PC Gamers.
> 
> "We cannot count to 3 so we created a new method of counting. 3 is the first number. 1 and 2 do not exit and are Eastern European PCMR propaganda. Oh wait we are Polish..."


Just becase you say so?

You should really be a clairvoyant. Those prediction skills,lol.

Let say i claim there wouldn't be because PC gaming sucks and is the root of all evil. How do you counter argue to my statement,since all it takes for you is to claim stuff without proof?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> *Because people that are gamers and proud of that wont stop gaming because someone wisely stopped making their toy box. They'd move to PC and become PC Gamers.*
> 
> "We cannot count to 3 so we created a new method of counting. 3 is the first number. 1 and 2 do not exit and are Eastern European PCMR propaganda. Oh wait we are Polish..."











You are killing me man. Not sure if you are serious


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Just becase you say so?
> 
> You should really be a vident. Those prediction skills,lol.


Because logic dictates so.

Imagine you and I meet and we make a bet. I tell you that if I drop a ball on the ground, it would fall. Would you call me an oracle then?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are killing me man. Not sure if you are serious


I hope you arent serious, I really do. But something tells me that you are


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Because logic dictates so.
> 
> Imagine you and I meet and we make a bet. I tell you that if I drop a ball on the ground, it would fall. Would you call me an oracle then?


No,because that is called gravity. A proven and researched phenomenon. Also that is your logic,produced in your brain,that is flawed.

What you are talking about,is not.

It's honestly embarassing at this point,you should really stop.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> No,because that is called gravity. A proven and researched phenomenon.
> 
> What you are talking about,is not.
> 
> It's honestly embarassing at this point,you should really stop.


Good. Gamers exist and are easy to predict as well. All people with hobbies they love are like that.

It was embarrassing to see your earlier statements on art in general. What I am doing is at worst - arrogance


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Good. Gamers exist and are easy to predict as well. All people with hobbies they love are like that.
> 
> It was embarrassing to see your earlier statements on art in general. What I am doing is at worst - arrogance


So basically you are always right. Talk about at worst,we are on another whole level here buddy.









Logic is only valid when it's based on an agreed and verifiable principle,not on whatever people arbitrarily decide.


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> "We cannot count to 3 so we created a new method of counting. 3 is the first number. 1 and 2 do not exit and are Eastern European PCMR propaganda. Oh wait we are Polish..."


You're not understanding what he or CDPR is saying. You've got this pet idea based on something you heard about high school students, but it has no relevance as far as I can tell.

He's not saying there wouldn't be a game called Witcher 3 without consoles, but that the game would not be as expansive and high budget if it didn't attempt to appeal to that market. I.E., the addressable market on PC alone would not produce an ROI proportionate to the cost of the game as it exists right now, which is almost definitely true. Additionally, the game's massive success, much of that coming from console sales, allowed CDPR to add new content and produce great expansions.

If they targeted PC only, similar to Witcher 2, we'd still have a Witcher 3, but it would be a different game, basically.

Personally, I don't think anyone knows for sure if that's true, but it seems likely to me.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> So basically you are always right. Talk about at worst,we are on another whole level here buddy.


I aint always right. I am always right against such heavy opposition







though . Otherwise I am often wrong.

But with consoles, I am right. They are useless and the very few logical arguments presented here were... well correct but incredibly short sighted and/or niche or anti-art.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pyrotagonist*
> 
> You're not understanding what he or CDPR is saying. You've got this pet idea based on something you heard about high school students, but it has no relevance as far as I can tell.
> 
> He's not saying there wouldn't be a game called Witcher 3 without consoles, but that the game would not be as expansive and high budget if it didn't attempt to appeal to that market. I.E., the addressable market on PC alone would not produce an ROI proportionate to the cost of the game as it exists right now, which is almost definitely true. Additionally, the game's massive success, much of that coming from console sales, allowed CDPR to add new content and produce great expansions.
> 
> If they targeted PC only, similar to Witcher 2, we'd still have a Witcher 3, but it would be a different game, basically.


I know what he meant to explain lol, but he made such a poor job of it that the other conclusion was equally valid. Hence why literature should be taught at schools else people would take advantage of you









I already addressed that. If consoles died off a few years ago, the addressable PC Market would be bigger. So that argument would still hold no weight.

And in retrospect, seeing how weak Act 3 is in the Witcher 3, a lesser budget would have cut side content and made the focus there greater... so I'd approve technically on game design principles for a more budget constrained Witcher 3.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Yeah I didnt expect you to actually come up with a real rebuttal. Might as well of just posted "herp derp". Still didnt even acknowledge the fact that your info graphic was only talking about digital content sales and nothing regarding physical sales.


Rebuttal to what? I didn't even know you were arguing anything, I just thought you were being sarcastic. My mistake.

My reply to him was highlighting that those low-end machines generate a huge amount of revenue vs *all consoles* *combined*, so not sure what you disagree with?

There's an undertone in here that there's only a tiny minority of gaming PC's that are more powerful than consoles, that's false. The majority of the machines on Steam drive the F2P market, those people don't buy premium titles. Using an average of Steams massive user-base is disingenuous.

Premium titles and hardware has been growing massively.



http://www.pcgamer.com/pc-gaming-market-worth-36-billion-in-2016/
Quote:


> *Premium game* revenues on the PC hit $5.4 billion for the year, not too far off of the $6.6 billion earned across consoles.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I aint always right. I am always right against such heavy opposition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> though . Otherwise I am often wrong.
> 
> But with consoles, I am right. They are useless and the very few logical arguments presented here were... well correct but incredibly short sighted and/or niche or anti-art.
> I know what he meant to explain lol, but he made such a poor job of it that the other conclusion was equally valid. Hence why literature should be taught at schools else people would take advantage of you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already addressed that. If consoles died off a few years ago, the addressable PC Market would be bigger. So that argument would still hold no weight.
> 
> And in retrospect, seeing how weak Act 3 is in the Witcher 3, a lesser budget would have cut side content and made the focus there greater... so I'd approve technically on game design principles for a more budget constrained Witcher 3.


Nah,what you like to do is bend the arguments until it looks like you are right,then people just get bored of basically talking with a wall that does not reason.

Please answer this,what makes you think your opinion is a fact? If i think consoles are useful,based on what reasoning you are right,and im wrong,on such a subjective topic? All consoles have to do is play games,and they do it pretty well. They are not supposed to save lifes or any other particular complex task.

There wouldn't even be an act 2 without the income from consoles,do you get that,do you?

PC's are not consoles,they are not made to play games. You do have the possibility if you purchase a graphics card,but what makes you think people would purchase them? Who says that a new competitor would not be born if consoles did not exist?

How can you claim facts on a hypothetical situation?


----------



## Corsa911

It's the entitlement that the immature covet as if it were a badge of honor.

To feel as if one is above another simply based on the amount of money spent to enjoy their hobby.

For are we not brothers? Do we not consume and enjoy the same form of entertainment? Can we not put down our spears and open our eyes to entertain that the media creates this divide amongst us, for the simple reason that we as humans crave adversity.

For this I ask but one request, that we join forces and point our spears at those who seek to divide us. That we stand for what we believe and invite those with common instrest into our dwellings.

I challenge you all to think for yourself, stand for us all, and welcome one another as brothers.

Amen


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> You were using that pic to argue console vs pc sales yet not even mentioning that it doesn't include physical content sales which is misleading.
> As for online numbers PSN and Xbox Live have a total of 158 million, with 118 listed as active monthly as far as current numbers go (70psn 48xbox) so they are not that far off.
> 
> From your article
> Hardware is booming yes, but I wouldn't call that massive growth for premium titles. F2P is where its at on pc unfortunately.


Yeah F2P. I must admit that as a PC gamer I expect only the very best games before I pay full price. With FP2 you dont make the initial investment so you are always safe until you fall for hats.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Yeah F2P. I must admit that as a PC gamer I expect only the very best games before I pay full price. With FP2 you dont make the initial investment so you are always safe until you fall for hats.


I agree, when buying through steam I wait for a sale. $60 for nothing tangible it too much for me. Physical games though? Nope. With GCU I get 20% off all games, new and old and it stacks with other coupons/discounts AND I get rewards points from Best Buy that I can apply to other purchases.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> *Sigh* like all of your kind you will never admit to just being wrong for once. Too proud.
> 
> Tell me then. What is *YOUR* reason for being a console gamer and why is it a good enough reason to damage my art form long term?
> 
> As for why I can claim knowledge - because people that have passion act in such a way. I would do that. If I were for some god forsaken reason a console gamer and my consoles died off, I'd go to PC. That is what I would do. I expect others who are gamers to do the same as its logical if they have the required passion.
> 
> Playing games well. 20 fps low settings without mods and no backwards compatibility and limited cross-play. That isnt playing well.
> 
> Yes. PCs are work machines that also play games better than consoles ever will. They are not a toy, they are a requirement for most people further augmenting their value.
> 
> Still tell me YOUR personal reasons.
> 
> .


Lol i am the one who can't admit that is wrong,after you have tried to dispute a claim made directly by a dev and keep going on pretending he is right when all he has done is throw personal opinions around like they are fact.

You can keep throwing around the "damaging muh art" mantra all you want,won't make it true.

Second,im not a console gamer,i play the games i like,and some of them happen to be an another platform.

Your reasoning is yours,and in no way represents everyone.

Besides the fact that it is not true that games run at 20 fps,and most games don't even have a mod community,it is what you get for 200 bucks. You can't even build a PC that can play games with that money.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Lol i am the one who can't admit that is wrong,after you have tried to dispute a claim made directly by a dev and keep going on pretending he is right when all he has done is throw personal opinions around like they are fact.
> 
> You can keep throwing around the "damaging muh art" mantra all you want,won't make it true.
> 
> Second,im not a console gamer,i play the games i like,and some of them happen to be an another platform.
> 
> Your reasoning is yours,and in no way represents everyone.
> 
> Besides the fact that it is not true that games run at 20 fps,and most games don't even have a mod community,it is what you get for 200 bucks. You can't even build a PC that can play games with that money.


Developers aint sacred mate. Especially Witcher 3's Devs









Damaging muh art is correct. Deal with it and try to minimize your negative impact on gaming if you insist on being on consoles please.

Lol my ATI 5770 can still play games lol.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Developers aint sacred mate. Especially Witcher 3's Devs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaging muh art is correct. Deal with it and try to minimize your negative impact on gaming if you insist on being on consoles please.
> 
> Lol my ATI 5770 can still play games lol.


I don't get it. If consoles allow devs to have additional money to build new games on all platforms (PC included), why is that a bad thing?

Also, consider that the newest crop of consoles are x86 based. (except for the Switch) It should be fairly easy to optimize a game for PC once it has been developed on a console.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I don't get it. If consoles allow devs to have additional money to build new games on all platforms (PC included), why is that a bad thing?
> 
> Also, consider that the newest crop of consoles are x86 based. (except for the Switch) It should be fairly easy to optimize a game for PC once it has been developed on a console.


Because if the consoles didnt exist, all of those gamers would be on PC - hence the aditional money argument becomes moot.

It isnt about optimization. It is about the game being on the console and dying later on. Good luck emulating X86-64. Our grandchildren will look at us and ask themselves " Was their nostalgia really worth it? "

Add to that how Strategy games were harmed, how modding has been harmed, oversimplification of some game's design... it adds up.

To me consoles aint a money issues even though they are more expensive than PCs. They are a moral problem these days.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I don't get it. If consoles allow devs to have additional money to build new games on all platforms (PC included), why is that a bad thing?
> 
> Also, consider that the newest crop of consoles are x86 based. (except for the Switch) It should be fairly easy to optimize a game for PC once it has been developed on a console.


These lazy devs will ensure pc ports arent optimized.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> *Because if the consoles didnt exist, all of those gamers would be on PC* - hence the aditional money argument becomes moot.
> 
> It isnt about optimization. It is about the game being on the console and dying later on. Good luck emulating X86-64. *Our grandchildren will look at us and ask themselves " Was their nostalgia really worth it? "*
> 
> Add to that how Strategy games were harmed, how modding has been harmed, oversimplification of some game's design... it adds up.
> 
> To me consoles aint a money issues even though they are more expensive than PCs. They are a moral problem these days.


The bolded parts are opinions and speculation. If consoles didn't exist, we would probably still be traveling to arcades, depositing coins into machines in order to get our gaming fix. If the transistor was never invented, we would still be ruled by vacuum tubes (a la the Fallout universe). If my cat was the size of a lion, I would probably be dead by now...

Also, how do you figure that consoles are more expensive than PCs? That doesn't even remotely make sense... and you're giving PC gamers the moral high ground in the gaming universe? I apologize for my lack of vision, but I just don't see where morals mix with gaming, except for perhaps a role playing game (looking at you again, Fallout universe...)


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> They are a moral problem these days.


Are you serious?


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Developers aint sacred mate. Especially Witcher 3's Devs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaging muh art is correct. Deal with it and try to minimize your negative impact on gaming if you insist on being on consoles please.
> 
> Lol my ATI 5770 can still play games lol.


It's their game,they certainly know better than you.

And no,it's not. Show me the actual proof,then it may be.

The PS4 has a GPU that is in between a HD 7870 and a 7850. It is way better than a 5770,so not sure what you are trying to say.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Add to that how Strategy games were harmed, how modding has been harmed, oversimplification of some game's design... it adds up.
> 
> To me consoles aint a money issues even though they are more expensive than PCs. They are a moral problem these days


Lol,you blame consoles for that? The market is driven by the demand. If that happened,it was because people did not care about those things.

Steam has just damaged the modding community more than the consoles have ever done,by accepting paid mods. Also what do consoles have to do with modding,when it's mostly a PC thing?

Also keep spreading FUD. Consoles cost 250 dollars/euros MAX.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> The bolded parts are opinions and speculation. If consoles didn't exist, we would probably still be traveling to arcades, depositing coins into machines in order to get our gaming fix. If the transistor was never invented, we would still be ruled by vacuum tubes (a la the Fallout universe). If my cat was the size of a lion, I would probably be dead by now...
> 
> Also, how do you figure that consoles are more expensive than PCs? That doesn't even remotely make sense... and you're giving PC gamers the moral high ground in the gaming universe? I apologize for my lack of vision, but I just don't see where morals mix with gaming, except for perhaps a role playing game (looking at you again, Fallout universe...)


Read up.

I already said consoles had a reason to exist till the end of the 90s. The entire first point you bring up is now irrelevant.

*Sigh* Eastern Europe is poor, uses PCs over consoles. Piracy on consoles isnt enough to make them viable, people here DO buy their games. All points covered. If people who have 400 euro per month before taxes (and 350 after them) choose weak, cheap PCs over consoles in general, then its cheaper. Yes, we do know cheap better.

PC Gamers are largely ignorant too as can be seen from this discussion.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Are you serious?


Yes.
Repeating 20 pages for everyone individually is hard even for me.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> It's their game,they certainly know better than you.
> 
> And no,it's not. Show me the actual proof,then it may be.
> 
> The PS4 has a GPU that is in between a HD 7870 and a 7850. It is way better than a 5770,so not sure what you are trying to say.
> Lol,you blame consoles for that? The market is driven by the demand. If that happened,it was because people did not care about those things.
> 
> Steam has just damaged the modding community more than the consoles have ever done,by accepting paid mods. Also what do consoels have to do with modding,when it's mostly a PC thing?
> 
> Also keep spreading FUD. Consoles cost 250 dollars/euros MAX.


I am saying my old ATI 5770 can still play new games. Since you guys dont care about graphics, assaulting the ATi isnt logical as a stance.

Consoles cost more. It isnt about up front price. The world is more complex and surprisingly us poor savages from the east can do long term thinking and mathematics no worse than you guys. It is cheaper long term, or even mid term.

Steam hasnt damaged modding. COnsoles have. And console gamers with their mentality.

All points the Witcher 3 developer had were already covered. If its about "Was Witcher 3 gonna exist?" the answer is yes. If only PC gaming exist it would have been the same game in terms of content. PC exclusives can be impressive in content and visuals - STALKER still has better AI than any console game ever made (and all other PC games of comparable genre) and is big in size and scope.

Also call me when CDRP learns to write









Also explain this. Strategy is at its height during the golden age of PC gaming - come the console users again and then they are niche. Its consoles mostly. Yes, CYCLES exist in ART FORMS and that can explain a PART of their downfall, but not all of it.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Read up.
> 
> I already said consoles had a reason to exist till the end of the 90s. The entire first point you bring up is now irrelevant.


Console gaming market got much bigger during 2000s and that is when we started seeing really high budget games with production values rivaling some of the expensive blockbuster movies, all because sizeable market is there. I really don't think we would have got that if console gaming did not exist.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Read up.
> 
> *I already said consoles had a reason to exist till the end of the 90s.* The entire first point you bring up is now irrelevant.
> 
> *Sigh* Eastern Europe is poor, uses PCs over consoles. Piracy on consoles isnt enough to make them viable, people here DO buy their games. All points covered. If people who have 400 euro per month before taxes (and 350 after them) choose weak, cheap PCs over consoles in general, then its cheaper. Yes, we do know cheap better.
> 
> PC Gamers are largely ignorant too as can be seen from this discussion.


The modern console revolution didn't really start until the beginning of the 2000's with the introduction of the Playstation 2, Gamecube, and OG Xbox (RIP Dreamcast). That's when you started to see truly groundbreaking 3D visuals in games. Before that, everything was pretty blocky and pixelated. It was also around this time that you began to see video cards in mainstream computers. Before that, they were just nice to have and not a requirement for 3D gaming.

Also, you really need to stop speculating on things and start providing hard facts to back up your point. If anything, consoles in the early 2000's helped to kick start our current PC gaming market that we know today. Before the 2000's, it was an incredibly niche market.

Being poor or rich has nothing to do with ANY of this; there are people in the United States on welfare and food stamps that have smartphones. It's all about what people do with their money, and clearly, consoles are the bigger market... not because they are less expensive. Rather, they are a plug and play solution that you can literally set and forget. PCs require a lot of maintenance and care in order to keep them running in tip top shape. Also I cannot believe that you are trying to reason that PCs are cheaper than consoles. They just aren't. A brand new $400 PC cannot keep up with a $400 PS4 Pro in terms of gaming prowess. You have to sink way more into a brand new PC in order to get good performance.

And no, PC gamers are NOT ignorant. If anything, we know the market better than just straight console gamers because most times, PC gamers will also own a console (like the PS4 sitting next to my keyboard as I type this response).


----------



## Pyrotagonist

Are console style games inherently inferior or less of an art form than strategy games, et. al.?

Because while some genres and styles have been "hurt", others are being explored very thoroughly.


----------



## oxidized

Console are a cancer and everyone saying differently just doesn't know what's he talking about or doesn't realize it (or doesn't want to), period.


----------



## Boomer1990

Some of you guys are funny, the arrogance, the elitism is just face palm worthy. I am a gamer and I will buy whatever piece of hardware needed to play the game I want, because at the end of the day it is just about gaming. I can't understand the mindset of someone who is so locked into their views that they will refuse to play games because it happens to be on a console(not having enough money to buy multiple different systems is not what I am arguing, if you can't afford a bunch then of course you go for what will suit you best).

For me I have my Ps4 Pro to play the current games that are out and have over $1500 saved for a new pc build for when Star Citizen comes out(was planning on getting Zen/Vega, but SC keeps getting pushed back so it will probably be a Zen+/Navi build). After my pc build I will pick up a wii-u and a switch to play the Super Smash games and the Zelda games. I just can't see how people think they are special because they play on a certain system over what another person plays on.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I am saying my old ATI 5770 can still play new games. Since you guys dont care about graphics, assaulting the ATi isnt logical as a stance.
> 
> Consoles cost more *in my country*
> 
> Steam hasnt damaged modding. COnsoles have. And console gamers with their mentality.
> .


It's still a non-sequitur.

Also fixed that for you. And yes,Steam has damaged the modding community more than ever,they have facilitated paid mods. Enjoy your paid mods now.

Keep attributing imaginary faults to consoles,modding is strictly a PC thing,consoles don't have anything to do with it,so why are you even trying to claim consoles have damaged modding? Yet again you don't make any sense.

Yeah,surely it's only console gamers fault that RTS games are not popular anymore.









Not even gonna bother anymore with The Witcher 3 argument,you are just trying to split hairs to avoid accepting you are wrong.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

I want to say is Consoles need to exist but Console exclusives need to die. I am fine with timed exclusives.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I want to say is Consoles need to exist but Console exclusives need to die. I am fine with timed exclusives.


I am honestly really interested if this is working out for MS and the lack of xbox exclusives.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> I am honestly really interested if this is working out for MS and the lack of xbox exclusives.


They are still "MS Exclusive". Also it does not really matter with games that are out right now. The true test will be Halo 6. We will finally have the Halo game we always wanted in PC.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> "The art form"


I know right! This guy keeps banging that stupid drum as though all the guys rushing out to buy the latest COD are looking for "art"! Gaming CAN be an art form but that is not its only purpose. At its root, gaming is ENTERTAINMENT. Just like cinema, there are releases that definitely do rise to the connotation of an "art form", but at the end of the day, the purpose of these mediums is entertainment.


----------



## Buris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> If all you play is battlefield then sure. 1070 is terrible at 1440p otherwise.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/NVIDIA/GeForce_GTX_1070/6.html


I feel bad for you. You do realize the console versions typically have reduced texture quality, no or little AA and low AF....

The PS4 Pro when properly coded for can look amazing but a 1070 properly coded for can absolutely destroy it. The Xbox One X might actually be on par with a 1070,

Also the PS4 Pro is at a significantly reduced clock compared to a 480 and because of this operates more like a 470. Many tricks are used to eek out extra performance from the PS4 pro like checkerboard rendering, but in pure compute it's no competition to even the 1060 or 480.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buris*
> 
> I feel bad for you. You do realize the console versions typically have reduced texture quality, no or little AA and low AF....
> 
> The PS4 Pro when properly coded for can look amazing but a 1070 properly coded for can absolutely destroy it. The Xbox One X might actually be on par with a 1070,
> 
> Also the PS4 Pro is at a significantly reduced clock compared to a 480 and because of this operates more like a 470. Many tricks are used to eek out extra performance from the PS4 pro like checkerboard rendering, but in pure compute it's no competition to even the 1060 or 480.


All that and it cheaper than a 1070... No problem









Also I did not mention anything about consoles. But since you brought it up.


----------



## Buris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> All that and it cheaper than a 1070... No problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also I did not mention anything about consoles. But since you brought it up.


The main topic is how the PS4 is holding back consoles, and in it's own right, that's definitely true.

Consoles are awesome if all you want to do is game! I own a PS4 pro, It looks great on my 4K TV, but there are some inherent flaws, primarily- the CPU limits framerate and makes developing on the system much, much harder. Most games don't use the extra power the PS4 Pro or Xbox one X offer anyway, I'd never recommend a PS4 Pro to someone who already owns a PS4. Same with Xbox one X.

Why spend 400 or 500 dollars for a console when you can spend 200 on an only slightly worse experience with an original PS4 or Xbox one S?

At the end of the day, people are willing to pay BIG money to experience a more visually spectacular sight. (like twice as much on a videogame console) (or 400-800 dollars on a VR headset)

On PC, people don't just buy GPU's to play games. They video edit, 3D imaging, crypto-mine, program, host servers/VM's, make games and mods, crack passwords, etc. These are things you will never be able to do properly on a current-gen console unless they let us install linux again.

But again, Consoles are awesome *if all you want to do is game*!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I spent over $6k on my custom water-cooled sig rig back in 2013 and spent months planning every single part of that build. I use both of my sig rigs on a daily basis and have Steam, Origin, UPlay, along with many games (including several emulators). I spent years on this very forum benching as well. I LOVE PC hardware and gaming; its my biggest hobby by far. And yet I still have a PS3, GC, Wii, and XB One S. These things are NOT mutually exclusive and that is where your "logic" loses any and all credibility. I love my PC's but there are things I would prefer to use my consoles for. My preferences are NOT wrong no matter what your "logic" might say. And guess what? Most of the people on OCN own at least one console as well, so deal with it...


----------



## Buris

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I spent over $6k on my custom water-cooled sig rig back in 2013 and spent months planning every single part of that build. I use both of my sig rigs on a daily basis and have Steam, Origin, UPlay, along with many games (including several emulators). I spent years on this very forum benching as well. I LOVE PC hardware and gaming; its my biggest hobby by far. And yet I still have a PS3, GC, Wii, and XB One S. These things are NOT mutually exclusive and that is where your "logic" loses any and all credibility. I love my PC's but there are things I would prefer to use my consoles for. My preferences are NOT wrong no matter what your "logic" might say. And guess what? Most of the people on OCN own at least one console as well, so deal with it...


Absolutely agree. I will have a conversation with anyone willing to talk about the Sega Saturn. That console was so over-engineered it's really fun to take a look at the technology involved in it, not to mention that it took over 15 years for it to finally become softmodded!


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Now I think I'm gonna jump on the XB and play some Forza 6! Sorry, not sorry Charcharo!


----------



## BeerPowered

When you can make a game like Horizon Zero Dawn run on PS4 that is pretty much a miracle as the equivalent 5 Year-old PC wouldn't be able to run it very well.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Buris*
> 
> Absolutely agree. I will have a conversation with anyone willing to talk about the Sega Saturn. That console was so over-engineered it's really fun to take a look at the technology involved in it, not to mention that it took over 15 years for it to finally become softmodded!


Ah, I still have working Sega Saturn. Great console. It was over-engineered due to panic move adding extra processors to match PS1's capabilities, and it became absolutely nightmare to develop for lol.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Ahhhh, if only the DC had sold as well as the PS2 did (and it really was a fantastic little console at the time). We might still have a viable Sega entry in the console space today.


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Ahhhh, if only the DC had sold as well as the PS2 did (and it really was a fantastic little console at the time). We might still have a viable Sega entry in the console space today.


There have been rumors of Sega making a comeback. I will keep my fingers crossed the Dreamcast 2 is real. They own alot of really good Studios like Atlus/Relic and they make Yakuza plus many more. It could put them in the game with great exclusives..


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BeerPowered*
> 
> There have been rumors of Sega making a comeback. I will keep my fingers crossed the Dreamcast 2 is real. They own alot of really good Studios like Atlus/Relic and they make Yakuza plus many more. It could put them in the game with great exclusives..


It's doubtful, but I can dream. I still have my Genesis, Saturn, and Dreamcast on tap. Played through Shenmue again just a month ago.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> It's doubtful, but I can dream. I still have my Genesis, Saturn, and Dreamcast on tap. Played through Shenmue again just a month ago.


I would love to see it happen, but their parent company is probably more interested in new Pachinko machine rather than new console lol.


----------



## BeerPowered

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> I would love to see it happen, but their parent company is probably more interested in new Pachinko machine rather than new console lol.


Somebody has to compete with Konami. Can't let the Metal Gear Solid Pachinko machines take the whole market.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> It's still a non-sequitur.
> 
> Also fixed that for you. And yes,Steam has damaged the modding community more than ever,they have facilitated paid mods. Enjoy your paid mods now.
> 
> Keep attributing imaginary faults to consoles,modding is strictly a PC thing,consoles don't have anything to do with it,so why are you even trying to claim consoles have damaged modding? Yet again you don't make any sense.
> 
> Yeah,surely it's only console gamers fault that RTS games are not popular anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not even gonna bother anymore with The Witcher 3 argument,you are just trying to split hairs to avoid accepting you are wrong.


Where are my paid mods?
I am opening Nexus and I dont see them. I open Moddb and I dont see them. The only thing resembling paid mods is Bethesda's Paid mini-DLC program which they want to install upon us. And it is neither that bad nor such a danger. Its stupid and it amount to little. If that is the death of modding... its over-hyped and under-delivered.

You probably havent even played TW3 in all honesty. And certainly never touched Witcher 1 or the books. Hell you dont even know what art is...

Its mostly console's fault the strategy and tycoon genres have suffered this much. That is crystal clear.

Also all of Eastern Europe being on PC vs some richer on average (and seemingly worse at math) guys with consoles. Yeah.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> So I've talked about this on the forum before, but I'm a developer (not games anymore, though) and I used to design and write graphics engines for 3 different platforms. One of which being PC, one being a specific console, and one being a specific gaming-dedicated handheld. I've written features like tessellation and normal mapping into engines before those things were natively-offered by the popular APIs like DirectX and OpenGL. I've found this forum while looking into building my fully-custom water-cooled, crossfired PC. Guess what? I'm one of the few people on here who has a decent PC and the consoles, and is willing to admit that console-exclusives are leaps and bounds above 99.9% of modern PC software in terms of graphics.
> 
> But please, continue telling us how your minuscule opinions are correct and how much better you are than those many of us telling you how wrong your are. It's very entertaining!


Dont worry, seeing your taste in games we probably (not certainly, I try not to deal in absolutes) would not see eye to eye with games either !









You cant even spot bad AF and terrible LODs and 2011-esque Ambient Occlusion. Hell few people even know other supposedly beautiful games like TW3 have issues with AO and has a limited number of dynamic lights per scene . I understand those are harder to spot that animation and textures but they still matter. UC4 for example is popup central. Why would the robot fan fiction game be different ?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> Console gaming market got much bigger during 2000s and that is when we started seeing really high budget games with production values rivaling some of the expensive blockbuster movies, all because sizeable market is there. I really don't think we would have got that if console gaming did not exist.


That is the problem... it got bigger as people became lazier/less informed.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> The modern console revolution didn't really start until the beginning of the 2000's with the introduction of the Playstation 2, Gamecube, and OG Xbox (RIP Dreamcast). That's when you started to see truly groundbreaking 3D visuals in games. Before that, everything was pretty blocky and pixelated. It was also around this time that you began to see video cards in mainstream computers. Before that, they were just nice to have and not a requirement for 3D gaming.
> 
> Also, you really need to stop speculating on things and start providing hard facts to back up your point. If anything, consoles in the early 2000's helped to kick start our current PC gaming market that we know today. Before the 2000's, it was an incredibly niche market.
> 
> Being poor or rich has nothing to do with ANY of this; there are people in the United States on welfare and food stamps that have smartphones. It's all about what people do with their money, and clearly, consoles are the bigger market... not because they are less expensive. Rather, they are a plug and play solution that you can literally set and forget. PCs require a lot of maintenance and care in order to keep them running in tip top shape. Also I cannot believe that you are trying to reason that PCs are cheaper than consoles. They just aren't. A brand new $400 PC cannot keep up with a $400 PS4 Pro in terms of gaming prowess. You have to sink way more into a brand new PC in order to get good performance.
> 
> And no, PC gamers are NOT ignorant. If anything, we know the market better than just straight console gamers because most times, PC gamers will also own a console (like the PS4 sitting next to my keyboard as I type this response).


Incorrect. RTCW from 2001 looked far better than anything on the PS2 and most things on the original Xbox. Art style non-withstanding as its subjective. 2004's DOOM 3, Far Cry and Half Life 2 took till 2006 for consoles to match (and it wasnt perfect, they lacked the lighting) and 2007's Crysis and later Clear Sky still can beat up some console games in terms of fidelity.
The GPU revolution is part of why I call consoles irrelevant. PC Gaming was rapidly becoming simpler and simpler to use and build.

When I gave hard facts on console performance people ignored it. Nothing will work on a moat and bailey.

I know people in the US can be extremely poor, but they still get consoles... which means they chose wrong still.
It isnt only about performance people, stop thinking in some linear 2D fashion, this entire topic isnt about "Hurr durr brand new conslow is a tad faster than brand new same money PC". Whilst true (barely), this leaves holes for anyone and everyone with an IQ above 70. What about modding? Emulation? Backwards Compatibility? Long term future of gaming?

If those things are irrelevant to gamers, then gaming is not an art form and deserves outside regulation and the bullying of the past. I dont want to see that.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> Console gaming market got much bigger during 2000s and that is when we started seeing really high budget games with production values rivaling some of the expensive blockbuster movies, all because sizeable market is there. I really don't think we would have got that if console gaming did not exist.


That is the problem... it got bigger as people became lazier/l
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I spent over $6k on my custom water-cooled sig rig back in 2013 and spent months planning every single part of that build. I use both of my sig rigs on a daily basis and have Steam, Origin, UPlay, along with many games (including several emulators). I spent years on this very forum benching as well. I LOVE PC hardware and gaming; its my biggest hobby by far. And yet I still have a PS3, GC, Wii, and XB One S. These things are NOT mutually exclusive and that is where your "logic" loses any and all credibility. I love my PC's but there are things I would prefer to use my consoles for. My preferences are NOT wrong no matter what your "logic" might say. And guess what? Most of the people on OCN own at least one console as well, so deal with it...


Fair enough but I see consoles as a long term danger to what I love. I wont stop opposing them till they stop existing. I also think your position is simply... too egocentric and short-sighted.

And I dont see how when having such a beloved and well made and planned PC, you still like a console... this must be nostalgia for the days before, when you were young?


----------



## Boomer1990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Where are my paid mods?
> I am opening Nexus and I dont see them. I open Moddb and I dont see them. The only thing resembling paid mods is Bethesda's Paid mini-DLC program which they want to install upon us. And it is neither that bad nor such a danger. Its stupid and it amount to little. If that is the death of modding... its over-hyped and under-delivered.
> 
> You probably havent even played TW3 in all honesty. And certainly never touched Witcher 1 or the books. Hell you dont even know what art is...
> 
> Its mostly console's fault the strategy and tycoon genres have suffered this much. That is crystal clear.
> 
> Also all of Eastern Europe being on PC vs some richer on average (and seemingly worse at math) guys with consoles. Yeah.
> Dont worry, seeing your taste in games we probably (not certainly, I try not to deal in absolutes) would not see eye to eye with games either !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You cant even spot bad AF and terrible LODs and 2011-esque Ambient Occlusion. Hell few people even know other supposedly beautiful games like TW3 have issues with AO and has a limited number of dynamic lights per scene . I understand those are harder to spot that animation and textures but they still matter. UC4 for example is popup central. Why would the robot fan fiction game be different ?
> That is the problem... it got bigger as people became lazier/less informed.
> Incorrect. RTCW from 2001 looked far better than anything on the PS2 and most things on the original Xbox. Art style non-withstanding as its subjective. 2004's DOOM 3, Far Cry and Half Life 2 took till 2006 for consoles to match (and it wasnt perfect, they lacked the lighting) and 2007's Crysis and later Clear Sky still can beat up some console games in terms of fidelity.
> The GPU revolution is part of why I call consoles irrelevant. PC Gaming was rapidly becoming simpler and simpler to use and build.
> 
> When I gave hard facts on console performance people ignored it. Nothing will work on a moat and bailey.
> 
> I know people in the US can be extremely poor, but they still get consoles... which means they chose wrong still.
> It isnt only about performance people, stop thinking in some linear 2D fashion, this entire topic isnt about "Hurr durr brand new conslow is a tad faster than brand new same money PC". Whilst true (barely), this leaves holes for anyone and everyone with an IQ above 70. What about modding? Emulation? Backwards Compatibility? Long term future of gaming?
> 
> If those things are irrelevant to gamers, then gaming is not an art form and deserves outside regulation and the bullying of the past. I dont want to see that.
> That is the problem... it got bigger as people became lazier/l
> Fair enough but I see consoles as a long term danger to what I love. I wont stop opposing them till they stop existing. I also think your position is simply... too egocentric and short-sighted.
> 
> And I dont see how when having such a beloved and well made and planned PC, you still like a console... this must be nostalgia for the days before, when you were young?


Your problem is your arrogant and think that your *opinion* is the only right one and everyone else is wrong. You live in a bubble and refuse to listen to other peoples opinions. You do nothing but hop into console threads and do nothing but bash and add no meaningful conversation. People are free to choose what they want to play and what to play it on, who the hell are you to say they chose wrong. You constantly throw insults at other forum goers for giving their opinion. You say what about modding, Xbox One has modding for Bethesda games and it is not nearly as limited as Sony's, it also has backwards compatibility. PC of course will always be kind at that because it is an open platform. You constantly move goal posts to refuse to say you were wrong about Witcher 3 from the devs own mouth.

We get it you know 6 languages and all your opinions are facts /s. I suggest being less of a troll and actually have a conversation with people on this site instead of being and egotistical arrogant elitist. Insulting people will not help people side with you. PC very well might be the cheapest option where you live, but please understand not every place has the same issues. Just because something is a certain way where you live does not mean it is like that everywhere else.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> Your problem is your arrogant and think that your *opinion* is the only right one and everyone else is wrong. You live in a bubble and refuse to listen to other peoples opinions. You do nothing but hop into console threads and do nothing but bash and add no meaningful conversation. People are free to choose what they want to play and what to play it on, who the hell are you to say they chose wrong. You constantly throw insults at other forum goers for giving their opinion. You say what about modding, Xbox One has modding for Bethesda games and it is not nearly as limited as Sony's, it also has backwards compatibility. PC of course will always be kind at that because it is an open platform. You constantly move goal posts to refuse to say you were wrong about Witcher 3 from the devs own mouth.
> 
> We get it you know 6 languages and all your opinions are facts /s. I suggest being less of a troll and actually have a conversation with people on this site instead of being and egotistical arrogant elitist. Insulting people will not help people side with you. PC very well might be the cheapest option where you live, but please understand not every place has the same issues. Just because something is a certain way where you live does not mean it is like that everywhere else.


I dont gave to move goalposts as Witcher 3 would have still kept the silly scale you people for some reason want, if most console gamers were on PC. It would change nothing, just make it a better game. The developers also didnt know some of their own lore well so I reserve the ability to judge them







!

I can have a conversation with AMD, Intel, and Nvidia fans. I can talk to others about games, but my opinion on consoles wont change. They need to be stopped for the long term good of gaming. There is no other option I am content with.

Also things are priced similarly where I live compared to where you guys live. People here just know they need a PC anyway and know what modding and bakcwards compatibility are. I CANT make a PC as good as a PS4 for the same price where I live. But it doesnt matter, people do the long term instead of the short term value judgement and spend more up front to save a lot more in general (or spend LESS and deal with low settings but still play their games).

I admit the Xbox One X with its support of Cross-Platform play and limited but still existent modding and backwards compatibility is a tier above PS4 and Nintendo's gimmick. So yes, Xbox > PS = Switch. I agree here. I can see their (current) possitive drive and can say that if I could choose which ones to stop existing first it would not be Xbox.

And still, PS fans badmouth backwards compatibility... makes me livid...
Also I dont throw insults. I may come of as arrogant or elitist, I admit... but I dont insult.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I dont gave to move goalposts as Witcher 3 would have still kept the silly scale you people for some reason want, if most console gamers were on PC. It would change nothing, just make it a better game. The developers also didnt know some of their own lore well so I reserve the ability to judge them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !
> 
> I can have a conversation with AMD, Intel, and Nvidia fans. I can talk to others about games, but my opinion on consoles wont change. They need to be stopped for the long term good of gaming. There is no other option I am content with.
> 
> Also things are priced similarly where I live compared to where you guys live. People here just know they need a PC anyway and know what modding and bakcwards compatibility are. I CANT make a PC as good as a PS4 for the same price where I live. But it doesnt matter, people do the long term instead of the short term value judgement and spend more up front to save a lot more in general (or spend LESS and deal with low settings but still play their games).
> 
> I admit the Xbox One X with its support of Cross-Platform play and limited but still existent modding and backwards compatibility is a tier above PS4 and Nintendo's gimmick. So yes, Xbox > PS = Switch. I agree here. I can see their (current) possitive drive and can say that if I could choose which ones to stop existing first it would not be Xbox.
> 
> And still, PS fans badmouth backwards compatibility... makes me livid...
> Also I dont throw insults. I may come of as arrogant or elitist, I admit... but I dont insult.


Reported for spam.

Enough of this rubbish now


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Where are my paid mods?
> I am opening Nexus and I dont see them. I open Moddb and I dont see them. The only thing resembling paid mods is Bethesda's Paid mini-DLC program which they want to install upon us. And it is neither that bad nor such a danger. Its stupid and it amount to little. If that is the death of modding... its over-hyped and under-delivered.
> 
> You probably havent even played TW3 in all honesty. And certainly never touched Witcher 1 or the books. Hell you dont even know what art is...
> 
> Its mostly console's fault the strategy and tycoon genres have suffered this much. That is crystal clear.
> 
> Also all of Eastern Europe being on PC vs some richer on average (and seemingly worse at math) guys with consoles. Yeah.


Only has been less than one month since it happened,just you wait. The joke is you keep blaming consoles for ruining modding,when it's completely unfounded,and on top of that,Steam has just accepted paid mods.

Your opinion holds no weight,and i certainly have played The Witcher 3. I may not know what art is,but you certainly also don't,and videogames in general certainly are not art,but a form of entertainment.

It's mainstream gaming fault that RTS games are not popular anymore,deal with it.

PC is cheaper only in eastern europe,and because of piracy. The one who is doing the wrong math is you,also because if you took five minutes to reason,there is no way a console would be more expensive than a computer.


----------



## oxidized

Charcharo man, just leave it, in my country we have a saying that something like this: "There isn't worse ignorant than one who DOESN'T want to learn"
Ignorance is bliss


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Only has been less than one month since it happened,just you wait. The joke is you keep blaming consoles for ruining modding,when it's completely unfounded,and on top of that,Steam has just accepted paid mods.
> 
> Your opinion holds no weight,and i certainly have played The Witcher 3. I may not know what art is,but you certainly also don't,and videogames in general certainly are not art,but a form of entertainment.
> 
> It's mainstream gaming fault that RTS games are not popular anymore,deal with it.
> 
> PC is cheaper only in eastern europe,and because of piracy. The one who is doing the wrong math is you,also because if you took five minutes to reason,there is no way a console would be more expensive than a computer.


Where has Steam accepted paid mods? I dont see it.

Lol he thinks I dont know art lol. You sure as hell dont, but I, my dear boy, do. I didnt skip those classes.

Its console gaming.

I already told you it aint pirating. Reading is easy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> Charcharo man, just leave it, in my country we have a saying that something like this: "There isn't worse ignorant than one who DOESN'T want to learn"
> Ignorance is bliss


I will. Let them suffer with mediocrity









Brave modders and software engineers will save their mortal games for the ages. Then they can thank PC gamers... I hope. Or not, doesnt matter.


----------



## boredgunner

A PS4 holds back game development much, much more than a 5 year old PC as a matter of fact.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> Charcharo man, just leave it, in my country we have a saying that something like this: "There isn't worse ignorant than one who DOESN'T want to learn"
> Ignorance is bliss


Such is the way of human nature.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Where has Steam accepted paid mods? I dont see it.
> 
> Lol he thinks I dont know art lol. You sure as hell dont, but I, my dear boy, do. I didnt skip those classes.
> 
> Its console gaming.
> 
> I already told you it aint pirating. Reading is easy.
> .


You don't know what art is,because you think games are art. It's easy.

Nah it's not,it's mainstream gaming fault. You can still play RTS games on console,and there still are. No one cares about them,cry me a river.

Yes it's pirating,the only way,in the long term,how a pc can cost less than a console. In reality,we all know consoles are both cheaper in the long and short term,you can deny it all you want,but it does not change reality.


----------



## budgetgamer120

My main issue with consoles is that they are turning into PC. The constant updates when I put a disc in.bi ferment when console games just worked.


----------



## Charcharo

.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> You don't know what art is,because you think games are art. It's easy.
> 
> Nah it's not,it's mainstream gaming fault. You can still play RTS games on console,and there still are. No one cares about them,cry me a river.
> 
> Yes it's pirating,the only way,in the long term,how a pc can cost less than a console. In reality,we all know consoles are both cheaper in the long and short term,you can deny it all you want,but it does not change reality.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> You don't know what art is,because you think games are art. It's easy.
> 
> Nah it's not,it's mainstream gaming fault. You can still play RTS games on console,and there still are. No one cares about them,cry me a river.
> 
> Yes it's pirating,the only way,in the long term,how a pc can cost less than a console. In reality,we all know consoles are both cheaper in the long and short term,you can deny it all you want,but it does not change reality.


If I dont accept gaming as art, then cinema isnt art and arguably neither is literature...

Those games are barely playable on conslows...

Sure you know how life is here... lol.
I buy all my games. So do most of the people I know IRL. Are there pirates? Sure. Are they more than in your country? I am unsure, but its likely as it makes some sense. But due to Steam, GOG and competitive retailers and great deals, most people do buy their games.

People need PC + console already.

Option one : Terrible Intel HD PC + Console. Console games cost more, none of their old games work with it, no modding (modding is a big deal here).

Option 2: Pretty decent PC, maybe a Ryzen 5 or Pentium G4560 on the lower end with an X70 Radeon card. Cheaper games, better deals, more content, backwards compatibility and modding. As a bonus - you have people to play with as chances of your colleagues or friends being on Consoles are slim.

Which option makes more sense?


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> .
> 
> If I dont accept gaming as art, then cinema isnt art and arguably neither is literature...
> 
> Those games are barely playable on conslows...
> 
> Sure you know how life is here... lol.
> I buy all my games. So do most of the people I know IRL. Are there pirates? Sure. Are they more than in your country? I am unsure, but its likely as it makes some sense. But due to Steam, GOG and competitive retailers and great deals, most people do buy their games.


It's not art,period. It's entertainment. Games can be art,but not all of them are art. Learn the difference.

Those games are barely playable because they are boring to most people,hence why they are non existant today.

I don't care if you buy your games,you keep claiming gaming PC's are cheaper than a console,and i told you the only way it's possible it's in the long term and pirating.

A console once again,retails for 230/250 EUR/USD max. If in your country you get screwed,that's the situation in your country and you can't claim it's like that everywhere.

In addition,with consoles you can sell your games wich saves you money even further.

You can easily buy a game at day one,finish it and sell it for 70% of the price you paid. You can't do that on PC. In USA you can rent games.

So definitly,all your points are just fabricated by you and have no basis in reality.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> It's not art,period. It's entertainment. Games can be art,but not all of them are art. Learn the difference.
> 
> Those games are barely playable because they are boring to most people,hence why they are non existant today.
> 
> I don't care if you buy your games,you keep claiming gaming PC's are cheaper than a console,and i told you the only way it's possible it's in the long term and pirating.
> 
> A console once again,retails for 230/250 EUR/USD max. If in your country you get screwed,that's the situation in your country and you can't claim it's like that everywhere.
> 
> In addition,with consoles you can sell your games wich saves you money even further.
> 
> You can easily buy a game at day one,finish it and sell it for 70% of the price you paid. You can't do that on PC. In USA you can rent games.
> 
> So definitly,all your points are just fabricated by you and have no basis in reality.


So cinema and literature are not art. Got it.

Gaming PCs are cheaper long term investments than consoles. Its a fact. Deal with it. I outlined the reasons in my post.
Even a 2005 PC has more content than a console... just saying.

You really need to go back and retake grades 4-7 of American (I guess?) literature.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> So cinema and literature are not art. Got it.
> 
> Gaming PCs are cheaper long term investments than consoles. Its a fact. Deal with it. I outlined the reasons in my post.
> Even a 2005 PC has more content than a console... just saying.
> 
> You really need to go back and retake grades 4-7 of American (I guess?) literature.


I did not talk about cinema or literature. Non-sequitur.

No they are not,a PC with a comparable performance to a PS4 is going to cost you atleast 500 USD/EUR new. And for people who can't build one,even more.

A console is 250 EUR/USD and 50 USD/EUR if you want to play online. The games cost the same,but console games are physical so you can sell them.

The content argument is irrelevant because it depends on personal taste. People may want to play new games,or old ones,it's up to them and again,you can not generalize your opinion into a fact.

Then i suggest you take your math class again,lol.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> I did not talk about cinema or literature. Non-sequitur.
> 
> No they are not,a PC with a comparable performance to a PS4 is going to cost you atleast 500 USD/EUR new. And for people who can't build one,even more.
> 
> A console is 250 EUR/USD and 50 USD/EUR if you want to play online. The games cost the same,but console games are physical so you can sell them.
> 
> The content argument is irrelevant because it depends on personal taste. People may want to play new games,or old ones,it's up to them and again,you can not generalize your opinion into a fact.
> 
> Then i suggest you take your math class again,lol.


The logic of what you are saying means your opinion on those art forms has to be the same. I ain't letting you odd the hook mate

A console is 300 euro here. About as overpriced as cards are (RX 580s were 300 euros too before miners).

300 euro for a console + 150 for a terrible PC or 450 for a decent PC which is already faster than a normal PS4 and can do work as well as old games/mods/console exclusives of older generations... I mean at some point, absolute quantity and higher quality to boot has to matter, right?

You can sell console games as they are mayflies. I already addmitted it would be a good thing to do that on PC, but the reason why one can easily do that on consoles is tied to how much of a community a console game can create (little).

So if someone literally wants to play watch the games movies from Naughty Dog their ability to damage all of gaming including the game movie they so much love its fine?
Maybe. But I will hold that person responsible and they deserve zero sympathy for how they damage gaming long term. Sorry but our standards are just different.

I am excellent at math.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> The logic of what you are saying means your opinion on those art forms has to be the same. I ain't letting you odd the hook mate
> 
> A console is 300 euro here. About as overpriced as cards are (RX 580s were 300 euros too before miners).
> 
> 300 euro for a console + 150 for a terrible PC or 450 for a decent PC which is already faster than a normal PS4 and can do work as well as old games/mods/console exclusives of older generations... I mean at some point, absolute quantity and higher quality to boot has to matter, right?
> 
> You can sell console games as they are mayflies. I already addmitted it would be a good thing to do that on PC, but the reason why one can easily do that on consoles is tied to how much of a community a console game can create (little).
> 
> So if someone literally wants to play watch the games movies from Naughty Dog their ability to damage all of gaming including the game movie they so much love its fine?
> Maybe. But I will hold that person responsible and they deserve zero sympathy for how they damage gaming long term. Sorry but our standards are just different.
> 
> I am excellent at math.


Nah,i was talking about games,and there are games that don't have any particular scope or creativity,so where is the art? Movies and books are different.

*If in your country you get screwed,that's the situation in your country and you can't claim it's like that everywhere.*

Glad you admitted consoles are more expensive in your country,and not the whole world.

You have never played an Uncharted game,so you are talking out of ignorance,ergo your opinion holds no value. Also hence why your claim that Naughty Dog is "damaging" gaming by creating movies rather than game,is flat out wrong.

RPG's,survival horror,RTS,JRPG,visual novels,third person shooters,platformers,FPS,MOBA,racing,rythm games and god knows how many other genres,and Naughty Dog is single handedly to be blamed for your immaginary scenario where they are damaging the gaming industry.









No you are not,you can't even figure out that consoles are cheaper.

I repeat once again,all your points are fabricated by you and product of a bias.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Nah,i was talking about games,and there are games that don't have any particular scope or creativity,so where is the art? Movies and books are different.
> 
> *If in your country you get screwed,that's the situation in your country and you can't claim it's like that everywhere.*
> 
> Glad you admitted consoles are more expensive in your country,and not the whole world.
> 
> You have never played an Uncharted game,so you are talking out of ignorance,ergo your opinion holds no value. Also hence why your claim that Naughty Dog is "damaging" gaming by creating movies rather than game,is flat out wrong.
> 
> No you are not,you can't even figure out that consoles are cheaper.
> 
> I repeat once again,all your points are fabricated by you and product of a bias.


PC parts are more expensive here, comparatively, than they are where you live. So logically we should be conslow gamers









If you cant see the creativity in the art form, perhaps dont mention even Witcher 3 again. That thing for all its immature writing is still a decent example of art.
How are movies and books different? BTW the old men in the 1940s said the same about Cinema. Cute.

I have played TLOU. Seen enough from UC to know its even more cinematix. Also UC3 has severe storytelling issues. Just saying.
I didnt say they are damaging gaming with movies







.

Yes, yes I am.
I repeat once again - all your points are just nostalgia and marketing.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> PC parts are more expensive here, comparatively, than they are where you live. So logically we should be conslow gamers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cant see the creativity in the art form, perhaps dont mention even Witcher 3 again. That thing for all its immature writing is still a decent example of art.
> How are movies and books different? BTW the old men in the 1940s said the same about Cinema. Cute.
> 
> I have played TLOU. Seen enough from UC to know its even more cinematix. Also UC3 has severe storytelling issues. Just saying.
> I didnt say they are damaging gaming with movies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Yes, yes I am.
> I repeat once again - all your points are just nostalgia and marketing.


Get the narrative straight - Are consoles more expensive than gaming PC's where you live - Or are they cheaper? You just said PC parts cost more than in western countries.

Yeah,i bet you actually played it. I don't know,do games have to be 20 hrs straight of gameplay with no ending cutscene to be considered games by you? Both of them are third person shooters,and none of them play anything like movies. Story telling issues are not limited to Uncharted, your point being?

*"If someone wants to play watch the games movies from Naughty Dog their ability to damage all of gaming including the game movie they so much love its fine?"*

That's what you said.

Nostalgia of what? What are you even talking about?

And marketing,lol. Gonna start throwing around shill like a few pages back? You should really go to 4chan's /v/ board. I bet you would fit just right there.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> PC parts are more expensive here, comparatively, than they are where you live. So logically we should be conslow gamers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cant see the creativity in the art form, perhaps dont mention even Witcher 3 again. That thing for all its immature writing is still a decent example of art.
> How are movies and books different? BTW the old men in the 1940s said the same about Cinema. Cute.
> 
> I have played TLOU. Seen enough from UC to know its even more cinematix. Also UC3 has severe storytelling issues. Just saying.
> I didnt say they are damaging gaming with movies
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Yes, yes I am.
> I repeat once again - all your points are just nostalgia and marketing.


PC parts might be more expansive but you cant afford Console Games there but Piracy is easy in PC and is culture that in East Europe.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Get the narrative straight - Are consoles more expensive than gaming PC's where you live - Or are they cheaper? You just said PC parts cost more than in western countries.
> 
> Yeah,i bet you actually played it. I don't know,do games have to be 20 hrs straight of gameplay with no ending cutscene to be considered games by you? Both of them are third person shooters,and none of them play anything like movies. Story telling issues are not limited to Uncharted, your point being?
> 
> *"If someone wants to play watch the games movies from Naughty Dog their ability to damage all of gaming including the game movie they so much love its fine?"*
> 
> That's what you said.
> 
> Nostalgia of what? What are you even talking about?
> 
> And marketing,lol. Gonna start throwing around shill like a few pages back? You should really go to 4chan's /v/ board. I bet you would fit just right there.


Yes, they do cost more. Yet people are still on PC. Shocking, I know but my earlier option 1 and option 2 stuff are valid.

My point was Naughty Dog are aping cinema the most instead of pushing gaming forward on its own terms, and even then cinema curbstomps their games in a way that would make the battle of Berlin look tame in comparison. But correct, its almost as bad for even the better games. And yes I played it. Painful but I did play it.

I was referring to the user, not Naughty Dog.

Nostalgia for consoles. That is likely the reason most people buy them without thinking IMHO. That and marketing.
I am sorry, r AyyMD is the worst I dare go to









BTW I sent a PM. If you want we can continue the art debate there as it is off-topic and I dont want to annoy people too much.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> PC parts might be more expansive but you cant afford Console Games there but Piracy is easy in PC and is culture that in East Europe.


This sentence needs more work.
Piracy was easy on the PS3 and Xbox 360. They even sold pre-hacked devices and it still wasnt popular. If those things didnt do, no consoles would do.

People value backwards compatibility, emulation and modding more here. I guess we are just more PCMR? That is the only logical conclusion.

Still I will abandon the thread in favor of PMs on art with Goldi


----------



## budgetgamer120

If PS4 pro can do this. Then i cant wait to see what the OneX can do.


----------



## rcfc89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> If PS4 pro can do this. Then i cant wait to see what the OneX can do.


Amazing what you can do when a game is properly optimized for a exact system. OneX is going to be awesome.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> If PS4 pro can do this. Then i cant wait to see what the OneX can do.


Agreed. Regardless of whether you like consoles or not, the Xbox One X will push the envelope on what developers do with hardware. This is definitely a good thing.









Also...






A screenshot from the video:



I'm seriously considering an Xbox One X now.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> If PS4 pro can do this. Then i cant wait to see what the OneX can do.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> Amazing what you can do when a game is properly optimized for a exact system. OneX is going to be awesome.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Agreed. Regardless of whether you like consoles or not, the Xbox One X will push the envelope on what developers do with hardware. This is definitely a good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A screenshot from the video:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm seriously considering an Xbox One X now.


Have you guys tried the game? A decent CPU paired with a RX480 does better than the PS4. It's not exactly impressive. The PS4 Pro isn't impressive for what it does. Cheap PC's can do just as well. The problem is the top-tier GPU's don't get much chance to showcase their superiority. For instance, NVIDIA PCSS and HFTS are nice but absolutely slaughter performance. It's just shoddily put together with no regards to the impact on the frame rate. Budget GPU's paired with budget CPU's can do better than consoles. The problem is really the big boys who don't have anything to justify their price tags.

I own a PS4 Pro myself and love it but those comparison are so dumb. "You can't build a 400$ PC that rivals the PS4 Pro". Well duh genius, a PC is meant more than just gaming. It does millions of things consoles cannot.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> I own a PS4 Pro myself and love ir but those comparison are so dumb. "You can't build a 400$ PC that rivals the PS4 Pro". Well duh genius, a PC is meant more than just gaming. It does millions of things consoles cannot.


And many of those things greatly improve gaming, to the point where the $400 PC is easily the better gaming system. Examples:



Near limitless backwards compatibility. So many of the greatest games in every genre are not available on consoles and lack of backwards compatibility is one of the major reasons why.
Much, much bigger game library. Many times bigger.
Modding (using and creating) which leads to greatly improved games or entirely new games and much more.
Hosting dedicated servers (which can be customized).
Enable 3D sound in OpenAL games via *OpenAL Soft* (binaural simulation for headphone/stereo/2.1 systems, improve surround spatialization for surround systems). In other words, better sound in these games that consoles can't provide.
Driver tweaks to improve visuals and/or performance.
Shader injection (ReShade, GeDoSaTo) to personalize a game's visuals or just improve them at minimal performance cost.
Not limited to 60 Hz and 30 FPS/60 FPS. Can run high refresh rates/frame rates and variable refresh rate.
More V-Sync options including the ability to actually disable it.
The ability to use a free floating camera to take better screenshots in almost every game, via Cheat Engine script (there's also *this tool* which has more limited game compatibility, and of course Ansel which has even more limited game compatibility, but all 3 of these options combined is great and with ReShade you can simulate camera effects).
Actual game options. Key rebinding, input control, disable auto aim crap, not limited to one graphics preset so you can get the performance you desire.
Better (not to mention free) multiplayer services like what Steam provides, and applications like Discord, Teamspeak, Ventrilo, Mumble.
Far more input device options, display device options, audio device options.
System is actually expandable and customizable.
Much lower overall costs.

And the only downside is that select few games will run at 60 FPS on higher graphics settings on PS4/XBOX One (and perhaps higher resolution on PS4 Pro and XBOX One X), but this accounts for a very small percentage of games since most are 30 FPS anyway and many of us would rather lower graphics to game at 60 FPS.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> And many of those things greatly improve gaming, to the point where the $400 PC is easily the better gaming system. Examples:
> 
> 
> 
> Near limitless backwards compatibility.


I have a bunch of games that don't run in Windows 8 and 10, like Topspin 1 and 2.

Topspin 2 looks like it will run but never gets past the menus. Topspin 1 just crashes.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> It's not art,period. It's entertainment. Games can be art,but not all of them are art. Learn the difference.


This isn't the case. Look at IP law and you'll see that it's referred to as art, regardless of whether you think it's good enough to be called art or not.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> I have a bunch of games that don't run in Windows 8 and 10, like Topspin 1 and 2.
> 
> Topspin 2 looks like it will run but never gets past the menus. Topspin 1 just crashes.


The thing is, you're also not limited to one OS on PC. I still use Windows 7 for some older games, and others use DOS emulators for even older games.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> The thing is, you're also not limited to one OS on PC. I still use Windows 7 for some older games, and others use DOS emulators for even older games.


That would be less bad if not for the active effort on the past of Microsoft, AMD, and Intel to make it difficult or impossible to run anything older than Windows 10 on the latest CPUs.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> That would be less bad if not for the active effort on the past of Microsoft, AMD, and Intel to make it difficult or impossible to run anything older than Windows 10 on the latest CPUs.


That is true, although how hard is it to run previous operating systems on the latest systems? I've read that past operating systems just aren't supported, but still work.

But that serves as a reminder that even PC gaming isn't safe from being destroyed.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> I've read that past operating systems just aren't supported, but still work.


Microsoft blocks Kaby Lake and Ryzen PCs from Windows 7, 8 updates

People need to switch to Linux and Vulkan. It's time to tell developers to stop force-feeding us Windows 10.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Microsoft blocks Kaby Lake and Ryzen PCs from Windows 7, 8 updates
> 
> People need to switch to Linux and Vulkan. It's time to tell developers to stop force-feeding us Windows 10.


In an ideal world Linux, Vulkan, and OpenAL would be standardized but unfortunately this will probably never happen. I suppose the thing to do on Kaby Lake, Skylake-X, and Ryzen would be to install Windows 7 on an older system and update it fully, then move the drive to the new system and hope for the best.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> In an ideal world Linux, Vulkan, and OpenAL would be standardized but unfortunately this will probably never happen. I suppose the thing to do on Kaby Lake, Skylake-X, and Ryzen would be to install Windows 7 on an older system and update it fully, then move the drive to the new system and hope for the best.


Do you have any recommendations on how to develop with these attributes in mind?

I would legit, really appreciate it.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Yes, they do cost more. Yet people are still on PC. Shocking, I know but my earlier option 1 and option 2 stuff are valid.
> 
> My point was Naughty Dog are aping cinema the most instead of pushing gaming forward on its own terms, and even then cinema curbstomps their games in a way that would make the battle of Berlin look tame in comparison. But correct, its almost as bad for even the better games. And yes I played it. Painful but I did play it.
> 
> I was referring to the user, not Naughty Dog.
> 
> Nostalgia for consoles. That is likely the reason most people buy them without thinking IMHO. That and marketing.
> I am sorry, r AyyMD is the worst I dare go to
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW I sent a PM. If you want we can continue the art debate there as it is off-topic and I dont want to annoy people too much.
> This sentence needs more work.
> Piracy was easy on the PS3 and Xbox 360. They even sold pre-hacked devices and it still wasnt popular. If those things didnt do, no consoles would do.
> 
> *People value backwards compatibility, emulation and modding more here. I guess we are just more PCMR? That is the only logical conclusion.*
> 
> Still I will abandon the thread in favor of PMs on art with Goldi


I love how you take it upon yourself to speak for ALL Eastern Europe, as though you're privy to the buying habits of every single person living over there. I'm an American and I would never be so arrogant as to claim that I know how every other American thinks (or to believe that they ALL simply think the same way I do). Give it a rest already.


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Terrible LOD, AF changes between 4x and 8x, bad AO, lack of fully dynamic lighting, few physics objects in the game world, jaggy and low resolution and at low fps.
> 
> Basically covered UC4 and Horizon. No idea about DriveClub, but as a PS4 game - it is likely the same.
> PS4 is proven to lose against a GTX 760 in almost all scenarios. A 7870 and especially 7950? That is like an Abrams tank going through a Trabant...


I played DC on PS4, its nothing special, just another mediocre racer, barely looks better than GT6 on PS3 (except for the nice rain effect). Forza Horizon 2 and 3 are light years ahead in overall style and graphics quality. I became disappointed in PS4 after Order 1886.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> The thing is, you're also not limited to one OS on PC. I still use Windows 7 for some older games, and others use DOS emulators for even older games.


And then you realize you still have absolutely no clue why it is that consoles are so attractive to the general public! Running multiple OS's and DOS emulators?!?! People just want to buy a box and a game, then start playing them! Most of my family and friends don't even know what an "operating system" is, much less have any interest whatsoever in running different ones to play different games. Most console gamers approach the problem of backwards compatibility by simply keeping the older consoles to play the older games. Problem solved!


----------



## luisxd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And then you realize you still have absolutely no clue why it is that consoles are so attractive to the general public! Running multiple OS's and DOS emulators?!?! People just want to buy a box and a game, then start playing them! Most of my family and friends don't even know what an "operating system" is, much less have any interest whatsoever in running different ones to play different games. Most console gamers approach the problem of backwards compatibility by simply keeping the older consoles to play the older games. Problem solved!


Totally agree. Consoles are not the same as a PC so they can not be compared directly, they're for a different public. Sure an OS like Windows or Linux (even MacOS) offer much more flexibility and options against a console OS, but most of the people who buy a console are aware of that, they don't need to write documents or surf the internet, they just want to turn it on a play


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And then you realize you still have absolutely no clue why it is that consoles are so attractive to the general public! Running multiple OS's and DOS emulators?!?! People just want to buy a box and a game, then start playing them! Most of my family and friends don't even know what an "operating system" is, much less have any interest whatsoever in running different ones to play different games.


A lot of people don't see the appeal in video games at all. Most professors I know don't even own televisions.

It was a minority of people who were interested in running Linux on the PS3 but that minority wasn't irrelevant. The US government even built a supercomputer cluster out of them, using this functionality.

But Sony tried to claim in court that "no one" cared about this feature. And, as if that wasn't enough, tried to ad hom the people who cared enough to sue over having one of the advertised, and functioning, features of the product they purchased ripped out suddenly on a whim by the product's manufacturer.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I love how you take it upon yourself to speak for ALL Eastern Europe, as though you're privy to the buying habits of every single person living over there. I'm an American and I would never be so arrogant as to claim that I know how every other American thinks (or to believe that they ALL simply think the same way I do).


You just generalized about the general public.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> A lot of people don't see the appeal in video games at all. Most professors I know don't even own televisions.
> 
> It was a minority of people who were interested in running Linux on the PS3 but that minority wasn't irrelevant. The US government even built a supercomputer cluster out of them, using this functionality.
> 
> But Sony tried to claim in court that "no one" cared about this feature. And, as if that wasn't enough, tried to ad hom the people who cared enough to sue over having one of the advertised, and functioning, features of the product they purchased ripped out suddenly on a whim by the product's manufacturer.
> You just generalized about the general public.


I'm not the one arguing that entire platforms should be eliminated simply because I don't like them. I have always said that the more choice we have, the better. Consoles deserve their space in the market because millions of people like them and buy them for reasons that some around here simply can't seem to fathom.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I'm not the one arguing that entire platforms should be eliminated simply because I don't like them. I have always said that the more choice we have, the better. Consoles deserve their space in the market because millions of people like them and buy them for reasons that some around here simply can't seem to fathom.


Consoles do a few things well but it's arguable if that's enough to justify their continued existence.

1) Better ergonomics. Once upon a time, consoles had much better controllers than home computers had. Those days are over.

2) Subsidized hardware (selling at a loss). Sony and MS have switched to profitable-on-release consoles or break-even-on-release. This gives consumers weaker hardware, making the console less attractive.

3) Small size. ITX PCs have rendered this advantage rather moot.

4) Faster/better/more reliable gaming optical drives. Optical media isn't as compelling as it once was, now that hard disk storage is cheap and broadband has become more ubiquitous.

5) Nearly indestructible cartridge media. This was a big advantage of many old consoles but cartridges are dead. A company might make a kids-oriented console that uses Flash inside a cartridge shell. Nintendo seems to be doing this with the Switch. But, that's a niche thing. And, there's nothing stopping people from using Flash drives with ITX PCs. Cheap Flash drives have changed the picture a lot from the days of ROM cartridges.

6) Cheaper than PCs. Those days are basically over, especially with Vulkan on Linux cutting out the cost of an OS.

7) Simpler than PCs. This is arguable, but weak. It's possible to build a simple gaming Linux distro that is no more difficult to use than a console OS.

8) Slower upgrade standard (hardware platform lasts longer). This isn't much of an advantage now that it's easy to upgrade one's PC. It's not like the old days when a person had a Mac that couldn't even have its RAM upgraded (required an entirely new logic board). The PC platform also is designed so that users can customize the quality of the visuals to suit their hardware.

Aside from kid-friendly consoles that are designed to take a lot of abuse (something recent optical-based consoles definitely fail at), there really isn't much that's compelling about consoles anymore. PCs can do everything they can, without locking people into a walled garden. The problem is the desire of content providers to have walled gardens. That is what's keeping traditional consoles going more than anything else. Companies all want to be Apple - calling all the shots.


----------



## superstition222

It's not really console vs. PC anymore. The consoles on the market are PCs, just with walled garden wrappers.

What it really comes down to is whether or not people want that kind of walled garden approach to gaming PCs or whether they would prefer a simple, but more open, gaming PC ecosystem.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

The point is that both are viable and popular platforms that complement each other well. The best case scenario is to have both a decent gaming PC and a PS4 or XBone (like the vast majority of gamers here on OCN do). Only fanboys insist that you should only be allowed to enjoy ONE choice (THEIR choice).


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The point is that both are viable and popular platforms that complement each other well. The best case scenario is to have both a decent gaming PC and a PS4 or XBone (like the vast majority of gamers here on OCN do). Only fanboys insist that you should only be allowed to enjoy ONE choice (THEIR choice).


They're walled gardens that result in more inefficiency. They actually harm the gaming market by splintering development, creating a lot of redundant effort requirements (time/energy sucks) for developers, reviewers, and others.

It makes better sense to have a single gaming PC platform based on Linux and Vulkan. All of the advantages of consoles can be replicated in that framework, without the drawbacks of having three different platforms trying to do the same thing at the same time.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I'm not the one arguing that entire platforms should be eliminated simply because I don't like them. I have always said that the more choice we have, the better. Consoles deserve their space in the market because millions of people like them and buy them for reasons that some around here simply can't seem to fathom.


I am arguing they should be eliminated for the long term good of gaming as both an art form and entertainment.

Not all choice is always good. Besides, PC already has a lot of it.

Superposition gives some really good points.


----------



## Tempest2000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The point is that both are viable and popular platforms that complement each other well. The best case scenario is to have both a decent gaming PC and a PS4 or XBone (like the vast majority of gamers here on OCN do). Only fanboys insist that you should only be allowed to enjoy ONE choice (THEIR choice).
> 
> 
> 
> They're walled gardens that result in more inefficiency. They actually harm the gaming market by splintering development, creating a lot of redundant effort requirements (time/energy sucks) for developers, reviewers, and others.
> 
> It makes better sense to have a single gaming PC platform based on Linux and Vulkan. All of the advantages of consoles can be replicated in that framework, without the drawbacks of having three different platforms trying to do the same thing at the same time.
Click to expand...

It's actually the complete opposite. PC game software is extremely inefficient and splinters development because of the need to support a virtually unlimited amount of hardware configurations to stay viable... or do you really believe that the best of the best PCs are fully utilized and maxed out? Even using the most popular and scalable engines, you don't get anywhere near efficient on decent PCs. If a dev actually cares to make the most of a PC's hardware while remaining a viable business, it takes an extreme amount of effort. Consoles, on the other hand, allow focussed development, and as we see again and again, leads to better hardware utilization... by far.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> It's actually the complete opposite. PC game software is extremely inefficient and splinters development because of the need to support a virtually unlimited amount of hardware configurations to stay viable... or do you really believe that the best of the best PCs are fully utilized and maxed out? Even using the most popular and scalable engines, you don't get anywhere near efficient on decent PCs. If a dev actually cares to make the most of a PC's hardware while remaining a viable business, it takes an extreme amount of effort. Consoles, on the other hand, allow focussed development, and as we see again and again, leads to better hardware utilization... by far.


Yeah. The 7850 equipped PS4 is still trampled by the 7870 in almost all games ever released on that platform









Anyways, in theory you are right, getting the maximum out of a PC will require more work. But excellence is the enemy of good enough.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> It's actually the complete opposite. PC game software is extremely inefficient and splinters development because of the need to support a virtually unlimited amount of hardware configurations to stay viable... or do you really believe that the best of the best PCs are fully utilized and maxed out? Even using the most popular and scalable engines, you don't get anywhere near efficient on decent PCs. If a dev actually cares to make the most of a PC's hardware while remaining a viable business, it takes an extreme amount of effort. Consoles, on the other hand, allow focussed development, and as we see again and again, leads to better hardware utilization... by far.


That narrative about console optimization needs to die already. This ain't the 90's anymore. Yes, games on consoles will perform better than on equivalent PC but the difference isn't nearly as drastic as it used to be.


----------



## HarrisLam

I wonder why they are saying this now.

It seems like they were so happy with PS3 and 360 for so many years, 3 years into the "next gen" and they've already had enough? This gen consoles might not have be the biggest leap in performance, but this still sound very illogical.

Whatever happened to the patience they had with the last gen? And the huge portion they make in console compared to PC?


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> Do you have any recommendations on how to develop with these attributes in mind?
> 
> I would legit, really appreciate it.


Unreal Engine 4 supports Linux, has a very premature Vulkan that keeps getting updated so you'll have to wait on this, and you can use OpenAL with it. Other engines have Linux and Vulkan support and are again compatible with OpenAL, like Serious Engine 4/Serious Engine 2017 and presumably id Tech 6.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And then you realize you still have absolutely no clue why it is that consoles are so attractive to the general public! Running multiple OS's and DOS emulators?!?! People just want to buy a box and a game, then start playing them! Most of my family and friends don't even know what an "operating system" is, much less have any interest whatsoever in running different ones to play different games. Most console gamers approach the problem of backwards compatibility by simply keeping the older consoles to play the older games. Problem solved!


The general public would have no interest in running Windows 7 much less a DOS emulator anyway. Very, very few games in the big picture actually don't work with Windows 10.

Remember that PC gaming is more attractive to the general public. Source: More Steam accounts than XBOX Live accounts (and if you want to check PSN accounts go ahead), and the popularity of Steam's top 20 played games plus many non-Steam games like Starcraft 2, World of Tanks, WoW, LoL, other MMOs, many of which have a player base many times higher than the top 2 most played console games.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I am arguing they should be eliminated for the long term good of gaming as both an art form and entertainment.


This is not even debatable. Similar to how if Linux became the standard, along with Vulkan and OpenAL, it would flat out be the best option for gaming (Linux being standardized would mean it'd have full application support and there'd be distros as easy to use as Windows).


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Unreal Engine 4 supports Linux, has a very premature Vulkan that keeps getting updated so you'll have to wait on this, and you can use OpenAL with it. Other engines have Linux and Vulkan support and are again compatible with OpenAL, like Serious Engine 4/Serious Engine 2017 and presumably id Tech 6.


So far now I should look at them as separate entities to get a better idea of how to implement it in the future?


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> So far now I should look at them as separate entities to get a better idea of how to implement it in the future?


Implementing OpenAL into UE4 is something the developers would have to do entirely on their own. As for Linux and Vulkan in UE4, those are just checkboxes.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Implementing OpenAL into UE4 is something the developers would have to do entirely on their own. As for Linux and Vulkan in UE4, those are just checkboxes.


Im guessing the problem is the small market in Linux right now.

Is it difficult to co develop for windows ?

Since were on the subject kinda Im picking your brain to see what I try to focus on when I start learning these skill sets in the near future


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> Im guessing the problem is the small market in Linux right now.
> 
> Is it difficult to co develop for windows ?
> 
> Since were on the subject kinda Im picking your brain to see what I try to focus on when I start learning these skill sets in the near future


Choose a game engine that supports exports for Linux and you are good.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Choose a game engine that supports exports for Linux and you are good.


Ill probably just go with UE4, was thinking Unity5 but from what I have read thus far, its easier to pick up but also more irritating to work with for more detailed projects.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> 7) Simpler than PCs. This is arguable, but weak. It's possible to build a simple gaming Linux distro that is no more difficult to use than a console OS.


This right here shows you have no concept of how technically literate the general public is. Most normal people can barely manage their phone let alone install linux or build a pc.


----------



## Juub

I wonder if OCN realizes most people don't have the patience or knowledge to build a PC.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> I wonder if OCN realizes most people don't have the patience or knowledge to build a PC.


Or the desire, most just dont care because thats not what they are interested in. They just want a box you put a disc in and play games.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Or the desire, most just dont care because thats not what they are interested in. They just want a box you put a disc in and play games.


Maybe back in our day, now a days if its going to be on PC then its just a box to sign into steam with lol


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> Im guessing the problem is the small market in Linux right now.
> 
> Is it difficult to co develop for windows ?
> 
> Since were on the subject kinda Im picking your brain to see what I try to focus on when I start learning these skill sets in the near future


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> Ill probably just go with UE4, was thinking Unity5 but from what I have read thus far, its easier to pick up but also more irritating to work with for more detailed projects.


Both of those engines should get your game running on Linux and Windows with just one extra mouse click. UE4 is incredibly easy to pick up, I actually never bothered with Unity. I went from CryEngine 2 to CryEngine 3 to UE4, with some mod experience on smaller engines along the way.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> I wonder if OCN realizes most people don't have the patience or knowledge to build a PC.


PC gaming is bigger than console gaming though. You think most PC gamers are on prebuilts?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Or the desire, most just dont care because thats not what they are interested in. They just want a box you put a disc in and play games.


That's why PC gaming is bigger and more popular and almost always has been?


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Both of those engines should get your game running on Linux and Windows with just one extra mouse click. UE4 is incredibly easy to pick up, I actually never bothered with Unity. I went from CryEngine 2 to CryEngine 3 to UE4, with some mod experience on smaller engines along the way.


Thanks for sharing ^.^


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> You're just as delusional as Charcharo, PC gaming has only taken off the last decade. Gaming has been a thing for 40 years.


Since the 1950s actually. En masse - 1970s, correct. But dont ignore the pioneers.

PC gaming has been a big force since the 1980s. And growing. And computer gaming - 1950s









Look at the entire history of an art form the same way cinema critics do.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Since the 1950s actually. En masse - 1970s, correct. But dont ignore the pioneers.
> 
> PC gaming has been a big force since the 1980s. And growing. And computer gaming - 1950s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the entire history of an art form the same way cinema critics do.


I was referring to when gaming was becoming popular.

Yes it has been growing but it was never this force which you claim like it has been in the last decade where they are actually competing with consoles for market share.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> I was referring to when gaming was becoming popular.
> 
> Yes it has been growing but it was never this force which you claim like it has been in the last decade where they are actually competing with consoles for market share.


Well it doesnt help that people literally combine all the consoles to throw together as one against PC Gaming...


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Well it doesnt help that people literally combine all the consoles to throw together as one against PC Gaming...


Well they are targeting the same kind of user with the same no frills experience that you plug in and pop in a game. They directly compete with each other as well.

We dont refer to just nvidia graphics or just amd graphics when we talk about pc gaming market share so why would we segment consoles? They both compete and aim to provide the same experience.

A pc and a console are not trying to accomplish the same thing, you can do all kinda of stuff on a pc to include actual work while a console is aimed at strictly being an entertainment device.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Well they are targeting the same kind of user with the same no frills experience that you plug in and pop in a game. They directly compete with each other as well.
> 
> We dont refer to just nvidia graphics or just amd graphics when we talk about pc gaming market share so why would we segment consoles? They both compete and aim to provide the same experience.
> 
> A pc and a console are not trying to accomplish the same thing, you can do all kinda of stuff on a pc to include actual work while a console is aimed at strictly being an entertainment device.


I dont think a Switch targets the same person that would love a PS4 (not that both make any sense). They are competing, but developer time and money is divided on consoles and so are exclusives.

The last part is one of the reasons for PC being cheaper.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I dont think a Switch targets the same person that would love a PS4 (not that both make any sense). They are competing, but developer time and money is divided on consoles and so are exclusives.
> 
> The last part is one of the reasons for PC being cheaper.


How so? Its a device that only serves 1 function, to play games on. It is literally nothing but a gaming console. All of these devices are focused on providing a simple user experience. Put in disc/cart, play game.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> Ill probably just go with UE4, was thinking Unity5 but from what I have read thus far, its easier to pick up but also more irritating to work with for more detailed projects.


Give Unity a try. Better to find out yourself than listen to others.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Give Unity a try. Better to find out yourself than listen to others.


In which case he should consider trying both. Both engines have their fans, although nobody will argue that Unity is better than UE4 (only easier for newcomers).


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> How so? Its a device that only serves 1 function, to play games on. It is literally nothing but a gaming console. All of these devices are focused on providing a simple user experience. Put in disc/cart, play game.


I still dont get what the IQ difference has to be for Put game - > Install - > play to be harder than -> Type code - > Download /install via disk -> start game. I seriously dont get it. Hell the inferior and slower UI on consoles confuses me more than an ini file and I am terrible at those









Because many people automatically need a PC but a console is always without exception just a luxury item. That is what I meant.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I still dont get what the IQ difference has to be for Put game - > Install - > play to be harder than -> Type code - > Download /install via disk -> start game. I seriously dont get it. Hell the inferior and slower UI on consoles confuses me more than an ini file and I am terrible at those
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because many people automatically need a PC but a console is always without exception just a luxury item. That is what I meant.


You are entirely skipping out on the whole part of purchasing the item. They can go to a store and know that a ps4 and xbox or switch will play games when they bring it home. Thats not the case with pc's. Also show me 1 gaming pc listed on amazon or bestbuy that is actually cheaper than a ps4 or xbox. Yeah you can build one but that requires research for most people if you plan to even complete the damn thing. You need to stop being so narrow minded and broaden your view to the whole experience.

What makes you think people need a pc? Almost everything people need can be accomplished with apps on a phone. No one NEEDS a pc in todays world.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> In which case he should consider trying both. Both engines have their fans, although nobody will argue that Unity is better than UE4 (only easier for newcomers).


Yes I'm saying he should try them all.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I still dont get what the IQ difference has to be for Put game - > Install - > play to be harder than -> Type code - > Download /install via disk -> start game. I seriously dont get it. Hell the inferior and slower UI on consoles confuses me more than an ini file and I am terrible at those
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because many people automatically need a PC but a console is always without exception just a luxury item. That is what I meant.


A PC is an open-ended platform than can be customized and tweaked to nearly an infinite number of configuration. A console is one box where the hardwar/software is identical.

That's why people come on here complaining about poor performance for their PC, but you will rarely see the same thing on a console. The simplicity is the draw of a console, something that the pc market wil never duplicate.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> You are entirely skipping out on the whole part of purchasing the item. They can go to a store and know that a ps4 and xbox or switch will play games when they bring it home. Thats not the case with pc's. Also show me 1 gaming pc listed on amazon or bestbuy that is actually cheaper than a ps4 or xbox. Yeah you can build one but that requires research for most people if you plan to even complete the damn thing. You need to stop being so narrow minded and broaden your view to the whole experience.
> 
> What makes you think people need a pc? Almost everything people need can be accomplished with apps on a phone. No one NEEDS a pc in todays world.


So basically PC is cheaper to people who take the 1 hour of research required to understand how parts work and choose parts? I agree here. There is a very low requirement for a huge gain. I cant respect someone or take them seriously if that is too big of a step for them.

I dont know what a bestbuy is.

It isnt about broadening, its me accepting extreme levels of laziness that should not be even viable. And I wont.

Irony is, smartphones and tablets are the PCs that make handheld consoles obsolete. Its effectively the mobile PC and why handhelds too should stop existing. Still, for the work I do a PC is a requirement, I need it to live. No console can argue that in its favor, for all but maybe very few and niche cases.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> A PC is an open-ended platform than can be customized and tweaked to nearly an infinite number of configuration. A console is one box where the hardwar/software is identical.
> 
> That's why people come on here complaining about poor performance for their PC, but you will rarely see the same thing on a console. The simplicity is the draw of a console, something that the pc market wil never duplicate.


Because PC Gamers have higher standards. A console gamer is happy with medium settings 20-30 fps, but PC Gamers due to the memes on reddit think PCMR means 60 fps, 1440P, Ultra settings on a GTX 1060







. In many cases possible but still unrealistic.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> A PC is an open-ended platform than can be customized and tweaked to nearly an infinite number of configuration. A console is one box where the hardwar/software is identical.
> 
> That's why people come on here complaining about poor performance for their PC, but you will rarely see the same thing on a console. The simplicity is the draw of a console, something that the pc market wil never duplicate.


The people complaining are enthusiasts with very high standards, while console gamers have very low standards. What PC gamers on sites like OCN call poor performance are what console gamers, who regularly game at 20-30 FPS or even less, see as superb performance. Remember how many of them are actually convinced of at least one of the following:

A) The human eye can't see above 30 FPS.
B) The human eye can't see above 60 FPS.
C) Above 30 FPS is too far from 24 FPS, the cinematic thus ideal standard.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Oh boy...
> 
> You know what amazon is, find me a prebuilt that is cheaper than a xbox or ps4.
> 
> By your logic you must never drive anywhere, eat anything unless its from scratch and you have taken all forms of convenience out of your life.
> I would link it but I cant respect someone or take them seriously if google is to big of a step for them.
> See my above point regarding convenience.
> Might want to call Nintendo and tell them to cancel all sales of the 3ds.
> Wrong, you want a better job. You dont need to do that job to live, you just WANT something better. You could work cleaning toilets to live, but you WANT to do something else. You know for a guy from "poor" eastern Europe you sure dont have a grasp on needs vs wants.
> This is just you spewing more non-sense.


That isnt my logic. I didnt say you need to become a chip designer and create a design, a manufacturing process and manage your own wafers and software. If I had said that - you'd have a point.

I dont use Amazon. I hear Pre-builts here are good but i havent checked.

Well their 3DS is crushed by mobile phones in terms of sales, power, technology and usage. If I could tell them to do that, do you think we'd still be having this conversation? There would be no consoles at all these days









A better job? I have scored the Gold for an engineering student so far. I can afford all the games I want, an apartment and decent hardware whilst working part time. I make more than most full time workers here already. And yes, that is how I live because If I dont have that job - I am jobless. Sure I can work for McDonalds and survive though, so I guess you are correct - I dont need a computer to live. But the point is still the same - its part of my living.
Of course one day Id want more







I dont want my GF to make 90:10 of our total budget, but at least for now I cant wish for much more. Which is great and all, have to always go up !









Needs - PC
Wants - PC and consoles
What is always superior? PC
What gives more bang for buck ? PC
What has more content? PC

Was it that hard? I know you guys will argue to the death for "Its so hard to read up on hardware for 1 hour! " and with the same breath call modding and backwards compatibility worthless. We simple have vastly different value systems.

As for the last part - it isnt nonsense. And you know it. Watch more digital foundry or talk to the complaining PC Gamers.


----------



## Juub

And this is why I'm disappointed at console gaming at times. This game is 1440p/30fps whereas the pre-release trailer was running at 4K/60fps on the PS4 Pro. A platformer plays so much better at 60fps. I really hope this comes out for PC.



Game looks gorgeous but Christ, this is a PS1 remake. The levels aren't even huge and expansive like in 3D Mario games either. Why not 60fps at least? I can't believe a little platformer is bottlenecked by the CPU. Hello input lag. We meet again.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> That isnt my logic. I didnt say you need to become a chip designer and create a design, a manufacturing process and manage your own wafers and software. If I had said that - you'd have a point.


Who said anything about manufacturing anything? Are you reading and understanding what I are saying? I am getting the feeling you are skimming the posts, and just responding with nonsense that isn't even relevant. I said you must not uses these things in your life if something simple like choosing a console is an extreme level of laziness then riding in a car should only be considered the same. No where does that correlate to manufacturing.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I dont use Amazon. I hear Pre-builts here are good but i havent checked.


When are you going to show me the prebuilt that is cheaper? You not using something has nothing to do with it, go to the site and search. You just dodge questions and and respond with these asinine statements that aren't even related to the discussion.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Well their 3DS is crushed by mobile phones in terms of sales, power, technology and usage. If I could tell them to do that, do you think we'd still be having this conversation? There would be no consoles at all these days


That doesnt stop millions of people from buying them and Nintendo making millions off of them. Good thing this world isnt run by Dictator Charcharo, most people like the ability to have a choice.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> A better job? I have scored the Gold for an engineering student so far. I can afford all the games I want, an apartment and decent hardware whilst working part time. I make more than most full time workers here already. And yes, that is how I live because If I dont have that job - I am jobless. Sure I can work for McDonalds and survive though, so I guess you are correct - I dont need a computer to live. But the point is still the same - its part of my living.
> Of course one day Id want more
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont want my GF to make 90:10 of our total budget, but at least for now I cant wish for much more. Which is great and all, have to always go up !


It was written in the context of you desiring something more than janitorial work. Thats what I meant by a better job. You wanted something more, you dont need it to live though.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Needs - PC
> Wants - PC and consoles
> What is always superior? PC
> What gives more bang for buck ? PC
> What has more content? PC


How is this relevant to what I posted? All I see is ignorance.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Was it that hard? I know you guys will argue to the death for "Its so hard to read up on hardware for 1 hour! " and with the same breath call modding and backwards compatibility worthless. We simple have vastly different value systems.


Are you talking to me? What does this even relate to in our discussion?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> As for the last part - it isnt nonsense. And you know it. Watch more digital foundry or talk to the complaining PC Gamers.


That last line is incoherent gibberish, it doesnt even make sense.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> And this is why I'm disappointed at console gaming at times. This game is 1440p/30fps whereas the pre-release trailer was running at 4K/60fps on the PS4 Pro. A platformer plays so much better at 60fps. I really hope this comes out for PC.


PS4 exclusivity for 1 year last I heard.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Who said anything about manufacturing anything? Are you reading and understanding what I are saying? I am getting the feeling you are skimming the posts, and just responding with nonsense that isn't even relevant. I said you must not uses these things in your life if something simple like choosing a console is an extreme level of laziness then riding in a car should only be considered the same. No where does that correlate to manufacturing.
> When are you going to show me the prebuilt that is cheaper? You not using something has nothing to do with it, go to the site and search. You just dodge questions and and respond with these asinine statements that aren't even related to the discussion.
> That doesnt stop millions of people from buying them and Nintendo making millions off of them. Good thing this world isnt run by Dictator Charcharo, most people like the ability to have a choice.
> It was written in the context of you desiring something more than janitorial work. Thats what I meant by a better job. You wanted something more, you dont need it to live though.
> How is this relevant to what I posted? All I see is ignorance.
> Are you talking to me? What does this even relate to in our discussion?
> That last line is incoherent gibberish, it doesnt even make sense.
> PS4 exclusivity for 1 year last I heard.


Because you said
" By your logic you must never drive anywhere, eat anything unless its from scratch and you have taken all forms of convenience out of your life."
A console isnt convenience, its punishment. Since it isnt equal to a PC, it cant be convenient.

I dont even know much about prebuilts as I have never ever looked at them. The best I know is this:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/cyberpowerpc-gamer-ultra-desktop-amd-ryzen-5-1400-8gb-memory-amd-radeon-rx-580-1tb-hard-drive-black/5833100.p?skuId=5833100
Only due to PC Gamer sharing it. I have no idea bout pre-builds in Bulgaria or anywhere else. For what its worth this thing has a CPU that obliterates the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X, several times faster and a GPU that is at Xbox One X level. So it seems to still overall be much better than either console. But again - I know mierda about pre-builds. Finding stuff about them requires effort which I cant dedicate as they are different for every country and if i show you some of ours - you'd call it irrelevant. I have had this dance with american console gamers for long (since I were 13?), I know what they will say before they say it. Sorry if it seems like I am skimming your posts, I will try not to but so far its the same as always. I will do my best though.

Well if it was up to me I'd just make it so that all PC games are considered art and would be protected speech as well as worthy of infusions from governments (like the Witcher 3, which was sponsored by both Poland and the EU) and leave consoles as toys. So if some group wants to attack console developers, they'd be unprotected unless the game has a PC version. Basically just make one thing protected and the other - not. No need for dictatorship. The climate would sort itself out in time. And the illusion of choice, even if stupid, would be kept. Clean and simple and correct as PC Games have the standard shot at immortality that all art forms have, whilst console games do not. So I aint even wrong.

Nintendo are losing the battle with mobile phones BTW. They can not win, they are beaten on all fronts. Power, software, engineering, hardware, vision, R & D. Its a slow but certain battle. I give them 20 at most 25 years till they give up the handhelds

Fair enough. Janitors still use PCs though









The last part is simple. Ever seen PC Gamers complain of games? Of course you have. Asked them what settings and hardware they are using? What they want to achieve? The standard of a console gamer is just lower at least on the graphics and performance front.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> A console isnt convenience, its punishment. Since it isnt equal to a PC, it cant be convenient.


Huh?


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> A console isnt convenience, its punishment. Since it isnt equal to a PC, it cant be convenient.


----------



## nagle3092

I'm a gamer, I game on all kinds of devices. I dont consider myself to be a pc gamer or console gamer. I have 3 gaming pc's in my house, og xbox, xbox 360, ps2, ps3, ps4 pro, wii, wii u, switch and nes classic along with a vita and n3dsxl. Not to mention about 730 games on steam. So yeah you can try to be an elitist all you want, I'm just a gamer.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> I'm a gamer, I game on all kinds of devices. I dont consider myself to be a pc gamer or console gamer. I have 3 gaming pc's in my house, og xbox, xbox 360, ps2, ps3, ps4 pro, wii, wii u, switch and nes classic along with a vita and n3dsxl. Not to mention about 730 games on steam. So yeah you can try to be an elitist all you want, I'm just a gamer.


I am a gamer and my first gaming system was an old Terminator 2 console (though my first games were DOOM 1 and Warcraft 1 on a laptop). I would never again use a console though, even if even I can feel nostalgia for my old console.

I am a gamer. The best for gaming as an art form long term has to be done. And it aint consoles...


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I am a gamer and my first gaming system was an old Terminator 2 console (though my first games were DOOM 1 and Warcraft 1 on a laptop). I would never again use a console though, even if even I can feel nostalgia for my old console.
> 
> I am a gamer. The best for gaming as an art form long term has to be done. And it aint consoles...


You just called yourself a pc elitist so its safe to say you dont even know what you are. The fact that you are so ignorant towards other forms of gaming its safe to say you probably do more to hinder it than help it.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> You just called yourself a pc elitist so its safe to say you dont even know what you are. The fact that you are so ignorant towards other forms of gaming its safe to say you probably do more to hinder it than help it.


I fail to see how being a PC elitist makes me less of a gamer...

I know the conslow hardware. I know their UIs, I know how they perform, I keep track of the companies and their stupidity, I talk to console fans from time to time... what else is left? To have a console again? Will that solve my "ignorance"? Id rather get a few teeth pulled than pay for that... and even if I had one id say the exact same things, just with more venom


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I fail to see how being a PC elitist makes me less of a gamer...
> 
> I know the conslow hardware. I know their UIs, I know how they perform, I keep track of the companies and their stupidity, I talk to console fans from time to time... what else is left? To have a console again? Will that solve my "ignorance"? Id rather get a few teeth pulled than pay for that... and even if I had one id say the exact same things, just with more venom


Go back and read all my posts to you and try to understand them. Then read them again, and then a third time for good measure. Its borderline insanity to try and explain it to you again. If you are incapable of seeing things from a different perspective you are nothing but a detriment to gaming.

You can say art form this and that but you dont even know what you are talking about. Do you think there is only 1 form of art? Are only paintings on canvas art? Of course not but thats the narrow minded view you choose to see the world from.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Go back and read all my posts to you and try to understand them. Then read them again, and then a third time for good measure. Its borderline insanity to try and explain it to you again. If you are incapable of seeing things from a different perspective you are nothing but a detriment to gaming.
> 
> You can say art form this and that but you dont even know what you are talking about. Do you think there is only 1 form of art? Are only paintings on canvas art? Of course not but thats the narrow minded view you choose to see the world from.


No, but those paintings have survived or can survive. A console game will eventually die. Its hardware will die. Even if it takes 100 years its still too little.
It limits modding. Modding is part of progress. It made prices for games higher. It is a part (not the entire reason!) of oversimplification. Hell you yourself confirm that whilst arguing that a single hour spent to learn simple PC hardware is too much for console gamers... that is sad. How can I expect those people to demand better of gaming if they truly are that bad?

I have empathy. Empathy is what made me dislike consoles so much.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> I'm a gamer, I game on all kinds of devices. I dont consider myself to be a pc gamer or console gamer. I have 3 gaming pc's in my house, og xbox, xbox 360, ps2, ps3, ps4 pro, wii, wii u, switch and nes classic along with a vita and n3dsxl. Not to mention about 730 games on steam. So yeah you can try to be an elitist all you want, I'm just a gamer.


Yeah you're a gamer, a nowadays gamer, basically a random guy who likes to get entertained by games and doesn't understand anything of them. "But i swear i'm a gamer!"

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> It's not art,period. It's entertainment. Games can be art,but not all of them are art. Learn the difference.


I mean seriously why someone should read what you say, like you want to talk about games not knowing what they really are, and you also claim you know what you're talking about, i mean are we serious here or? What kind of joke is this?

wrong quote, had to edit


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> No, but those paintings have survived or can survive. A console game will eventually die. Its hardware will die. Even if it takes 100 years its still too little.
> It limits modding. Modding is part of progress. It made prices for games higher. It is a part (not the entire reason!) of oversimplification. Hell you yourself confirm that whilst arguing that a single hour spent to learn simple PC hardware is too much for console gamers... that is sad. How can I expect those people to demand better of gaming if they truly are that bad?
> 
> I have empathy. Empathy is what made me dislike consoles so much.


So can console games, discs and carts can be dumped and archived until a emulator is made.

Steam and Bethesda have done more to limit modding than consoles ever have.

Prices went up because production values went up.

I never said an hour was too much, but people choose not to learn it because they dont want to. What is wrong with that? Heaven forbid someone chooses not to do something they dont want to do!

If you want to fix gaming you should start at pc, pc is quickly becoming pay to win with most of their revenue coming from F2P titles. That is going to be one of the biggest detriments to gaming in the last decade. That has thankfully stayed low in the console market.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> So can console games, discs and carts can be dumped and archived until a emulator is made.
> 
> Steam and Bethesda have done more to limit modding than consoles ever have.
> 
> Prices went up because production values went up.
> 
> I never said an hour was too much, but people choose not to learn it because they dont want to. What is wrong with that? Heaven forbid someone chooses not to do something they dont want to do!
> 
> If you want to fix gaming you should start at pc, pc is quickly becoming pay to win with most of their revenue coming from F2P titles. That is going to be one of the biggest detriments to gaming in the last decade. That has thankfully stayed low in the console market.


So emulation is the only way forward? Surprised, most console gamers argue this.

Steam? How? Again, HOW? Bethesda? I think you need to read MORE on what their stupid program does. You seem clueless. its a silly program but it isnt the END









If an hour is too much for them, they can not be good at games either. Passionless, not people that I would get along with.

PC Gaming is competitive with consoles even in AAA game sales. Not both consoles COMBINED, but each single console. It also has better long term sales and remember - on PC A game has to compete with mods, AA games, indies, old games, even old console games. It is a vast platform. F2P is not a major problem... it needs fixing but it isnt exactly the end-game I must defeat...


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> So emulation is the only way forward? Surprised, most console gamers argue this.


What do you think playing games in dos box is? As software gets outdated emulation is required. This is part of a natural progression to advance software.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Steam? How? Again, HOW? Bethesda? I think you need to read MORE on what their stupid program does. You seem clueless.


You do understand that Steam and Bethesda are the only platforms to push paid mods right?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> If an hour is too much for them, they can not be good at games either. Passionless, not people that I would get along with.


Money for games needs to come from someone, not everyone is going to be passionate about everything they do. That doesnt mean they dont enjoy doing it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> PC Gaming is competitive with consoles even in AAA game sales. Not both consoles COMBINED, but each single console. It also has better long term sales and remember - on PC A game has to compete with mods, AA games, indies, old games, even old console games. It is a vast platform.


Its not even close, thats why big devs like Rockstar dont even prioritize the platform because they get more sales from consoles.

Lets look at GTA 5

According to steam spy they sold 7.5 million copies on steam since launch on Apr 13, 2015 .

They sold more on consoles in 24 hours of release (11.5 million) than they have the entire 2 years its been out on PC.

They also announced that they sold 80 million copies.

Lets look at the best selling games of all time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games

First off there are more console exclusives on here than pc only games, and second of all I bet every game on here other than minecraft sold more on console than pc. Even that is probably borderline to selling more on consoles.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> F2P is not a major problem... it needs fixing but it isnt exactly the end-game I must defeat...


F2P is a cancer on gaming. The idea of never owning something that you can pump money into is not something I would want to be a part of.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> What do you think playing games in dos box is? As software gets outdated emulation is required. This is part of a natural progression to advance software.
> You do understand that Steam and Bethesda are the only platforms to push paid mods right?
> Money for games needs to come from someone, not everyone is going to be passionate about everything they do. That doesnt mean they dont enjoy doing it.
> Its not even close, thats why big devs like Rockstar dont even prioritize the platform because they get more sales from consoles.
> 
> Lets look at GTA 5
> 
> According to steam spy they sold 7.5 million copies on steam since launch on Apr 13, 2015 .
> 
> They sold more on consoles in 24 hours of release (11.5 million) than they have the entire 2 years its been out on PC.
> 
> They also announced that they sold 80 million copies.
> 
> Lets look at the best selling games of all time.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games
> 
> First off there are more console exclusives on here than pc only games, and second of all I bet every game on here other than minecraft sold more on console than pc. Even that is probably borderline to selling more on consoles.
> F2P is a cancer on gaming. The idea of never owning something that you can pump money into is not something I would want to be a part of.


F2P can be done right. Most is bad though. I much rather have an entry fee.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> F2P can be done right. Most is bad though. I much rather have an entry fee.


I suppose its possible. I stay away from them though because like you I would rather pay a flat price and get the same features everyone else gets.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> What do you think playing games in dos box is? As software gets outdated emulation is required. This is part of a natural progression to advance software.
> You do understand that Steam and Bethesda are the only platforms to push paid mods right?
> Money for games needs to come from someone, not everyone is going to be passionate about everything they do. That doesnt mean they dont enjoy doing it.
> Its not even close, thats why big devs like Rockstar dont even prioritize the platform because they get more sales from consoles.
> 
> Lets look at GTA 5
> 
> According to steam spy they sold 7.5 million copies on steam since launch on Apr 13, 2015 .
> 
> They sold more on consoles in 24 hours of release (11.5 million) than they have the entire 2 years its been out on PC.
> 
> They also announced that they sold 80 million copies.
> 
> Lets look at the best selling games of all time.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games
> 
> First off there are more console exclusives on here than pc only games, and second of all I bet every game on here other than minecraft sold more on console than pc. Even that is probably borderline to selling more on consoles.
> F2P is a cancer on gaming. The idea of never owning something that you can pump money into is not something I would want to be a part of.


Yes I know what Dos box is. I am saying most console gamers oppose emulation in general.

Steam tried once and stopped. Bethesda's program is stupid but wont damage modding long term. Also Bethesda isnt a platform.

Well the passionless can stick to a COD Box and stay there. They arent buying much else either.

My GTA V isnt on Steam. Its a retail copy and those do not go on Steam, rather Rockstar's social club thing. Do more research. It is also a title with Tripple-Dipping as the game released three times for maximum sales.

Wikipedia has lots of imperfect information. But again - 2-3 consoles together can outsell PC. And ironically I am sure Wargaming's PC WoT makes more money than almost all of those games on that list. And it isnt P2W (though its stupid game design...)

Consoles are a cancer on gaming. Not F2P. And if you want to play a numbers game - there are more F2P gamers than there are console gamers combined


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> I'm a gamer, I game on all kinds of devices. I dont consider myself to be a pc gamer or console gamer. I have 3 gaming pc's in my house, og xbox, xbox 360, ps2, ps3, ps4 pro, wii, wii u, switch and nes classic along with a vita and n3dsxl. Not to mention about 730 games on steam. So yeah you can try to be an elitist all you want, I'm just a gamer.


Nice collectionb of consoles









I still have my OG Xbox, WiiU (seeing as it plays Wii games). Ofcourse Xbox One S


----------



## Flames21891

Wow, the misconceptions on both sides of this argument...insane

Where to start...well first, if we turn back the clock a bit, consoles were at one point the undoubtedly superior gaming platform. They had hardware that was built from the ground up for gaming, and thus matched or exceeded the quality of PC's (at least in terms of raw gaming prowess) at a much lower price point. They also once held the convenience crown, with a plug and play system that was a simple as Boot Console->Insert Disc->Play.

However, since the PS3 and Xbox 360, that is no longer the case. Constant system updates from overburdened servers, clunky user interfaces, and hardware that sacrifices gaming performance to try and make the console more of a media box than a dedicated gaming machine. The convenience of a console has eroded to the point where the small amount of effort required to simply go with a gaming PC instead gives you far more benefits for a similar amount of effort.

Let's not forget the Sisyphean task of the industry constantly trying to make games look better, thereby sacrificing performance and image quality for it. A soft shadow system is pointless if the game has to be brought down to 900p to incorporate it. The loss in final image quality will make it a moot point, but this stuff looks good in trailers that are rendered on a system that ISN'T the console itself, so they do it anyways. The thing is, this is only a problem for consoles with their static hardware. A PC can display a game at virtually any resolution with scaleable settings, and the user can decide what to prioritize.

Also
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> So can console games, discs and carts can be dumped and archived until a emulator is made.


Yeah, except a PC is going to be the platform said emulator runs on. Not only that, but the power of a PC will allow it to be enjoyed with much better visual quality than the original (assuming a mature emulation system)

Honestly, the current generation of consoles is a joke. the One X looks like it might be what the PS4 and XB1 should have been when they launched, but it's a case of too little too late at this point. It also still doesn't solve the confounding UI, slow and forced updates, or slow response time of the systems.

Consoles require less effort to get started, but the experience with this current generation is very subpar. Even buying a prebuilt gaming system, you'll likely get more value out of it, even at the more expensive price point. You have to remember, a gaming PC is still a PC (just a much faster one) and can do everything from web browsing to video editing to streaming to...well, literally anything. A PC is practically as essential as home appliances nowadays, even for something as vital as finding a job. There are many places now that only accept online applications, for instance, and you're likely going to want to create your resume on a PC as well. So, when considering price, I'd view a gaming PC as two items in one: A PC and your gaming platform. So when comparing prices, you'd have to compare it to the cost of owning a PC and a gaming console independently, which significantly closes the gap, and the gaming PC would still be better at either task.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Yes I know what Dos box is. I am saying most console gamers oppose emulation in general.


Its the most viable solution for the long term. Phil Spencer said they would even like to bring xbox and xbox 360 emulation to pc eventually.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Steam tried once and stopped. Bethesda's program is stupid but wont damage modding long term. Also Bethesda isnt a platform.


So you give them a pass on it? Thats by far worse than anything consoles have done yet you are ok with it?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Well the passionless can stick to a COD Box and stay there. They arent buying much else either.


They make up probably most of the sales for big AAA games. Not everyone is a hardcore gamer.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> My GTA V isnt on Steam. Its a retail copy and those do not go on Steam, rather Rockstar's social club thing. Do more research. It is also a title with Tripple-Dipping as the game released three times for maximum sales.


And you would be an outlier, most sales would be on steam obviously because its the largest pc platform. Its ok, I know you dont want to accept it because its true. Dont forget all those other games on that list.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Wikipedia has lots of imperfect information. But again - 2-3 consoles together can outsell PC. And ironically I am sure Wargaming's PC WoT makes more money than almost all of those games on that list. And it isnt P2W (though its stupid game design...)


Still the best source we have to base a reasonable argument off of. As for WoT I dont play it and have no interest in it because its F2P which on most games is P2W.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Consoles are a cancer on gaming. Not F2P. And if you want to play a numbers game - there are more F2P gamers than there are console gamers combined


There are more mobile gamers than F2P gamers. Whats your point? If you honestly think that F2P is better for gaming than consoles you are more delusion than I thought. It seems you truly have no ability to process anything other than "Herp Derp PCMR".
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> Nice collectionb of consoles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still have my OG Xbox, WiiU (seeing as it plays Wii games). Ofcourse Xbox One S


Thanks, I plan on getting the X when it drops and maybe a Saturn and Dreamcast later this year if I haven't blown enough money yet.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Its the most viable solution for the long term. Phil Spencer said they would even like to bring xbox and xbox 360 emulation to pc eventually.
> So you give them a pass on it? Thats by far worse than anything consoles have done yet you are ok with it?
> They make up probably most of the sales for big AAA games. Not everyone is a hardcore gamer.
> And you would be an outlier, most sales would be on steam obviously because its the largest pc platform. Its ok, I know you dont want to accept it because its true. Dont forget all those other games on that list.
> Still the best source we have to base a reasonable argument off of. As for WoT I dont play it and have no interest in it because its F2P which on most games is P2W.
> There are more mobile gamers than F2P gamers. Whats your point? If you honestly think that F2P is better for gaming than consoles you are more delusion than I thought. It seems you truly have no ability to process anything other than "Herp Derp PCMR".
> Thanks, I plan on getting the X when it drops and maybe a Saturn and Dreamcast later this year if I haven't blown enough money yet.


I am getting an X too. My dreamcast broke. I should start a collection too


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> Yeah, except a PC is going to be the platform said emulator runs on. Not only that, but the power of a PC will allow it to be enjoyed with much better visual quality than the original (assuming a mature emulation system)


Obviously, I have no issues with that either. My point to all this is to try and have Charcharo see that consoles are not these evil boxes of punishment but they do provide value to people despite him not being able to see it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> Honestly, the current generation of consoles is a joke. the One X looks like it might be what the PS4 and XB1 should have been when they launched, but it's a case of too little too late at this point. It also still doesn't solve the confounding UI, slow and forced updates, or slow response time of the systems.
> 
> Consoles require less effort to get started, but the experience with this current generation is very subpar. Even buying a prebuilt gaming system, you'll likely get more value out of it, even at the more expensive price point. You have to remember, a gaming PC is still a PC (just a much faster one) and can do everything from web browsing to video editing to streaming to...well, literally anything. A PC is practically as essential as home appliances nowadays, even for something as vital as finding a job. There are many places now that only accept online applications, for instance, and you're likely going to want to create your resume on a PC as well. So, when considering price, I'd view a gaming PC as two items in one: A PC and your gaming platform. So when comparing prices, you'd have to compare it to the cost of owning a PC and a gaming console independently, which significantly closes the gap, and the gaming PC would still be better at either task.


This is largely dependent of the technical experience of the user. Blindly saying that a pc is better for everyone will never be the case. Also everything you said can be done on any smartphone, a pc will never be a device that is as essential as a home appliance.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *budgetgamer120*
> 
> I am getting an X too. My dreamcast broke. I should start a collection too


Fix it! There are everdrive like devices for it if the drive is dead.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Obviously, I have no issues with that either. My point to all this is to try and have Charcharo see that consoles are not these evil boxes of punishment but they do provide value to people despite him not being able to see it.
> This is largely dependent of the technical experience of the user. Blindly saying that a pc is better for everyone will never be the case. Also everything you said can be done on any smartphone, a pc will never be a device that is as essential as a home appliance.
> Fix it! There are everdrive like devices for it if the drive is dead.


I already gave it away. Will try getting one off ebay


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> You do understand that Steam and Bethesda are the only platforms to push paid mods right?


Valve/Steam historically have done far more good for modding than bad, but yes PC gamers definitely have to keep their eye on them since they did try paid mods for Skyrim. That failed and they're not currently a detriment to modding however, as they still post approved mods on their store and Workshop is great.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Its the most viable solution for the long term. Phil Spencer said they would even like to bring xbox and xbox 360 emulation to pc eventually.
> So you give them a pass on it? Thats by far worse than anything consoles have done yet you are ok with it?
> They make up probably most of the sales for big AAA games. Not everyone is a hardcore gamer.
> And you would be an outlier, most sales would be on steam obviously because its the largest pc platform. Its ok, I know you dont want to accept it because its true. Dont forget all those other games on that list.
> Still the best source we have to base a reasonable argument off of. As for WoT I dont play it and have no interest in it because its F2P which on most games is P2W.
> There are more mobile gamers than F2P gamers. Whats your point? If you honestly think that F2P is better for gaming than consoles you are more delusion than I thought. It seems you truly have no ability to process anything other than "Herp Derp PCMR".
> Thanks, I plan on getting the X when it drops and maybe a Saturn and Dreamcast later this year if I haven't blown enough money yet.


Talk is cheap. Call me when Phil does it. Until then I assume he is lying. Call me When Nintendo's drone-like management does something good for once. Call me when Sony support cross platform play, emulates PS1, 2 and 3 games and launches an emulator on PC. Until then I assume all 3 are enemies.

How exactly is payed user made DLC that doesnt affect Nexus or moddb so damaging. Explain it to me in detail. Do it.
Also lol consoles killed of Strategy, damaged modding and made games more expensive. Bethesda can not even HOPE to be as bad.

Yes 2 or 3 platforms can beat one platform. Nice job. Even casual gamers here are on PC, so either Westerners are stupider (I dont think they are) or marketing of consoles is affecting them (I believe this is what is happening).

GTA V was a release that had the most sales on PS3 and X360.Then it had a double dip with PS4 and Xbone. Then it had a third release on PC. Do you expect the third release to be equally as profitable as the first two? Instead of weak bait, learn to think.
And also it would have at least a few million retail copies.

Good. Stay ignorant. Doesnt change the facts. F2P isnt evil, its just your imagination and many bad apples + paranoia. And again, Wikipedia is bad. Hell it doesnt even get STALKER's sales correctly.

Mobile gamers are often F2P gamers. My battle isnt even with them but consoles. F2P gamers can be hardcore, more than you or your console friends.

I cant even find a Saturn here. its literally dead. In 100 years, all PS4s and their games would be dead unless emulators manage to emulate an X86-64 game... hard but I guess possible. Wh


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Its the most viable solution for the long term. *Phil Spencer said they would even like to bring xbox and xbox 360 emulation to pc eventually*.
> So you give them a pass on it? Thats by far worse than anything consoles have done yet you are ok with it?
> They make up probably most of the sales for big AAA games. Not everyone is a hardcore gamer.
> And you would be an outlier, most sales would be on steam obviously because its the largest pc platform. Its ok, I know you dont want to accept it because its true. Dont forget all those other games on that list.
> Still the best source we have to base a reasonable argument off of. As for WoT I dont play it and have no interest in it because its F2P which on most games is P2W.
> There are more mobile gamers than F2P gamers. Whats your point? If you honestly think that F2P is better for gaming than consoles you are more delusion than I thought. It seems you truly have no ability to process anything other than "Herp Derp PCMR".
> Thanks, I plan on getting the X when it drops and maybe a Saturn and Dreamcast later this year if I haven't blown enough money yet.


I can tell you right now that will NEVER happen. Microsoft simply doesn't care about PC aside from forcing ads into a paid OS and data mining, Beyond that they simply don't care and never will.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Valve/Steam historically have done far more good for modding than bad, but yes PC gamers definitely have to keep their eye on them since they did try paid mods for Skyrim. That failed and they're not currently a detriment to modding however, as they still post approved mods on their store and Workshop is great.


They still have done more to harm it as well. What do consoles even have to do with modding?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Talk is cheap. Call me when Phil does it. Until then I assume he is lying. Call me When Nintendo's drone-like management does something good for once. Call me when Sony support cross platform play, emulates PS1, 2 and 3 games and launches an emulator on PC. Until then I assume all 3 are enemies.


He said he wanted to bring it to Xbox One and they are. Phil has done a lot, not that I would expect the arrogant to notice. Without Nintendo and Sony there would not be many ground breaking games.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> How exactly is payed user made DLC that doesnt affect Nexus or moddb so damaging. Explain it to me in detail. Do it.
> Also lol consoles killed of Strategy, damaged modding and made games more expensive. Bethesda can not even HOPE to be as bad..


How is a company monetizing content they didn't even create good for anyone? Its not good for users or content creators. Obviously you wont see this with your PCMR shades on but when it goes mainstream and paid mods are the norm I hope you think back on this.

Explain in detail how consoles ruined strategy? Sounds like the developers are the ones to blame.

How did consoles damage modding? Mods weren't even a thing on consoles until this gen. You sounds like the kind of person that likes to point the finger but never accept responsibility for their own actions.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Yes 2 or 3 platforms can beat one platform. Nice job. Even casual gamers here are on PC, so either Westerners are stupider (I dont think they are) or marketing of consoles is affecting them (I believe this is what is happening).


Lol yes the evil consoles are doing it!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> GTA V was a release that had the most sales on PS3 and X360.Then it had a double dip with PS4 and Xbone. Then it had a third release on PC. Do you expect the third release to be equally as profitable as the first two? Instead of weak bait, learn to think.
> And also it would have at least a few million retail copies.


Whats your excuse for all the other games on that list then? Throw up some numbers instead of just making claims. Yeah I would expect a few million to sell at retail, nothing close to steam though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Good. Stay ignorant. Doesnt change the facts. F2P isnt evil, its just your imagination and many bad apples + paranoia. And again, Wikipedia is bad. Hell it doesnt even get STALKER's sales correctly.


Whats the fact then? Lets hear it with actually sources? You have done nothing but make claims without backing it up in this thread. Funny how everything that doesn't align with you is bad or evil. Why don't you change it then? You can do that you know.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Mobile gamers are often F2P gamers. My battle isnt even with them but consoles. F2P gamers can be hardcore, more than you or your console friends.


Lol ok buddy, keep thinking you're "hardcore". I play for fun and because I love games, I don't need to think that I am hardcore because I play games.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I cant even find a Saturn here. its literally dead. In 100 years, all PS4s and their games would be dead unless emulators manage to emulate an X86-64 game... hard but I guess possible. Wh


You do realize that Sega discontinued it almost 2 decades ago, of course its dead. That being said they are easy to find in the US, same with the dreamcast. We cant even comprehend how powerful computers will be in a 100 years. I have no doubt that they would be easily emulated.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> I can tell you right now that will NEVER happen. Microsoft simply doesn't care about PC aside from forcing ads into a paid OS and data mining, Beyond that they simply don't care and never will.


Well we wont know until it gets here or not. He said he wanted to bring it to Xbox one and they did, so we will see.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> They still have done more to harm it as well. What do consoles even have to do with modding?
> He said he wanted to bring it to Xbox One and they are. Phil has done a lot, not that I would expect the arrogant to notice. Without Nintendo and Sony there would not be many ground breaking games.
> How is a company monetizing content they didn't even create good for anyone? Its not good for users or content creators. Obviously you wont see this with your PCMR shades on but when it goes mainstream and paid mods are the norm I hope you think back on this.
> 
> Explain in detail how consoles ruined strategy? Sounds like the developers are the ones to blame.
> 
> How did consoles damage modding? Mods weren't even a thing on consoles until this gen. You sounds like the kind of person that likes to point the finger but never accept responsibility for their own actions.
> Lol yes the evil consoles are doing it!
> Whats your excuse for all the other games on that list then? Throw up some numbers instead of just making claims. Yeah I would expect a few million to sell at retail, nothing close to steam though.
> Whats the fact then? Lets hear it with actually sources? You have done nothing but make claims without backing it up in this thread. Funny how everything that doesn't align with you is bad or evil. Why don't you change it then? You can do that you know.
> Lol ok buddy, keep thinking you're "hardcore". I play for fun and because I love games, I don't need to think that I am hardcore because I play games.
> You do realize that Sega discontinued it almost 2 decades ago, of course its dead. That being said they are easy to find in the US, same with the dreamcast. We cant even comprehend how powerful computers will be in a 100 years. I have no doubt that they would be easily emulated.
> *Well we wont know until it gets here or not. He said he wanted to bring it to Xbox one and they did, so we will see*.


Yeah well saying one thing about their hardware and doing something for PC is a different thing altogether. the track record of mcirosoft over the past 10 years is all the proof i need. every year for over a decade now microsoft have given the yearly *"we care about PC gamers and will do better"* speech and they have yet to do a single thing for us except half assed ports of xbox one games that run like garbage even on high end systems.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> I can tell you right now that will NEVER happen. Microsoft simply doesn't care about PC aside from forcing ads into a paid OS and data mining, Beyond that they simply don't care and never will.


Wouldn't this be even better for Microsoft themselves to bring xbox and xbox 360 emulation and bring supported games to Windows Store against other stores, to attract more people ?


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Wouldn't this be even better for Microsoft themselves to bring xbox and xbox 360 emulation and bring supported games to Windows Store against other stores, to attract more people ?


It would be a logical next step seeing as windows and the xbox platform share similarities and the emulators that run both were undoubtedly developed on windows.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sumitlian*
> 
> Wouldn't this be even better for Microsoft themselves to bring xbox and xbox 360 emulation and bring supported games to Windows Store against other stores, to attract more people ?


absolutely not, they would lose console sales and that's why they been giving PC the shaft for the past decade.


----------



## sumitlian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> absolutely not, they would lose console sales and that's why they been giving PC the shaft for the past decade.


That does make sense indeed. But when we talk about emulations, we are talking about playing supposedly old games, both xbox and xbox 360 have become very old and I think it shouldn't hurt considering Microsoft is now focusing on Windows Store as well and revenue from some of those xb/xb360 sales might shift to ads in store, imo.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> absolutely not, they would lose console sales and that's why they been giving PC the shaft for the past decade.


How would they lose console sales on products not being made anymore? If anything it would increase sales because then they could resell og xbox and 360 games digitally on pc.

Guessing you mean current gen console sales? If thats the case I would be interested in seeing how they are selling since announcing all xbox games would come to pc. If that didnt affect numbers I dont think backwards compatibly would.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> How would they lose console sales on products not being made anymore? If anything it would increase sales because then they could resell og xbox and 360 games digitally on pc.
> 
> Guessing you mean current gen console sales? If thats the case I would be interested in seeing how they are selling since announcing all xbox games would come to pc. If that didnt affect numbers I dont think backwards compatibly would.


It does not matter. Console Sales do not make MS money. Its the games sold that matter.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Its ironic how console gamers call a PC elitist ignorant to be frank.
> *Basically all the convenience of a console itself seems subjective to me.* I cant find it more convenient than a PC and their UIs are less... ugh developed than PC UIs I guess?
> All you get with a console is a not that much less hard to use device. Like if someone tells me a PC is too hard for them to use Id try to stay away from that person. All the knowledge someone needs to build a PC can be given to them in one hour.
> 
> So to me a console isnt even more convenient. I will waste more time if I use one. And the barrier to entry on PC is so abysmally low, virtually all humans should manage


Lol, every single argument you make against consoles is subjective to you! YOU don't want a console. YOU don't think consoles have any reason for being. YOU think consoles are more expensive than PC's (absurdly). YOU think YOU know better why a company created a game than they do. YOU don't care about simplicity. YOU don't care about being able to sell used games. YOU think the only thing that matters is gaming as an art form. These are ALL your opinions and not in any way facts. This entire argument is subjective. Some people like you see no redeeming quality in consoles. Fine. Some people don't find any redeeming qualities in PC's. Fine. Some people like me find something useful about all platforms. OK. The difference is that you want to forcibly remove even the option for others to have a console if they want one just because you selfishly think that would make PC gaming better for YOU. That is why your arguments are offensive to so many in these threads. Its not up to you to decide which element of gaming is acceptable and which isn't. Its up to the free market and the fact that consoles are still so popular (despite your repeated whining that they are "useless") proves that the market has already spoken out against YOUR opinions...


----------



## Flames21891

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> Obviously, I have no issues with that either. My point to all this is to try and have Charcharo see that consoles are not these evil boxes of punishment but they do provide value to people despite him not being able to see it.


They do have some value, yes. I would simply argue that to those trying to get the most out of their hobby (Gaming) they are a subpar solution. Nothing is ever one-size-fits-all, but honestly consoles have so many more cons to their pros it's a bit absurd at this point.
Quote:


> This is largely dependent of the technical experience of the user. Blindly saying that a pc is better for everyone will never be the case. Also everything you said can be done on any smartphone, a pc will never be a device that is as essential as a home appliance.


Just because you _can_ do something doesn't mean you should. I can't imagine typing up a resume on a touchscreen keyboard is a pleasant experience. Also, I haven't tried it but, I'd imagine many of the scripts and such used for the application process on most businesses websites likely don't work perfectly on mobile browsers. Lastly, I still stand by my statement. Everything is going digital these days, and the boon of owning a PC practically makes it an "essential" device in the same capacity that other home appliances are essential. For example, you can technically get by without a washer and dryer, but I'd imagine the quality of your day-to-day life would suffer.

Also other things like video editing and such, no, that cannot be done on a smartphone, at least not in the capacity I'm speaking of. Asking an ARM processor designed for a portable, low-power device to take on something like Sony Vegas complete with a suite of plugins is just not gonna happen. Even if you could somehow get it to run, the rendering time would be asinine.


----------



## Boomer1990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> You have to remember, a gaming PC is still a PC (just a much faster one) and can do *everything from web browsing to video editing to streaming*


Consoles have the ability to do this stuff as well. On my Ps4 Pro I have the ability to record anything I did the past hour, so if something cool happened that was unexpected I can click 2 buttons and the video is saved. Then if I want I have the ability to edit the video and do whatever I want to it and upload it to multiple different sites. I can stream from the Ps4 as well as web browse. While the ps4 will never have anything as good as you can get on the pc side it has the ability to do these things.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> Consoles have the ability to do this stuff as well. On my Ps4 Pro I have the ability to record anything I did the past hour, so if something cool happened that was unexpected I can click 2 buttons and the video is saved. Then if I want I have the ability to edit the video and do whatever I want to it and upload it to multiple different sites. I can stream from the Ps4 as well as web browse. While the ps4 will never have anything as good as you can get on the pc side it has the ability to do these things.


One S does this also. I'm surprised the one S is able yo do do with the lowly clocked cpu. Can even stream and game at the same time


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> They still have done more to harm it as well. What do consoles even have to do with modding?
> He said he wanted to bring it to Xbox One and they are. Phil has done a lot, not that I would expect the arrogant to notice. Without Nintendo and Sony there would not be many ground breaking games.
> How is a company monetizing content they didn't even create good for anyone? Its not good for users or content creators. Obviously you wont see this with your PCMR shades on but when it goes mainstream and paid mods are the norm I hope you think back on this.
> 
> Explain in detail how consoles ruined strategy? Sounds like the developers are the ones to blame.
> 
> How did consoles damage modding? Mods weren't even a thing on consoles until this gen. You sounds like the kind of person that likes to point the finger but never accept responsibility for their own actions.
> Lol yes the evil consoles are doing it!
> Whats your excuse for all the other games on that list then? Throw up some numbers instead of just making claims. Yeah I would expect a few million to sell at retail, nothing close to steam though.
> Whats the fact then? Lets hear it with actually sources? You have done nothing but make claims without backing it up in this thread. Funny how everything that doesn't align with you is bad or evil. Why don't you change it then? You can do that you know.
> Lol ok buddy, keep thinking you're "hardcore". I play for fun and because I love games, I don't need to think that I am hardcore because I play games.
> You do realize that Sega discontinued it almost 2 decades ago, of course its dead. That being said they are easy to find in the US, same with the dreamcast. We cant even comprehend how powerful computers will be in a 100 years. I have no doubt that they would be easily emulated.
> Well we wont know until it gets here or not. He said he wanted to bring it to Xbox one and they did, so we will see.


Lol Paid mods will be the norm... no. You are too ignorant to even READ what the program they created does and underestimate PC Gamers. Your apocalyptic vision is a pipe dream.
They tried once and it was a disaster. This is a declawed, less invasive, more thought out version of their first try and it is localized to Bethesda only. Not Steam. And it wont work either... I mean its stupid but you are taking a rowdy kitten for a tiger, man.

With that being said, if it actually becomes a real danger and not some bad meme, I would go full on assault mode on it. You can count on that. With that being said, Skyrim and Fallout arent the most moddable games even. Those with their source code leaked... those have it better. Check moddb more often, you will like what you see. Hell Call of Chernobyl alone is amazing and after spending time on it, all other open world games will seem... mediocre in comparison.

Interesting how nations with little nostalgia for consoles are less prone to them. A more objective choice leads to better results.

You are too busy taking Phil Spencer's Damage Control and lies to think about it. Why is it not on PC yet? Why isnt their Xbox and 360 emulator here? On platforms with 10 times the performance of a slowbox one, it would be an easy sell. It can even be part of their damaging push for the Xbox or windows store or whatever it was called. Talk is cheap. Same way console game developer talk is cheap. Same way publisher talk is cheap. Until they actually do it, it is probably not true. Do not be naive, the world doesnt work on hope and MS wont release it for as long as this console generation (plus the XboxOneX) lasts. If they somehow do, I will admit to being wrong on that point.

Yeah developers that still make excellent games. You whine how I should take responsibility when I already am doing the best I can with what I have, whilst you yourself wont take any of it. Hypocrisy man, Occam's razor tells me its consoles and their inability to play complex titles and genres. Why should I blame the developers if that requires far more suspension of disbelief?

Consoles damaged modding by not having it at all. This is the reason your average conslow gamer talks bad about mods still. This is why they mock modders. They dont know any better. They probably think the extent of modding is Macho Mand Randy Savage in Skyrim... ignorance is damaging.

What backup?
http://www.gsc-game.com/index.php?t=community&s=forums&offset=-180


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



"After the official sales of the series exceeded 4 million copies worldwide, we had no doubts left to start creating a new big game in the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. universe. This will be the next chapter of the mega-popular game players expect from us" - said Sergiy Grygorovych, CEO of GSC Game World.


7 years ago, before the GOG launches even. Hell I have games that dont even have a wikipedia page in my drawer... again it could be more accurate, but ATM it isnt. This is why I dont trust wikipedia as much on gaming, it simply is too incomplete.

Yeah. You guys ruin gaming, PCs back you up and save you







. Got it. Would it not be easier for Sony and Nintendo to keep their stupid exclusives against microsoft and still release their excuse for games on PC? You TOLD me console gamers wont switch to PC anyway, so this does zero harm to their sales and doesnt require me mocking their incompetent anti-art executives. And maybe add official, high end modding support whilst they are at it, to their consoles. Not this limited to 2GB stuff. And work on backwards compatibility. And emulation. Then they'd just be overpriced PCs without any work ability, but wont be useless. Then Id agree with you. Id still mock people for choosing bad, but at least it will be playful. Consoles wont suck anymore.


----------



## Asisvenia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I am a gamer and my first gaming system was an old Terminator 2 console (though my first games were DOOM 1 and Warcraft 1 on a laptop). I would never again use a console though, even if even I can feel nostalgia for my old console.
> 
> I am a gamer. The best for gaming as an art form long term has to be done. And it aint consoles...


So.. How are you going to satisfy yourself when you see titles such as Uncharted, Last of Us, GOW, Horizon Zero Down, RDR... etc ? Of course if those titles would be available on PC, I would never look at the consoles again but those are exclusives for PS there is no way to play on PC.

I'm writing that comment as a person who doesn't have any eighth generation console. But if you're calling yourself "gamer", you shouldn't compare gpu/cpu chips and other components. Comparing consoles and computers absolutely pointless we already know which has more power. But titles, yes you can compare titles. Today, I don't think PC gaming community has quality titles such as PS.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asisvenia*
> 
> So.. How are you going to satisfy yourself when you see titles such as Uncharted, Last of Us, GOW, Horizon Zero Down, RDR... etc ? Of course if those titles would be available on PC, I would never look at the consoles again but those are exclusives for PS there is no way to play on PC.
> 
> I'm writing that comment as a person who doesn't have any eighth generation console. But if you're calling yourself "gamer", you shouldn't compare gpu/cpu chips and other components. Comparing consoles and computers absolutely pointless we already know which has more power. But titles, yes you can compare titles. Today, I don't think PC gaming community has quality titles such as PS.


I have played TLOU, Metro (game, not even the books which obviously are superior) is better. Deeper themes and ideas, better designed world (I know its cheating with using the books, but life aint fair).

The others look bad. Only RDR interests me, I admit. Its mostly because its a Western.

I dont think there is any Open World game equal to Call of Chernobyl in overall design today. Witcher 3 looks incompetent in comparison. Do know that when you compare a PS to a PC in games, you are involving all of the PC Games, all of its mods, all of its emulated console exclusives... all of its exclusives and exclusive (de facto) genres. It isnt a fair fight and it never has been.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Lol Paid mods will be the norm... no. You are too ignorant to even READ what the program they created does and underestimate PC Gamers. Your apocalyptic vision is a pipe dream.
> They tried once and it was a disaster. This is a declawed, less invasive, more thought out version of their first try and it is localized to Bethesda only. Not Steam. And it wont work either... I mean its stupid but you are taking a rowdy kitten for a tiger, man.
> 
> With that being said, if it actually becomes a real danger and not some bad meme, I would go full on assault mode on it. You can count on that. With that being said, Skyrim and Fallout arent the most moddable games even. Those with their source code leaked... those have it better. Check moddb more often, you will like what you see. Hell Call of Chernobyl alone is amazing and after spending time on it, all other open world games will seem... mediocre in comparison.


If you give Bethesda a pass now more companies will be inclined to do it. Once it gets started it wont stop, but continue to be blind about it. You know PCMR and stuff. Its funny how you downplay and make it ok for them to do this but yet you still cant come up with factual proof of consoles damaging mods.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Interesting how nations with little nostalgia for consoles are less prone to them. A more objective choice leads to better results.
> 
> You are too busy taking Phil Spencer's Damage Control and lies to think about it. Why is it not on PC yet? Why isnt their Xbox and 360 emulator here? On platforms with 10 times the performance of a slowbox one, it would be an easy sell. It can even be part of their damaging push for the Xbox or windows store or whatever it was called. Talk is cheap. Same way console game developer talk is cheap. Same way publisher talk is cheap. Until they actually do it, it is probably not true. Do not be naive, the world doesnt work on hope and MS wont release it for as long as this console generation (plus the XboxOneX) lasts. If they somehow do, I will admit to being wrong on that point.


If you actually watch the interview where he says it there was absolutely nothing related to damage control about it. He just flat out said thats what he would like to do. If it happens great, if not, I still got a 360 to play the games on so I dont really care.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Yeah developers that still make excellent games. You whine how I should take responsibility when I already am doing the best I can with what I have, whilst you yourself wont take any of it. Hypocrisy man, Occam's razor tells me its consoles and their inability to play complex titles and genres. Why should I blame the developers if that requires far more suspension of disbelief?


Developers are the ones that made the changes to the games.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Consoles damaged modding by not having it at all. This is the reason your average conslow gamer talks bad about mods still. This is why they mock modders. They dont know any better. They probably think the extent of modding is Macho Mand Randy Savage in Skyrim... ignorance is damaging.


So by that logic consoles are now helping modding by having them? How does not having something hurt it? Its never been a thing on consoles and was entirely disconnected up until this gen. Its ok though, now consoles have mods so by your logic they are helping them. Assumptions man, thats all you make.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> What backup?
> http://www.gsc-game.com/index.php?t=community&s=forums&offset=-180
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> "After the official sales of the series exceeded 4 million copies worldwide, we had no doubts left to start creating a new big game in the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. universe. This will be the next chapter of the mega-popular game players expect from us" - said Sergiy Grygorovych, CEO of GSC Game World.
> 
> 
> 7 years ago, before the GOG launches even. Hell I have games that dont even have a wikipedia page in my drawer... again it could be more accurate, but ATM it isnt. This is why I dont trust wikipedia as much on gaming, it simply is too incomplete.


So fix it! You have the ability to fix it, but instead you would just rather complain and not do anything about it. And you say console gamers are lazy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Yeah. You guys ruin gaming, PCs back you up and save you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Got it.


There is more damage done by piracy on pc than anything the consoles have done.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Would it not be easier for Sony and Nintendo to keep their stupid exclusives against microsoft and still release their excuse for games on PC?


I dont see how developing for multiple platforms would be easier.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> You TOLD me console gamers wont switch to PC anyway, so this does zero harm to their sales and doesnt require me mocking their incompetent anti-art executives.


Really where did I say that? Its ok, I will wait. Again, your just skimming posts and not understanding what you are reading.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> And maybe add official, high end modding support whilst they are at it, to their consoles. Not this limited to 2GB stuff. And work on backwards compatibility. And emulation. Then they'd just be overpriced PCs without any work ability, but wont be useless. Then Id agree with you. Id still mock people for choosing bad, but at least it will be playful. Consoles wont suck anymore.


News flash, most people dont give a damn about modding.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> They do have some value, yes. I would simply argue that to those trying to get the most out of their hobby (Gaming) they are a subpar solution. Nothing is ever one-size-fits-all, but honestly consoles have so many more cons to their pros it's a bit absurd at this point.


You do understand this is entirely subjective right? What holds value to you does not hold value to everyone else. What is so hard about people understanding this?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> Just because you _can_ do something doesn't mean you should. I can't imagine typing up a resume on a touchscreen keyboard is a pleasant experience. Also, I haven't tried it but, I'd imagine many of the scripts and such used for the application process on most businesses websites likely don't work perfectly on mobile browsers. Lastly, I still stand by my statement. Everything is going digital these days, and the boon of owning a PC practically makes it an "essential" device in the same capacity that other home appliances are essential. For example, you can technically get by without a washer and dryer, but I'd imagine the quality of your day-to-day life would suffer.


I would love to see these archaic browsers people are using that cant run modern scripts on phones. I know where I work I can easily apply for a new job if I wanted right from my phone, everything works just fine. I am guessing most people on here dont work at places where they actually have to support users (I am talking a wide range of skill sets, like food and beverage, guest services, maintenance, security, etc). I work for a company of 3000 people across 3 properties and computer literacy is not a strong suit of the general public, even younger generations are no more technically inclined than older people. Its really astounding to see as if there is some barrier people must cross to start understanding even the more basic tasks of devices they use every day.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> Also other things like video editing and such, no, that cannot be done on a smartphone, at least not in the capacity I'm speaking of. Asking an ARM processor designed for a portable, low-power device to take on something like Sony Vegas complete with a suite of plugins is just not gonna happen. Even if you could somehow get it to run, the rendering time would be asinine.


Video editing to that capacity is not something normal people do, so its a moot point.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asisvenia*
> 
> So.. How are you going to satisfy yourself when you see titles such as Uncharted, Last of Us, GOW, Horizon Zero Down, RDR... etc ? Of course if those titles would be available on PC, I would never look at the consoles again but those are exclusives for PS there is no way to play on PC.
> 
> I'm writing that comment as a person who doesn't have any eighth generation console. But if you're calling yourself "gamer", you shouldn't compare gpu/cpu chips and other components. Comparing consoles and computers absolutely pointless we already know which has more power. But titles, yes you can compare titles. Today, I don't think PC gaming community has quality titles such as PS.


Gears of War is on PC, GoW 4 is a very well optimized PC game in fact.

Never played RDR or Horizon: Zero Dawn and I know little about the latter. Uncharted and The Last of Us are incredibly weak games though, the developers show they have very little faith in gaming since those are just pretend movies-the emphasis is entirely on cutscene cinematics, voice acting, and animations, which are all empty and meaningless on their own. Then comes the writing, which is not bad but it's just generic mainstream movie type plots and characters that appears everywhere. Now the gameplay... the gameplay in these games is truly just a last minute thought by the developers, only designed to funnel the player from cutscene to cutscene, as there are only 1 or 2 repetitive main mechanics and the quests are all oversimplified as you are guided by an invisible hand the entire time. Hence why I call them wannabe movies since they're all about CUTSCENES *without* original, quality writing. Futile game design since a game can never match a good movie at being a movie.









At the end of the day arguing titles is mostly subjective. People can like anything. I like deeper, more elaborate titles with strong gameplay variety which the console games don't have as they are all designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator (12 year olds with short attention spans who are very easily satisfied).


----------



## Flames21891

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> You do understand this is entirely subjective right? What holds value to you does not hold value to everyone else. What is so hard about people understanding this?


No, it's not. I gave a specific scenario in which PC is the objectively better choice, but you just want me to be wrong so badly all _you_ read was "PC is always better."

I even added that it's not always the perfect solution for everyone, but of course you ignored that. I don't completely agree with Charcharo, but I can see why he keeps calling you out.
Quote:


> I would love to see these archaic browsers people are using that cant run modern scripts on phones. I know where I work I can easily apply for a new job if I wanted right from my phone, everything works just fine. I am guessing most people on here dont work at places where they actually have to support users (I am talking a wide range of skill sets, like food and beverage, guest services, maintenance, security, etc). I work for a company of 3000 people across 3 properties and computer literacy is not a strong suit of the general public, even younger generations are no more technically inclined than older people. Its really astounding to see as if there is some barrier people must cross to start understanding even the more basic tasks of devices they use every day.


So your anecdotal evidence is somehow enough to dismiss any potential problems? That's not how life works. Just for you, I tested my company HR site on my phone to see if it would work properly, and it's pretty broken. The biggest issue is that drop-down menus won't load properly, the fields are just blank (Firefox) and on another browser (Chrome) it crashes when loading any infographics. But I don't need it, right? It's only used for managing my pay, health benefits, and tax information. And before you pull out the old phone argument, it was tested with a Samsung Galaxy S8.
Quote:


> Video editing to that capacity is not something normal people do, so its a moot point.


Quote:


> You do understand this is entirely subjective right? What holds value to you does not hold value to everyone else. What is so hard about people understanding this?


Hmm? It suddenly reeks of hypocrisy in here.

It's obvious at this point that you're going to try to spin anything I say to support your own views. I could summarize my argument as such: PC's don't do any particular task exclusively, but they do it a lot better.

So my question, I suppose, is what are _you_ arguing exactly? Because from what I've gathered, it seems to be that you feel PC's are pointless because smartphones and consoles exist.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> No, it's not. I gave a specific scenario in which PC is the objectively better choice, but you just want me to be wrong so badly all _you_ read was "PC is always better."
> 
> I even added that it's not always the perfect solution for everyone, but of course you ignored that. I don't completely agree with Charcharo, but I can see why he keeps calling you out.


Really? Lets see below.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> They do have some value, yes. I would simply argue that to those trying to get the most out of their hobby (Gaming) they are a subpar solution.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> Nothing is ever one-size-fits-all, but honestly consoles have so many more cons to their pros it's a bit absurd at this point.


Both of those points are subjective.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> So your anecdotal evidence is somehow enough to dismiss any potential problems? That's not how life works. Just for you, I tested my company HR site on my phone to see if it would work properly, and it's pretty broken. The biggest issue is that drop-down menus won't load properly, the fields are just blank (Firefox) and on another browser (Chrome) it crashes when loading any infographics. But I don't need it, right? It's only used for managing my pay, health benefits, and tax information. And before you pull out the old phone argument, it was tested with a Samsung Galaxy S8.


I would love to see a place that actually required people to view this information with fear of their livelihood based on a website. Fact is its not, you dont need to view that info, but you want to (obviously besides the W2 but there are hard copies you can get). Pay stub for pay info, you probably have a benefits line that you can call to get the information or an actual department you could walk in and talk to, and I am sure payroll would willingly give you a hard copy of your W2.

None of that is essential, just because you have accepted it as a standard for YOU does not mean its required for anyone else. If your suddenly left without a way to access that website life will go on, there are ways to get around it without having a computer.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> Hmm? It suddenly reeks of hypocrisy in here.


Really? Where?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> It's obvious at this point that you're going to try to spin anything I say to support your own views. I could summarize my argument as such: PC's don't do any particular task exclusively, but they do it a lot better.


No spinning required. I am simply telling you a pc is not this essential device you claim it to be, there are millions if not billions of people who dont use them.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> So my question, I suppose, is what are _you_ arguing exactly? Because from what I've gathered, it seems to be that you feel PC's are pointless because smartphones and consoles exist.


Ill repeat it again, since you missed it the first time.

My point to all this is to try and have Charcharo see that consoles are not these evil boxes of punishment but they do provide value to people despite him not being able to see it.

I love computers, hell I work in IT. But I also work with users and am able to see how a lot of people function outside of tech centric.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> are just pretend movies-the emphasis is entirely on cutscene cinematics, voice acting, and animations, which are all empty and meaningless on their own.
> 
> only designed to funnel the player from cutscene to cutscene


Sounds like SWTOR.

RPGs have often been like this - wannabe films. Once developers were able to use CD-ROM and larger storage spaces this type of game design became a thing.

Cut scenes are okay with me but I'm not a fan of voice acting in video games. I'm sure it can be done well but I haven't seen it yet. I prefer to imagine how someone sounds.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Sounds like SWTOR.
> 
> RPGs have often been like this - wannabe films. Once developers were able to use CD-ROM and larger storage spaces this type of game design became a thing.
> 
> Cut scenes are okay with me but I'm not a fan of voice acting in video games. I'm sure it can be done well but I haven't seen it yet. I prefer to imagine how someone sounds.


Cutscenes alone aren't a problem necessarily (but the style is not for everyone, no style is), but trying to make your game primarily an animated film while calling it a video game is a problem. Sacrificing gameplay, writing quality, and interactivity just to emulate films, when you're making a video game not an animated film, is a problem. Some of these games basically have identity crisis.

I do like some "cinematic" games, but they don't make sacrifices in gameplay, writing, and interactivity in the process of utilizing some cinema influence and their cinematic cutscenes happen to be interactive unlike cinema.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Cutscenes alone aren't a problem necessarily (but the style is not for everyone, no style is), but trying to make your game primarily an animated film while calling it a video game is a problem. Sacrificing gameplay, writing quality, and interactivity just to emulate films, when you're making a video game not an animated film, is a problem. Some of these games basically have identity crisis.
> 
> I do like some "cinematic" games, but they don't make sacrifices in gameplay, writing, and interactivity in the process of utilizing some cinema influence and their cinematic cutscenes happen to be interactive unlike cinema.


Like you said its largely subjective but I can agree on the overuse of cinematics. I dont care for uncharted while I do love Metal Gear, both heavy on cutscences to move a story forward but MG has more immersive gameplay for me at least. That being said there are millions of people that do enjoy it so if thats what they like more power to them. I am not compelled to buy them so no harm no fowl.


----------



## Flames21891

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> No spinning required. I am simply telling you a pc is not this essential device you claim it to be, there are millions if not billions of people who dont use them.


Okay, so if you want to argue semantics, nothing is essential. A vehicle is not essential. A refrigerator is not essential. Hell, a home with proper insulation or an HVAC is not essential. We're lucky enough to live in a country where the word "essential" doesn't describe the bare minimum means of not starving to death, but rather what is essential to getting you to a point where you can live comfortably, and give you the opportunities to get where you want to be. What is essential in modern society are the tools that allow you to keep up. It is possible to make a living without a computer, yes, but your options are limited, much like being without a vehicle severely inhibits what choices you have in work locations. With everything going digital, and becoming more convenient for doing so, having a PC is a bigger quality of life improvement than ever. Some might even call it essential, no?

As for consoles being punishment boxes, obviously that phrasing is taking it way too far. Consoles are still passable gaming devices, but when playing a game, if you can't help but wonder how much nicer the game would be if the framerate was better, or if the resolution was native to your screen, or if you could use a different controller, that speaks to an experience with room for improvement, no?

I'm not saying consoles don't have a place, or don't have their own good points, but the last couple generations it just feels like they've started trying to emulate PC's. Suffice to say, aren't doing a very good job of it, so much so that a PS2 is a far more convenient gaming device than a PS4 is. Because of this, consoles have lost most of the advantages they had over gaming PC's, and I would argue what little they have left isn't actually worth much, especially considering all the extra benefits you stand to gain by playing on PC instead.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> Okay, so if you want to argue semantics, nothing is essential. A vehicle is not essential. A refrigerator is not essential. Hell, a home with proper insulation or an HVAC is not essential. We're lucky enough to live in a country where the word "essential" doesn't describe the bare minimum means of not starving to death, but rather what is essential to getting you to a point where you can live comfortably, and give you the opportunities to get where you want to be. What is essential in modern society are the tools that allow you to keep up. It is possible to make a living without a computer, yes, but your options are limited, much like being without a vehicle severely inhibits what choices you have in work locations. With everything going digital, and becoming more convenient for doing so, having a PC is a bigger quality of life improvement than ever. Some might even call it essential, no?
> 
> As for consoles being punishment boxes, obviously that phrasing is taking it way too far. Consoles are still passable gaming devices, but when playing a game, if you can't help but wonder how much nicer the game would be if the framerate was better, or if the resolution was native to your screen, or if you could use a different controller, that speaks to an experience with room for improvement, no?
> 
> I'm not saying consoles don't have a place, or don't have their own good points, but the last couple generations it just feels like they've started trying to emulate PC's. Suffice to say, aren't doing a very good job of it, so much so that a PS2 is a far more convenient gaming device than a PS4 is. Because of this, consoles have lost most of the advantages they had over gaming PC's, and I would argue what little they have left isn't actually worth much, especially considering all the extra benefits you stand to gain by playing on PC instead.


A tablet or smartphone is more essential than a PC.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> Okay, so if you want to argue semantics, nothing is essential. A vehicle is not essential. A refrigerator is not essential. Hell, a home with proper insulation or an HVAC is not essential. We're lucky enough to live in a country where the word "essential" doesn't describe the bare minimum means of not starving to death, but rather what is essential to getting you to a point where you can live comfortably, and give you the opportunities to get where you want to be. What is essential in modern society are the tools that allow you to keep up. It is possible to make a living without a computer, yes, but your options are limited, much like being without a vehicle severely inhibits what choices you have in work locations. With everything going digital, and becoming more convenient for doing so, having a PC is a bigger quality of life improvement than ever. Some might even call it essential, no?


It can provide a quality of life improvement absolutely, that doesn't change the fact that PC ownership is on the decline. Smartphones and tablets are taking over pc duties for most NORMAL people. I would say that having a device that is connected to the internet is quickly becoming essential, but for a pc or laptop specifically no.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> As for consoles being punishment boxes, obviously that phrasing is taking it way too far. Consoles are still passable gaming devices, but when playing a game, if you can't help but wonder how much nicer the game would be if the framerate was better, or if the resolution was native to your screen, or if you could use a different controller, that speaks to an experience with room for improvement, no?


I think we all asked ourselves those questions at one point which is why we are here. That being said, there are millions that dont care as much as we do and they are just fine playing the games even with there limitations.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> I'm not saying consoles don't have a place, or don't have their own good points, but the last couple generations it just feels like they've started trying to emulate PC's. Suffice to say, aren't doing a very good job of it, so much so that a PS2 is a far more convenient gaming device than a PS4 is. Because of this, consoles have lost most of the advantages they had over gaming PC's, and I would argue what little they have left isn't actually worth much, especially considering all the extra benefits you stand to gain by playing on PC instead.


I think the part of last gen staying too long and this gen being underwhelming at first (Pro and X are nice for what they are) is probably part of the reason for the disdain. When the 360 and 3 came out I remember all kinds of sites comparing the fastest gaming rigs at the time in Oblivion to both of these boxes. When they came out, they were damn good for what you were getting. Staying on the market for 8 years though with the fast pace of tech proved to be too much for them though. I wouldnt be surprised to see a mid cycle refresh for each gen from here on out.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> Suffice to say, aren't doing a very good job of it, so much so that a PS2 is a far more convenient gaming device than a PS4 is. Because of this, consoles have lost most of the advantages they had over gaming PC's, and I would argue what little they have left isn't actually worth much, especially considering all the extra benefits you stand to gain by playing on PC instead.


They really arent that complicated. For example last night I got the new crash game, opened it up put the disc in and finished getting changed from work. By the time I sat down with my 6 year old all we had to do was change the input on the tv, hit X on his profile and X again to launch the game. Even launching into big picture mode (how I have his pc setup to work) there are more steps to get to the game if its already installed. But yeah a PS2 is easier simply because there are even less steps but consoles are still the convenience king imo.


----------



## Flames21891

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nagle3092*
> 
> They really arent that complicated. For example last night I got the new crash game, opened it up put the disc in and finished getting changed from work. By the time I sat down with my 6 year old all we had to do was change the input on the tv, hit X on his profile and X again to launch the game. Even launching into big picture mode (how I have his pc setup to work) there are more steps to get to the game if its already installed. But yeah a PS2 is easier simply because there are even less steps but consoles are still the convenience king imo.


I'm not saying consoles are complicated, but just irritating to work with.

As an example, I bought Final Fantasy XV day one. I came home, put the disc in, and it told me it needs to install to the HDD and download updates. It was only 3 hours later that I could actually launch the game passed the main menu screen. I have never bought a PC game that took 3 hours to install and update. Oh, and then managing DLC tracks on Rock Band Rivals. I bought it recently, and imported my library, but I had to back out of the game and go to the game management section to actually download and install them. That's a minor annoyance, but whatever, right? Well, apparently I had too many songs for the poor little Jaguar CPU to handle, because it would make the whole PS4 OS become completely unresponsive just trying to _open the DLC list_, where it wouldn't do anything other than navigate back to the main page and let me highlight new icons, and I had to hard reset the console. This happened every time, without fail, and I eventually found a roundabout method of installing the songs in small doses that didn't cause the console to choke. I don't know about you, but long install times and the console choking on more than one task at a time is quite common for my PS4 (I don't have a Pro I suppose, if that helps) and is far less convenient than dealing with my PC.


----------



## nagle3092

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> I don't know about you, but long install times and the console choking on more than one task at a time is quite common for my PS4 (I don't have a Pro I suppose, if that helps) and is far less convenient than dealing with my PC.


I got a pro with a 2TB hyrbrid drive I swapped into it right out of the box. I dont own either of those games so its hard for me to have something to compare to. As soon as I get games I just pop the disc in and do something else so that way its installed when I want to play it. I havent had any issues though in terms of changing games or anything like that, its strictly only used for gaming.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> Oh, and then managing DLC tracks on Rock Band Rivals. I bought it recently, and imported my library, but I had to back out of the game and go to the game management section to actually download and install them. That's a minor annoyance, but whatever, right? Well, apparently I had too many songs for the poor little Jaguar CPU to handle, because it would make the whole PS4 OS become completely unresponsive just trying to _open the DLC list_, where it wouldn't do anything other than navigate back to the main page and let me highlight new icons, and I had to hard reset the console. This happened every time, without fail, and I eventually found a roundabout method of installing the songs in small doses that didn't cause the console to choke. I don't know about you, but long install times and the console choking on more than one task at a time is quite common for my PS4 (I don't have a Pro I suppose, if that helps)


Even a Pentium II has enough power to handle the management of a song library. It's not the CPU that's the problem. That sounds like poor coding.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Asisvenia*
> 
> So.. How are you going to satisfy yourself when you see titles such as Uncharted, Last of Us, GOW, Horizon Zero Down, RDR... etc ? Of course if those titles would be available on PC, I would never look at the consoles again but those are exclusives for PS there is no way to play on PC.
> 
> I'm writing that comment as a person who doesn't have any eighth generation console. But if you're calling yourself "gamer", you shouldn't compare gpu/cpu chips and other components. Comparing consoles and computers absolutely pointless we already know which has more power. But titles, yes you can compare titles. Today, I don't think PC gaming community has quality titles such as PS.


You're forgetting the other significant advantages people enjoy on consoles that don't include exclusives which have been enumerated countless times already in this thread. Its not only about exclusives, though that is also an important factor. Not everyone is monolithic in their opinion of what "true" gaming is, as Charcharo seems to believe. To him the only valid definition of what a true gaming experience is is his own definition thereof. And that is why he has no credibility whatsoever in this argument. Not everyone (nor even the majority of people) agree with his interpretations.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I have played TLOU, *Metro (game, not even the books which obviously are superior) is better.* *Deeper themes and ideas, better designed world* (I know its cheating with using the books, but life aint fair).
> 
> *The others look bad.* Only RDR *interests me*, I admit. Its mostly because its a Western.
> 
> *I dont think there is any Open World game equal to Call of Chernobyl in overall design today*. *Witcher 3 looks incompetent in comparison.* Do know that when you compare a PS to a PC in games, you are involving all of the PC Games, all of its mods, all of its emulated console exclusives... all of its exclusives and exclusive (de facto) genres. It isnt a fair fight and it never has been.


Every single one of those statements is YOUR opinion. Its like saying that you don't like pizza and therefore pizza is factually a bad food that nobody else should like. Its asinine.


----------



## syne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> On that subject, there really is an entire untapped market of modern games with simplistic graphics that could still push technology in other ways.
> Minecraft is one example, and we've seen a few other indie titles that try to play with Voxels, but I'm still confident that the games being made today are really only scratching the surface of the potential current hardware has, even on consoles.
> One of my biggest disappointments in recent years is that no-one made any serious effort to make a Minecraft competitior. There are dozens of them on mobile, but nothing on PC using C++ that actually tries to push the concept further. At least Microsoft hasn't totally abandoned the idea of refining Minecraft, but they don't seem interested in doing anything more than maintaining the same basic concept.


There's a really good reason for that which is explained by rag doll productions actions.

When they made the teletytubbies tv show in the uk it was a massive runaway success yet they only made enough episodes to last for two years. The reason being that the audience was eventually going to grow up and move on, to be replaced by a new generation of viewers who really couldn't care less about whether the show was on the cutting edge. It was an absolutely perfect business choice.

The same applies to minecraft, your future audience/customer is aged 4-8 and what works for that age group will work for that age group forever
When you push the concept further you step out of minecraft territory, i.e. A simple and engaging world that your imagination does the heavy lifting in.
Microsoft will realease a teen version of minecraft at some point to capitalise on it, 'it' being that minecraft is a gateway drug-but really that next step the gaming industry as a whole.
As a stand alone revenue stream minecraft currently is as perfect as cold running water piped into your home.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Every single one of those statements is YOUR opinion. Its like saying that you don't like pizza and therefore pizza is factually a bad food that nobody else should like. Its asinine.


Literature vs video games is obvious. I wont entertain anti-art stuff man. Sorry.

The rest I did note are technically subjective statements, though the reasoning behind them is either personal or logically coherent.

You have not played Call of Chernobyl


----------



## GorillaSceptre

I get the feeling certain YouTubers hang around these parts..









5 year old GPU






That video perfectly illustrates what I was saying about devs optimizing around medium-high (consoles). Find me a game these days that offers a meaningful boost in fidelity @Ultra, and warrants the sometimes 50+% decrease in performance. Honestly, some titles I can hardly spot the difference outside of stills, even medium usually looks solid. This is why comparing PC's @ ultra to consoles is apples and oranges.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> I get the feeling certain YouTubers hang around these parts..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5 year old GPU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That video perfectly illustrates what I was saying about devs optimizing around medium-high (consoles). Find me a game these days that offers a meaningful boost in fidelity @Ultra, and warrants the sometimes 50+% decrease in performance. Honestly, some titles I can hardly spot the difference outside of stills, even medium usually looks solid. This is why comparing PC's @ ultra to consoles is apples and oranges.


I have noticed this with 1080 Ti trying to run Ultra at 4K. The performance hit is way too large and not worth the IQ difference. For example in Metro I was getting 55 fps with drops to low 30s with Max setting and 80-90 fps with High with no drops under 60 fps.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I have noticed this with 1080 Ti trying to run Ultra at 4K. The performance hit is way too large and not worth the IQ difference. For example in Metro I was getting 55 fps with drops to low 30s with Max setting and 80-90 fps with High with no drops under 60 fps.


Yeah, if I can't notice a difference I turn things off.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I have noticed this with 1080 Ti trying to run Ultra at 4K. The performance hit is way too large and not worth the IQ difference. For example in Metro I was getting 55 fps with drops to low 30s with Max setting and 80-90 fps with High with no drops under 60 fps.


Disable SSAA. That doubles/triples/quadruples the pixels your GPU is pushing. Metro can be run at 4K without SSAA at otherwise Ultra.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> I get the feeling certain YouTubers hang around these parts..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5 year old GPU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That video perfectly illustrates what I was saying about devs optimizing around medium-high (consoles). Find me a game these days that offers a meaningful boost in fidelity @Ultra, and warrants the sometimes 50+% decrease in performance. Honestly, some titles I can hardly spot the difference outside of stills, even medium usually looks solid. This is why comparing PC's @ ultra to consoles is apples and oranges.


This is what I have been telling people. They dont need much to get the console experience or above. If a PC does Medium settings, it matches a console. If a PC does high - it beats a console. Ultra is just added on top.

Or in other words, you dont need a 1080 Ti to match a console @ 4K lol. For a medium-high combo, even 390X likely does it. So PC parts become even cheaper vs console ones especially since it seems console optimization is not a significant factor.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Disable SSAA. That doubles/triples/quadruples the pixels your GPU is pushing. Metro can be run at 4K without SSAA at otherwise Ultra.
> This is what I have been telling people. They dont need much to get the console experience or above. If a PC does Medium settings, it matches a console. If a PC does high - it beats a console. Ultra is just added on top.
> 
> Or in other words, you dont need a 1080 Ti to match a console @ 4K lol. For a medium-high combo, even 390X likely does it. So PC parts become even cheaper vs console ones especially since it seems console optimization is not a significant factor.


SSAA was off in both cases. I though Ultra was fine sitting 55 fps + 95% of the time but in heavy fight there was too much lag.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> SSAA was off in both cases. I though Ultra was fine sitting 55 fps + 95% of the time but in heavy fight there was too much lag.


Then maybe PhysX? On Redux, PhysX is multi-threaded and on AMD systems the CPU handles it. Even my CPU can keep up









This is strange to me... it should not dip under 60.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Then maybe PhysX? On Redux, PhysX is multi-threaded and on AMD systems the CPU handles it. Even my CPU can keep up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is strange to me... it should not dip under 60.


I am talking about Last Light Redux. Have not tested Metro 2033.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I am talking about Last Light Redux. Have not tested Metro 2033.


2033 Redux is the same engine. 2033 non-redux will run a lot worse. Last Light non Redux will run about the same (maybe one idea worse).


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Disable SSAA. That doubles/triples/quadruples the pixels your GPU is pushing. Metro can be run at 4K without SSAA at otherwise Ultra.
> This is what I have been telling people. They dont need much to get the console experience or above. If a PC does Medium settings, it matches a console. If a PC does high - it beats a console. Ultra is just added on top.
> 
> Or in other words, you dont need a 1080 Ti to match a console @ 4K lol. For a medium-high combo, even 390X likely does it. So PC parts become even cheaper vs console ones especially since it seems console optimization is not a significant factor.


Yeah, that's what I was trying to get across in the Xbox One X thread.. "You need 1080/TI systems to do 4K", "X1X does it for $500".









If 30fps is all that's needed, then the 390X is fine @ 4K, lowering settings extends that to even more lower-tier/older cards. The culture on PC want 60fps and Ultra, but a console-like experience is possible @4K with far more machines than some would admit if the only goal is to match consoles. Personally, I can't stand 30fps in most games besides something like Xcom, so 4K is out of the question for me. Although, I can put up with it on a TV with a gamepad usually.

This is a fifteen game average on ultra, if the settings are reduced to the *far more* optimized medium/high, then way more cards would be capable of it:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







Look at TW3 for example:



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!











Even Crysis 3:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!











So while there are differences between high and very high/Ultra (sometimes it's a rare treat to see large ones), they can be difficult to notice immediately, *even in screenshots*.. The trade for that 5% boost in image quality also comes with a performance penalty of 50%.. Having a PC that can do Ultra/4K/60+fps is awesome if you can afford it, but I feel like reviewers focus way to much on maxing a title, ultra just isn't what it used to be.

Look at the Crysis 1-era:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Yeah, that's what I was trying to get across in the Xbox One X thread.. "You need 1080/TI systems to do 4K", "X1X does it for $500".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If 30fps is all that's needed, then the 390X is fine @ 4K, lowering settings extends that to even more lower-tier/older cards. The culture on PC want 60fps and Ultra, but a console-like experience is possible @4K with far more machines than some would admit if the only goal is to match consoles. Personally, I can't stand 30fps in most games besides something like Xcom, so 4K is out of the question for me. Although, I can put up with it on a TV with a gamepad usually.
> 
> This is a fifteen game average on ultra, if the settings are reduced to the *far more* optimized medium/high, then way more cards would be capable of it:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at TW3 for example:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even Crysis 3:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So while there are differences between high and very high/Ultra (sometimes it's a rare treat to see large ones), they can be difficult to notice immediately, *even in screenshots*.. The trade for that 5% boost in image quality also comes with a performance penalty of 50%.. Having a PC that can do Ultra/4K/60+fps is awesome if you can afford it, but I feel like reviewers focus way to much on maxing a title, ultra just isn't what it used to be.
> 
> Look at the Crysis 1-era:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Law of diminishing returns pretty much. Medium/High gettings nowdays get pretty high resolution textures that is indistinguishable from Ultra settings unless you get really close.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

We've been over this a million times already. Consoles are weaker than PC's. Even the X1X is no where near as powerful as a current gaming rig with an i5 and a 1070 in it. We know this already. That does NOT mean that consoles are holding back gaming or that they have no place in the market. If you want the absolute best looking and performing games possible then PC is your only solution. If you want a cheap and casual entertainment system to play games and movies on the couch without any drama then consoles gotcha covered. It really is that simple.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> We've been over this a million times already. Consoles are weaker than PC's. Even the X1X is no where near as powerful as a current gaming rig with an i5 and a 1070 in it. We know this already. That does NOT mean that consoles are holding back gaming or that they have no place in the market.


Sure it does, especially to the former. Common sense proves that. No reason to deny the obvious.

The outdated, weak CPUs are a limiting factor. You'll never get anything on the same level as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Chernobyl's A-Life (open world simulation AI) running on these consoles, something that would greatly improve and advance most large scale games with lots of characters (practically any RPG, as well as GTA and plenty others). You'll never see a large scale strategy game like Total War, Civilization, or any Grand Strategy game, and most MMOs, not in the same form as all of these exist on PC that is since it's not possible.

AI advancement is gimped, potential scale of games is extremely limited just in comparison to PCs. The size and potential detail and interactivity of game worlds is gimped, gameplay variety and depth are gimped (they at least have enough RAM to handle simple gameplay mechanics unlike previous generations lol, but any game that needs more functionality than a controller provides is basically screwed), amount of AI units in a game world is gimped, sound is gimped, multiplayer is severely gimped, graphics quality is gimped, nearly everything is held back.

The closed ecosystem is another limiting factor, significantly limiting the capabilities of developers thus limiting the games. Limited API selection (audio and visual, main reason why sound processing has taken a big step back since the 2000s), limited hardware, limited capabilities as a result. New graphics APIs = new consoles, combined with the higher game costs and paid online services, the price of console gaming is probably holding back gaming. I'd wager Sony and Microsoft's favoritism towards AAA games is also greatly limiting their systems (limiting their own potential game sales).

The complete or almost complete lack of backwards compatibility is holding back gaming by making older games unavailable thus shrinking the library. Many of the absolute most popular games in the world today predate the PS4/XBOX One era. The inability to create mods and very limited mod use is holding back gaming severely, the inability to host your own dedicated servers is holding back gaming, the limited input device selection holds back gaming, 30/60 FPS limitations hold back gaming.

Many of the top selling, most played games in the world could never have existed (originated) on consoles because of their awful limitations, such as Dota 2, CS:GO, Garry's Mod, Team Fortress 2, DayZ since these all began as mods, or World of Warcraft, League of Legends, and Starcraft 2 which are too demanding for console CPUs and/or have too much functionality for a controller to handle, games that needed and benefited from Steam Early Access like PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS and ARK: Survival Evolved, etc.

Common sense is all it takes to see that consoles hold back gaming.


----------



## Boomer1990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> or World of Warcraft, League of Legends, and Starcraft 2 which are too demanding for console CPUs and/or have too much functionality for a controller to handle


World of Warcraft and League can be played on a potato. FF14 was somewhat playable on the ps3. It runs up to 60fps on the ps4 pro and the game works with keyboard and mouse on the system. There is nothing stopping the developers from putting those games on the consoles.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Yeah, that's what I was trying to get across in the Xbox One X thread.. "You need 1080/TI systems to do 4K", "X1X does it for $500".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If 30fps is all that's needed, then the 390X is fine @ 4K, lowering settings extends that to even more lower-tier/older cards. The culture on PC want 60fps and Ultra, but a console-like experience is possible @4K with far more machines than some would admit if the only goal is to match consoles. Personally, I can't stand 30fps in most games besides something like Xcom, so 4K is out of the question for me. Although, I can put up with it on a TV with a gamepad usually.
> 
> This is a fifteen game average on ultra, if the settings are reduced to the *far more* optimized medium/high, then way more cards would be capable of it:
> 
> So while there are differences between high and very high/Ultra (sometimes it's a rare treat to see large ones), they can be difficult to notice immediately, *even in screenshots*.. The trade for that 5% boost in image quality also comes with a performance penalty of 50%.. Having a PC that can do Ultra/4K/60+fps is awesome if you can afford it, but I feel like reviewers focus way to much on maxing a title, ultra just isn't what it used to be.
> 
> Look at the Crysis 1-era:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Crysis 1 is a unique game. RTCW, DOOM 3, Half Life 2, Clear Sky, Crysis... those were games made with Ultra settings in mind and EVEN THEN *CUSTOM preset Medium-Ultra* will look AS good for most people and run far better.

Note: Xbox One X does it AS well as the 390X/RX 580/GTX 1060. That is what I have been saying. Those cards will do 4K the same way the Xbox One X does. Which IMHO is reasonable enough. Of course those cards will have 3-12 times the CPU power pushing them and more and better content to boot.

The fact of the matter is that in 95% (not all, but the vast majority) developers target High Settings and Ultra is bolted on top. Even when that aint so, a custom setting will still be a better solution.
Some developers intentionally gimp Ultra settings so their games are considered optimized BTW and I cant blame them. That is what one has to do to appease the 16 year old GTX 1050/RX 560 PCMRs that know little about how games are made or their own GPUs and only spam dank reddit memes









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> World of Warcraft and League can be played on a potato. FF14 was somewhat playable on the ps3. It runs up to 60fps on the ps4 pro and the game works with keyboard and mouse on the system. There is nothing stopping the developers from putting those games on the consoles.


Fair enough though WoW is CPU heavy .

What about ALL THE REST of the games he mentioned ? STALKER's A-Life would kill the console CPU







.


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Crysis 1 is a unique game. RTCW, DOOM 3, Half Life 2, Clear Sky, Crysis... those were games made with Ultra settings in mind and EVEN THEN *CUSTOM preset Medium-Ultra* will look AS good for most people and run far better.
> 
> Note: Xbox One X does it AS well as the 390X/RX 580/GTX 1060. That is what I have been saying. Those cards will do 4K the same way the Xbox One X does. Which IMHO is reasonable enough. Of course those cards will have 3-12 times the CPU power pushing them and more and better content to boot.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that in 95% (not all, but the vast majority) developers target High Settings and Ultra is bolted on top. Even when that aint so, a custom setting will still be a better solution.
> Some developers intentionally gimp Ultra settings so their games are considered optimized BTW and I cant blame them. That is what one has to do to appease the 16 year old GTX 1050/RX 560 PCMRs that know little about how games are made or their own GPUs and only spam dank reddit memes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough though WoW is CPU heavy .
> 
> What about ALL THE REST of the games he mentioned ? STALKER's A-Life would kill the console CPU
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


I'm sure A-Life could be ported on GPU if someone really wanted to. Complex CPU AI is a dead end and should be avoided in 2017.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> I'm sure A-Life could be ported on GPU if someone really wanted to. Complex CPU AI is a dead end and should be avoided in 2017.


Whilst that would be possible technically, few have done it well so far in gaming. And with the most complex AI system in a FPS and a ballistic simulation on top - it would be hard









Especially since the console GPUs aint exactly... beaming with performance.


----------



## philhalo66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> *World of Warcraft and League can be played on a potato*. FF14 was somewhat playable on the ps3. It runs up to 60fps on the ps4 pro and the game works with keyboard and mouse on the system. There is nothing stopping the developers from putting those games on the consoles.


Well, if you start doing 20+ man raids even the 7700K gets slammed and the FPS tanks to single digits


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Sure it does, especially to the former. Common sense proves that. No reason to deny the obvious.
> 
> The outdated, weak CPUs are a limiting factor. You'll never get anything on the same level as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Chernobyl's A-Life (open world simulation AI) running on these consoles, something that would greatly improve and advance most large scale games with lots of characters (practically any RPG, as well as GTA and plenty others). You'll never see a large scale strategy game like Total War, Civilization, or any Grand Strategy game, and most MMOs, not in the same form as all of these exist on PC that is since it's not possible.
> 
> AI advancement is gimped, potential scale of games is extremely limited just in comparison to PCs. The size and potential detail and interactivity of game worlds is gimped, gameplay variety and depth are gimped (they at least have enough RAM to handle simple gameplay mechanics unlike previous generations lol, but any game that needs more functionality than a controller provides is basically screwed), amount of AI units in a game world is gimped, sound is gimped, multiplayer is severely gimped, graphics quality is gimped, nearly everything is held back.


Wait,aren't there those things called exclusive games? How come no one has made a super realistic exclusive with Dolby Atmos and an AI that has passed the turing test on PC?

Mhhh really makes you think,it's almost as delevopers do not care...









I think the truth is you are just bitter that you are not getting anymore games from presumably one of your favourite IP's because it's dead on PC,and know that the only way it could work is by launching on consoles,but since that's supposedly not possible because of completely logical hardware limitations,you just pull the "holding gaming" excuse.

And i said supposedly because "Call Of Chernobyl" is a mod of "Call Of Prypiat" from what i read,wich had an AI overhaul of some type. There are no system requirements anywhere,so how do you claim they are not capable,when the main game has those system requirements?

Recommended System Requirements
Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 / AMD 64 X2 5600+










You are not a delevoper,so the delevopment claims,are simply conjecture. Both Xbox One and PS4 are x86 so porting has never been easier,they even use AMD GPU's. PS4 uses OpenGL i think,Xbox One uses DX. So much for limited API's when PC's main API has been DX for ages.







Consoles are even ahead,by using async compute years before PC. One of the games that did this,was Infamous Second Son.

Higher game costs? Spreading FUD again without checking right? Are you even aware that all preorders on Amazon USA/Best BUY GC have a 20% off,thus making games 48 USD on day 1? Do you have that discount on Steam?

Paid online,only if you want to play online games. And that's 50 bucks,per year. Hardly makes a difference.

Backwars compatibility? How does that hold gaming? All it means is that you can't play games of the previous generation. Also if you did a little research,you'd know that Xbox One has backwards compatibility,and Sony does not with the PS3 because of it's complex architecture.

The library shrinkring is subjective since not all people care about old games or have disposed of their old console. Mods this,mods that. Most games barely have any significant mod community. Skyrim or Fallout do not represent the whole mod community. The 30 or 60 FPS is yet another thing you are blaming consoles for,when in reality it's fault of the delevopers if they arbitrarily decide to lock the framerate at a certain number.

You keep saying common sense,all i see is misinformation and bias.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Wait,aren't there those things called exclusive games? How come no one has made a super realistic exclusive with Dolby Atmos and an AI that has passed the turing test on PC?
> 
> Mhhh really makes you think,it's almost as delevopers do not care...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the truth is you are just bitter that you are not getting anymore games from presumably one of your favourite IP's because it's dead on PC,and know that the only way it could work is by launching on consoles,but since that's supposedly not possible because of completely logical hardware limitations,you just pull the "holding gaming" excuse.
> 
> And i said supposedly because "Call Of Chernobyl" is a mod of "Call Of Prypiat" from what i read,wich had an AI overhaul of some type. There are no system requirements anywhere,so how do you claim they are not capable,when the main game has those system requirements?
> 
> Recommended System Requirements
> Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 / AMD 64 X2 5600+


You're putting too much stock on system requirements. The unmodded game would choke on those specs, and most of all those requirements do not apply to Call of Chernobyl. No game's system requirements accounts for mods.

Call of Chernobyl hammers any and every CPU, and while one of the reasons for this is its lack of multithreading, its AI complexity simply doesn't exist anywhere else. And this was one of many examples so no, it has nothing to do with one IP that is actually far from dead. Nor does it need consoles especially since some of its main selling points (A-Life and mods) would be destroyed on consoles plus it's not an AAA IP so it wouldn't become known there.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> You are not a delevoper,so the delevopment claims,are simply conjecture. Both Xbox One and PS4 are x86 so porting has never been easier,they even use AMD GPU's. PS4 uses OpenGL i think,Xbox One uses DX. So much for limited API's when PC's main API has been DX for ages.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Consoles are even ahead,by using async compute years before PC. One of the games that did this,was Infamous Second Son.
> 
> Higher game costs? Spreading FUD again without checking right? Are you even aware that all preorders on Amazon USA/Best BUY GC have a 20% off,thus making games 48 USD on day 1? Do you have that discount on Steam?
> 
> Paid online,only if you want to play online games. And that's 50 bucks,per year. Hardly makes a difference.


How about Vulkan? And like I said, when a new graphics API comes out, time for a whole new console! But until that new console comes out, they start holding back gaming so much just like the PS3/XBOX 360 did. Anyone not born yesterday should know this.

AAA preorders are $48 on Greenmangaming as well. Steam sales are hard enough for consoles to compete with and then PC has Humble Bundle and Bundle Stars which it just can't compete with. Then you have sites like G2A which have even lower prices.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Backwars compatibility? How does that hold gaming? All it means is that you can't play games of the previous generation. Also if you did a little research,you'd know that Xbox One has backwards compatibility,and Sony does not with the PS3 because of it's complex architecture.
> 
> The library shrinkring is subjective since not all people care about old games or have disposed of their old console. Mods this,mods that. Most games barely have any significant mod community. Skyrim or Fallout do not represent the whole mod community. The 30 or 60 FPS is yet another thing you are blaming consoles for,when in reality it's fault of the delevopers if they arbitrarily decide to lock the framerate at a certain number.
> 
> You keep saying common sense,all i see is misinformation and bias.


I'm aware of the XBOX's one generation of backwards compatibility and don't care about Sony's excuse which you so easily accept. Effectively cutting off all pre-2014 games (pre Nov 2005 for XBOX) is not much different than vanquishing those games from existence. Bad for business, worse for gaming as an art form since it is invalidated because of it (imagine if you couldn't obtain/watch any pre 2014 or even pre 2015 films or the same for books). Holds back gaming because it limits the game selection too much and prevents gamers from learning from past games, many of which actually hold the key to advancement in many different areas.

Many of the most played games in the world are moddable, and what mods have accomplished throughout the history of games cannot be denied. Looking at Steam's top 20 as of right now, Dota 2, CS:GO (both of which wouldn't exist if modding was never allowed since they began as mods), GTA V, Garry's Mod (which also began as a mod), Left 4 Dead 2, Arma 3, and Fallout 4 are all moddable and perhaps others are too that I'm just not aware of. And in the all time picture, too many games to count have a significant modding community.

The only misinformation comes from you and you failed to pinpoint any in my post. What you see as misinformation is your own ignorance and bias. My bias is that I am a pro-gamer.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> *Wait,aren't there those things called exclusive games? How come no one has made a super realistic exclusive with Dolby Atmos and an AI that has passed the turing test on PC?*
> 
> Mhhh really makes you think,it's almost as delevopers do not care...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the truth is you are just bitter that you are not getting anymore games from presumably one of your favourite IP's because it's dead on PC,and know that the only way it could work is by launching on consoles,but since that's supposedly not possible because of completely logical hardware limitations,you just pull the "holding gaming" excuse.


Exclusives are the main selling point of consoles for me, but only one console now has that selling point, whether or not Sony will bring their games to PC in the future remains to be seen. Which is why I have a PS4.









It's not about caring, the PS4 is the largest platform for premium titles (one of the most successful consoles in history), and how much special treatment does the PS4 get from 3rd party? Hardly any, that includes the PS4 Pro. Console manufacturers can afford to make exclusives because they control the revenue stream on their platform, and they can use either the hardware to drive software sales, or the software to drive hardware sales.

No one controls PC in its entirety, which is a huge advantage for innovation, but also a disadvantage for exclusive software. PC would have a larger exclusive lineup if say, Nvidia and AMD started to produce games to push their GPU's.

I doubt anyone will pass a Turing test anytime soon, but AI Subsumption in Star Citizen will probably compete for the top spot in terms of AI if they pull it off. Most console users like to pretend that SC is never coming out, but that's an exclusive that will highlight the difference between the platforms.

I don't blame the consoles though, I blame the general users of them. No matter how good the AI is in SC, how large its scale is, or how far they push physics (they're already pushing that aspect quite far), console users will just compare the graphics/animations to Uncharted 4 and call it a day. It's the same reason why Driveclub is hailed the racing king despite its Mario Kart simulation physics, 4-7 player lobbies (from what I remember playing it), and 30fps..

To most console users graphics>all, so naturally developers are pushed in that direction.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Exclusives are the main selling point of consoles for me, but only one console now has that selling point, whether or not Sony will bring their games to PC in the future remains to be seen. Which is why I have a PS4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about caring, the PS4 is the largest platform for premium titles (one of the most successful consoles in history), and how much special treatment does the PS4 get from 3rd party? Hardly any, that includes the PS4 Pro. Console manufacturers can afford to make exclusives because they control the revenue stream on their platform, and they can use either the hardware to drive software sales, or the software to drive hardware sales.
> 
> No one controls PC in its entirety, which is a huge advantage for innovation, but also a disadvantage for exclusive software. PC would have a larger exclusive lineup if say, Nvidia and AMD started to produce games to push their GPU's.
> 
> I doubt anyone will pass a Turing test anytime soon, but AI Subsumption in Star Citizen will probably compete for the top spot in terms of AI if they pull it off. Most console users like to pretend that SC is never coming out, but that's an exclusive that will highlight the difference between the platforms.
> 
> I don't blame the consoles though, I blame the general users of them. No matter how good the AI is in SC, how large its scale is, or how far they push physics (they're already pushing that aspect quite far), console users will just compare the graphics/animations to Uncharted 4 and call it a day. It's the same reason why Driveclub is hailed the racing king despite its Mario Kart simulation physics, 4-7 player lobbies (from what I remember playing it), and 30fps..
> 
> To most console users graphics>all, so naturally developers are pushed in that direction.


This is also true (and amusing because graphics are one of the many things held back and inferior on consoles). We vote with our wallets, I was just explaining how the consoles themselves and their limitations hold back gaming. But yes, consoles are here because they sell.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> You're putting too much stock on system requirements. The unmodded game would choke on those specs, and most of all those requirements do not apply to Call of Chernobyl. No game's system requirements accounts for mods.
> 
> Call of Chernobyl hammers any and every CPU, and while one of the reasons for this is its lack of multithreading, its AI complexity simply doesn't exist anywhere else. And this was one of many examples so no, it has nothing to do with one IP that is actually far from dead.
> How about Vulkan? And like I said, when a new graphics API comes out, time for a whole new console! But until that new console comes out, they start holding back gaming so much just like the PS3/XBOX 360 did. Anyone not born yesterday should know this.
> 
> AAA preorders are $48 on Greenmangaming as well. Steam sales are hard enough for consoles to compete with and then PC has Humble Bundle and Bundle Stars which it just can't compete with. Then you have sites like G2A which have even lower prices.
> I'm aware of the XBOX's one generation of backwards compatibility and don't care about Sony's excuse which you so easily accept. Effectively cutting off all pre-2014 games (pre Nov 2005 for XBOX) is not much different than vanquishing those games from existence. Bad for business, worse for gaming as an art form since it is invalidated because of it (imagine if you couldn't obtain/watch any pre 2014 or even pre 2015 films or the same for books). Holds back gaming because it limits the game selection too much and prevents gamers from learning from past games, many of which actually hold the key to advancement in many different areas.
> 
> Many of the most played games in the world are moddable, and what mods have accomplished throughout the history of games cannot be denied. Looking at Steam's top 20 as of right now, Dota 2, CS:GO (both of which wouldn't exist if modding was never allowed since they began as mods), GTA V, Garry's Mod (which also began as a mod), Left 4 Dead 2, Arma 3, and Fallout 4 are all moddable and perhaps others are too that I'm just not aware of. And in the all time picture, too many games to count have a significant modding community.
> 
> The only misinformation comes from you and you failed to pinpoint any in my post. What you see as misinformation is your own ignorance and bias. My bias is that I am a pro-gamer.


So basically,you have not answered my question. Where are the benchmarks? So it's not fault of consoles,but it's because it's still running on a single thread in 2017. AMD CPU's would choke as much. To add injury,you just admitted it hammers every CPU yet blame consoles for it? The bias is off the charts here folks.

Vulkan is the successor to OpenGL,and basically does the same as your go-to low overhead API,aka reduce CPU overhead and etc.

When a new API comes out,it most likely has little to do with consoles,rather the time it has passed since the last console. We are in 2017,graphics engines are scalable. You can make it on PC and scale it down to the capability of consoles. Anyone not born yesterday should know this


















also lol g2a,barely legal marketplace. May aswell do the comparison with stolen PSN accounts.

PS Store has sales every week. Physical games have way more sales than digital ones. Physical games can be sold and rented. You were saying?

It's not an excuse,it's reality. Do you even know how hard emulation is in the first place? Seems like you dont. PS2,PSP and PS3 did retrocompatibility because they had hardware from the console they where emulating to begin with.

You are being disingenous on purpose. If you want to play games pre-2014,you can purchase the console where those games are. They are dirt cheap. Not to mention that once again,not all people dispose of their old consoles.

What makes you think that gamers haven't already played those games? Not everyone who owns a console is a teenager. More conjecture.

Yet again,misinformation everywhere. You couldn't even be bothered to check what you are claiming.

Modding is just an extra cherry on the cake,it just enhances the game. But just go on making a big deal out of it,so you can have some leverage on your petty argument.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> So basically,you have not answered my question. Where are the benchmarks? So it's not fault of consoles,but it's because it's still running on a single thread in 2017. AMD CPU's would choke as much. To add injury,you just admitted it hammers every CPU yet blame consoles for it? The bias is off the charts here folks.
> 
> Vulkan is the successor to OpenGL,and basically does the same as your go-to low overhead API,aka reduce CPU overhead and etc.
> 
> When a new API comes out,it most likely has little to do with consoles,rather the time it has passed since the last console. We are in 2017,graphics engines are scalable. You can make it on PC and scale it down to the capability of consoles. Anyone not born yesterday should know this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> also lol g2a,barely legal marketplace. May aswell do the comparison with stolen PSN accounts.
> 
> PS Store has sales every week. Physical games have way more sales than digital ones. Physical games can be sold and rented. You were saying?
> 
> It's not an excuse,it's reality. Do you even know how hard emulation is in the first place? Seems like you dont. PS2,PSP and PS3 did retrocompatibility because they had hardware from the console they where emulating to begin with.
> 
> You are being disingenous on purpose. If you want to play games pre-2014,you can purchase the console where those games are. They are dirt cheap. Not to mention that once again,not all people dispose of their old consoles.
> 
> What makes you think that gamers haven't already played those games? Not everyone who owns a console is a teenager. More conjecture.
> 
> Yet again,misinformation everywhere. You couldn't even be bothered to check what you are claiming.
> 
> Modding is just an extra cherry on the cake,it just enhances the game. But just go on making a big deal out of it,so you can have some leverage on your petty argument.


You know, you gotta leave your safe space and try this arcane thing called modding. Maybe then you'd understand why some people like Boredgunner or I would rather play a mod over some new AAA schlock.

Stolen PSN account being equated to G2A sounds like someone doesn't know how to scale things in a moral perspective









If I can get a reviewer to do a Call of CHernobyl benchmark, that would be amazing, but alas many hardware reviewers are not very hardcore gamers. With that being said, if a 5Ghz 7700K's 2 cores the mod is using are not enough, why would the 7-core (one is for OS) 2GHz with half the IPC work? I mean even linear scaling wont solve this one...


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> So basically,you have not answered my question. Where are the benchmarks? So it's not fault of consoles,but it's because it's still running on a single thread in 2017. AMD CPU's would choke as much. To add injury,you just admitted it hammers every CPU yet blame consoles for it? The bias is off the charts here folks.


I didn't blame consoles for CoP's optimization, nor was that game and mod created in 2017.









Ashes of the Singularity is another example. Excellent multithreading, so demanding that today's PCs struggle with it. Show any console game with the level of AI and amount of AI that these games have and then you will prove me wrong. Until then you have nothing.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Vulkan is the successor to OpenGL,and basically does the same as your go-to low overhead API,aka reduce CPU overhead and etc.
> 
> When a new API comes out,it most likely has little to do with consoles,rather the time it has passed since the last console. We are in 2017,graphics engines are scalable. You can make it on PC and scale it down to the capability of consoles. Anyone not born yesterday should know this


Didn't address my point at all. PS3 and XBOX 360 were horribly outdated and limiting by 2009, the same thing will happen with this wave of consoles. It's incredible that anyone would attempt to deny this.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> also lol g2a,barely legal marketplace. May aswell do the comparison with stolen PSN accounts.
> 
> PS Store has sales every week. Physical games have way more sales than digital ones. Physical games can be sold and rented. You were saying?
> 
> It's not an excuse,it's reality. Do you even know how hard emulation is in the first place? Seems like you dont. PS2,PSP and PS3 did retrocompatibility because they had hardware from the console they where emulating to begin with.
> 
> You are being disingenous on purpose. If you want to play games pre-2014,you can purchase the console where those games are. They are dirt cheap. Not to mention that once again,not all people dispose of their old consoles.


It's either legal or it isn't. G2A and similar stores haven't been shut down, so I suppose it's legal?

EA games don't usually have as good a preorder discount, that's true. A pretty small amount of games though that doesn't speak for all games. Lower game prices on PC easily.

To play previous gen PlayStation games you have to use a discontinued used system. Unreliable due to their age, plus they are older inferior systems, their availability is limited since they are not in production, and you can't play the games on newer hardware which is a big setback. That is no consolation.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> What makes you think that gamers haven't already played those games? Not everyone who owns a console is a teenager. More conjecture.


No, _that_ is conjecture. Guessing at whether or not they have played the older games, pure conjecture. While I speak only of the consoles' backwards compatibility itself, system functionality. Not conjecture at all. Do you know what conjecture means?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Yet again,misinformation everywhere. You couldn't even be bothered to check what you are claiming.
> 
> Modding is just an extra cherry on the cake,it just enhances the game. But just go on making a big deal out of it,so you can have some leverage on your petty argument.


You still have yet to point out any misinformation, only highlight your own ignorance and bias. Mods don't just enhance the base game, more ignorance on your behalf. There are different kinds of mods, including total conversion mods which are not enhancing the base game but are akin to standalone, new games.

You're going to keep failing to acknowledge that some of the absolute, most popular games of all time began as mods? Not "enhancement" (overhaul) mods either, total conversions that were akin to entirely new games. Dota 2 which stems from a Warcraft 3 mod (which was also a genre starter), CS:GO which belongs to a franchise that began as a Half-Life mod, Team Fortress which began as a Quake mod, and other games that sold millions and have or had immense amounts of players such as Garry's Mod (Half-Life 2 mod), DayZ (also a genre starter) which began as an Arma 2 mod, Day of Defeat series (Half-Life mod), Killing Floor (UT2004 mod), many others. Super popular games that would never have existed without modding, including the top 2 most played games on Steam every day, so yes it's a big deal. Such a big deal that less significant mods made their way to consoles.

Talk about misinformation and lack of fact checking.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> I didn't blame consoles for CoP's optimization, nor was that game and mod created in 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ashes of the Singularity is another example. Excellent multithreading, so demanding that today's PCs struggle with it. Show any console game with the level of AI and amount of AI that these games have and then you will prove me wrong. Until then you have nothing.
> Didn't address my point at all. PS3 and XBOX 360 were horribly outdated and limiting by 2009, the same thing will happen with this wave of consoles. It's incredible that anyone would attempt to deny this.
> It's either legal or it isn't. G2A and similar stores haven't been shut down, so I suppose it's legal?
> 
> EA games don't usually have as good a preorder discount, that's true. A pretty small amount of games though that doesn't speak for all games. Lower game prices on PC easily.
> 
> To play previous gen PlayStation games you have to use a discontinued used system. Unreliable due to their age, plus they are older inferior systems, their availability is limited since they are not in production, and you can't play the games on newer hardware which is a big setback. That is no consolation.
> No, _that_ is conjecture. Guessing at whether or not they have played the older games, pure conjecture. While I speak only of the consoles' backwards compatibility itself, system functionality. Not conjecture at all. Do you know what conjecture means?
> You still have yet to point out any misinformation, only highlight your own ignorance and bias. Mods don't just enhance the base game, more ignorance on your behalf. There are different kinds of mods, including total conversion mods which are not enhancing the base game but are akin to standalone, new games.
> 
> You're going to keep failing to acknowledge that some of the absolute, most popular games of all time began as mods? Not "enhancement" (overhaul) mods either, total conversions that were akin to entirely new games. Dota 2 which stems from a Warcraft 3 mod (which was also a genre starter), CS:GO which belongs to a franchise that began as a Half-Life mod, Team Fortress which began as a Quake mod, and other games that sold millions and have or had immense amounts of players such as Garry's Mod (Half-Life 2 mod), DayZ (also a genre starter) which began as an Arma 2 mod, Day of Defeat series (Half-Life mod), Killing Floor (UT2004 mod), many others. Super popular games that would never have existed without modding, including the top 2 most played games on Steam every day, so yes it's a big deal. Such a big deal that less significant mods made their way to consoles.
> 
> Talk about misinformation and lack of fact checking.


_"The outdated, weak CPUs are a limiting factor. You'll never get anything on the same level as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Chernobyl's A-Life (open world simulation AI) running on these consoles, something that would greatly improve and advance most large scale games with lots of characters "_

I wasn't talking about that game's optimization at all. I was saying how you blamed consoles of not having "A-Life AI",then later went on to say how it only ran on one core and choked every CPU ever.

Do i have to prove to you that the consoles have limited hardware capabilities due to their price point? That's common sense. If AI is complex and can choke even the best processors on PC,then the more you should drop the A.I act and understand that consoles have limitations. But not because they are consoles,but because they have price points and form factors to respect. Ignororance is on you,since you can't fathom how a console can't do what a PC can. Even better,you can't even fathom the fact there's a lower common denominator on PC.

Yeah im sure you claiming the same that happened with PS3/X360 will happen again,makes it true. Keep things on real life,kay? We will see. Don't know anyone yet who can see the future.

The marketplace is legal,the keys have been proven multiple times to be obtained in fraudulent forms. It's not only EA games,check the price of the new Wolfestein game. It's absolutely shameful that you don't even bother to fact check and keep babbling the same thing over and over. No,PC games are not cheaper than consoles. I just told you that you can rent or sell your games,where the savings obliterate any Steam sale or Humble Bundle. Amazon Prime and BestBuy GC have a 20% discount on Day1,something you can dream of having on Steam.

OMG!! It's discontinued! lol who cares. Unreliable? Supposition. Older inferior system? Irrelevant,since the only thing you seem to care is to play the games. Limited aviability? You can still find X360,PS3's and PS2 pretty easily on eBay. Fact checking,anyone?

I said "not everyone who owns a console is a teenager". Wich is logically true,nice try tough. I didn't claim say "everyone who owns a console is not a teenager" wich would be indeed conjecture. Reading comprehension?

Meanwhile what did you claim? paraphrase "Consoles damage gaming because they offer no retrocompatibility thus they prevent people from learning of previous games mechanics".

THAT is conjecture. You don't know if they haven't played them.

I haven't pointed anything? lol. 3/4 of your post is based on misinformation.









Mods do not compete with games in any way,so yeah,they are still an extra cherry on that cake. CS is HL reskinned. It's not a new game. How many of the games you cited are reskins? Poof,change a few textures,some scripts and voila your "mod".

Keep pushing the mod narrative,like i care. You can make it a big deal,but the truth is,your average gamer does not care.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Exclusives are the main selling point of consoles for me, but only one console now has that selling point, whether or not Sony will bring their games to PC in the future remains to be seen. Which is why I have a PS4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not about caring, the PS4 is the largest platform for premium titles (one of the most successful consoles in history), and how much special treatment does the PS4 get from 3rd party? Hardly any, that includes the PS4 Pro. Console manufacturers can afford to make exclusives because they control the revenue stream on their platform, and they can use either the hardware to drive software sales, or the software to drive hardware sales.
> 
> No one controls PC in its entirety, which is a huge advantage for innovation, but also a disadvantage for exclusive software. PC would have a larger exclusive lineup if say, Nvidia and AMD started to produce games to push their GPU's.
> 
> I doubt anyone will pass a Turing test anytime soon, but AI Subsumption in Star Citizen will probably compete for the top spot in terms of AI if they pull it off. Most console users like to pretend that SC is never coming out, but that's an exclusive that will highlight the difference between the platforms.
> 
> I don't blame the consoles though, I blame the general users of them. No matter how good the AI is in SC, how large its scale is, or how far they push physics (they're already pushing that aspect quite far), console users will just compare the graphics/animations to Uncharted 4 and call it a day. It's the same reason why Driveclub is hailed the racing king despite its Mario Kart simulation physics, 4-7 player lobbies (from what I remember playing it), and 30fps..
> 
> To most console users graphics>all, so naturally developers are pushed in that direction.


So Nvidia and AMD should turn PCs into consoles to use all the innovation... What?


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> _"The outdated, weak CPUs are a limiting factor. You'll never get anything on the same level as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Chernobyl's A-Life (open world simulation AI) running on these consoles, something that would greatly improve and advance most large scale games with lots of characters "_
> 
> Of course,not blaming anyone. Please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do i have to prove to you that the consoles have limited hardware capabilities due to their price point? That's common sense. If AI is complex and can choke even the best processors on PC,then the more you should drop the A.I act and understand that consoles have limitations. But not because they are consoles,but because they have price points and form factors to respect. Ignororance is on you,since you can't fathom how a console can't do what a PC can.
> 
> Yeah im sure you claiming the same that happened with PS3/X360 will happen again,makes it true. Keep things on real life,kay? We will see. Don't know anyone yet who can see the future.
> 
> The marketplace is legal,the keys have been proven multiple times to be obtained in fraudulent forms. It's not only EA games,check the price of the new Wolfestein game. It's absolutely shameful that you don't even bother to fact check and keep babbling the same thing over and over. No,PC games are not cheaper than consoles. I just told you that you can rent or sell your games,where the savings obliterate any Steam sale or Humble Bundle. Amazon Prime and BestBuy GC have a 20% discount on Day1,something you can dream of having on Steam.
> 
> OMG!! It's discontinued! lol who cares. Unreliable? Supposition. Older inferior system? Irrelevant,since the only thing you seem to care is to play the games. Limited aviability? You can still find X360,PS3's and PS2 pretty easily on eBay. Fact checking,anyone?
> 
> I said "not everyone who owns a console is a teenager". Wich is logically true,nice try tough. I didn't claim say "everyone who owns a console is not a teenager" wich would be indeed conjecture. Reading comprehension?
> 
> Meanwhile what did you claim? paraphrase "Consoles damage gaming because they offer no retrocompatibility thus they prevent people from learning of previous games mechanics".
> 
> THAT is conjecture. You don't know if they haven't played them.
> 
> I haven't pointed anything? lol. 3/4 of your post is based on misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep pushing the mod narrative,like i care. You can make it a big deal,but the truth is,your average gamer does not care.


Price point and Power is what limits console hardware. Get the info straight. Form Factor is usually an important attribute too, but secondary to power envelope.

History is taught in schools so people would be able to predict the future. You cant attempt the same thing over and over again whilst expecting things to change. What happened with the X360 and PS3 will happen again, in some form with the current consoles. Or are you telling me that you and the plebeians at Sony and Nintendo and MS know better than other humans and are above history? Even I place a hard limit on my arrogance there.

PC Games are cheaper than console games on average. Before, PC Games were usually 50 dollars and console games - 60. The reason for that is platform fees
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2010/02/anatomy-of-a-60-dollar-video-game.html
Since both console and PC Gamers are generally spineless though, nowadays PC games also are often (but not always) 60 dollars. Essentially higher margins.

Still, even so:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



PC

PS4 and Xbone



One is roughly 60 dollars to pre-order, VAT exists. The other is 70 and change - because such is logic...
And large parts of the world are like that or in a similar situation. I dont live where you live (seeing you as a console fan, probably the US) but something tells me that since SOME PC Games still are cheaper or have their versions priced lower than their console counterparts, even the retail up-front price is on average lower than consoles.

Having to use Ebay to play just 15 year old games is sad. Very sad. We gamers allow this, we do not deserve the status of art form.

"THAT is conjecture. You don't know if they haven't played them."

Occam's Razor

"Keep pushing the mod narrative,like i care. You can make it a big deal,but the truth is,your average gamer does not care"

Egotistical. Very narrow-minded. On top of that, I had some expectations that I aint talking to Joe average that can barely tie their shoelaces by themselves. Alas, once again, mediocrity and ignorance is used as a shield.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Do i have to prove to you that the consoles have limited hardware capabilities due to their price point? That's common sense. If AI is complex and can choke even the best processors on PC,then the more you should drop the A.I act and understand that consoles have limitations. But not because they are consoles,but because they have price points and form factors to respect. Ignororance is on you,since you can't fathom how a console can't do what a PC can.
> 
> Yeah im sure you claiming the same that happened with PS3/X360 will happen again,makes it true. Keep things on real life,kay? We will see. Don't know anyone yet who can see the future.


Oh no, I wouldn't want to be ignororant!

Again, lack of common sense. What's going to happen when a new graphics API comes around that doesn't support its hardware (which is inevitable)? Like DX11? Figure it out.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> The marketplace is legal,the keys have been proven multiple times to be obtained in fraudulent forms. It's not only EA games,check the price of the new Wolfestein game. It's absolutely shameful that you don't even bother to fact check and keep babbling the same thing over and over. No,PC games are not cheaper than consoles. I just told you that you can rent or sell your games,where the savings obliterate any Steam sale or Humble Bundle. Amazon Prime and BestBuy GC have a 20% discount on Day1,something you can dream of having on Steam.





Greenmangaming typically has 20% discount on new AAA games on Steam, for preorder and launch. All you've succeeded at is naming two exceptions. Almost all AAA games on Steam that I bought at launch or preordered were 20% off. Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus will probably drop to $48 (only for registered GMG users, that's how they do it) in a few months actually. Keep an eye on it.

There are far more games on PC that aren't $60.

Consoles cannot compete with Humble Bundle, Bundle Stars, or G2A deals. All you can say about this is "G2A is borderline legal" but that doesn't change the fact.

This also varies per country, but aside from the very specific examples of 20% discounts on AAA Steam games, my other two points here are universal.
Game reselling is the only thing consoles have in this argument that PC doesn't.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> OMG!! It's discontinued! lol who cares. Unreliable? Supposition. Older inferior system? Irrelevant,since the only thing you seem to care is to play the games. Limited aviability? You can still find X360,PS3's and PS2 pretty easily on eBay. Fact checking,anyone?


New vs used market. That makes all the difference. Microsoft, Sony, and the capabilities of PS4 and XBOX One have nothing to do with used consoles on ebay. Used consoles won't be around forever. You're not describing an official or permanent solution or a relevant one in the big picture, so all of that is irrelevant.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> I said "not everyone who owns a console is a teenager". Wich is logically true,nice try tough. I didn't claim say "everyone who owns a console is not a teenager" wich would be indeed conjecture. Reading comprehension?
> 
> Meanwhile what did you claim? paraphrase "Consoles damage gaming because they offer no retrocompatibility thus they prevent people from learning of previous games mechanics".
> 
> THAT is conjecture. Your claim is based on incomplete information,since you are not considering the fact that people may already have played those games previously. Wich is logically true since indeed people who own consoles are also old,and some of them have owned previous itinerations of the console.
> 
> I haven't pointed anything? lol. 3/4 of your post is based on misinformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep pushing the mod narrative,like i care. You can make it a big deal,but the truth is,your average gamer does not care.


You really do not know how to argue. The limited or complete lack of backwards compatibility is not conjecture. I'm not arguing demographics (age of the audience) related to this. It is not possible to experience past, unsupported games on them. Fact. This results in a much smaller game library, another fact. Those games are 100% inaccessible on PS4/XBOX One. They are gone from the gaming industry unless they happen to be sold on PC still.

The damaging impact this has is largely common sense. Less game sales, less money to be made in the gaming industry. Cutting off some immensely popular games. This would doom PC gaming since so many of the most played games in the world are pre-2014 PC games. And like I said before, imagine if it was impossible to obtain and watch movies from just a few years prior. It raises the questions of if and how the film industry would have advanced if this were always the case. Dwell on that.

It doesn't matter that you don't care about mods. It does matter that several of the most played and/or best selling games of all time began as mods, not as games (including the top two most played games on Steam which have several times the amount of concurrent players compared to any three console games), which illustrates the importance and impact of mods. You can shield yourself from these facts all you want, all it does is weaken your argument further.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *"Boredgunner*
> Oh no, I wouldn't want to be ignororant!
> 
> Again, lack of common sense. What's going to happen when a new graphics API comes around that doesn't support its hardware (which is inevitable)? Like DX11? Figure it out.


A new console will be out. DX12 is that API,and it's not even used by majority of games in 2017. A console cycle lasts 5-6 years and it's already been four.

Common sense,call whatever you want it,it's still nothing but a hypothesis
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *"Boredgunner*
> Greenmangaming typically has 20% discount on new AAA games on Steam, for preorder and launch. All you've succeeded at is naming two exceptions. Almost all AAA games on Steam that I bought at launch or preordered were 20% off. Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus will probably drop to $48 (only for registered GMG users, that's how they do it) in a few months actually. Keep an eye on it.
> There are far more games on PC that aren't $60.
> Consoles cannot compete with Humble Bundle, Bundle Stars, or G2A deals. All you can say about this is "G2A is borderline legal" but that doesn't change the fact.
> This also varies per country, but aside from the very specific examples of 20% discounts on AAA Steam games, my other two points here are universal.
> 
> Game reselling is the only thing consoles have in this argument that PC doesn't.



Where are the discounts you are talking about?

"Will probably in a few months". Lol sure. Wrong again,what a surprise. Too much pride to admit it? lol

The pricing standard has been 60$ for a while in PC. Exceptions are not the norm,so?

Yes they can. Physical sales are a lot better than digital ones. G2A is illegal until proven,devs have been saying it for ever. Humble Bundle does not include recent AAA games in their bundles anymore. You can also buy used games. Used games is also universal. There's also renting.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *"Boredgunner*
> New vs used market. That makes all the difference. Microsoft, Sony, and the capabilities of PS4 and XBOX One have nothing to do with used consoles on ebay. Used consoles won't be around forever. You're not describing an official or permanent solution or a relevant one in the big picture, so all of that is irrelevant.


Yes i am,if you care so much about old games,purchase them on PC or a console if you don't have one. That's a pretty simple solution. You're making it harder because it fits your argument. Ebay matters a lot,since you talked about aviability,and they are aviable. Again,keep your claims for the future when they actually are scarce,until then,you are wrong.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *"Boredgunner*
> You really do not know how to argue. The limited or complete lack of backwards compatibility is not conjecture. I'm not arguing demographics (age of the audience) related to this. It is not possible to experience past, unsupported games on them. Fact. This results in a much smaller game library, another fact. Those games are 100% inaccessible on PS4/XBOX One. They are gone from the gaming industry unless they happen to be sold on PC still.
> 
> The damaging impact this has is largely common sense. Less game sales, less money to be made in the gaming industry. Cutting off some immensely popular games. This would doom PC gaming since so many of the most played games in the world are pre-2014 PC games. And like I said before, imagine if it was impossible to obtain and watch movies from just a few years prior. It raises the questions of if and how the film industry would have advanced if this were always the case. Dwell on that.
> 
> It doesn't matter that you don't care about mods. It does matter that several of the most played and/or best selling games of all time began as mods, not as games (including the top two most played games on Steam which have several times the amount of concurrent players compared to any three console games), which illustrates the importance and impact of mods. You can shield yourself from these facts all you want, all it does is weaken your argument further.


You claimed that consoles damaged gaming because they didn't have backwars compatibility. Wich makes no sense. Then you also claimed it damages gaming because people can not experience previous games and their so right mechanics. Wich is conjecture.

Smaller gallery does not matter,because it's subjective. They are inacessible on PS4/XONE but they are aviable on their predecessors wich you can easily buy. Also LOL. Now every game pre-2013 is magically "gone". News,they are not. What a stupid thing to say.

The sales? What about them? You can still buy PS3 and X360 games used on GameStop,or on PSN/Xbox Bazar.

Keep your "mods" badge and yeah it may weaken my argument,but yours is dead. All your points are nonsense.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I had some expectations that I aint talking to Joe average that can barely tie their shoelaces by themselves.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boredgunner*
> My bias is that I am a pro-gamer.


Mr and Mrs Holier Than Thou over here guys.


----------



## Charcharo

Great job at replying to my stuff









Amazing debater. Countered the pricing increase due to consoles, respected the art form and its importance and managed to cover all points in exceptional detail !

Mock mods all you want. Call of Chernobyl is a better open world game than *Insert literally any and all console exclusive open world games*


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> 
> Where are the discounts you are talking about?
> 
> "Will probably in a few months". Lol sure. Wrong again,what a surprise. Too much pride to admit it? lol
> 
> The pricing standard has been 60$ for a while in PC. Exceptions are not the norm,so?


The standard AAA pricing is $60 on both consoles and PC.



10% now, but when it's closer to release it typically changes to 20%. Then check new AAA game prices in other countries like Charcharo illustrated, since you aren't even refuting my original argument about general game prices being lower on PC (not only new AAA releases).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Yes they can. Physical sales are a lot better than digital ones. G2A is illegal until proven,devs have been saying it for ever. Humble Bundle does not include recent AAA games in their bundles anymore. You can also buy used games. Used games is also universal. There's also renting.


Physical sales are a lot better than digital ones? What does that mean?

Illegal until proven (legal)? If that was true then it'd have been shut down already. Innocent until proven guilty more like. Humble Bundle and Bundle Stars might not include new AAA releases but their prices for what they do offer are pretty much as low as it gets.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Yes i am,if you care so much about old games,purchase them on PC or a console if you don't have one. That's a pretty simple solution. You're making it harder because it fits your argument. Ebay matters a lot,since you talked about aviability,and they are aviable. Again,keep your claims for the future when they actually are scarce,until then,you are wrong.


What's wrong? The fact that used consoles won't be around forever? That's wrong? So you're either saying they have unlimited lifespans or are still in production, both of which are wrong to say the least.

Buying used consoles or keeping them is not an official, permanent solution. You think that's wrong? If so then you don't understand what a used market is. This has no bearing on the argument which is lack of backwards compatibility on consoles. This is not backwards compatibility you describe, this is buying or keeping old junk, not the argument at all.

Besides, it's an awful solution too since keeping all those systems around takes up more space, and again they are old dated systems not to mention used. How many people are actually interested in this "solution" you describe?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> You claimed that consoles damaged gaming because they didn't have backwars compatibility. Wich makes no sense. Then you also claimed it damages gaming because people can not experience previous games and their so right mechanics. Wich is conjecture.
> 
> Smaller gallery does not matter,because it's subjective.


All my points are backed up by obvious facts, many of which you choose to ignore or simply can't comprehend. Your desperation is as obvious as your typing and spelling are terrible.

Lack of backwards compatibility damaging gaming makes perfect sense for the very obvious, common sense reasons I just described above. Here it is again.
Quote:


> The damaging impact this has is largely common sense. Less game sales, less money to be made in the gaming industry. Cutting off some immensely popular games. This would doom PC gaming since so many of the most played games in the world are pre-2014 PC games.


Not to mention shrinking the XBOX/PS4 game library by the thousands is obviously damaging. How is this subjective? Again, less expansive library (by multiples), less games to sell, less money to be made. Many of these older, unavailable games are immensely popular. The growth of the gaming industry is slowed when every few years you dump most games, make them officially unavailable, and start all over again with a tiny little library which is the case for every console. Yeah, XBOX One isn't quite as bad here since they have one generation of backwards compatibility, but again:
Quote:


> And like I said before, imagine if it was impossible to obtain and watch movies from just a few years prior. It raises the questions of if and how the film industry would have advanced if this were always the case. Dwell on that.


Or even one generation prior, that point remains.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> They are inacessible on PS4/XONE but they are aviable on their predecessors wich you can easily buy. Also LOL. Now every game pre-2013 is magically "gone". News,they are not. What a stupid thing to say.
> 
> Keep your "mods" badge and yeah it may weaken my argument,but yours is dead. All your points are nonsense.


Their predecessors are discontinued, old, irrelevant products to the market. Their availability is a ticking time bomb because they are discontinued, and this is not at all relevant to the discussion.

Pre-2014 PlayStation games are not magically gone. No magic, they simply won't run on a PS4 due to lack of backwards compatibility. They're unplayable on the only supported, in production PlayStation console and only sold used (ticking time bomb once again), so they are officially inaccessible. This is not hard to follow.

For XBOX One it's pre-November 2005. In the big picture, according to the gaming industry right now this is actually not much of a problem since pre-2005 games are hardly played. It's only a real problem from an artistic point of view, see my film analogy above. But PlayStation's complete lack of backwards compatibility sucks for Sony and gamers as a whole.

Your last sentence says it all; you can't put aside your biases to argue properly and you're just living in your own fantasy world. All of my points still stand unchallenged except for new AAA game prices, although my argument was always game prices as a whole anyway. The only valid point you brought up was a while back, about game developers not caring to advance gaming in the ways I described earlier. This is true of 99% AAA developers for sure, and thus at least 99% of console developers. GorillaSpectre addressed this well by bringing up the innovation attempts that only exist on PC. Often times by modders, ironically.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BoredGunner*
> 10% now, but when it's closer to release it typically changes to 20%.


Alas you're wrong. Nice to know.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BoredGunner*
> Physical sales are a lot better than digital ones? What does that mean?
> 
> Illegal until proven (legal)? If that was true then it'd have been shut down already. Innocent until proven guilty more like. Humble Bundle and Bundle Stars might not include new AAA releases but their prices for what they do offer are pretty much as low as it gets.


You don't quite grasp the meaning of a marketplace right? If you sell stolen merchandise on eBay,the police does not prosecute eBay but the seller.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BoredGunner*
> What's wrong? The fact that used consoles won't be around forever? That's wrong? So you're either saying they have unlimited lifespans or are still in production, both of which are wrong to say the least.
> 
> Buying used consoles or keeping them is not an official, permanent solution. You think that's wrong? If so then you don't understand what a used market is. This has no bearing on the argument which is lack of backwards compatibility on consoles. This is not backwards compatibility you describe, this is buying or keeping old junk, not the argument at all.
> 
> Besides, it's an awful solution too since keeping all those systems around takes up more space, and again they are old dated systems not to mention used. How many people are actually interested in this "solution" you describe?


The aviability is not a problem now. When it is,you argument will be right. Lifespan is just an estimate and can change from console to console. People still have functioning PS1,PS2's and PSP's.

The point is,if you want to play old games you can,on their respective platform. That's all it matters. Not wether it's official or whatever excuse you may search.

"Old junk" and you claim you care about gaming. Such hypocrisy.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BoredGunner*
> All my points are backed up by obvious facts, many of which you choose to ignore or simply can't comprehend. Your desperation is as obvious as your typing and spelling are terrible.
> 
> Lack of backwards compatibility damaging gaming makes perfect sense for the very obvious, common sense reasons I just described above. Here it is again.


Ad-hominem. There's nothing wrong with how i write,and if there is,it's due to me not being an native english speaker. Still irrelevant.

Most of your claims are based on your subjective opinion..

I just told you can still buy games,on chains like GameStop or the respective platform e-Store. Try again.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BoredGunner*
> Not to mention shrinking the XBOX/PS4 game library by the thousands is obviously damaging. How is this subjective? Again, less expansive library (by multiples), less games to sell, less money to be made. Many of these older, unavailable games are immensely popular. The growth of the gaming industry is slowed when every few years you dump most games, make them officially unavailable, and start all over again with a tiny little library which is the case for every console. Yeah, XBOX One isn't quite as bad here since they have one generation of backwards compatibility, but again:


See above. If it's popular it's still going to sell,just on the precedent platform. Not everyone upgrades to the latest consoles or disposes of it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BoredGunner*
> Their predecessors are discontinued, old, *irrelevant products to the market*. Their availability is a ticking time bomb because they are discontinued, and this is not at all relevant to the discussion.
> 
> Pre-2014 PlayStation games are not magically gone. No magic, they simply won't run on a PS4 due to lack of backwards compatibility. They're unplayable on the only supported PlayStation console and only sold used (ticking time bomb once again). This is not hard to follow. For XBOX One it's pre-November 2005. In the big picture, according to the gaming industry right now this is actually not much of a problem since pre-2005 games are hardly played. It's only a real problem from an artistic point of view, see my film analogy above. But PlayStation's complete lack of backwards compatibility sucks for Sony and gamers as a whole.
> 
> Your last sentence says it all; you can't put aside your biases to argue properly and you're just living in your own fantasy world. All of my points still stand unchallenged except for new AAA game prices, although my argument was always game prices as a whole anyway. The only valid point you brought up was a while back, about game developers not caring to advance gaming in the ways I described earlier. This is true of 99% AAA developers for sure, and thus at least 99% of console developers. GorillaSpectre addressed this well by bringing up the innovation attempts that only exist on PC. Often times by modders, ironically.


Discontinued does not mean unaviable. Irrelevant is subjective to you. It may be ticking,but it has not stopped yet. Very relevant in the discussion,since you are talking about old games. Keep trying.

Also look on how you just said previous consoles market is irrelevant,yet bring up previous consoles game sales as a point just above. Can't get the narrative straight huh?

PS3 is still supported. It still has online capabilities. Sony was still producing and selling it a few months ago in Japan. Do you even bother to check before posting? They wont run on a PS4 but yes on a PS3/PS2/PS1.

You keep acting that because Sony does not offer backwards compatibility it means all games pre-PS4 are unaviable,wich is not true. It's not aviable on the PS4 but it is on their previous consoles. That is all it matters.

The only valid point about backwards compatibility is the fact it's not present,wich again it's not a big deal,because you can purchase a previous generation console and the price from doing so wich is less to none with PS3's and X360 costing 100 bucks or less.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Alas you're wrong. Nice to know.


In other words, you've never heard of Greenmangaming until I pointed it out. Unlike you I've been buying from them for years, $48 for new AAA games (20% off). I'm sure it'll be the same for most of those.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> The aviability is not a problem now. When it is,you argument will be right. Lifespan is just an estimate and can change from console to console. People still have functioning PS1,PS2's and PSP's.
> 
> The point is,if you want to play old games you can,on their respective platform. That's all it matters. Not wether it's official or whatever excuse you may search.
> 
> "Old junk" and you claim you care about gaming. Such hypocrisy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS3 is still supported. It still has online capabilities. Do you even bother to check before posting? They wont run on a PS4 but yes on a PS3/PS2/PS1.
> 
> You keep acting that because Sony does not offer backwards compatibility it means all games pre-PS4 are unaviable,wich is not true. It's not aviable on the PS4 but it is on their previous consoles. That is all it matters.


The availability is a constant ongoing problem because playing older games relies on discontinued and inferior systems no longer in production, and the games themselves are no longer in production. No permanent solution. It's a problem just as I describe, it's just not one you care about obviously.

Your last three sentences are the same as saying "backwards compatibility doesn't matter" since relying on old systems is not backwards compatibility. I have the same two unchallenged retorts to this notion; so many pre-PS4/XBOX One era PC games remain best sellers and/or most played games in the world, and as an art form backwards compatibility is of course needed (see my film analogy and relate it to any other widely agreed upon art form, see preservation of art).

You can't stay on an old discontinued console forever. There's no future, aside from emulation on PC which although plays console games better than actual consoles (lol), is unreliable for anything beyond the PS2/XBOX era.

How is calling old consoles "junk" hypocrisy? All consoles are junk. Anyone who claims otherwise while simultaneously claiming to care about gaming is the hypocrite since in supporting consoles they are supporting something bad for gaming, as I've been pointing out. I might be a hypocrite, but not for that reason.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> See above. If it's popular it's still going to sell,just on the precedent platform. Not everyone upgrades to the latest consoles or disposes of it.
> 
> Discontinued does not mean unaviable. Irrelevant is subjective to you. It may be ticking,but it has not stopped yet. Very relevant in the discussion,since you are talking about old games. Keep trying.
> 
> Also look on how you just said previous consoles market is irrelevant,yet bring up previous consoles game sales as a point just above. Can't get the narrative straight huh?


Except older unsupported games can't really sell because they're not in production anymore. Again, no future for something discontinued and out of production. You might be greatly exaggerating the importance of the used game market. PS3/XBOX 360 used sales are irrelevant to the gaming industry at this point. The industry moves on once something is out of production. My narrative is consistent, you probably misunderstood something I said.


----------



## superstition222

Backward compatibility is an excellent thing to focus on.

Going forward, gaming should make it mandatory. One of the greatest strengths of x86 has been backward compatibility.

Apple, by contrast, wantonly breaks things because it likes people to do everything its way all the time. Even software people paid for a few years ago (like the MPEG2 Quicktime component) get broken, at whim. No solution is provided. Apple just pretends that people no longer need whatever tech they've decided to break.

Microsoft is becoming increasingly like Apple. Software that runs well in Windows 7 is broken in 8.1 and 10. That shouldn't happen. Windows should preserve backward compatibility with everything - all the way back to Windows 3.

Hardware is powerful enough and software development is sophisticated enough, thanks to high-level languages, to make this possible.

The console paradigm is archaic. It's from a time before PCs were standardized and ubiquitous - well before the Internet. There used to be dozens of competing computer platforms, most of them with mediocre graphics/sound/controllers. Many IBM PCs had monochrome graphics. Some had CGA and some had EGA. Some had EGA while others had VGA. Some had Tandy graphics. Sound support was hit and miss. Some had SoundBlaster and others didn't. It was a mess, even with the early PC.

All of that has changed. Now, the only things that count are how powerful someone's CPU is, how powerful their GPU is, and whether or not they have enough RAM.

The PC platform has changed from people buying exclusively from OEMs to being able to build their own machines. It's easy for anyone to start a small company that assembles PCs and sell them. PC hardware is not expensive, exotic, or difficult to manage.

The ITX form factor makes bulk unnecessary.

Any USB controller will work on a PC. The controllers are plug and play and the connectors are standardized.

In today's world it makes the most sense to standardize around Linux and Vulkan for gaming - getting rid of consoles. Consoles really offer nothing of value to the consumer over the PC platform. The only thing they do is make walled gardens for the companies selling the consoles and peripherals.

One of the features that people should demand of the Linux/Vulkan standard is full backward compatibility going forward - so that 20 years from now the hardware and OS can play the games released 6 months from now.


----------



## Charcharo

I think some posters here honestly believe machines never die and humanity has defeated time, whilst also believing consoles would last forever









Dude, these arent the pyraminds. And even the pyramids will fade one day. Let alone these consoles, mass produced using low end parts to get a buck.

You can still buy some old consoles where you live. I cant. But the thing is, even for you it will change. At some point the price/and or availability will become an issue and the final consoles of certain generations will be kept for museums. I know long term thinking is frowned upon, but this is what we humans do - we care about the grander scale and time-frame ever the one after our deaths.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Backward compatibility is an excellent thing to focus on.
> 
> Going forward, gaming should make it mandatory. One of the greatest strengths of x86 has been backward compatibility.
> 
> Apple, by contrast, wantonly breaks things because it likes people to do everything its way all the time. Even software people paid for a few years ago (like the MPEG2 Quicktime component) get broken, at whim. No solution is provided. Apple just pretends that people no longer need whatever tech they've decided to break.
> 
> Microsoft is becoming increasingly like Apple. Software that runs well in Windows 7 is broken in 8.1 and 10. That shouldn't happen. Windows should preserve backward compatibility with everything - all the way back to Windows 3.
> 
> Hardware is powerful enough and software development is sophisticated enough, thanks to high-level languages, to make this possible.
> 
> The console paradigm is archaic. It's from a time before PCs were standardized and ubiquitous - well before the Internet. There used to be dozens of competing computer platforms, most of them with mediocre graphics/sound/controllers. Many IBM PCs had monochrome graphics. Some had CGA and some had EGA. Some had EGA while others had VGA. Some had Tandy graphics. Sound support was hit and miss. Some had SoundBlaster and others didn't. It was a mess, even with the early PC.
> 
> All of that has changed. Now, the only things that count are how powerful someone's CPU is, how powerful their GPU is, and whether or not they have enough RAM.
> 
> The PC platform has changed from people buying exclusively from OEMs to being able to build their own machines. It's easy for anyone to start a small company that assembles PCs and sell them. PC hardware is not expensive, exotic, or difficult to manage.
> 
> The ITX form factor makes bulk unnecessary.
> 
> Any USB controller will work on a PC. The controllers are plug and play and the connectors are standardized.
> 
> In today's world it makes the most sense to standardize around Linux and Vulkan for gaming - getting rid of consoles. Consoles really offer nothing of value to the consumer over the PC platform. The only thing they do is make walled gardens for the companies selling the consoles and peripherals.
> 
> One of the features that people should demand of the Linux/Vulkan standard is full backward compatibility going forward - so that 20 years from now the hardware and OS can play the games released 6 months from now.


Yeah, the ideal environment for gaming (and more, but this thread is just about gaming) is easy to imagine and it is as you describe. Which is why it's baffling how anyone can argue that consoles do not hold back gaming. Compare a console to the fantasy world but clearly ideal Linux/Vulkan based platform you just described, and you will see how consoles hold back gaming from a broad perspective.

Which is where my hypocrisy resides; I use Windows 10. Microsoft, Intel, and AMD are all doing damage to (PC) gaming as we discussed earlier.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I think some posters here honestly believe machines never die and humanity has defeated time, whilst also believing consoles would last forever
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, these arent the pyraminds. And even the pyramids will fade one day. Let alone these consoles, mass produced using low end parts to get a buck.
> 
> You can still buy some old consoles where you live. I cant. But the thing is, even for you it will change. At some point the price/and or availability will become an issue and the final consoles of certain generations will be kept for museums. I know long term thinking is frowned upon, but this is what we humans do - we care about the grander scale and time-frame ever the one after our deaths.


Some posters here (typically the ones arguing in favor of consoles) also struggle to separate their personal feelings and biases from what really matters to the gaming industry and what really sells. They can't stand when the two don't align. They often don't align for me as well.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

I think it depends on what you guys think consoles are.. In terms of hardware consoles are already dead, all they are now is locked-down SFF PC's. It's already done with. They crash, they need firmware updates, the trend of people customizing the hardware in them has already started (changing HDD's), etc., etc. Sony could of easily released their "console" under the Vaio brand and no one would notice the difference.

But from a business perspective they are far from dead. There's big money in controlling your own ecosystem, you can subsidize entry costs with software further out (or vice versa), you can concentrate your marketing costs into one place, and on and on. It's also far more enticing for a corporation to build and control a brand than to be exposed to the 1000's of other competitors on an open platform.

Technically they do "hold gaming back", but their price and ease of use is very compelling for casual buyers, instead of the enemy you can also look at them as a gateway to PC (I know many people that has happened to). Without consoles and the corporations that make them/are attracted to their business model, the gaming industry would be far smaller.

At the end of the day consoles aren't stopping Valve from making PC exclusives, hats just make more money..


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Without consoles and the corporations that make them/are attracted to their business model, the gaming industry would be far smaller.


No.

The inefficiency of having redundant platforms reduces the amount developers can contribute to doing new things. All the time and expense around marketing, developing, and such - for multiple platforms that do the same thing - is waste.

The reason few people use Linux on the desktop is because corporate money hasn't pushed people toward that.

The reason so many people buy and use consoles, rather than everyone just getting on the PC platform, is because corporate money has pushed people toward that. That's not just console makers' money but also the Microsoft tax, something Linux/Vulkan makes irrelevant for gaming.

CPU makers have tech in their processors now that companies like Sony can use to lock down a software ecosystem on Linux. It's not necessary to have all these different physical boxes anymore. Console makers, though, don't want their revenue stream from selling substandard hardware to dry up. It will be easier for hackers to crack a software ecosystem than a bunch of redundant physical boxes but the benefits to the gaming market outweigh the drawbacks. Instead of a stream of firmware updates on redundant boxes to combat hackers it can be microcode updates to the CPUs' "trust" modules.


----------



## Boomer1990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philhalo66*
> 
> Well, if you start doing 20+ man raids even the 7700K gets slammed and the FPS tanks to single digits


Then you might need to turn settings down because my awful A10-5800k handled 20+ man raids in Nighthold easily, was above 40fps the entire time and my setting were mixed between low and high. My Ps4 Pro can handle FF14's 72 man pvp matches where all 72 people are in the same spot attacking each other and the fps seems fine, I mean the ps3 was able to somewhat handle 72 man pvp in ff14. Like I said before it comes down to the devs if they want their mmo on the system. World of Warcraft could easily be on Ps4.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> No.
> 
> The inefficiency of having redundant platforms reduces the amount developers can contribute to doing new things. All the time and expense around marketing, developing, and such - for multiple platforms that do the same thing - is waste.
> 
> The reason few people use Linux on the desktop is because corporate money hasn't pushed people toward that.
> 
> The reason so many people buy and use consoles, rather than everyone just getting on the PC platform, is because corporate money has pushed people toward that. That's not just console makers' money but also the Microsoft tax, something Linux/Vulkan makes irrelevant for gaming.


Also I would assume something better would have taken consoles' price point if they never existed, something like Steam Machines perhaps.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> At the end of the day consoles aren't stopping Valve from making PC exclusives, hats just make more money..


Yeah but Valve is just Valve. They're huge but as a game developer they are just one studio. As a side note, they are also making money from licensing PC exclusive Source games even to this day such as Day of Infamy and Black Mesa, but this might be the last year for Source games. And then we have Source 2.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Also I would assume something better would have taken consoles' price point if they never existed, something like Steam Machines perhaps.


MSX was an early attempt at standardizing the home computer market. Some Japanese firms realized that it didn't make much sense to have a plethora of incompatible boxes.

Consoles, though, always had relevance because there was too much of a lack of standardization. Many home PCs didn't have much in terms of graphics and sound because, in those days, it was costly to add that stuff and irrelevant for a lot of the CLI-based work that people did. Things like floppy drives were very expensive so people held onto old platforms longer, too (e.g. ancient Apple II graphics/sound). There were all sorts of different interfaces for controllers and incompatible protocols. Now, the only things that aren't standardized are:

1) Which CPU a person has (but it's x86)
2) Which GPU a person has (but it's for the x86 platform)
3) How much RAM a person has (but RAM is easy to install and is balanced by the CPU/board requirements)

Aside from incompetence (someone building a PC that overheats, something that console makers like Microsoft failed at miserably in the past), there really is nothing else to separate the console from the PC platform anymore.

Back in the day, there were tons of big separations - even in Japan with MSX.

Consoles once had a reason to exist. No longer. CPU and GPU development has become completely standardized. I/O is completely standardized. There is no more room in the market for something like a Cell-based console. The only thing someone might consider is doing something with PPC hardware but it's not cost-effective as long as AMD exists.

*x86 has won everything and it's time for the consumer gaming market to catch up to this fact.*

The next stage should involve using the trust modules in CPUs to regulate piracy, instead of firmware updates for a bunch of redundant walled garden boxes.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> No.
> 
> The inefficiency of having redundant platforms reduces the amount developers can contribute to doing new things. All the time and expense around marketing, developing, and such - for multiple platforms that do the same thing - is waste.
> 
> The reason few people use Linux on the desktop is because corporate money hasn't pushed people toward that.
> 
> The reason so many people buy and use consoles, rather than everyone just getting on the PC platform, is because corporate money has pushed people toward that. That's not just console makers' money but also the Microsoft tax, something Linux/Vulkan makes irrelevant for gaming.


The reason any of it exists in the first place is money.. Corporate or otherwise.

The closer consoles have gotten to being PC's the better PC ports and PC gaming has become (5 years ago it felt like every other release was Arkham Knight), developers can hire people based on three potential platforms instead of one. Consoles slow down the rate of progress, but they also increase job security and trust in investments.

The same can be said of Linux and Windows, being "open" and "free" encourages a race to the bottom. You're assuming Linux would be the wonderful OS utopia people make it sound like without the villain that is Windows, if Windows didn't exist Linux wouldn't need to exist, or it would be the villain itself.. Without Microsoft being a predatory corporation they wouldn't streamline their product to target grannies/casuals, which would mean less potential people to buy your product. Sometimes it's not a terrible thing to have someone make decisions for everyone else, or else everything becomes a convoluted mess.

Linux is intimidating to Windows users, the same way PC is intimidating to console users. You're assuming that everyone on consoles would just be on PC's if they didn't exist, or that everyone on Windows/mac would be on Linux, but that's just not how it works. You're also assuming that without MS, Apple, Google, etc, providing expertise and jobs that there would be thousands of experienced programmers to devote their time to Linux in the first place, and if the corporations didn't make money they couldn't give those people jobs..

I don't like corporations at all, but it's how the world works.. Pointless going back and forth about what would of happened or what wouldn't of happened, consoles and PC gaming have influenced each other. Without the one, the other wouldn't be the same.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> The reason any of it exists in the first place is money.. Corporate or otherwise.


That's the reason x86 has won. Money eventually realizes that the efficiency of standardization is better than the unnecessary costs of redundancy. However, this is over the long haul.

In the shorter term, corporate thinking often is very much invested in cheating people out of what they're due. The mantra is sell less for more. Under that kind of thinking, if you can dupe people into unecessary redundancy to make some extra cash - why not?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> The closer consoles have gotten to being PC's the better PC ports and PC gaming has become (5 years ago it felt like every other release was Arkham Knight), developers can hire people based on three potential platforms instead of one.


Gaming has been expanding for a long time. Profits have been expanding for a long time. Consoles or not, that trend will continue. In fact, the primary reason for that trend is the increasing sophistication of hardware, something that consoles impede.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Consoles slow down the rate of progress, but they also increase job security and trust in investments.


The trust modules that are in Zen and current Intel hardware can be used to provide stability to walled software gardens on a universal Linux/Vulkan gaming platform. x86 is already standard. It makes no sense to have various redundancy x86 boxes when CPUs can now offer the same level of piracy protection and software can be used to create the walled garden.

Slowing down progress rarely is a good thing. The waste that is caused by having three or more redundant x86 gaming platforms is waste that could have gone into job security for innovative game development - rather than people remaking the wheel three or more times, and the fence, and the bow, and the sword...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> The same can be said of Linux and Windows, being "open" and "free" encourages a race to the bottom.


How? There has been a ton of shovelware on consoles. The Wii, in particular, has been lampooned for having so much low-grade stuff from 3rd parties.

How would having a standard basic platform that supports software walled gardens, rather than having hardware boxes to accomplish the same thing (only with the extra drawback of holding back hardware), in any way, encourage a race toward anything but improved quality?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> You're assuming Linux would be the wonderful OS utopia people make it sound like without the villain that is Windows, if Windows didn't exist Linux wouldn't need to exist, or it would be the villain itself.. Without Microsoft being a predatory corporation they wouldn't streamline their product to target grannies/casuals, which would mean less potential people to buy your product. Sometimes it's not a terrible thing to have someone make decisions for everyone else, or else everything becomes a convoluted mess.


Utopias aren't the point. The point is that everyone wins except the few players peddling redundant outdated hardware. They can still offer walled gardens, via software stores and such. The difference is that people won't be locked into outdated hardware to play the games.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Linux is intimidating to Windows users, the same way PC is intimidating to console users.


Linux can be presented in a very simple manner, like ChromeOS - something second graders all over the nation are able to not be intimidated by.

Clearly, for there to be an effective universal PC gaming standard it needs to be user-friendly.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> You're assuming that everyone on consoles would just be on PC's if they didn't exist


Consoles are x86 PCs, only with unnecessary built-in old hardware redundancy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Pointless going back and forth about what would of happened or what wouldn't of happened, consoles and PC gaming have influenced each other. Without the one, the other wouldn't be the same.


More pointless is not learning from the progression of history. History has shown us that x86 always wins. It has and it continues to. The standardization continues to happen. Redundant outdated hardware boxes are going to go the way of the dodo, particularly if consumers start thinking more rationally instead of being led by the nose.


----------



## superstition222

These are the two paradigms:

"console"

old and weak x86 hardware, made just incompatible enough to not run on regular PCs
try to use the latest optical media DRM standard to justify existence
runs a basic OS

"PC"

full range of x86 hardware (except for tweaks used in "consoles")
supposed to have full support for all x86 standards, including optical media DRM
run anything from a basic OS to a highly-sophisticated one

Do you see anything in the console features list that the PC can't support? Only one thing - arbitrary hardware incompatibility impediments.

Instead of using hardware to make the walled garden, this can be done in software now - with CPU trust modules/microcode updates. CPUs have advanced enough to make redundant boxes unnecessary for maintaining a walled garden software ecosystem.

Nintendo used to be the dominant player in US console games. Sega used to be a big player. Things change! Sony and Microsoft don't own home gaming any more than Nintendo, Sega, and Atari.

There are companies that would be happy to do what Microsoft and Sony did to Nintendo, Sega, and Atari - take control of the main market. That can be done by providing consumers with more value. The key to that is to do what I'm suggesting. It's a new paradigm that is simply an extension of the progression toward standardization around x86 hardware that has been occurring since the first IBM PC was released.

And, if people really want hardware to protect their garden they can do what music software companies do and have people buy USB dongles. A simple USB dongle is a lot more efficient than buying a whole box!

The overwhelming majority of the PC market standardized around Windows. If that can happen, given the tremendous complexity of x86 software, then it can certainly happen with a subset of it on a Linux foundation. A gaming-centered OS does not need to be as complex on the surface.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> In other words, you've never heard of Greenmangaming until I pointed it out. Unlike you I've been buying from them for years, $48 for new AAA games (20% off). I'm sure it'll be the same for most of those.
> The availability is a constant ongoing problem because playing older games relies on discontinued and inferior systems no longer in production, and the games themselves are no longer in production. No permanent solution. It's a problem just as I describe, it's just not one you care about obviously.
> 
> Your last three sentences are the same as saying "backwards compatibility doesn't matter" since relying on old systems is not backwards compatibility. I have the same two unchallenged retorts to this notion; so many pre-PS4/XBOX One era PC games remain best sellers and/or most played games in the world, and as an art form backwards compatibility is of course needed (see my film analogy and relate it to any other widely agreed upon art form, see preservation of art).
> 
> You can't stay on an old discontinued console forever. There's no future, aside from emulation on PC which although plays console games better than actual consoles (lol), is unreliable for anything beyond the PS2/XBOX era.
> 
> How is calling old consoles "junk" hypocrisy? All consoles are junk. Anyone who claims otherwise while simultaneously claiming to care about gaming is the hypocrite since in supporting consoles they are supporting something bad for gaming, as I've been pointing out. I might be a hypocrite, but not for that reason.
> Except older unsupported games can't really sell because they're not in production anymore. Again, no future for something discontinued and out of production. You might be greatly exaggerating the importance of the used game market. PS3/XBOX 360 used sales are irrelevant to the gaming industry at this point. The industry moves on once something is out of production. My narrative is consistent, you probably misunderstood something I said.


Nah,they are 60$ and 54 if you pay their "VIP membership". I already knew about it,it's not some obscure site. It doesn't cost 48$ as of now,so your argument is not valid anymore.

It does not,in fact. It's a gimmick that both you and Charcharo have been parroting to have some leverage in your crusade against consoles. If you want to play old games it's as easy as buying them if you have the right platform or purchasing the platform itself that most likely costs pennies by now. There is nothing wrong with not having backwards compatibility,no matter what you say. You keep talking about some hypothethycal future when no games will be aviable,when in reality you can still buy SNES/GBA/PS1 games.

You don't need to keep on it forever,not that i would anyways. It's always relative to your argument that somehow consoles damage gaming by not allowing people to discover the so good (according to you) mechanics they had.

Consoles are what you get for the price. Calling them junk is unnecesary and just shows your bias. They are not junk,they do the best they can for the price.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BoredGunner*
> Except older unsupported games can't really sell because they're not in production anymore. Again, no future for something discontinued and out of production. You might be greatly exaggerating the importance of the used game market. PS3/XBOX 360 used sales are irrelevant to the gaming industry at this point. The industry moves on once something is out of production. My narrative is consistent, you probably misunderstood something I said.


Once again,out of production does not mean unaviable. The point of what im saying is that if you care so much about those old games,you can still play them and this is a fact.

Also you claimed that there were less games to sell,implying it was not possible to purchase them and i proved you wrong. You can still buy PS3/PS2 and X360 games on their physical format or digital.

Your film analogy does not make any sense because you can still find the games. It does not applicate in today's reality and it's just conjecture.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Snip.


Not sure why you're lecturing me on the history of x86.. Did you even read my post that you quoted in your fist reply? You've reiterated many of the points I already made about consoles, and what they are.

My comment about job security and trust in investments had nothing to do with piracy, or wanting/needing walled gardens.. The logic on piracy is the same logic you're using with PC and console/Windows and Linux - that assumes everyone who pirates games would actually buy them if piracy wasn't an option, that a pirated copy = a lost sale, that's not the case. A walled garden X86 PC, packaged up in a SFF and mass manufactured to reach as many people as cheaply as possible, will literally be what consoles are *right now*..

Yes, there's been shovelware on consoles, but it's nothing compared to Mobile or the way Steam has gone.. This is an example of the race to the bottom:



Besides all of this, your theory can be put to the test right now, a console based on Linux with newer hardware than in the PS4/X1 exists.. It's called the Steam machine, it is a complete failure, has no mass appeal, doesn't bring more consumers into the gaming industry, hasn't brought any new "innovative" games for the rest of us, and it is not enticing to a corporation in the least..

Quote:


> In the shorter term, corporate thinking often is very much invested in cheating people out of what they're due. The mantra is sell less for more. Under that kind of thinking, if you can dupe people into unecessary redundancy to make some extra cash - why not?


Please, name a single piece of hardware in your PC that had nothing to do with a corporation. I have no idea what you're trying to argue there..

This is now turning into a discussion that resembles capitalism vs socialism.. I won't take that any further as I'm not sure if it will fall under politics. Lets agree to disagree.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Nah,they are 60$ and 54 if you pay their "VIP membership". I already knew about it,it's not some obscure site. It doesn't cost 48$ as of now,so your argument is not valid anymore.
> 
> It does not,in fact. It's a gimmick that both you and Charcharo have been parroting to have some leverage in your crusade against consoles. If you want to play old games it's as easy as buying them if you have the right platform or purchasing the platform itself that most likely costs pennies by now. There is nothing wrong with not having backwards compatibility,no matter what you say. You keep talking about some hypothethycal future when no games will be aviable,when in reality you can still buy SNES/GBA/PS1 games.
> 
> You don't need to keep on it forever,not that i would anyways. It's always relative to your argument that somehow consoles damage gaming by not allowing people to discover the so good (according to you) mechanics they had.
> 
> Consoles are what you get for the price. Calling them junk is unnecesary and just shows your bias. They are not junk,they do the best they can for the price.
> Once again,out of production does not mean unaviable. The point of what im saying is that if you care so much about those old games,you can still play them and this is a fact.
> 
> Also you claimed that there were less games to sell,implying it was not possible to purchase them and i proved you wrong. You can still buy PS3/PS2 and X360 games on their physical format or digital.
> 
> Your film analogy does not make any sense because you can still find the games. It does not applicate in today's reality and it's just conjecture.


VIP membership isn't paid lol. That's just registered accounts and cost no money. More blind incorrect assumptions.

You've been reduced to repeating your own incorrect nonsense now, so there's nothing to see here. Nothing will stop you from saying that buying used, outdated, end of life systems and games is a good alternative to backwards compatibility. The weakness of that argument is immediately apparent to everyone.

It was never implied that it's impossible to purchase past gen games necessarily, but end of life is end of life. The games are discontinued quickly and when they are, they're out of circulation and no longer relevant to the industry. Used game sales have little to no impact on the industry. They are unavailable on Sony's only relevant (money making) platform and MS's only relevant console. Likewise used systems mean nothing to the industry since again they have no future and don't make anyone any money. The industry does not work the way you're suggesting it does, or rather you're ignoring the industry and just going with your own thing about used systems being a substitute in your mind.

Without backwards compatibility, all of those previous generation console games are removed from the industry since they are discontinued games for discontinued systems. Sony and MS leaves those games behind. Simple, obvious truth. With that in mind, remember that many of the most played games in the world predate the PS4/XBOX One era, and people generally don't want to purchase used things. Now try to put two and two together.

Calling consoles junk does indeed show my pro-gamer bias (I am after all arguing in favor of objectively superior systems/technology and art preservation, while you're arguing against them), and it shows my higher standards. Amusing that you are triggered by it.

Why do you think my film analogy makes no sense? It makes sense if you have common sense to fill in the blanks I left, so it looks like I'll have to do it for you: in this analogy, the only in production DVDs and Blu-rays and digital movies, with very few exceptions, would be from the last 3 years (equal to PS4's complete lack of backwards compatibility) or 2005 (equal to XBOX's backwards compatibility). Used DVDs and Blu-rays would be around sure, just like the games. Apples to apples. The same problems. Very logical analogy. And then think of how these limitations would have affected the film industry since the beginning.

Or imagine the same limitations for books. The only in print books would be from the last 3 years or since 2005. Or any widely recognized art form. It's clear gaming needs backwards compatibility/preservation in order to become a widely recognized art form like these.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> The logic on piracy is the same logic you're using with PC and console/Windows and Linux - that assumes everyone who pirates games would actually buy them if piracy wasn't an option, that a pirated copy = a lost sale, that's not the case.


I never said that and it's a red herring.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Yes, there's been shovelware on consoles, but it's nothing compared to Mobile or the way Steam has gone..


That's what happens when a platform is more open. It's a drawback but not one that's as big as the positives.

Nintendo reportedly didn't think American gamers wanted many RPGs so we didn't get a bunch of the Final Fantasy games. FF III is the highest-rated Famicom game. It never made it to the NES, not even on the Mini revival. That is what you get when you have a company tightly control the market. You get locked out of the best-rated games as well as shovelware.







We also got Nintendo's censorship policies and a dumbed-down Final Fantasy IV because Nintendo thought American gamers are too dumb or superficial to handle the real game.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Besides all of this, your theory can be put to the test right now, a console based on Linux with newer hardware than in the PS4/X1 exists.. It's called the Steam machine, it is a complete failure, has no mass appeal, doesn't bring more consumers into the gaming industry, hasn't brought any new "innovative" games for the rest of us, and it is not enticing to a corporation in the least..


Some big corporations want to protect their marketing of redundancy outdated hardware, including Microsoft. It's not surprising that we haven't yet seen a better platform. But, the push toward standardization is what history shows. Eventually, the console will go the way of the dozens of different PC standards, dozens of different I/O ports, etc.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Please, name a single piece of hardware in your PC that had nothing to do with a corporation. I have no idea what you're trying to argue there..


I have no idea what you're trying to point out with that question.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> This is now turning into a discussion that resembles capitalism vs socialism.. I won't take that any further as I'm not sure if it will fall under politics. Lets agree to disagree.


No, it's not. That's another red herring. The standardization trend around x86 has nothing to do with that debate. What it does show, though, is that consoles aren't going to last forever, especially in their current fake console form. Once upon a time, a console was a console - something with very incompatible, unique, hardware and software - not a knock-off PC.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> A walled garden X86 PC, packaged up in a SFF and mass manufactured to reach as many people as cheaply as possible, will literally be what consoles are *right now*..


Literally, walled off by hardware not software + CPU tech. I've been through that two or three times now. That's a crucial dichotomy.


----------



## oxidized

My advise is just to ignore these console kids, and let this thread die


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> I never said that and it's a red herring.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> That's what happens when a platform is more open. It's a drawback but not one that's as big as the positives.
> 
> Nintendo reportedly didn't think American gamers wanted many RPGs so we didn't get a bunch of the Final Fantasy games. FF III is the highest-rated Famicom game. It never made it to the NES, not even on the Mini revival. That is what you get when you have a company tightly control the market. You get locked out of the best-rated games as well as shovelware.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We also got Nintendo's censorship policies and a dumbed-down Final Fantasy IV because Nintendo thought American gamers are too dumb or superficial to handle the real game.
> Some big corporations want to protect their marketing of redundancy outdated hardware, including Microsoft. It's not surprising that we haven't yet seen a better platform. But, the push toward standardization is what history shows. Eventually, the console will go the way of the dozens of different PC standards, dozens of different I/O ports, etc.
> I have no idea what you're trying to point out with that question.
> No, it's not. That's another red herring. The standardization trend around x86 has nothing to do with that debate. What it does show, though, is that consoles aren't going to last forever, especially in their current fake console form. Once upon a time, a console was a console - something with very incompatible, unique, hardware and software - not a knock-off PC.
> Literally, walled off by hardware not software + CPU tech. I've been through that two or three times now. That's a crucial dichotomy.


There were no red herrings, I engaged your points fairly.

Who's disagreeing with "the standardization trend around x86"? If you read my first post that you replied to, I made that case very clearly.

I never stated you said those comments about piracy, I said it was the same logic, which it is.

My point about your PC parts being made by corporations was in response to this:
Quote:


> In the shorter term, corporate thinking often is very much invested in cheating people out of what they're due.


I didn't know what you were trying to say, corporations make PC's and consoles...

Alright then, so Steam machines failed because Microsoft stopped them or some other conspiracy? it couldn't possibly be related to the things we've been talking about.. If they were offering the market what consumers wanted they would sell, simple as that. I suppose Microsoft have stopped Linux too? They literally can't even give it away for free in order to catch Windows.. Why is that do you think?
Quote:


> Literally, walled off by hardware not software + CPU tech. I've been through that two or three times now. That's a crucial dichotomy.


What are you saying here - that Sony should just have an App? I already explained that a corporation wants to build a brand, they wan't to control the hardware, they want something to market. You really think Sony having an App like Steam is as enticing and lucrative to them as building a brand around manufacturing and software? The shareholders would love that I'm sure..

Companies want to make as much money as possible, the best way to do that is to sell your hardware and software to as many people as possible, the best way to do that is to mass produce a cheap product. Very simple. Perhaps one day Sony will also bring their exclusives to PC, but that won't stop them from trying to get a device that can play those games in as many hands as possible, and only selling your games on machines made of individual components where 50 different corporations all want a piece of the pie is a stupid way to go about it.

If you have a problem with a lowest common denominator, then I suggest you get over it, because that will always be a fact of life. Consoles are already locked-down PC's, so I don't know what you are trying to argue..


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> My advise is just to ignore these console kids, and let this thread die


I didn't see any console kids here though, did I miss them? I only saw PCMR kids and PC gamers who happen to own consoles.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> I didn't see any console kids here though, did I miss them? I only saw PCMR kids and PC gamers who happen to own consoles.


So those who own gaming PCs but no consoles and point out how consoles stifle game advancement are kids? What a childish assumption.


----------



## budgetgamer120

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> I didn't see any console kids here though, did I miss them? I only saw PCMR kids and PC gamers who happen to own consoles.


Well said lol


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> I didn't see any console kids here though, did I miss them? I only saw PCMR kids and PC gamers who happen to own consoles.


No wonder why...


----------



## Flames21891

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> If you want to play old games it's as easy as buying them if you have the right platform or purchasing the platform itself that most likely costs pennies by now. There is nothing wrong with not having backwards compatibility,no matter what you say. You keep talking about some hypothethycal future when no games will be aviable,when in reality you can still buy SNES/GBA/PS1 games.


It honestly depends on the game. Games that weren't ultra-popular are now considered rare, so you get crap like this if you try to buy original physical copies.

Also, as time goes on, the number of copies of physical-only games dwindles, and digital games are at risk of disappearing as soon as someone decides they're not worth hosting anymore.

I will say though, in that regard emulators haven't failed us yet. So long as people continue to find ways to at least preserve the games themselves in digital form, an emulator will come around eventually to make sure it remains playable.

Also, completely off topic, but I've been staring at your avatar forever because it looked so familiar. Is that the head angel from the BGM for the song Nightmare in the DJMAX series?

EDIT: Yup, looked it up because it was bugging me. I never expected something from that game series to end up as someone's avatar here of all places. Hats off to you sir, DJMAX was my favorite rhythm game series until Neowiz killed Pentavision.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> It honestly depends on the game. Games that weren't ultra-popular are now considered rare, so you get crap like this if you try to buy original physical copies.
> 
> Also, as time goes on, the number of copies of physical-only games dwindles, and digital games are at risk of disappearing as soon as someone decides they're not worth hosting anymore.
> 
> I will say though, in that regard emulators haven't failed us yet. So long as people continue to find ways to at least preserve the games themselves in digital form, an emulator will come around eventually to make sure it remains playable.


PS3 and XBOX 360 emulators can only play a tiny fraction of their games. Only Nintendo emulation remains fairly reliable.


----------



## Flames21891

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> PS3 and XBOX 360 emulators can only play a tiny fraction of their games. Only Nintendo emulation remains fairly reliable.


They're also still very much actively in development, and steadily improving. One day, RPCS3 will be as good as PCSX2 is now.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Sure it does, especially to the former. Common sense proves that. No reason to deny the obvious.
> 
> The outdated, weak CPUs are a limiting factor. You'll never get anything on the same level as S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Chernobyl's A-Life (open world simulation AI) running on these consoles, something that would greatly improve and advance most large scale games with lots of characters (practically any RPG, as well as GTA and plenty others). You'll never see a large scale strategy game like Total War, Civilization, or any Grand Strategy game, and most MMOs, not in the same form as all of these exist on PC that is since it's not possible.
> 
> AI advancement is gimped, potential scale of games is extremely limited just in comparison to PCs. The size and potential detail and interactivity of game worlds is gimped, gameplay variety and depth are gimped (they at least have enough RAM to handle simple gameplay mechanics unlike previous generations lol, but any game that needs more functionality than a controller provides is basically screwed), amount of AI units in a game world is gimped, sound is gimped, multiplayer is severely gimped, graphics quality is gimped, nearly everything is held back.
> 
> The closed ecosystem is another limiting factor, significantly limiting the capabilities of developers thus limiting the games. Limited API selection (audio and visual, main reason why sound processing has taken a big step back since the 2000s), limited hardware, limited capabilities as a result. New graphics APIs = new consoles, combined with the higher game costs and paid online services, the price of console gaming is probably holding back gaming. I'd wager Sony and Microsoft's favoritism towards AAA games is also greatly limiting their systems (limiting their own potential game sales).
> 
> The complete or almost complete lack of backwards compatibility is holding back gaming by making older games unavailable thus shrinking the library. Many of the absolute most popular games in the world today predate the PS4/XBOX One era. The inability to create mods and very limited mod use is holding back gaming severely, the inability to host your own dedicated servers is holding back gaming, the limited input device selection holds back gaming, 30/60 FPS limitations hold back gaming.
> 
> Many of the top selling, most played games in the world could never have existed (originated) on consoles because of their awful limitations, such as Dota 2, CS:GO, Garry's Mod, Team Fortress 2, DayZ since these all began as mods, or World of Warcraft, League of Legends, and Starcraft 2 which are too demanding for console CPUs and/or have too much functionality for a controller to handle, games that needed and benefited from Steam Early Access like PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS and ARK: Survival Evolved, etc.
> 
> Common sense is all it takes to see that consoles hold back gaming.


Common sense is all that is needed to understand that game developers can design games to take advantage of the highest end gaming PC imaginable and then simply scale it back to work on the consoles. But of course they are always free from any criticism and instead consoles themselves are made the scapegoat. The cost structure and simplicity that makes consoles so attractive dictates that the machines be far more limited in ability than a PC that can cost upward of $10k or more can be. You know, common sense and all...


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> Why join a thread just to throw insults? This happens in every single console related thread on this site. You have the people interested in the product talking about it then the PCMR hops in and starts bashing anyone who has an interest in said product. If you have no interest in consoles why not just stay out of the thread and let the people who are interested in it have a discussion about it. Instead the PC elitist can't do that so every single console thread ends up being people who like consoles arguing against people who hate them.


Read (again?) the thread title and see if that matches your description


----------



## Boomer1990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> Read (again?) the thread title and see if that matches your description


Yup that is my bad was thinking it was a different thread since the same arguments are happening, 100% my bad.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> Yup that is my bad was thinking it was a different thread since the same arguments are happening, 100% my bad.


No problem


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> They're also still very much actively in development, and steadily improving. One day, RPCS3 will be as good as PCSX2 is now.


I hope that's the case.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Common sense is all that is needed to understand that game developers can design games to take advantage of the highest end gaming PC imaginable and then simply scale it back to work on the consoles. But of course they are always free from any criticism and instead consoles themselves are made the scapegoat. The cost structure and simplicity that makes consoles so attractive dictates that the machines be far more limited in ability than a PC that can cost upward of $10k or more can be. You know, common sense and all...


Game development is not that simple. They can only scale back to a point; if they were to scale back something like Ashes of the Singularity so that it can run on consoles, it'd be left with graphics quality that'd be deemed unplayable by gamers and thus wouldn't sell, and performance would still be awful (although this isn't a problem since console gamers are used to 15-20 FPS).

Likewise, they can't just scale back a game that requires more functionality than what a controller can provide. And plenty of such games exist. So I suggest leaving the common sense discussion to those that actually have it.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

And yet none of that is stopping anybody from developing titles that REQUIRE a PC, either in concept or execution (as you suggest). The elimination of consoles wouldn't change a thing about the developers and their laziness. All it would do is take massive amounts of capitalization out of their hands and shrink the entire gaming market. I think your common sense is broken sir...


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And yet none of that is stopping anybody from developing titles that REQUIRE a PC, either in concept or execution (as you suggest). The elimination of consoles wouldn't change a thing about the developers and their laziness. All it would do is take massive amounts of capitalization out of their hands and shrink the entire gaming market. I think your common sense is broken sir...


Nobody was talking about the elimination of consoles. The argument was always consoles holding back gaming. It's even in the thread title. So which of the very obvious facts you've quoted do you disagree with?


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> [/SPOILER]There were no red herrings, I engaged your points fairly.


You put words in my mouth, with that piracy analysis claim. You also claimed the discussion somehow had something to do with socialism. Those are just two of the red herrings. Complaining that I "lectured" you about the history of x86 is also a red herring. You're not the only person reading this topic.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Who's disagreeing with "the standardization trend around x86"?


Anyone who doesn't see how the console has increasingly become irrelevant/meaningless, in terms of being a concrete distinction from home computers. Even the home computer vs. professional computer dichotomy has almost completely broken down because of the dominance of x86.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> I never stated you said those comments about piracy, I said it was the same logic, which it is.


It's not. I'm not very interested a big debate about piracy but if you want it maybe you can start by explaining how Sony hasn't consistently churned out firmware/OS updates to lock down its consoles. The entire Linux-on-PS3 debacle, where Sony's lawyers even personally attacked the plaintiffs in two ways (one of them being that "no one cares about Linux on PS3" which makes the plaintiffs nobodies) is a clear case about how Sony views its consoles. It views its consoles as a hardware method of reducing piracy and having control, not only over games but also over optical media content in general.

Your stuff about lost sales is peripheral to the points I was making. Console makers like Sony want walled gardens that they can control. My point is that it can be established with the feature set of x86 processors - a software walled garden. That means it's not necessary to use outdated boxes to construct and control the garden. I have little interest in debating how effective Sony's anti-piracy tactics are or things of that nature. What's clear is that anti-piracy measures include things like tight OS/firmware control. It's not likely at all that Sony, for instance, will be interested in replacing that model with something else unless it can offer approximately the same level of control or better.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> My point about your PC parts being made by corporations was in response to this: "In the shorter term, corporate thinking often is very much invested in cheating people out of what they're due." I didn't know what you were trying to say, corporations make PC's and consoles...


I was pointing out that long-term trends in profit-seeking can conflict with short-term trends. In the long term, in this circumstance, it's better for consumers to have less redundancy. So, if corporations work toward standardization around x86 that is largely positive for consumers. In the short term, though, Sony and Microsoft are still peddling the obsolete hardware-based console model - because they get money from selling that hardware. That profit-seeking conflicts with the long-term goal of increasing efficiency, by standardizing around x86 more and more.

As I've written in great detail, the world of personal computing has gone from having lots of incompatible standards (redundancy) toward more and more standardization. Even the I/O ports of "consoles" are completely compatible with PCs. If we pretend, momentarily, that these "consoles" aren't PCs, then it seems notable - on its own - that one can take a controller from one and plug it into a PC while gaining full functionality. That is another symptom of the growing irrelevance of consoles. Once upon a time, consoles like the NES offered much better controller precision than what was available on home computers and older competing consoles. Software improvements are only part of the console's life story. Now that everything is common, now that "consoles" are just PCs, it's the end of the road for consoles as a thing. Instead, what we have now are PCs being treated as consoles - a _let's pretend_ situation. Fantasies/fiction benefit some companies but, over time, consumers wake up to reality. Even if they don't, other companies that are in competition will wake up the consumers to reality by offering better value.

Bad business eventually gets sorted out. At least, that's the hope. The trouble is when there are big/powerful players whose short-term profit-making interfere with the logical course of pursuing increasing efficiency. One thing that speeds up the efficiency gains is an informed buying public. That involves tech journalists being able to let consumers know what's in their interest and what isn't, via careful analysis.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Alright then, so Steam machines failed because Microsoft stopped them or some other conspiracy?


If you want to call Sony and Microsoft creating knock-off PCs and selling them as consoles a conspiracy that's your choice. Of course it's a conspiracy in terms of the companies doing everything they can to profit from those actions. That's what corporations do, you know. They conspire against the consumer to get their money. Big deal. That's not going to change. But, the consumer also has the ability to become informed and make better choices.

I don't know much about the specifics of this Steam hardware. There are a lot of details that can cause things to fail, details that don't contradict the factors I've pointed out. The NES being a smash success may not have happened, for instance, had Nintendo not decided to tell retailers it would buy back unsold units. That was not standard practice but it was a tactic that worked. If Nintendo hadn't done that and the NES hadn't caught on as a result - is that evidence that the NES failed for other reasons? No, but people could make that erroneous case, by mistakenly conflating that decision with other factors.

What doesn't need to be proven is that the current "consoles" are just knock-off PCs. They offer nothing beyond what is available with ordinary PC hardware. The most we can apparently expect with the next generation is smoother support for yet another cumbersome heavy-DRM optical media standard. Sony's win with BluRay, and the marketing pitch of buying a PS3 to use as a BluRay player is a lever that isn't going to be abandoned by choice by companies. They'll use any levers they can that have proven useful in the past, hoping they'll continue to work. And, they'll try to find new ones. But, I don't see the tech being significantly different from what off-the-shelf PC hardware can do.

If "console" makers were still interested in selling hardware at a heavy loss, upon introduction, then maybe the console would still be relevant to a degree. But, even that one dubious advantage is gone because cheap x86 standardization has pushed out the justification for selling at a loss.

An implementation can fail in the market without discrediting the idea. The first submarine killed its crew. Then, the designer innovated even more, figuring out how to prevent "the bends" from killing those aboard. But, the deaths overshadowed this new improvement and his submarine never caught on. Does the failure of the first correctly-designed submarine mean the submarine is a bad idea? There are lots of variables that go into success and failure, including publicity and scandal.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> it couldn't possibly be related to the things we've been talking about.. If they were offering the market what consumers wanted they would sell, simple as that.


Your assertion would be true if the market's players were all equal in power. They certainly aren't. Apple, for instance, has a ton of cash it can use to shape the market, to shape demand. Atari, by contrast, is a joke of a brand. It was the proud leader of console gaming in the USA.

There are also fads. The Cabbage Patch doll is a great example. There are also crashes. The Colecovision was a fine console that people enjoyed. A combination of factors led to its demise. It was not simply that it wasn't what people wanted. Sometimes there is demand but no product. Lots of people have been wanting to buy a card called Vega from AMD for quite a while. Lots of people wanted to buy something better than FX from AMD for a long time. Now, they finally can. However, they couldn't until Ryzen was finally released.

When products don't exist on the market that people want they buy other products, products that don't suit them as well. When the public doesn't know what it should want because of fads, successful ad propaganda, or some other factor, then the products the public should want may not be produced or may fail. History happens over time. The accumulation of knowledge happens over time. People can, and do, learn things - become educated. The market is not static.

It is possible that these fake consoles will be peddled for decades. It's possible that Windows will get even worse than it is with Windows 10. People thought Big Tobacco was forever - far too powerful. Once upon a time we saw Hollywood and television with people smoking all over. But, eventually, enough people learned enough to realize they shouldn't want tobacco products to greatly curtail the popularity and influence of them. History mainly points toward progress, through education. It can be very slow or it can be quick. A lot of that comes down to how willing people are to make the effort to educate others - and how willing people are to have an open mind so they can learn what the best course is.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> I suppose Microsoft have stopped Linux too? They literally can't even give it away for free in order to catch Windows.. Why is that do you think?


Backward compatibility is a big one. One of the greatest strengths of x86, as I wrote, has been backward compatibility. But, that is increasingly less of an area of effort from Microsoft as it emulates Apple.

Another factor is inertia and/or payola, involving big software firms like Adobe and AutoDesk. Professionals who need software that hasn't been ported face a problem. Inertia also helps MS control things.

Microsoft, you know, has been said to have had a monopoly. Monopolies distort markets dramatically.

Desktop Windows vs. Linux is more difficult territory. There is greater complexity because of the higher level of flexibility needed. Enterprise software. Home software. IT folk - their training, biases, etc.

Gaming operating system standardization is far simpler. A gaming-centric Linux, used as the basis for as many walled garden environments as big corporations want to create and maintain (as well as less walled gardens) does not have to do all the things a general-purpose desktop OS needs to do. It does not need to conquer enterprise, for instance. That's a huge difference.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> What are you saying here - that Sony should just have an App? I already explained that a corporation wants to build a brand, they wan't to control the hardware, they want something to market.


If you think a corporation can't be powerful without hardware I have a word for you: Microsoft. Microsoft only got into hardware in recent times with XBox, Surface, and other things. It became a behemoth with software, not hardware.

As for an app, there is no reason why software can't be just as compelling, in terms of brand identity, as hardware can be. The success of DOS and Windows on generic clone hardware shows that. People cared much more about having Windows than they did about knowing if their monitor was made by BenQ or not - or if their box is a Gateway or an Acer. Hardware has been secondary to the success of x86, particularly after IBM got sidelined by the cloners.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Companies want to make as much money as possible, the best way to do that is to sell your hardware and software to as many people as possible


Microsoft produced the world's richest man via software sales. Hardware is not necessary to make a company wealthy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> the best way to do that is to mass produce a cheap product. Very simple.


Sure. That's why people are gaming on the Raspberry Pi instead of on these "consoles". The Pi is certainly cheaper.

Cheapness is just one important factor of many.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Perhaps one day Sony will also bring their exclusives to PC, but that won't stop them from trying to get a device that can play those games in as many hands as possible, and only selling your games on machines made of individual components where 50 different corporations all want a piece of the pie is a stupid way to go about it.


Have you considered the fact that Sony, or anyone else, can put a seal of approval on hardware that meets its requirements? Seals and certifications have a proven track record of success. Nintendo's quality seal for the NES was a clever, and effective, way to market the console - to help to reassure people that the console wouldn't be burdened by shovelware. Both the first and second video game crashes have been blamed, in large part, for a lack of quality control - too much shovelware. The 80 Plus power supply program has been successful.

It is the false dilemma fallacy to claim that there can't be clarity and control in a software-based walled garden model. It's also not true that the only way to have a high-quality gaming experience is to have really locked down hardware-based ecosystem. We even saw how bad things can get in that environment with the way the top-rated Famicom game was never ever brought to the NES.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> If you have a problem with a lowest common denominator, then I suggest you get over it, because that will always be a fact of life.


The lowest common denominator in gaming are things like:

ultra-casual tablet gaming
recycling of obsolete games (such as via emulation)
purposefully low-spec games, aimed at some niche (like "e-sports" and Minecraft)

Those things are not on the level of what we've been discussing. Another red herring. I also don't have any problem with people enjoying things like that. They are not the entirety of the gaming market, nor are they the entirety of the virtual console market.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Consoles are already locked-down PC's, so I don't know what you are trying to argue..


That the time has come to move from the obsolete model of peddling outdated incompatible PC hardware boxes to profit from a walled garden setup to using the latest features of x86 CPUs, in conjunction with Linux and Vulkan - to build a standard software platform for gaming atop the standard hardware platform that is x86.

Why is it that we can agree on x86 but can't also agree on a basic software layer for it? We can. It's going to happen, just as the standardization around x86 relentlessly happened. Even Apple was forced to give up on PPC.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Nobody was talking about the elimination of consoles. The argument was always consoles holding back gaming.


Hardware consoles have been eliminated by x86 standardization. They don't exist as a thing anymore. The only thing on the market, aside from irrelevant niche products like Switch, are knock-off PCs, with locked-down firmware, and the open PC hardware/software ecosystem.

My argument is that these fake consoles, using hardware to define their walled garden ecosystems, should be replaced by virtual software consoles. Use software to establish the gardens.

I cite the long history of homogenization around the x86 standard. It makes no sense to have that history, in terms of hardware homogenization over time, and argue that there can't also be a common software layer.

We already had that with DOS and then Windows. But, the best way for gaming to move forward is to abandon Windows so people can't use the Microsoft tax as an excuse to peddle redundant knock-off PCs, calling them consoles.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Nah,they are 60$ and 54 if you pay their "VIP membership". I already knew about it,it's not some obscure site. It doesn't cost 48$ as of now,so your argument is not valid anymore.
> 
> It does not,in fact. It's a gimmick that both you and Charcharo have been parroting to have some leverage in your crusade against consoles. If you want to play old games it's as easy as buying them if you have the right platform or purchasing the platform itself that most likely costs pennies by now. There is nothing wrong with not having backwards compatibility,no matter what you say. You keep talking about some hypothethycal future when no games will be aviable,when in reality you can still buy SNES/GBA/PS1 games.
> 
> You don't need to keep on it forever,not that i would anyways. It's always relative to your argument that somehow consoles damage gaming by not allowing people to discover the so good (according to you) mechanics they had.
> 
> Consoles are what you get for the price. Calling them junk is unnecesary and just shows your bias. They are not junk,they do the best they can for the price.
> Once again,out of production does not mean unaviable. The point of what im saying is that if you care so much about those old games,you can still play them and this is a fact.
> 
> Also you claimed that there were less games to sell,implying it was not possible to purchase them and i proved you wrong. You can still buy PS3/PS2 and X360 games on their physical format or digital.
> 
> Your film analogy does not make any sense because you can still find the games. It does not applicate in today's reality and it's just conjecture.


Do you want to make a bet with me that the only PS2's left by 2060 would be museum pieces?

There is a point in time where common sense trumps everything the opponent can bring up. You have reached the point where you believe consoles will outlast all of humanity's engineering achievements.

That is extreme arrogance.







Absolutely incredible...

Just because you are yet to fall down today doesnt mean gravity has stopped existing


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> VIP membership isn't paid lol. That's just registered accounts and cost no money. More blind incorrect assumptions.
> 
> You've been reduced to repeating your own incorrect nonsense now, so there's nothing to see here. Nothing will stop you from saying that buying used, outdated, end of life systems and games is a good alternative to backwards compatibility. The weakness of that argument is immediately apparent to everyone.
> 
> It was never implied that it's impossible to purchase past gen games necessarily, but end of life is end of life. The games are discontinued quickly and when they are, they're out of circulation and no longer relevant to the industry. Used game sales have little to no impact on the industry. They are unavailable on Sony's only relevant (money making) platform and MS's only relevant console. Likewise used systems mean nothing to the industry since again they have no future and don't make anyone any money. The industry does not work the way you're suggesting it does, or rather you're ignoring the industry and just going with your own thing about used systems being a substitute in your mind.
> 
> Without backwards compatibility, all of those previous generation console games are removed from the industry since they are discontinued games for discontinued systems. Sony and MS leaves those games behind. Simple, obvious truth. With that in mind, remember that many of the most played games in the world predate the PS4/XBOX One era, and people generally don't want to purchase used things. Now try to put two and two together.
> 
> Calling consoles junk does indeed show my pro-gamer bias (I am after all arguing in favor of objectively superior systems/technology and art preservation, while you're arguing against them), and it shows my higher standards. Amusing that you are triggered by it.
> 
> Why do you think my film analogy makes no sense? It makes sense if you have common sense to fill in the blanks I left, so it looks like I'll have to do it for you: in this analogy, the only in production DVDs and Blu-rays and digital movies, with very few exceptions, would be from the last 3 years (equal to PS4's complete lack of backwards compatibility) or 2005 (equal to XBOX's backwards compatibility). Used DVDs and Blu-rays would be around sure, just like the games. Apples to apples. The same problems. Very logical analogy. And then think of how these limitations would have affected the film industry since the beginning.
> 
> Or imagine the same limitations for books. The only in print books would be from the last 3 years or since 2005. Or any widely recognized art form. It's clear gaming needs backwards compatibility/preservation in order to become a widely recognized art form like these.


My bad,you are still wrong though.

So have been you. I didn't say it was a good alternative,i said it was an alternative. It does not need to be good according to you because all you need them for is to somehow gain knowledge by playing old games? Let's start by saying that's pure non sense anyways.

You just keep parroting EOL and outdated and this and that,doesn't change the fact that they are aviable. Aditionally,most PS3 and X360 games are not EOL because they are still aviabile in their e-Shop. Once again,im the ignorant? You couldn't aknowledge this,was it because of a genuine mistake or.....?









Burden of proof on your claim that used games don't affect the industry? And just like i said up,both PS3 and X360 have e-Stores. PS2 and ETC can easily be emulated on a PC at this point.

_All of those previous generation console games are removed from the industry since they are discontinued games for discontinued systems_

http://gematsu.com/2017/06/media-create-sales-6517-61117

*PlayStation 3 - 392*









http://gematsu.com/2016/06/media-create-sales-6616-61216

*
[PS3] Dragon Quest Heroes II: The Twin Kings and the Prophecy's End (Square Enix, 05/27/16) - 10,027*

*PlayStation 3 - 1,006*









People don't want to purchase used things? Assumption on your part.

"Pro Gamer" lol sure. And triggered,why you don't go back to 4chan?

Your analogy fails because you don't understand that out of production does not mean unaviable. As of now,the situation,put on like your "analogy" is having a DVD that only plays on a DVD player instead of a Blu Ray Player. Sure,DVD players probably aren't sold anymore but you can still buy one of them used or magazine remains etc.

Let's not also forget how you are so logical when it favours you,yet you dismissed the fact that the PS3 has a very weird architecture that has been defined to be a nightmare to program for,thus making it very hard to emulate,as an excuse. Disingenous to the core.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> EDIT: Yup, looked it up because it was bugging me. I never expected something from that game series to end up as someone's avatar here of all places. Hats off to you sir, DJMAX was my favorite rhythm game series until Neowiz killed Pentavision.


Yeah,it's from nightmare







Also aren't you aware that a new DJ Max is coming out for PS4? DJ Max Respect and they are going to launch it very soon.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> My bad,you are still wrong though.
> 
> So have been you. I didn't say it was a good alternative,i said it was an alternative. It does not need to be good according to you because all you need them for is to somehow gain knowledge by playing old games? Let's start by saying that's pure non sense anyways.
> 
> You just keep parroting EOL and outdated and this and that,doesn't change the fact that they are aviable. Aditionally,most PS3 and X360 games are not EOL because they are still aviabile in their e-Shop. Once again,im the ignorant? You couldn't aknowledge this,was it because of a genuine mistake or.....?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Burden of proof on your claim that used games don't affect the industry? And just like i said up,both PS3 and X360 have e-Stores. PS2 and ETC can easily be emulated on a PC at this point.
> 
> _All of those previous generation console games are removed from the industry since they are discontinued games for discontinued systems_
> 
> http://gematsu.com/2017/06/media-create-sales-6517-61117
> 
> *PlayStation 3 - 392*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://gematsu.com/2016/06/media-create-sales-6616-61216
> 
> *
> [PS3] Dragon Quest Heroes II: The Twin Kings and the Prophecy's End (Square Enix, 05/27/16) - 10,027*
> 
> *PlayStation 3 - 1,006*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People don't want to purchase used things? Assumption on your part.
> 
> "Pro Gamer" lol sure. And triggered,why you don't go back to 4chan?
> 
> Your analogy fails because you don't understand that out of production does not mean unaviable. As of now,the situation,put on like your "analogy" is having a DVD that only plays on a DVD player instead of a Blu Ray Player. Sure,DVD players probably aren't sold anymore but you can still buy one of them used or magazine remains etc.
> 
> Let's not also forget how you are so logical when it favours you,yet you dismissed the fact that the PS3 has a very weird architecture that has been defined to be a nightmare to program for,thus making it very hard to emulate,as an excuse. Disingenous to the core.


The analogy doesn't fail since it would of course include the same level of (un)availability.

The games are unavailable on the PS4/XBOX One. That's what matters. The old discontinued systems won't live forever and neither will the availability of previous gen console games. No permanent solution. No backwards compatibility for PS4, only one generation of it for the XBOX One. That's where that ends. You've pointed out one shoddy unreliable workaround that's on a very limited lifespan, but it's not one that benefits or concerns the current production consoles at all, so you're not even defending them.

The PS3 architecture is so complex that Sony can't do backwards compatibility, but hobbyist programmers can via emulation? Poor Sony.

As superstition222 pointed out, all of this just puts it into perspective how outdated and behind the times consoles are and it may very well change just to keep up with the hardware industry.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Snip.


Way too much effort for me to respond to that..









You make some good points but I still have my own point of view. +Rep for all of that, even though I still disagree.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> The analogy doesn't fail since it would of course include the same level of (un)availability.
> 
> The games are unavailable on the PS4/XBOX One. That's what matters. The old discontinued systems won't live forever and neither will the availability of previous gen console games. No permanent solution. No backwards compatibility for PS4, only one generation of it for the XBOX One. That's where that ends. You've pointed out one shoddy unreliable workaround that's on a very limited lifespan, but it's not one that benefits or concerns the current production consoles at all, so you're not even defending them.
> 
> The PS3 architecture is so complex that Sony can't do backwards compatibility, but hobbyist programmers can via emulation? Poor Sony.
> 
> As superstition222 pointed out, all of this just puts it into perspective how outdated and behind the times consoles are and it may very well change just to keep up with the hardware industry.


Your analogy has no place in reality because games are still aviable.

It doesn't matter they are not present on the PS4 or Xbox One because they aren't the only consoles that exist. PS3 is not discontinued i just posted sales chart from this month and one year ago.

Unrealiable? How do you think people have been playing games for the last century? Emulation only? Please.

LOL yeah im sure RPCS3 or what it is called can perfectly emulate every game. Call me when it can.

Still,it is a complex console,you can just keep ignoring facts all you want,just makes you look disingenous.

You are painting a doomsday scenario because it favors your argument.

We may aswell argue on how someday Steam may go out of business with all your digital games.

We all know that won't happen because some kind of preventive action will be taken,but you just go on painting that doomsday scenario you so much love.


----------



## Charcharo

There is no prevention action with consoles and their games. Its a physical product, it dies. Its as simple as that.

Seriously did your parents not teach you about the cycle of life or death when you were a child? Is this concept foreign to you? Nothing in this universe is completely immortal, only some concepts are even in that race (such as art) but still.

You are laughing at emulators when you KNOW one day PS3s wont exist and PS3 games wont exist at all. It doesnt matter what the CURRENT situation is, only someone who has no idea about how the world functions can even claim second hand PS3s and all their games will exist and be playable, available and reasonably affordable 60 years from now.

Seriously, stop and think about what you are saying. I am not used to such levels of ignorance from grown men/women. Accept things end and move on trying to defend them/think of a longer term solution.

PS3's production is discontinued BTW. All the PS3 that have ever existed are now... a finite number. The only advancement now is down. They are going to slowly die off in time even with perfect care. Yes it sucks, I admit, but that is the natural order of the world and we cant combat it, and at least for non-biological or self-repairing entities, we likely never will.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Your analogy has no place in reality because games are still aviable.
> 
> It doesn't matter they are not present on the PS4 or Xbox One because they aren't the only consoles that exist. PS3 is not discontinued i just posted sales chart from this month and one year ago.
> 
> Unrealiable? How do you think people have been playing games for the last century? Emulation only? Please.
> 
> LOL yeah im sure RPCS3 or what it is called can perfectly emulate every game. Call me when it can.
> 
> Still,it is a complex console,you can just keep ignoring facts all you want,just makes you look disingenous.
> 
> You are painting a doomsday scenario because it favors your argument.
> 
> We may aswell argue on how someday Steam may go out of business with all your digital games.
> 
> We all know that won't happen because some kind of preventive action will be taken,but you just go on painting that doomsday scenario you so much love.




Not only do the systems die but the last gen consoles in particular aren't exactly built to last either. Awful soldering jobs are common plus overheating problems on earlier XBOX 360s. And even if that weren't the case the obvious point remains; they are outdated, discontinued and, have no future. No future = unreliable, this "doomsday" is just obvious fact for anything discontinued. It's as simple as that.

You're saying backwards compatibility doesn't matter because of this workaround, but backwards compatibility would obviously be the general preferred solution. Compare last gen console sales to current gen within the last two years and see how many people have moved on.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Not only do the systems die but the last gen consoles in particular aren't exactly built to last either. Awful soldering jobs are common plus overheating problems on earlier XBOX 360s. And even if that weren't the case the obvious point remains; they are outdated, discontinued and, have no future. No future = unreliable, this "doomsday" is just obvious fact for anything discontinued. It's as simple as that.
> 
> You're saying backwards compatibility doesn't matter because of this workaround, but backwards compatibility would obviously be the general preferred solution. Compare last gen console sales to current gen within the last two years and see how many people have moved on.


It depends on system per system basis. Once again,there are still working PS1 and PS2 consoles. The only metric is working hours and that again depends on console per console. Xbox 360 have had countless revisions so your point is outdated. So did PS3 and their Slim and Ultra Slim models,overheating does not happen anymore.

You keep saying outdated and discontinued,the former is the only right because once again i just told you PS3 has been discontinued only as of May 2017 and in Japan. Outdated does not matter because it does what it has to do correctly and your whole point again was being able to play the games. Again,the no future mantra makes no sense now since it's not like that as of now.

Backwards compatibility is the preferred solution,yes,but that's it.

No wonder,it has been four years since the new generation consoles have been out. What a relevant observation.

You want to push a narrative that does not have place in reality as of now. Just because the PS4 does not offer retrocompatibility it does not mean that all games pre-PS4 have disappeared. That's the point you have been pushing so far. That because PS4 has no retrocompatibility,X time from now people will not have access to previous games because consoles die and bla bla.

In reality precedents have already proven you wrong,we have access to loads of games of previous generation consoles be it physical or digital,and emulators have been delevoped so your concern is not genuine as what you seem to care most is trash consoles.

Then again,if you only cared about preservation,the argument would be over pretty soon since the only games that would suffer of your scenario would be exclusives since multiplats are disponible on PC. And those are a handful on every system.

There's no complicate point to grasp here,your argument is just poor,based on hypothesis and what ifs.


----------



## JTHMfreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpankyMcFlych*
> 
> Isn't this just common sense knowledge? Consoles are out of date hardware day 1 of release and it only gets worse as time goes by. Consoles always hold back PC gaming and it only gets worse the farther we get into a console generations lifespan. It's just a normal part of the industry.


The Devs are the ones holding themselves back. Is somebody forcing them to do the same port across both consoles and PC (well maybe if EA is in charge).
Look how far cdpr pushed hardware with witcher 3.
Most companies just want to be lazy, and if there weren't consoles I don't think the results would be much different, if anything it might be worse. There just wouldn't be anything to compare to.


----------



## Charcharo

I have never before seen a person ignore that hardware (and people) die in time.

Is this what will befall me when I become an engineer? Explaining to grown people such obvious facts.

*Sigh* the world truly is a sad place. Ignoring reality just to push an anti-art agenda.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> It depends on system per system basis. Once again,there are still working PS1 and PS2 consoles. The only metric is working hours and that again depends on console per console. Xbox 360 have had countless revisions so your point is outdated. So did PS3 and their Slim and Ultra Slim models,overheating does not happen anymore.
> 
> You keep saying outdated and discontinued,the former is the only right because once again i just told you PS3 has been discontinued only as of May 2017 and in Japan. Outdated does not matter because it does what it has to do correctly and your whole point again was being able to play the games. Again,the no future mantra makes no sense now since it's not like that as of now.
> 
> Backwards compatibility is the preferred solution,yes,but that's it.
> 
> No wonder,it has been four years since the new generation consoles have been out. What a relevant observation.
> 
> You want to push a narrative that does not have place in reality as of now. Just because the PS4 does not offer retrocompatibility it does not mean that all games pre-PS4 have disappeared. That's the point you have been pushing so far. That because PS4 has no retrocompatibility,X time from now people will not have access to previous games because consoles die and bla bla.
> 
> In reality precedents have already proven you wrong,we have access to loads of games of previous generation consoles be it physical or digital,and emulators have been delevoped so your concern is not genuine as what you seem to care most is trash consoles.
> 
> Then again,if you only cared about preservation,the argument would be over pretty soon since the only games that would suffer of your scenario would be exclusives since multiplats are disponible on PC. And those are a handful on every system.
> 
> There's no complicate point to grasp here,your argument is just poor,based on hypothesis and what ifs.


My narrative is the only one that has a place in reality. My argument is the only one based on facts. Let's break it down.

My argument:

Fact: PS4 has no backwards compatibility, XBOX One only has one generation of it.
Fact: That means all past unsupported games have disappeared from these systems. Duh. You can't play unsupported unrecognized games on these systems or buy them for these systems. And remember, this is a PS4 specific thread.
Fact: This lack of backwards compatibility reduces the game library of each system by multiples. Shrunken library = less money to be made in the industry = smaller industry.
Fact: Having to rely on previous gen consoles to play older games is unreliable because they're discontinued along with those older games. And in any regions where they aren't discontinued, they will be in due time.
Now your argument:

Backwards compatibility doesn't matter because people can still use the older, discontinued systems (even if all are not discontinued world wide, they obviously will be in due time). You saying it doesn't matter is just your personal feelings towards the subject, you have nothing to back it up.
You're actively denying that PS3 and/or XBOX 360 will be discontinued. Seeing as how they already are in at least some countries and how every past console was discontinued, you're making a blind assumption while I'm making an assumption based on historical trend + common sense and common business practice.
You're suggesting console hardware lives forever. Cute.
You say it doesn't matter that the PS3/XBOX 360 are outdated, inferior systems, when reality proves the opposite since PS4 and XBOX One sell much more, proving that people want the newer more powerful console.
Arguments do not get any weaker or more ridiculous and illogical than yours. And that's just what's left over from the initial argument. You admitted you were wrong about modding, and once I brought up Ashes of the Singularity for the 2nd time you bailed on my point that console CPUs limit game advancement. Systematically picked apart.


----------



## Flames21891

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Yeah,it's from nightmare
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also aren't you aware that a new DJ Max is coming out for PS4? DJ Max Respect and they are going to launch it very soon.


Oh yeah, I almost forgot about that. I really want it, but I'm a bit on the fence about giving Neowiz any money because of how they backstabbed DJMAX fans with Technika Tune. They promised all sorts of DLC packs over a span of years to keep the game alive and fresh, but shortly after release they axed Pentavision and we never got a single song. Given that it was practically the whole reason I bought a Vita in the first place, I'm a bit salty about it.


----------



## CBZ323

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SuperZan*
> 
> I think it's obvious that he's including all consoles by implication.


Because of the implication


----------



## SuperZan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CBZ323*
> 
> Because of the implication


This thread stopped being interesting a while ago, but we just became best friends.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> My narrative is the only one that has a place in reality. My argument is the only one based on facts. Let's break it down.
> 
> My argument:
> 
> Fact: PS4 has no backwards compatibility, XBOX One only has one generation of it.
> Fact: That means all past unsupported games have disappeared from these systems. Duh. You can't play unsupported unrecognized games on these systems or buy them for these systems. And remember, this is a PS4 specific thread.
> Fact: This lack of backwards compatibility reduces the game library of each system by multiples. Shrunken library = less money to be made in the industry = smaller industry.
> Fact: Having to rely on previous gen consoles to play older games is unreliable because they're discontinued along with those older games. And in any regions where they aren't discontinued, they will be in due time.
> Now your argument:
> 
> Backwards compatibility doesn't matter because people can still use the older, discontinued systems (even if all are not discontinued world wide, they obviously will be in due time). You saying it doesn't matter is just your personal feelings towards the subject, you have nothing to back it up.
> You're actively denying that PS3 and/or XBOX 360 will be discontinued. Seeing as how they already are in at least some countries and how every past console was discontinued, you're making a blind assumption while I'm making an assumption based on historical trend + common sense and common business practice.
> You're suggesting console hardware lives forever. Cute.
> You say it doesn't matter that the PS3/XBOX 360 are outdated, inferior systems, when reality proves the opposite since PS4 and XBOX One sell much more, proving that people want the newer more powerful console.
> Arguments do not get any weaker or more ridiculous and illogical than yours. And that's just what's left over from the initial argument. You admitted you were wrong about modding, and once I brought up Ashes of the Singularity for the 2nd time you bailed on my point that console CPUs limit game advancement. Systematically picked apart.


They are not present because they were not delevoped for that platform to begin with. Are you actually serious? It's like complaining Wii does not have a Earthbound game when SNES does.

I never denied consoles where going to be discontinued? I just said they were still aviable even if they were discontinued. Also again,consoles being outdated does not matter since it plays the games it has to just fine.

I didn't admit nothing. Modding is nothing but an extra toy,and if A.I has not advanced is because it is not possible on the lower common denominator. Sony and Microsoft can't make miracles. You still don't even grasp the concept of a lower common denominator.

Your whole point is based on the fact that less sales of older games somehow hurt the industry,but you don't even know how much they do. Your argument is incomplete and you can't claim anything out of it.

There's no reason to limit the discussion to PS4 only just because if favours your argument,once again,previous generation consoles didn't magically disappear. Additionaly you just keep ignoring the fact that the online stores of consoles like Wii,X360 and PS3 are still open so people can still buy digital games. Pre-PS3 is pretty much irrelevant since various emulators are aviable.

The only valid point you have out of backwars compatibility is that it's an advantage PC has over consoles and that's it. Nothing else.

It's laughable how hard you try to justify your bias.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> They are not present because they were not delevoped for that platform to begin with. Are you actually serious? It's like complaining Wii does not have a Earthbound game when SNES does.


It's like complaining about lack of backwards compatibility. Do you have short term memory loss?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> I never denied consoles where going to be discontinued? I just said they were still aviable even if they were discontinued. Also again,consoles being outdated does not matter since it plays the games it has to just fine.
> 
> *I didn't admit nothing. Modding is nothing but an extra toy*,and if A.I has not advanced is because it is not possible on the lower common denominator. Sony and Microsoft can't make miracles. You still don't even grasp the concept of a lower common denominator.
> 
> *Your whole point is based on the fact that less sales of older games somehow hurt the industry,but you don't even know how much they do. Your argument is incomplete and you can't claim anything out of it.*
> 
> *There's no reason to limit the discussion to PS4 only just because if favours your argument,once again,previous generation consoles didn't magically disappear.* Additionaly you just keep ignoring the fact that the online stores of consoles like Wii,X360 and PS3 are still open so people can still buy digital games. Pre-PS3 is pretty much irrelevant since various emulators are aviable.
> 
> The only valid point you have out of backwars compatibility is that it's an advantage PC has over consoles and that's it. Nothing else.
> 
> It's laughable how hard you try to justify your bias.


Either you're intentionally backtracking or you just forgot these facts:



*Many popular games* (games that sell millions) including the top two most played games on Steam (which are many times more popular than any two console games combined) only exist because of mods. They began as mods. Several genres were also created or at least popularized by mods, like persistent online survival shooters (DayZ), MOBA (Dota), "Walking Simulator" (Dear Esther). You briefly admitted you were wrong for the one second you acknowledged this.

Many of the most played, best selling games in the world predate the PS4/XBOX One generation of consoles. That illustrates how much these consoles are missing out without backwards compatibility (PS4 in particular). You ignore this fact as well.

You seem incapable of reading the thread title let alone the OP and the article it links to. It's about PS4. A bigger reason to limit the discussion to PS4 and XBOX One (and their upgraded versions) is because they are the only in production consoles, the only ones from Sony/Microsoft that have a future.
When you admitted you were wrong about mods:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Keep your "mods" badge and yeah it may weaken my argument,but yours is dead. All your points are nonsense.


Inconsistent narrative and the instant you realized you were wrong all you could come up with was "all your points are nonsense." Shows how bias and emotions are all that drive your posts.

What's really laughable is:

How you ignore every one of those facts about modding which prove you wrong.
How you can't adhere to the topic at hand.
Your inability to see how much more relevant current gen, current production consoles/games are than discontinued ones.
How you can't accept that past gen consoles get discontinued.
How you can't accept that people obviously prefer to play the newer consoles (see sales, adoption, player count if possible), so yes the inferiority of past gen systems does matter-that's a major reason why new consoles exist in the first place.
How all of these so very obvious fundamental points have to be explained repeatedly yet still go over your head.
And the entire breakdown in my last post remains unopposed.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> It's like complaining about lack of backwards compatibility. Do you have short term memory loss?
> Either you're intentionally backtracking or you just forgot these facts:
> 
> 
> 
> *Many popular games* (games that sell millions) including the top two most played games on Steam (which are many times more popular than any two console games combined) only exist because of mods. They began as mods. Several genres were also created or at least popularized by mods, like persistent online survival shooters (DayZ), MOBA (Dota), "Walking Simulator" (Dear Esther). You briefly admitted you were wrong for the one second you acknowledged this.
> 
> Many of the most played, best selling games in the world predate the PS4/XBOX One generation of consoles. That illustrates how much these consoles are missing out without backwards compatibility (PS4 in particular). You ignore this fact as well.
> 
> You seem incapable of reading the thread title let alone the OP and the article it links to. It's about PS4. A bigger reason to limit the discussion to PS4 and XBOX One (and their upgraded versions) is because they are the only in production consoles, the only ones from Sony/Microsoft that have a future.
> When you admitted you were wrong about mods:
> Inconsistent narrative and the instant you realized you were wrong all you could come up with was "all your points are nonsense." Shows how bias and emotions are all that drive your posts.
> 
> What's really laughable is:
> 
> How you ignore every one of those facts about modding which prove you wrong.
> How you can't adhere to the topic at hand.
> Your inability to see how much more relevant current gen, current production consoles/games are than discontinued ones.
> How you can't accept that past gen consoles get discontinued.
> How you can't accept that people obviously prefer to play the newer consoles (see sales, adoption, player count if possible), so yes the inferiority of past gen systems does matter-that's a major reason why new consoles exist in the first place.
> How all of these so very obvious fundamental points have to be explained repeatedly yet still go over your head.
> And the entire breakdown in my last post remains unopposed.


Where's the data to back up your claim? Simply citing games is not data. Also what games that sold millions are missing on this generation but present on the previous one?

The title and topic is about hardware restrains and PS4. Backwards compatibility and your whole argument has nothing to do to begin with the topic,so yeah i can bring in to discussion previous generation consoles as much as i like.

Your argument is non sense though,you already dropped the price and AI argument,now you just keep pushing the backwards compatibility one,with the whole "it hurts the industry" thing without providing proof of your claims.

Discontinued = Out of production . That's all. It seems it's you the one who doesnt grasp the concept. Time to bring again your movie analogy where all films magically disappear? Yeah that's what you are getting at,utter nonsense.

Why do you even bring sales to discussion? By your logic PS3 is more relevant because it sold 83M compared to the 66M of PS4. Or better yet the Wii at 100M units. People preferring to play newer consoles is just an assumption made by you.

The point is to play older generation games and they do,who cares if they are old? It's that or emulation,or backwards compatibility wich rarely has any improvement so once again moot point since it does not bring any benefit.

I haven't made a single negative remark about PC gaming in this whole thread,unlike you,and i have a bias?









Your breakdown in the last post is simple to refute:

2. Those games were never in that platform to begin with so they never disappeared at all
3. Whatever you are getting at is useless without data thus a moot point
4. Discontinued yes,unaviable no. Same for games,on top of that the e-Stores are still aviable. Unreliable according to you,as of now it's very easy and reliable. Literally walk to a gamestop,purchase used console and game,by the way if you do so it also comes with a six month warranty typically so yeah. For pre-PS3 consoles emulators are aviable and consoles are next to useless at this point.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> The title and topic is about hardware restrains and PS4. Backwards compatibility and your whole argument has nothing to do to begin with the topic,so yeah i can bring in to discussion previous generation consoles as much as i like.
> 
> Your argument is non sense tough,you already dropped the price argument,now you just keep pushing the backwards compatibility one,with the whole "it hurts the industry" thing without providing proof of your claims.


Everything I say is related to PS4 holding back game development, some of it directly related to hardware as well.

You failed to engage all but one element of the price argument, that being the price of brand new AAA games. You don't deny the lower prices of Humble Bundle, Bundle Stars, G2A. You merely question the legality of G2A.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Discontinued = Out of production . That's all. It seems it's you the one who doesnt grasp the concept. Time to bring again your movie analogy where all films magically disappear? Yeah that's what you are getting at,utter nonsense.


Lack of backwards compatibility leading to older games (or movies in the analogy) only being sold as used copies once discontinued isn't magic.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Why do you even bring sales to discussion? By your logic PS3 is more relevant because it sold 83M compared to the 66M of PS4. Or better yet the Wii at 100M units. People preferring to play newer consoles is just an assumption made by you.


No, you don't follow logic. PS3 and XBOX 360 were Sony's and Microsoft's newest consoles for almost a decade. Obviously the release of the PS4 and XBOX One and the discontinuation of the older ones puts the new consoles ahead. Games aren't developed for the old consoles anymore, news/media doesn't concern them, and their availability as new products is extremely limited at best. Common sense.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> The point is to play older generation games and they do,who cares if they are old? It's that or emulation,or backwards compatibility wich rarely has any improvement so once again moot point since it does not bring any benefit.


All the people replacing their PS3s/XBOX 360s with PS4s/XBOX Ones care.

Backwards compatibility has no benefit? The ability to play older games on relevant, in production systems with an actual future isn't a benefit? Maybe not to you, but to the industry it obviously is. Again, many of the most played games in the world predate the PS4/XBOX One era. PC's backwards compatibility is needed for it obviously.

https://steamdb.info/graph/

https://en.wot-life.com/eu/serverstats/ -> Although this game was rescued on consoles as it was ported to current gen consoles.

http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sy=c&sx=a -> And that's just ranked teams not players.

And World of Warcraft, League of Legends, etc.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Your breakdown in the last post is simple to refute:
> 
> 2. Those games were never in that platform to begin with so they never disappeared at all
> 3. Whatever you are getting at is useless without data thus a moot point
> 4. Discontinued yes,unaviable no. Same for games,on top of that the e-Stores are still aviable. Unreliable according to you,as of now it's very easy and reliable. Literally walk to a gamestop,purchase used console and game,by the way if you so it also comes with a six month warranty typically so yeah. For pre-PS2 consoles emulators are aviable and consoles are next to useless at this point.


2. They disappeared from the new, in production game market. Why does this have to be explained to you? You're only trying to argue semantics now. Either way, their unavailability on the PS4/XBOX One greatly diminishes the amount of games they have.
3. See data above, and more below.
4. Unreliable according to the fact that the systems are discontinued, and if not in every country then soon because that's how the console market works. The same for the games. For the ten thousandth time. Disputing this means you dispute that Sony will discontinue the PS3 in all countries (*XBOX 360 is long discontinued*, as is the XBOX of course). Talk of emulators only benefits PC.

So where are the refutes?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Mods do not compete with games in any way,so yeah,they are still an extra cherry on that cake. CS is HL reskinned. It's not a new game. How many of the games you cited are reskins? Poof,change a few textures,some scripts and voila your "mod".


Wow, I missed this gem. A late, obviously emotional edit. LOL. As a bonus, the stats you were too lazy to look up.

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive = 30 million sales and 550,000 - 650,000 concurrent players daily. #2 most played game on Steam every day. Hardly any AAA studio on any platform can even dream of this level of success. Source

Counter-Strike: Source = 15 million sales, again beyond what most AAA studios on any platform can dream of. Source

Counter-Strike: Condition Zero = 10 million sales, still beyond what most AAA studios can hope for. Source

Counter-Strike 1.6 = 13 million sales, also beyond what most AAA studios can hope for. Source

Total = approximately 68 million sales.

Half-Life reskinned? That shows you have no clue what Half-Life, Counter-Strike, or skins are. Scripts too since you apparently think a few scripts is all it takes to make entirely new game logic. An obvious emotional, biased comment and nothing more.

*Half-Life*: Single player FPS which takes place in the Black Mesa research facility. Every mission is almost like its own small game with very unique gameplay and pace, seamlessly transitioning from low resource survival gameplay to an FPS which pits you against aliens, to practical puzzles and platforming, to fighting soldiers, to all out war with soldiers and aliens fighting each other.

*Counter-Strike*: PvP competitive FPS which has tournaments based around it. So obviously it's entirely new environments and also weapons and characters, no reskins. Gameplay modes include bomb defusal, hostage rescue, Deathmatch. No real similarities to Half-Life. Entirely new game mode logic needed.

Educate yourself.





How you feel about it is irrelevant, and personal bias doesn't get more obvious than that. With Dota (Dota 2 typically averages over 900,000 concurrent players daily), modders started a genre and something that would go on to become one of the most popular games of all time, and something that significantly helped boost global "eSports" as it is one of the most popular "eSports" games in the world. You can't really help gaming grow more than that, from an objective point of view.

DayZ also spawned a genre and a trend that is all over the place now, with so many games trying to copy it.

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Chernobyl's A-Life is of course inherited from the base game's, but improves it to the point where the amount of AI simulation features and ways AI can interact with the world is multiplied and AI complexity is unmatched. *Here* is a playlist showing a mod that utterly humiliates the animation quality and shooting mechanics of almost all other games, and with gun customization that is only paralleled by another mod shown *here*. Underhell is a mod with more dynamic, diverse gameplay, and more detailed mechanics than most games of a similar type (see *here* and *here*). *The Dark Mod* is not an original concept but it features more advanced mechanics and world interaction than almost all other stealth games. *Natural Selection* was a Half-Life mod that pioneered combined FPS and *RTS gameplay* with *each* *team* having totally different gameplay elements and mechanics. Obviously nothing beyond a few textures and props could have been used in the initial mod version. The game version has sold well over a million copies. The list is endless.

And so many other mods listed *here* became games that sold millions. Very competitive from a market perspective (the mods that were transformed into successful games that is), almost unparalleled for some like Dota 2 and CS:GO. Undeniable innovation has come from mods too, since entire genres were born from several (and new games/franchises born from many).


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

The arguments in this thread have flown so far afield I can't even be bothered to wade through it anymore. It really is quite simple, if you accept the premise that ANYTHING is holding back gaming in the first place. Consoles do nothing but bring in tons of money for developers to use presumably for better games. That doesn't always happen, but we have CDPR flat out saying that W3 was made possible by consoles, so it DOES happen. We also have the fact that the consoles are now basically just cheap PC's themselves so there really is no reason that the developers can't create any game they want on PC then scale back to work on the consoles (though they don't really have to scale back much in the case of the PS4P or the X1X). All the rest of the noise in this thread is PCMR elitists attempting to bully the narrative and prove how big of l33t gamers they are by crapping all over anything and everything console related but they are just making fools of themselves. I can't be bothered to continue this boring discussion any further. Consoles are here to stay chaps.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The arguments in this thread have flown so far afield I can't even be bothered to wade through it anymore. It really is quite simple, if you accept the premise that ANYTHING is holding back gaming in the first place. Consoles do nothing but bring in tons of money for developers to use presumably for better games. That doesn't always happen, but we have CDPR flat out saying that W3 was made possible by consoles, so it DOES happen. We also have the fact that the consoles are now basically just cheap PC's themselves so there really is no reason that the developers can't create any game they want on PC then scale back to work on the consoles (though they don't really have to scale back much in the case of the PS4P or the X1X). All the rest of the noise in this thread is PCMR elitists attempting to bully the narrative and prove how big of l33t gamers they are by crapping all over anything and everything console related but they are just making fools of themselves. I can't be bothered to continue this boring discussion any further. Consoles are here to stay chaps.


It's obvious there needs to be plug and play $500 and below systems, yes. It's also obvious that consoles are becoming more PC like (still not "basically just cheap PC's" however, their functionality is far too limited) which is good, they just need to finally catch up and stop being so proprietary and closed which is obviously limiting. But this evolution may very well happen.

You still fail to acknowledge however that they can only scale back to a point where it's not damaging to the game's success. Console gamers care too much about their shiny graphics. Ashes of the Singularity for example is already not a particularly pretty game and PCs struggle to run intense scenarios despite its cutting edge optimization. The same applies to other strategy games, and other types of games as well. Not every game can work on console, for this reason and also controls (controllers are too limited for many games). PC exclusives make sense from a technological perspective.

Pointing out obvious facts like this and like I've been doing doesn't make a fool of me. Denying them makes a fool of you, as does resorting to calling others elitists and bullies just because you're unable to retort.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> It's obvious there needs to be plug and play $500 and below systems, yes. It's also obvious that consoles are becoming more PC like (still not "basically just cheap PC's" however, their functionality is far too limited) which is good, they just need to finally catch up and stop being so proprietary and closed which is obviously limiting. But this evolution may very well happen.
> 
> You still fail to acknowledge however that they can only scale back to a point where it's not damaging to the game's success. Console gamers care too much about their shiny graphics. Ashes of the Singularity for example is already not a particularly pretty game and PCs struggle to run intense scenarios despite its cutting edge optimization. The same applies to other strategy games, and other types of games as well. Not every game can work on console, for this reason and also controls (controllers are too limited for many games). *PC exclusives make sense from a technological perspective.*
> 
> Pointing out obvious facts like this and like I've been doing doesn't make a fool of me. Denying them makes a fool of you, as does resorting to calling others elitists and bullies just because you're unable to retort.


There is nothing stopping this now. Certainly not the existence of consoles. Developers (and particularly publishers) simply follow the money so they continue to prioritize console development over PC. That is not consoles holding back gaming, it is developers prioritizing a more profitable market. And the PS4P and X1X are already about the limit of what we can expect a console to be in terms of hardware performance while still targeting a sub-$500 price point. They can't simply throw the fastest hardware available at the problem without breaking the bank like a PC gamer can with a custom build. The budgetary constraints coupled with the massive lead time required to bring a new console to market prohibit such things.

All I've said since the beginning is that there is nothing wrong with the state of the market as is. Most sensible people simply grab whichever consoles fit their personal needs (be it exclusives, casual gaming or whatever) as well as building or buying a gaming PC that is much more capable but also much more expensive. There is simply nothing wrong with that approach.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> There is nothing stopping this now. Certainly not the existence of consoles. Developers (and particularly publishers) simply follow the money so they continue to prioritize console development over PC. That is not consoles holding back gaming, it is developers prioritizing a more profitable market. And the PS4P and X1X are already about the limit of what we can expect a console to be in terms of hardware performance while still targeting a sub-$500 price point. They can't simply throw the fastest hardware available at the problem without breaking the bank like a PC gamer can with a custom build. The budgetary constraints coupled with the massive lead time required to bring a new console to market prohibit such things.
> 
> All I've said since the beginning is that there is nothing wrong with the state of the market as is. Most sensible people simply grab whichever consoles fit their personal needs (be it exclusives, casual gaming or whatever) as well as building or buying a gaming PC that is much more capable but also much more expensive. There is simply nothing wrong with that approach.


I didn't say consoles prevent PC exclusives. That was my response to you indicating that PC exclusives make no sense because they can "scale back." It's true for many PC exclusives today in the PS4/XBOX One era, but not all for the reasons I stated.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> I didn't say consoles prevent PC exclusives. That was my response to you indicating that PC exclusives make no sense because they can "scale back." It's true for many PC exclusives today in the PS4/XBOX One era, but not all for the reasons I stated.


I never said PC exclusives don't make sense. I just posited the hypothesis that theoretically any game could be designed with PC performance targeted first and then scaled back to suit whatever consoles are capable of. Hell, PC game development has always walked that line itself even when talking about PC exclusives; they have to make sure the game can at least work on low end hardware.

My arguments are directed at the people in this very thread that actively want consoles to cease to exist (such as Charcharo) thus taking away options for people like me who don't want to use a full-on PC for every single task....


----------



## jmcosta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> The arguments in this thread have flown so far afield I can't even be bothered to wade through it anymore. It really is quite simple, if you accept the premise that ANYTHING is holding back gaming in the first place. *Consoles do nothing but bring in tons of money for developers to use presumably for better games.* That doesn't always happen, but we have CDPR flat out saying that W3 was made possible by consoles, so it DOES happen. We also have the fact that the consoles are now basically just cheap PC's themselves so there really is no reason that the developers can't create any game they want on PC then scale back to work on the consoles (though they don't really have to scale back much in the case of the PS4P or the X1X). All the rest of the noise in this thread is PCMR elitists attempting to bully the narrative and prove how big of l33t gamers they are by crapping all over anything and everything console related but they are just making fools of themselves. I can't be bothered to continue this boring discussion any further. Consoles are here to stay chaps.


That is the problem, i wish it was for better games, but these big teams/corporations are focused on making profits not a game.
Quote:


> and now to make everything worse the gaming industry is filled with suits that barely know what gaming is, their only goal is to make a game that reaches even more people and there's only one way to do that is by compromise, which is the watering down. this is the current situation of triple A (*not all of them but most are in this situation*). its just about balancing the financial books, the problem is they also try to grow more each year, and their ceo will do what they have to to make more money even if it means cut up the game and sell it for more


Most games nowadays have great graphical fidelity but gameplay is barely present, part of it is because they were primarily designed for console, to be accessible for everyone.
you rarely see any innovation, even challenge, stuff like physics have taken a backseat for years the same for AI, those dmm systems don't get worked on anymore and that requires a lot of work and processing power.

Its fine if you enjoy a cinematic game(we all have different tastes), a story telling, where you just press the button for the next scene, like watching paint dry, but that isn't a game.
I know they still have some interaction but its mostly QTEs, magnet actions, xray vision all these handover features, cheesy stuff that takes away your control in the game or actually any thinking. most of these games play by themselves, very predictable and formulative its nothing like before.
we could have both but nah, they are too busy spending their budget on marketing and pretty things to get people jumping on that pre-order button...

anyway
its sad but audiences change, they change it to move with different demographics, we had or time (mature audience) and now its for other generation

btw i think what ignited this situation, ruining the industry was microsoft getting into it, when they got a foothold they brought their capitalist marketing and ideas like chopping up games, started putting adverts on dashboard etc


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jmcosta*
> 
> That is the problem, i wish it was for better games, but these big teams/corporations are focused on making profits not a game.
> Most games nowadays have great graphical fidelity but gameplay is barely present, part of it is because they were primarily designed for console, to be accessible for everyone.
> you rarely see any innovation, even challenge, stuff like physics have taken a backseat for years the same for AI, those dmm systems don't get worked on anymore and that requires a lot of work and processing power.
> 
> Its fine if you enjoy a cinematic game(we all have different tastes), a story telling, where you just press the button for the next scene, like watching paint dry, but that isn't a game.
> I know they still have some interaction but its mostly QTEs, magnet actions, xray vision all these handover features, cheesy stuff that takes away your control in the game or actually any thinking. most of these games play by themselves its nothing like before.
> we could have both but nah, they are too busy spending their budget on marketing and pretty things to get people jumping on that pre-order button...
> 
> anyway
> its sad but audiences change, they change it to move with different demographics, we had or time (mature audience) and now its for other generation
> 
> btw i think what ruined the industry was microsoft getting into it, when they got a foothold they brought their capitalist marketing and ideas like chopping up games, started putting adverts on dashboard etc


So many games today, particularly AAA games, actually have reduced graphics fidelity in some of the most important ways (ways that impact gameplay more) such as dynamic shadows and dynamic lights (they use so many static ambient lights and static shadows), physics (which you mentioned), particle effects in shooters. These games only look decent in screenshots.

But yes at the end of the day it's a business and studios are looking to make the most money, but the silly thing about this is that many of these AAA publishers don't know how to do this since they don't know gaming at all and don't understand their audience. From Square Enix expecting at least 10 million sales for 2013's Tomb Raider and initially panicking when it failed to do so, from Square Enix damaging Deus Ex: Mankind Divided by trying to break it down into a trilogy and causing it to be a failure (or at least underwhelming), Mafia III being released the way it was, or Rockstar having to talk sense into Take Two over GTA V modding. Many of them are shooting themselves in the foot and it's rather amusing.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jmcosta*
> 
> That is the problem, i wish it was for better games, but these big teams/corporations are focused on making profits not a game.
> Most games nowadays have great graphical fidelity but gameplay is barely present, part of it is because they were primarily designed for console, to be accessible for everyone.
> you rarely see any innovation, even challenge, stuff like physics have taken a backseat for years the same for AI, those dmm systems don't get worked on anymore and that requires a lot of work and processing power.
> 
> Its fine if you enjoy a cinematic game(we all have different tastes), a story telling, where you just press the button for the next scene, like watching paint dry, but that isn't a game.
> I know they still have some interaction but its mostly QTEs, magnet actions, xray vision all these handover features, cheesy stuff that takes away your control in the game or actually any thinking. most of these games play by themselves, very predictable and formulative its nothing like before.
> we could have both but nah, they are too busy spending their budget on marketing and pretty things to get people jumping on that pre-order button...
> 
> anyway
> its sad but audiences change, they change it to move with different demographics, we had or time (mature audience) and now its for other generation
> 
> btw i think what ignited this situation, ruining the industry was microsoft getting into it, when they got a foothold they brought their capitalist marketing and ideas like chopping up games, started putting adverts on dashboard etc


You do realize that the whole point of the gaming industry (and pretty much any industry) is to make money right? The reason we get most of the great games we do as it is (and despite all the whining in threads like this, there are tons of really great games out there) is because people are making money off of them. The goal isn't to create some benevolent work of art for the betterment of the gaming art form (or whatever that is); it is to make a game that people want to spend their money on. Oftentimes the games that are profitable got there because they were really well designed and beautiful to look at (which is a win for everyone). Oftentimes games are very thinly veiled cash grabs (which is not so much a win for everybody). Either way, all games are designed, at least indirectly, to make the creator money. There's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Either way, all games are designed, at least indirectly, to make the creator money.


Off topic but I have to add-except for the ones that cost no money at all. Some of which are actually excellent, some of the finest in their genres even.


----------



## jmcosta

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> You do realize that the whole point of the gaming industry (and pretty much any industry) is to make money right? The reason we get most of the great games we do as it is (and despite all the whining in threads like this, there are tons of really great games out there) is because people are making money off of them. The goal isn't to create some benevolent work of art for the betterment of the gaming art form (or whatever that is); it is to make a game that people want to spend their money on. Oftentimes the games that are profitable got there because they were really well designed and beautiful to look at (which is a win for everyone). Oftentimes games are very thinly veiled cash grabs (which is not so much a win for everybody). Either way, all games are designed, at least indirectly, to make the creator money. There's nothing wrong with that.


yeah not all are bad, there are many games (triple A) that are great as i state above, but there is a difference between developing a profitable project and being greedy

i think the world in general is too focused on economic matters, less about society and the longevity, you know just financial growth each year..

Quote:


> Oftentimes the games that are profitable got there because they were really well designed and beautiful to look at (which is a win for everyone)


not entirely true, if you look at the most populars/profitable, they have little work put on and are based on competitive because the new generation seem to like the short term satisfaction, no build up or anything that makes stuff worth it and memorable.
when the action comes out of nowhere, its boring with just a random scenario. its not for me so i tend to ignore them anyway

back in the day these competitive s were mostly "mods" or "modes" for lanparties to challenge each other and now they call it games lol
well, they are games but you know what i mean
do you see the Battle Royal's that recently got released? they all came from one mod.

edit:
i always worry when i see financial success go to the heads of the developers because their next goal is to make a game that reaches even more people and like i said earlier, the only way to do that is by compromise which is watering down

you can see that in big series like Battlefield. sure it has better graphics, animations, sounds, effects, gun play in the 3rd and 4th, a more realistic approach.
they also added tons of weapons and equipment but the crucial part of a TDM game is teamwork and isn't there. you rarely see people applying tactics due to how the basic game mechanics are executed.

BF1 and Battlefront are a great example of a disorganized chaos, its unbalanced with the "call of duty progression" people with more hours have an advantage by having better equipment, the maps design lack of synergy, horrible spawns...
its pretty much a Zerging type of game.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Shrunken library = less money to be made in the industry = smaller industry.


Some developers just love forcing people to re-buy content. EA is the king of this. It managed to convince people to buy the Pets expansion for Sims 2, Sims 3, and Sims 4. It hopes people will buy it for Sims 5.

Sims 4 was allegedly supposed to be a tablet game and EA decided to orphan the $600+ investment people put into buying the Sims 3 stuff (after Sims 3 orphaned the Sims 2 stuff and after Sims 2 orphaned the Sims 1 stuff). It didn't even ship with a 64-bit binary or basic features like pools and toddlers. The graphics of Sims 4 are not an improvement and the game engine is a throwback to Sims 2, lacking the open world feature that EA used to justify having people buy all that Sims 3 stuff after Sims 2 was strategically orphaned.

If a company can get people to re-buy and re-buy and re-buy the same content they'll do it. As I said, the mantra is "sell less for more". Repackaging the same content and charging the same money means less development cost/work.

Killing backward compatibility is a tactical gamble. If it pays off for the company/companies then they get to have people re-buy the content they purchased already.

Infinite copyright is another tactic. The longer copyright is extended the harder it is for would-be innovators to innovate. IP becomes caught in the grip of estates rather than in the flux of young developers' creative energies. This is why copyright was, as originally envisioned, a rather short period of time - something like 14 years. Infinite copyright shrinks the content, shrinks the industry. But, it enriches powerful figures, figures who can sell less for more by doing less and still getting paid.

Backward compatibility is better for consumers. It's better for the public domain. It's better for art - because it preserves the ability of the consumer to experience (including learning opportunities) more content. BUT, it's not good for entities that want to peddle the same, or mostly the same, thing again and again, doing as little as possible to innovate in the process.

Another part of the video game crashes was that people had purchased so many games that sales slowed. New games and consoles competed with the stuff people had already purchased. This is a big reason why many companies hate backward compatibility. They want you to buy as often as possible. Planned obsolescence.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> You do realize that the whole point of the gaming industry (and pretty much any industry) is to make money right?


The entire idea is that profit-seeking leads people to innovate. That innovation is what rewards them with profit. So, in order to profit, corporations need to offer value to customers. If they offer less value than others then their dominance is likely to be eroded. It may not happen immediately but it generally happens.

(You differentiated between higher-quality games and lower-quality games. If you can do that as a consumer then it means others can as well. That means that quality matters because people can, and do, make purchasing decisions based on the level of value they're being offered. People do cost/benefit analysis with purchasing/resource allocation decisions, not just corporations.)

The industry discovered that increasingly moving toward the x86 standard is more profitable than having a large number of incompatibilities, from controller ports to operating systems.

Ideally, the pursuit of profit leads to increased efficiency, over time. Arguing in favor of less efficiency is arguably arguing against profiting.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> The industry discovered that increasingly moving toward the x86 standard is more profitable than having a large number of incompatibilities, from controller ports to operating systems.


I think the biggest reason was that there are only 2 GPU vendors capable of providing high performance GPU solution, and only one of two was capable of providing CPU with it lol.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Everything I say is related to PS4 holding back game development, some of it directly related to hardware as well.
> 
> You failed to engage all but one element of the price argument, that being the price of brand new AAA games. You don't deny the lower prices of Humble Bundle, Bundle Stars, G2A. You merely question the legality of G2A.
> Lack of backwards compatibility leading to older games (or movies in the analogy) only being sold as used copies once discontinued isn't magic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you don't follow logic. PS3 and XBOX 360 were Sony's and Microsoft's newest consoles for almost a decade. Obviously the release of the PS4 and XBOX One and the discontinuation of the older ones puts the new consoles ahead. Games aren't developed for the old consoles anymore, news/media doesn't concern them, and their availability as new products is extremely limited at best. Common sense.
> All the people replacing their PS3s/XBOX 360s with PS4s/XBOX Ones care.
> 
> Backwards compatibility has no benefit? The ability to play older games on relevant, in production systems with an actual future isn't a benefit? Maybe not to you, but to the industry it obviously is. Again, many of the most played games in the world predate the PS4/XBOX One era. PC's backwards compatibility is needed for it obviously.
> 
> https://steamdb.info/graph/
> 
> https://en.wot-life.com/eu/serverstats/ -> Although this game was rescued on consoles as it was ported to current gen consoles.
> 
> http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sy=c&sx=a -> And that's just ranked teams not players.
> 
> And World of Warcraft, League of Legends, etc.
> 2. They disappeared from the new, in production game market. Why does this have to be explained to you? You're only trying to argue semantics now. Either way, their unavailability on the PS4/XBOX One greatly diminishes the amount of games they have.
> 3. See data above, and more below.
> 4. Unreliable according to the fact that the systems are discontinued, and if not in every country then soon because that's how the console market works. The same for the games. For the ten thousandth time. Disputing this means you dispute that Sony will discontinue the PS3 in all countries (*XBOX 360 is long discontinued*, as is the XBOX of course). Talk of emulators only benefits PC.
> 
> .


Im not even going to read about your modding fetish.

Your claims are not related at all to the topic so calling me out for being off topic is quite hypocritical.

I engaged very well the price of new games,Amazon Prime and BB Gamers Club have a 20% off discount on preorders,making games 48$. G2A is marketplace where people sell fraudulent keys according to the devs so that's enough to make it irrelevant. GMG has the games at 54 USD wich is higher. Physical game sales are way abundant than digital ones and you can rent or sell them. Humble Bundle does not include any AAA keys in their bundle anymore unless you want to pay 15$+

You made an analogy where films magically disappeared because they were discontinued and though it was relevant. lol

Yes,it puts them ahead because they offer improved graphics and new IP's. But if want you want to do is play the old games,that is irrelevant. The aviability is pretty good when you can purchase them at GameStop,pawn shops etc.

http://www.gamestop.com/browse/consoles/xbox-360?nav=28-xu0,1385-ffff2412-50-1d9
http://www.gamestop.com/browse/consoles/playstation-3?nav=28-xu0,13ffff2412-8d-50

Reading comprehension? I said that backwards compatibility rarely has any improvement from newer consoles in any way,so your point of them being outdated is irrelevant.

Where's the data¿? The games? You seem quite confident of your claim yet point me to steamdb? Why should i do your research,it is in your interest to defend your point.

What do WoW,SC2 and LOL have to do with consoles? They have been PC games for ever,where are the popular games you claimed are missing from newer generation consoles that are present on previous generation consoles?

2. Why do i need to explain to you that because they are out of production it does not mean no one is selling them?
3. No data,just random gibberish mentioned
4. No,i just said they may be discontinued,but it does not mean they aren't aviable anymore as of now.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> PCMR elitists attempting to bully the narrative and prove how big of l33t gamers they are


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BoredGunner*
> My bias is that I am a pro-gamer.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BoredGunner*
> PC Gaming 1337 Enforcer


Mhhhhm it all makes sense now


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I never said PC exclusives don't make sense. I just posited the hypothesis that theoretically any game *could be designed with PC performance targeted first and then scaled back to suit whatever consoles are capable of*. Hell, PC game development has always walked that line itself even when talking about PC exclusives; they have to make sure the game can at least work on low end hardware.
> 
> My arguments are directed at the people in this very thread that actively want consoles to cease to exist (such as Charcharo) thus taking away options for people like me who don't want to use a full-on PC for every single task....


This used to happen years back, that's why we had superior games in terms of content or mechanics, when devs started doing the opposite, "upscaling" console targeted games to pc standards, every single aspect of every game saw a decrease in terms of quality, and that is why the quality of console games isn't that far behind pc, so yes, pretty much everyone with even a gram of brain can affirm that consoles ruined videogames industry.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Im not even going to read about your modding fetish.


You're not going to (re)read something that humiliates you, I know. You also skipped over the data you requested in the process.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Your claims are not related at all to the topic so calling me out for being off topic is quite hypocritical.


My claims are all about PS4 holding back game development as the topic states, and one of my reasons aligns with the source article.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> I engaged very well the price of new games,Amazon Prime and BB Gamers Club have a 20% off discount on preorders,making games 48$. G2A is marketplace where people sell fraudulent keys according to the devs so that's enough to make it irrelevant. GMG has the games at 54 USD wich is higher. Physical game sales are way abundant than digital ones and you can rent or sell them. Humble Bundle does not include any AAA keys in their bundle anymore unless you want to pay 15$+


Game reselling is a fair point here.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> You made an analogy where films magically disappeared because they were discontinued and though it was relevant. lol


I made an analogy in which the film industry has no or minimal preservation exactly like consoles, in which they follow the same model as console gaming. For some reason you are unable to apply the same concepts to the film industry so you've been confused ever since this was mentioned.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Yes,it puts them ahead because they offer improved graphics and new IP's. But if want you want to do is play the old games,that is irrelevant. The aviability is pretty good when you can purchase them at GameStop,pawn shops etc.
> 
> http://www.gamestop.com/browse/consoles/xbox-360?nav=28-xu0,1385-ffff2412-50-1d9
> http://www.gamestop.com/browse/consoles/playstation-3?nav=28-xu0,13ffff2412-8d-50
> 
> Reading comprehension? I said that backwards compatibility rarely has any improvement from newer consoles in any way,so your point of them being outdated is irrelevant.


Common sense still not found. Backwards compatibility is not irrelevant because it allows you to play older games on new, in production systems that have a reliable future (until they are inevitably discontinued as well). This is more important than the newer system running the older games at 60 FPS (100% performance increase) which is another benefit along with more controller options and greater general functionality of the newer consoles. The industry is not concerned with discontinued last gen consoles.

A bunch of pre-owned systems on Gamestop. Doesn't bolster your argument at all, it actually harms it since you were previously talking about their new availability which is far more relevant, while I've been arguing about the obvious limitations of having to rely on the used market. Those links help my argument for this reason.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Where's the data¿? The games? You seem quite confident of your claim yet point me to steamdb? Why should i do your research,it is in your interest to defend your point.
> 
> What do WoW,SC2 and LOL have to do with consoles? They have been PC games for ever,where are the popular games you claimed are missing from newer generation consoles that are present on previous generation consoles?
> 
> 2. Why do i need to explain to you that because they are out of production it does not mean no one is selling them?
> 3. No data,just random gibberish mentioned
> 4. No,i just said they may be discontinued,but it does not mean they aren't aviable anymore as of now.


I provided the data. You ignored it to avoid humiliation. Everything quoted below proves you wrong on numerous fronts but you copped out and said "I'm not gonna read it" because you're embarrassed. Again, that's not how you argue. You've admitted defeat by doing this and showed you can't even engage in the argument anymore.

WoW, SC2, LoL, and every other super popular pre-PS4/XBOX One game shows the importance of backwards compatibility. I already spelled it out for you this clearly, it can't be made more clear than that. If you still can't comprehend this then you have other issues.

2. New stock ranges from diminished to completely depleted.
3. Random gibberish? I know your reading comprehension is awful but this is hilarious. I provide the data you requested and you hide from it because you're proven wrong. You're pretending it's not there. Arguing like a child. It is re-posted below.
4. You just keep repeating yourself here, ignoring the bigger picture. Yes, you can get used consoles at some game stores for now, but new PS3 stock is greatly diminished at best and it has no future. You ignore all the console gamers unwilling to go back to old consoles. You ignore the fact that discontinued products have no future.

The data you ask for but don't really want and keep avoiding (popularity of pre-PS4/XBOX One era games showing the importance of backwards compatibility), and more:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Mods do not compete with games in any way,so yeah,they are still an extra cherry on that cake. CS is HL reskinned. It's not a new game. How many of the games you cited are reskins? Poof,change a few textures,some scripts and voila your "mod".
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I missed this gem. A late, obviously emotional edit. LOL. As a bonus, the stats you were too lazy to look up.
> 
> Counter-Strike: Global Offensive = 30 million sales and 550,000 - 650,000 concurrent players daily. #2 most played game on Steam every day. Hardly any AAA studio on any platform can even dream of this level of success. Source
> 
> Counter-Strike: Source = 15 million sales, again beyond what most AAA studios on any platform can dream of. Source
> 
> Counter-Strike: Condition Zero = 10 million sales, still beyond what most AAA studios can hope for. Source
> 
> Counter-Strike 1.6 = 13 million sales, also beyond what most AAA studios can hope for. Source
> 
> Total = approximately 68 million sales.
> 
> Half-Life reskinned? That shows you have no clue what Half-Life, Counter-Strike, or skins are. Scripts too since you apparently think a few scripts is all it takes to make entirely new game logic. An obvious emotional, biased comment and nothing more.
> 
> *Half-Life*: Single player FPS which takes place in the Black Mesa research facility. Every mission is almost like its own small game with very unique gameplay and pace, seamlessly transitioning from low resource survival gameplay to an FPS which pits you against aliens, to practical puzzles and platforming, to fighting soldiers, to all out war with soldiers and aliens fighting each other.
> 
> *Counter-Strike*: PvP competitive FPS which has tournaments based around it. So obviously it's entirely new environments and also weapons and characters, no reskins. Gameplay modes include bomb defusal, hostage rescue, Deathmatch. No real similarities to Half-Life. Entirely new game mode logic needed.
> 
> Educate yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you feel about it is irrelevant, and personal bias doesn't get more obvious than that. With Dota (Dota 2 typically averages over 900,000 concurrent players daily), modders started a genre and something that would go on to become one of the most popular games of all time, and something that significantly helped boost global "eSports" as it is one of the most popular "eSports" games in the world. You can't really help gaming grow more than that, from an objective point of view.
> 
> DayZ also spawned a genre and a trend that is all over the place now, with so many games trying to copy it.
> 
> S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Chernobyl's A-Life is of course inherited from the base game's, but improves it to the point where the amount of AI simulation features and ways AI can interact with the world is multiplied and AI complexity is unmatched. *Here* is a playlist showing a mod that utterly humiliates the animation quality and shooting mechanics of almost all other games, and with gun customization that is only paralleled by another mod shown *here*. Underhell is a mod with more dynamic, diverse gameplay, and more detailed mechanics than most games of a similar type (see *here* and *here*). *The Dark Mod* is not an original concept but it features more advanced mechanics and world interaction than almost all other stealth games. *Natural Selection* was a Half-Life mod that pioneered combined FPS and *RTS gameplay* with *each* *team* having totally different gameplay elements and mechanics. Obviously nothing beyond a few textures and props could have been used in the initial mod version. The game version has sold well over a million copies. The list is endless.
> 
> And so many other mods listed *here* became games that sold millions. Very competitive from a market perspective (the mods that were transformed into successful games that is), almost unparalleled for some like Dota 2 and CS:GO. Undeniable innovation has come from mods too, since entire genres were born from several (and new games/franchises born from many).
> 
> Stats showing the popularity of several other pre-2014 games listed below. Can't find current up to date LoL stats but is popularity (filling stadiums at "eSports" events) is obvious.
> 
> https://steamdb.info/graph/
> 
> https://en.wot-life.com/eu/serverstats/
> 
> http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sy=c&sx=a
Click to expand...


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Some developers just love forcing people to re-buy content. EA is the king of this. It managed to convince people to buy the Pets expansion for Sims 2, Sims 3, and Sims 4. It hopes people will buy it for Sims 5.
> 
> Sims 4 was allegedly supposed to be a tablet game and EA decided to orphan the $600+ investment people put into buying the Sims 3 stuff (after Sims 3 orphaned the Sims 2 stuff and after Sims 2 orphaned the Sims 1 stuff). It didn't even ship with a 64-bit binary or basic features like pools and toddlers. The graphics of Sims 4 are not an improvement and the game engine is a throwback to Sims 2, lacking the open world feature that EA used to justify having people buy all that Sims 3 stuff after Sims 2 was strategically orphaned.
> 
> If a company can get people to re-buy and re-buy and re-buy the same content they'll do it. As I said, the mantra is "sell less for more". Repackaging the same content and charging the same money means less development cost/work.
> 
> Killing backward compatibility is a tactical gamble. If it pays off for the company/companies then they get to have people re-buy the content they purchased already.
> 
> Infinite copyright is another tactic. The longer copyright is extended the harder it is for would-be innovators to innovate. IP becomes caught in the grip of estates rather than in the flux of young developers' creative energies. This is why copyright was, as originally envisioned, a rather short period of time - something like 14 years. Infinite copyright shrinks the content, shrinks the industry. But, it enriches powerful figures, figures who can sell less for more by doing less and still getting paid.
> 
> Backward compatibility is better for consumers. It's better for the public domain. It's better for art - because it preserves the ability of the consumer to experience (including learning opportunities) more content. BUT, it's not good for entities that want to peddle the same, or mostly the same, thing again and again, doing as little as possible to innovate in the process.
> 
> Another part of the video game crashes was that people had purchased so many games that sales slowed. New games and consoles competed with the stuff people had already purchased. This is a big reason why many companies hate backward compatibility. They want you to buy as often as possible. Planned obsolescence.


Yeah, this is common practice as well and EA does it for so many of their games. Plenty of examples of it on the PS4 and XBOX One already (many of their launch games were remastered PS3 and XBOX 360 games). Planned obsolescence fits into my argument about the lack of a future for previous gen systems. Technically this reselling of content does preserve those specific games, sometimes even in a way that improves them (PS4/XBOX One remasters). They are obviously overpriced cash grabs but if people are buying it then it's a win-win for Sony and Microsoft.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> You're not going to (re)read something that humiliates you, I know. You also skipped over the data you requested in the process.
> My claims are all about PS4 holding back game development as the topic states, and one of my reasons aligns with the source article.
> Game reselling is a fair point here.
> I made an analogy in which the film industry has no or minimal preservation exactly like consoles, in which they follow the same model as console gaming. For some reason you are unable to apply the same concepts to the film industry so you've been confused ever since this was mentioned.
> Common sense still not found. Backwards compatibility is not irrelevant because it allows you to play older games on new, in production systems that have a reliable future (until they are inevitably discontinued as well). This is more important than the newer system running the older games at 60 FPS (100% performance increase) which is another benefit along with more controller options and greater general functionality of the newer consoles. The industry is not concerned with discontinued last gen consoles.
> 
> A bunch of pre-owned systems on Gamestop. Doesn't bolster your argument at all, it actually harms it since you were previously talking about their new availability which is far more relevant, while I've been arguing about the obvious limitations of having to rely on the used market. Those links help my argument for this reason.
> I provided the data. You ignored it to avoid humiliation. Everything quoted below proves you wrong on numerous fronts but you copped out and said "I'm not gonna read it" because you're embarrassed. Again, that's not how you argue. You've admitted defeat by doing this and showed you can't even engage in the argument anymore.
> 
> WoW, SC2, LoL, and every other super popular pre-PS4/XBOX One game shows the importance of backwards compatibility. I already spelled it out for you this clearly, it can't be made more clear than that. If you still can't comprehend this then you have other issues.
> 
> 2. New stock ranges from diminished to completely depleted.
> 3. Random gibberish? I know your reading comprehension is awful but this is hilarious. I provide the data you requested and you hide from it because you're proven wrong. You're pretending it's not there. Arguing like a child. It is re-posted below.
> 4. You just keep repeating yourself here, ignoring the bigger picture. Yes, you can get used consoles at some game stores for now, but new PS3 stock is greatly diminished at best and it has no future. You ignore all the console gamers unwilling to go back to old consoles. You ignore the fact that discontinued products have no future.
> 
> The data you ask for but don't really want and keep avoiding (popularity of pre-PS4/XBOX One era games showing the importance of backwards compatibility), and more:


Lol think whatever you want,like i care.

Backwards compatibility and modding have nothing to do with the topic,wich was in relation to hardware strictly.

The gaming industry has minimal preservation? What are you even talking about? How do we have SNES and NES or PS1 games now after 30 years?

Do you even know what emulation is? Perfect replica of another system. No hardware emulation from Sony has ever allowed any kind of performance or graphic improvement,the best they did was bilinear filtering. Games run at their native resolution with their original framerate,so they offer the same experience of the console they are emulating. Hence why the PS4 being newer is irrelevant for backwards compatibility.

There isn't any limitation on relying in the used market. Supply and demand,got it? If supply is high,then you won't have a problem finding one. And it sure is not if you still can buy them on retail shops like GameStop even if they are preowned. 83M units sold don't magically disappear. Those links disprove your argument,wich was basically implying they were hard to find just because they are discontinued.

You did not provide a single data. Where's the analysis on how much sales are lost due to no backwards compatibility? The effect it has? The potential games that would have sold millions?

WoW,LOL,SC2 and CS aren't even console titles,thus they don't even belong in this discussion. Those were the titles you cited. They are irrelevant since they were never aviable on consoles. And the steamdb graph in wich of the top50 only Portal 2 is the only game that was aviable on PS3 but not on PS4.

You on why no backwards compatibility on the PS4/XONE is bad:

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> The damaging impact this has is largely common sense. Less game sales, less money to be made in the gaming industry. Cutting off some immensely popular games. This would doom PC gaming since so many of the most played games in the world are pre-2014 PC games.


*Well,what games that sold millions are missing on this generation of consoles but present on the previous one?*

I haven't admitted anything,if you are imagining things,guess it's time to take your pills? You haven't backed up a single claim you made.

2. Yeah it does,but as of now,that's not the case,so once again,your argument has no place right now.
3.You cited a bunch of PC only games and the steamdb website. That's it. The burden of proof is on you.
4. They don't need to have a future because they are outdated,all they need to do is play the games you can not play on the other system. The bigger picture is irrelevant now,your argument will be valid when you can't find any PS3 console anymore,and by that time,no one will care anymore and we will already have emulators. Moot point.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> The gaming industry has minimal preservation? What are you even talking about? How do we have SNES and NES or PS1 games now after 30 years?
> 
> Do you even know what emulation is? Perfect replica of another system. No hardware emulation from Sony has ever allowed any kind of performance or graphic improvement,the best they did was bilinear filtering. Games run at their native resolution with their original framerate,so they offer the same experience of the console they are emulating. Hence why the PS4 being newer is irrelevant for backwards compatibility.


Consoles without backwards compatibility have no preservation. Again, common sense based on an obvious fact. Your talk of emulation doesn't benefit your standpoint, it benefits mine because it is PC emulation. The arguments I make are against PS4 and to a lesser extent XBOX One, since the beginning.

PS4 actually having a (limited) future by being in-production is why backwards compatibility matters. As I've said a bunch of times.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> There isn't any limitation on relying in the used market. Supply and demand,got it? If supply is high,then you won't have a problem finding one. And it sure is not if you still can buy them on retail shops like GameStop even if they are preowned. 83M units sold don't magically disappear. Those links disprove your argument,wich was basically implying they were hard to find just because they are discontinued.


So you don't know what discontinued means. The limitation is that they're no longer being made. Out of circulation. Your inability to grasp this is bizarre. Supply and demand doesn't apply to out of production items since there is no new supply, or an extremely limited amount of it.

About PS3, my argument is that it has very limited new stock. Your links confirm this for Gamestop. "Pre-owned" everywhere. Get it? No of course not.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> You did not provide a single data. Where's the analysis on how much sales are lost due to no backwards compatibility? The effect it has? The potential games that would have sold millions?
> 
> WoW,LOL and SC2 aren't even console titles,thus they don't even belong in this discussion. Those were the titles you cited. They are irrelevant since they were never aviable on consoles. You claimed that no backwards compatibility on consoles hurts the industry because of less sales. Then you proceed to post three games that have never been released on a console. And the steamdb graph in wich of the top50 only Portal 2 is the only game that was aviable on PS3 but not on PS4.
> 
> You on why no backwards compatibility on the PS4/XONE is bad:
> *Well,what games that sold millions are missing on this generation of consoles but present on the previous one?*


Finally you come to this point. I was waiting for this pages ago. The one sensible retort that could be made against me on this argument. Although your phrasing in the bolded sentence is poor since there are too many PS3 games to count that sold millions, and only a limited number of them were remastered on PS4.

I don't know enough about PS3 game player stats to answer that, and I'm not interested enough in console gaming to research it. So my stance on PS4 backwards compatibility remains a hypothesis, backed up by data on other pre-2014 games (some on PS3, some not) that remain top played games to this day on the PC platform. It shows how much PC benefits from backwards compatibility, so it's a simple relation that can be made to console as well.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> I haven't admitted anything,if you are imagining things,guess it's time to take your pills? You haven't backed up a single claim you made.


Um...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Keep your "mods" badge and yeah it may weaken my argument...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Mods do not compete with games in any way,so yeah,they are still an extra cherry on that cake. CS is HL reskinned. It's not a new game. How many of the games you cited are reskins? Poof,change a few textures,some scripts and voila your "mod".
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, I missed this gem. A late, obviously emotional edit. LOL. As a bonus, the stats you were too lazy to look up.
> 
> Counter-Strike: Global Offensive = 30 million sales and 550,000 - 650,000 concurrent players daily. #2 most played game on Steam every day. Hardly any AAA studio on any platform can even dream of this level of success. Source
> 
> Counter-Strike: Source = 15 million sales, again beyond what most AAA studios on any platform can dream of. Source
> 
> Counter-Strike: Condition Zero = 10 million sales, still beyond what most AAA studios can hope for. Source
> 
> Counter-Strike 1.6 = 13 million sales, also beyond what most AAA studios can hope for. Source
> 
> Total = approximately 68 million sales.
> 
> Half-Life reskinned? That shows you have no clue what Half-Life, Counter-Strike, or skins are. Scripts too since you apparently think a few scripts is all it takes to make entirely new game logic. An obvious emotional, biased comment and nothing more.
> 
> *Half-Life*: Single player FPS which takes place in the Black Mesa research facility. Every mission is almost like its own small game with very unique gameplay and pace, seamlessly transitioning from low resource survival gameplay to an FPS which pits you against aliens, to practical puzzles and platforming, to fighting soldiers, to all out war with soldiers and aliens fighting each other.
> 
> *Counter-Strike*: PvP competitive FPS which has tournaments based around it. So obviously it's entirely new environments and also weapons and characters, no reskins. Gameplay modes include bomb defusal, hostage rescue, Deathmatch. No real similarities to Half-Life. Entirely new game mode logic needed.
> 
> Educate yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How you feel about it is irrelevant, and personal bias doesn't get more obvious than that. With Dota (Dota 2 typically averages over 900,000 concurrent players daily), modders started a genre and something that would go on to become one of the most popular games of all time, and something that significantly helped boost global "eSports" as it is one of the most popular "eSports" games in the world. You can't really help gaming grow more than that, from an objective point of view.
> 
> DayZ also spawned a genre and a trend that is all over the place now, with so many games trying to copy it.
> 
> S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Chernobyl's A-Life is of course inherited from the base game's, but improves it to the point where the amount of AI simulation features and ways AI can interact with the world is multiplied and AI complexity is unmatched. *Here* is a playlist showing a mod that utterly humiliates the animation quality and shooting mechanics of almost all other games, and with gun customization that is only paralleled by another mod shown *here*. Underhell is a mod with more dynamic, diverse gameplay, and more detailed mechanics than most games of a similar type (see *here* and *here*). *The Dark Mod* is not an original concept but it features more advanced mechanics and world interaction than almost all other stealth games. *Natural Selection* was a Half-Life mod that pioneered combined FPS and *RTS gameplay* with *each* *team* having totally different gameplay elements and mechanics. Obviously nothing beyond a few textures and props could have been used in the initial mod version. The game version has sold well over a million copies. The list is endless.
> 
> And so many other mods listed *here* became games that sold millions. Very competitive from a market perspective (the mods that were transformed into successful games that is), almost unparalleled for some like Dota 2 and CS:GO. Undeniable innovation has come from mods too, since entire genres were born from several (and new games/franchises born from many).
> 
> Stats showing the popularity of several other pre-2014 games listed below. Can't find current up to date LoL stats but is popularity (filling stadiums at "eSports" events) is obvious.
> 
> https://steamdb.info/graph/
> 
> https://en.wot-life.com/eu/serverstats/
> 
> http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/population/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&sy=c&sx=a
Click to expand...

Next you will claim that these quotes are faked. Your inconsistent narrative and obvious emotional responses really demonstrate your autism.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> 2. Yeah it does,but as of now,that's not the case,so once again,your argument has no place as of now.
> 3.You cited three PC games,and the steam database data collection website. That's it. The burden of proof is on you.
> 4. They don't need to have a future because they are outdated,all they need to do is play the games you can not play on the other system. The bigger picture is irrelevant now,your argument will be valid when you can't find any PS3 console anymore,and by that time,no one will care anymore and we will already have emulators. Moot point.


2. That is the case. You even helped support this by providing a Gamestop link to PS3s which were all pre-owned. Used, not new. Almost only used on *Amazon* as well, so it obviously is the case.
3. I cited a high number of massively popular pre-2014 games on PC. It shows how much potential there is to be gained with backwards compatibility.
4. "The bigger picture is irrelevant now." Way to invalidate yourself LOL. You know what is irrelevant now though? The PS3 since it's apparently discontinued almost everywhere and it is obviously ignored by the gaming industry due to the existence of the PS4 and PS4 Pro. How does talk of PC emulation damage my claim that consoles without backwards compatibility (such as PS4) shoot themselves in the foot by having no backwards compatibility? This is really amusing.


----------



## Charcharo

This is something new. The big picture and long term being irrelevant.

Part of being a human being is the ability to use foresight, draw conclusions from the past and being able to think LONG term. So... Goldii3 isnt human? I mean that is what the logic dictates...

Also, Fallout 3 cant be played on a PS4. Do we really need to go so far with this and now list all the games that were on PS1/PS2/PS3 and cant be played on PS4 just to prove a point obvious to any and all human beings?

"no one will care anymore and we will already have emulators. Moot point."

Nintendo is anti-emulators and Sony and MS arent helping either. Its only fans as the final frontier, some of them unpaid.

I will care. I care for gaming and the art form. The fact that you dont care is telling.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Consoles without backwards compatibility have no preservation. Again, common sense based on an obvious fact. Your talk of emulation doesn't benefit your standpoint, it benefits mine because it is PC emulation. The arguments I make are against PS4 and to a lesser extent XBOX One, since the beginning.
> 
> PS4 actually having a (limited) future by being in-production is why backwards compatibility matters. As I've said a bunch of times.
> So you don't know what discontinued means. The limitation is that they're no longer being made. Out of circulation. Your inability to grasp this is bizarre. Supply and demand doesn't apply to out of production items since there is no new supply, or an extremely limited amount of it.
> 
> About PS3, my argument is that it has very limited new stock. Your links confirm this for Gamestop. "Pre-owned" everywhere. Get it? No of course not.
> Finally you come to this point. I was waiting for this pages ago. The one sensible retort that could be made against me on this argument. Although your phrasing in the bolded sentence is poor since there are too many PS3 games to count that sold millions, and only a limited number of them were remastered on PS4.
> 
> I don't know enough about PS3 game player stats to answer that, and I'm not interested enough in console gaming to research it. So my stance on PS4 backwards compatibility remains a hypothesis, backed up by data on other pre-2014 games (some on PS3, some not) that remain top played games to this day on the PC platform. It shows how much PC benefits from backwards compatibility, so it's a simple relation that can be made to console as well.
> Um...
> 
> Next you will claim that these quotes are faked. Your inconsistent narrative and obvious emotional responses really demonstrate your autism.
> 2. That is the case. You even helped support this by providing a Gamestop link to PS3s which were all pre-owned. Used, not new. Almost only used on *Amazon* as well, so it obviously is the case.
> 3. I cited a high number of massively popular pre-2014 games on PC. It shows how much potential there is to be gained with backwards compatibility.
> 4. "The bigger picture is irrelevant now." Way to invalidate yourself LOL. You know what is irrelevant now though? The PS3 since it's apparently discontinued almost everywhere and it is obviously ignored by the gaming industry due to the existence of the PS4 and PS4 Pro. How does talk of PC emulation damage my claim that consoles without backwards compatibility (such as PS4) shoot themselves in the foot by having no backwards compatibility? This is really amusing.


Preservation means conserving things...and emulation does that. Does not matter in wich platform. You claimed videogames had minimal preservation wich is not true.

No,it is you who does not know what discontinued means. They have sold 83M units and produced probably more. Those 83M units will circulate the used market because the PS3 is still a demanded product,proof of this is that they just recently stopped producing them. There are millions of consoles in all the world,and a determinate number are bound to be put for sale. This is a fact as you can purchase them. The fact is,they still are easy to purchase. So your point that they are unreliable is not true. It's pretty easy once again,purchase one at GameStop. I was never talking about new products to begin with,since it's irrelevant if it's used or new,they still work.

So you are not interested in further polishing your claim. Then there is nothing else to argue since as of now,it's incomplete and wrong.

PC is a single platform,not an itineration. Win32 apps have been the core of Windows since when,Windows 98/XP? There is no backwards compatibility on PC to begin with,because it's a single platform. Thus your relation is wrong.

Nice ad-hominem over there,getting angry im not buying your crap? Really low to use autism as an insult.

2. The stock of new consoles is depleted,not the used one. I never talked about new consoles to begin with. And new or used it's still irrelevant,what matter is that you can purchase them.
3. No backwards compatiblity on PC as it is a single platform not an itineration. Those games could be ported to consoles,if they are not,the publisher is to blame. Not consoles.
4. By bigger picture you probably mean that some time from now it will disappear. That's irrelevant now because we don't know when that will happen. When it happens,your point will be true.

Not to mention on how precedents prove you wrong. The PS1 has been launched in 1994 and today,after 23 years i can still find a working console on eBay.

Your argument on backwards compatibility is a hypothesis contrary to fact. Search that on google


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Preservation means conserving things...and emulation does that. Does not matter in wich platform. You claimed videogames had minimal preservation wich is not true.


Where did I claim that? Quote it. You're so broken that you're inventing arguments now? PC gaming preserves the art form since they have backwards compatibility. PS4 does no such thing, XBOX One only dies a little of it. Yes, emulation does a better job of it, another strength of PC and knock against consoles.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> No,it is you who does not know what discontinued means. They have sold 83M units and produced probably more. Those 83M units will circulate the used market because the PS3 is still a demanded product,proof of this is that they just recently stopped producing them. There are millions of consoles in all the world,and a determinate number are bound to be put for sale. This is a fact as you can purchase them. The fact is,they still are easy to purchase. So your point that they are unreliable is not true. It's pretty easy once again,purchase one at GameStop. I was never talking about new products to begin with,since it's irrelevant if it's used or new,they still work.


More of the same.

"The future is irrelevant."
"The big picture is irrelevant."
"Used market vs new market makes no difference."

Quite the fantasy world you live in. You might as well lay down and ask to be run over at this point.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> So you are not interested in further polishing your claim. Then there is nothing else to argue since as of now,it's incomplete and wrong.
> 
> Your argument on backwards compatibility is a hypothesis contrary to fact. Search that on google


Incomplete yes. Proven wrong? Nope. I have more evidence behind my claim (popularity of pre-2014 games on PC) than you (none). You're making more assumptions here. Occam's Razor.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> PC is a single platform,not an itineration. Win32 apps have been the core of Windows since when,Windows 98/XP? There is no backwards compatibility on PC to begin with,because it's a single platform. Thus your relation is wrong.


In a way, sort of. There are of course compatibility modes in Windows, and on PC you can play games made during the era of previous OS's. Consoles completely changing architecture on different iterations is just another, bigger limitation that helps illustrate just how much consoles limit game advancement. Shooting yourself in the foot again.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> 2. The stock of new consoles is depleted,not the used one. I never talked about new consoles to begin with. And new or used it's still irrelevant,what matter is that you can purchase them.
> 3. No backwards compatiblity on PC as it is a single platform not an itineration. Those games could be ported to consoles,if they are not,the publisher is to blame. Not consoles.
> 4. By bigger picture you probably mean that some time from now it will disappear. That's irrelevant now because we don't know when that will happen. When it happens,your point will be true.
> 
> Not to mention on how precedents prove you wrong. The PS1 has been launched in 1994 and today,after 23 years i can still find a working console on eBay.


2. In other words, you've been off topic the entire time? But that's not even true, you have talked about current gen consoles. And once again we have:

"The future is irrelevant."
"The big picture is irrelevant."
"Used market vs new market makes no difference."

3. That has nothing to do with anything. The fact of the matter is, PC gaming obviously benefits greatly from having the ability to play older games.
4. And once again we have this fantasy:

"The future is irrelevant."
"The big picture is irrelevant."
"Used market vs new market makes no difference."
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> This is something new. The big picture and long term being irrelevant.
> 
> Part of being a human being is the ability to use foresight, draw conclusions from the past and being able to think LONG term. So... Goldii3 isnt human? I mean that is what the logic dictates...


lol. He thinks closing a blind eye to the obvious helps his argument.


----------



## GTR Mclaren

People needs to stop comparing specs directly.

Try to play what, Killzone 3, The Last of Us, GTA5 in 720p and 30fps or others similar in a PC with a CPU from 2005, when the PS3 was designed. Or with 256mb of RAM or a GPU from the ice age like the one in the PS3.

YOU COULD NOT

and the PS3 can

Same with the PS4, thats why we can see amazing games like Horizon or Uncharted 4 with hardware from 2012-2013


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTR Mclaren*
> 
> People needs to stop comparing specs directly.
> 
> Try to play what, Killzone 3, The Last of Us, GTA5 in 720p and 30fps or others similar in a PC with a CPU from 2005, when the PS3 was designed. Or with 256mb of RAM or a GPU from the ice age like the one in the PS3.
> 
> YOU COULD NOT
> 
> and the PS3 can
> 
> Same with the PS4, thats why we can see amazing games like Horizon or Uncharted 4 with hardware from 2012-2013


It's actually not the same at all.. Half the posts in this thread have been making that point.

PS3/60 gen was vastly different from x86, optimization played a massive role. PS4/X1 are x86, which is why studios can ship their titles off to a port house for a month to put it on PC very cheaply, PS3/60 titles needed a ground up build to run on PC. One of the reasons RDR never came to PC.

Give a studio like ND $100 000 000 +, 4 years dev time, and tell them they only need to focus on PC's from 2012 and they could accomplish it easily.. There is no difference, PS4/X1 are just midrange PC's from 2011/2012.


----------



## SuperZan

Underdeveloped skills in logic and rhetoric are not at all uncommon and logic is not a noted deficiency on the autism spectrum. If your debate partner cannot respond to your points rationally then you've won, no? I just didn't see a reason to go internet-kid with it, especially because I've never seen the word 'autism' used by an internet kid in a way that actually made sense relative to the condition.


----------



## Mad Pistol

I've largely stayed out of this argument because, no matter what your opinion is, someone on here is going to say you're wrong and stupid.

Point.

Counterpoint.

That's a discussion. Calling people stupid, autistic, delusional, "peasant" and any other words with a negative connotation is childish... it shows insecurity in what you believe, so you have to bolster it by insulting the person you are discussing the point with.

Prove your points. That's fine. If you think another person is wrong, show why they are wrong and let them respond... but please, please, PLEASE stop the name calling and labeling. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on these forums, so lets try and keep it as friendly as possible. If you're taking the "counter points" as insults to your character, it would probably be best if you didn't respond.

And to bolster what SuperZan said in the post before, one of my coworkers is autistic. He has some very weird quirks about him, but he is not only one of the smartest men I have ever met, but he is also exceptionally good a logical and deductive reasoning... far better than I am. So next time you say someone has "Autism", just remember, that person may turn out to be far more successful than you will ever be.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Where did I claim that? Quote it. You're so broken that you're inventing arguments now? PC gaming preserves the art form since they have backwards compatibility. PS4 does no such thing, XBOX One only dies a little of it. Yes, emulation does a better job of it, another strength of PC and knock against consoles.
> More of the same.
> 
> "The future is irrelevant."
> "The big picture is irrelevant."
> "Used market vs new market makes no difference."
> 
> Quite the fantasy world you live in. You might as well lay down and ask to be run over at this point.
> Incomplete yes. Proven wrong? Nope. I have more evidence behind my claim (popularity of pre-2014 games on PC) than you (none). You're making more assumptions here. Occam's Razor.
> In a way, sort of. There are of course compatibility modes in Windows, and on PC you can play games made during the era of previous OS's. Consoles completely changing architecture on different iterations is just another, bigger limitation that helps illustrate just how much consoles limit game advancement. Shooting yourself in the foot again.
> 2. In other words, you've been off topic the entire time? But that's not even true, you have talked about current gen consoles. And once again we have:
> 
> "The future is irrelevant."
> "The big picture is irrelevant."
> "Used market vs new market makes no difference."
> 
> 3. That has nothing to do with anything. The fact of the matter is, PC gaming obviously benefits greatly from having the ability to play older games.
> 4. And once again we have this fantasy:
> 
> "The future is irrelevant."
> "The big picture is irrelevant."
> "Used market vs new market makes no difference."
> lol. He thinks closing a blind eye to the obvious helps his argument.


I misreaded,my bad.

"argumentum ad ignorantiam" search that. You have not given any data to be able to claim that PS4/X1 not having backwards compatibility affects the industry in a monetary way. Neither have i since such data does not exist,thus any argument out of that premise is useless.

I did not make any assumption on that argument,i merely asked you to point out the data so we can verify your claims. Where is it?

Consoles do not limit game advacement. PC does not have backwards compatibility,something that is majorly found in consoles via hardware or software emulation. It has been running on the same core for a lot of time.

i talked about current gen consoles,but not about new previous generation consoles. Stop trying to make points in your favour out of thin air.

No one denied PC benefits from being able to play older games. I said to prove your claim that consoles not being able to harmed gaming in a monetary way.

Once again,you only care about the hypothetical future because it favours your point. Once again,we have precedents of game consoles still being functional and aviable on common marketplaces after being released 20 years ago. My point is that as of now,i don't think any mainstream console has gone missing. And the preservation of their games has been already achieved with backups of their games and emulators. PS4 not having backwards compatibility does not affect in any way gaming.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> I would think it takes some disorder to act in such an inconsistent, unstable way.


Unstable is someone who suggests a person to lay down and get run over.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Preservation means conserving things...and emulation does that.


*Emulation is imperfect.* People like "byuu" do things like electron microscope scanning of chips to try to preserve their information. But, he said that all software emulation, for instance, has inherent input lag that hardware doesn't have to have. So, it's impossible to create a replica of a high-precision fast action arcade game designed around a CRT with emulation because of the added lag. The other option is to create hardware-on-a-chip. This is better but can still have problems, even within a console's standard. Early Genesis consoles had better sound than later ones. When Sega consolidated chips to save costs it reduced the quality of the sound production. Systems-on-a-chip can have bugs that weren't present in the original hardware, not have things like illegal/undocumented opcodes, and have different levels of accuracy/authenticity in general. But, they're going to offer the potential to cut out the input lag caused by software emulation.

If console hardware isn't perfectly documented then a lot of things involve reverse engineering, which can be imprecise.

*x86 has been a compelling standard for a long time because of the very high level of backward compatibility. That's why x86 is still a thing and wasn't knocked out of the market by better designs.* The 8086 process was not particularly well-designed in important ways. The 68000 would have better a better processor to evolve from. But, Intel and AMD have been able to work around the flaws of x86 and outcompete the rest. Backward compatibility is a huge part of why x86 was able to outcompete. The original IBM PC line (PC, XT, AT) had so much brand power behind it that it made a substandard OS (DOS), mediocre hardware (everything until the AT), and a not-that-impressive CPU design a very long-term success. If IBM had chosen the 68000 then we'd been using some derivative of it today.

*The backward compatibility of x86 has not come at a cost that outweighs the benefits.* The structural defects of the x86 architecture have been worked around so much that they're not that big of a deal for general-purpose computing. Retaining backward compatibility has also not been too onerous. Sadly, though, as Microsoft increasingly copies Apple, backward compatibility is being marginalized. Computer-based games have also been a thorn in the side of gamers because of copy protection schemes. Many old games have had to be cracked to maintain backward compatibility. The Sims 2, unless you get a version EA finally got around to fixing, won't run in Windows 10 because Windows 10 doesn't support SecuROM. Other games just don't run in Windows 10 at all, like Topspin 1 and Topspin 2.

Losing SecuROM seems like it shouldn't be a sad thing but any breakage of backward compatibility can carry a serious price tag. We can't just count on developers to make an effort to update their DRM. We need the OS developer and the chip developer to maintain compatibility. I don't think the Sims 2 Anniversary Edition that was given away, as a promotion for Sims 4, even runs on Windows 10 because of SecuROM. I think EA is now selling Sims 2 with Windows 10 compatibility in some software store.

*Another imperfection of emulation is that it's either done by unpaid volunteers or by companies that don't share their work with others. Both of those strategies generally result in imperfect emulation - sometimes very lackluster emulation.* I can't play the Dreamcast 2K2 Tennis game on PC because the emulation isn't precise enough. It's impossible to get build a custom player's serve in the serving practice game because the timing of the emulation makes fully-charging serves pretty much impossible, randomly, for a character. I have a Dreamcast and that game so I know how it's supposed to work. The developer said he/she has no idea what the problem might be.

Another issue is required hardware. Emulate Arkanoid on the NES with cycle-exact emulation and it's still unplayable without a twist controller. A twist controller costs peanuts to manufacture but one doesn't see any "console" makers bundling them anymore. Game designers who use specialized hardware always face the greater risk of lack of support but twist controls are as old as the first major console - the Atari 2600. Even the Fairchild had rudimentary twist functionality.

*There is absolutely a hugely compelling reason to standardize around a common/basic/foundational software layer for the common/basic/foundational hardware layer known as x86. It makes backward compatibility much easier. That's hardly the only benefit.*

Hardware compatibility always trumps software emulation in accuracy/performance.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> "argumentum ad ignorantiam" search that. You have not given any data to be able to claim that PS4/X1 not having backwards compatibility affects the industry in a monetary way. Neither have i since such data does not exist,thus any argument out of that premise is useless.
> 
> I did not make any assumption on that argument,i merely asked you to point out the data so we can verify your claims. Where is it?
> 
> No one denied PC benefits from being able to play older games. I said to prove your claim that consoles not being able to harmed gaming in a monetary way.


PS4's (and Nintendo Switch's) game library excludes almost every single title that the PS3 had. Small selection of games compared to other platforms. There's your data. Anyone should be able to deduce that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Consoles do not limit game advacement. PC does not have backwards compatibility,something that is majorly found in consoles via hardware or software emulation. It has been running on the same core for a lot of time.


Back at square one. The ideal environment for gaming is pretty easy to figure out, it's not even Windows and DirectX based but, in the ultimate dream world, Linux and Vulkan and OpenAL based. Open source, unified x86 based environment, more resources available to developers and greater and easier contribution in all sorts of ways.

The locked ecosystem of consoles combined with their limited functionality and moddability (I take it I'll have to remind you of the impact mods have had on gaming), lack of hardware upgrading, architectural replacements and forced upgrades every few years, lack of backwards compatibility, underpowered CPUs, even limited input devices, all limit game advancement for such obvious reasons. It takes a special sort of delusional person to deny any of this.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Once again,you only care about the hypothetical future because it favours your point. Once again,we have precedents of game consoles still being functional and aviable on common marketplaces after being released 20 years ago. My point is that as of now,i don't think any mainstream console has gone missing. And the preservation of their games has been already achieved with backups of their games and emulators. PS4 not having backwards compatibility does not affect in any way gaming.


I care about the past (backwards compatibility), present, and future which is guaranteed (again you're suggesting old consoles don't die... lol). Emulation is limited to PC and is imperfect. So you're saying the game selection of current gen consoles does not affect gaming in any way? Again, this is not at all a normal thing to say or think. Such denial of common sense is unhealthy.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Unstable is someone who suggests a person to lay down and get run over.


A metaphor for how self destructive your nonsensical arguments are.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTR Mclaren*
> 
> People needs to stop comparing specs directly.
> 
> Try to play what, Killzone 3, The Last of Us, GTA5 in 720p and 30fps or others similar in a PC with a CPU from 2005, when the PS3 was designed. Or with 256mb of RAM or a GPU from the ice age like the one in the PS3.
> 
> YOU COULD NOT
> 
> and the PS3 can
> 
> Same with the PS4, thats why we can see amazing games like Horizon or Uncharted 4 with hardware from 2012-2013


You can't be serious, please tell me you're not, otherwise just change that avatar


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTR Mclaren*
> 
> People needs to stop comparing specs directly.
> 
> Try to play what, Killzone 3, The Last of Us, GTA5 in 720p and 30fps or others similar in a PC with a CPU from 2005, when the PS3 was designed. Or with 256mb of RAM or a GPU from the ice age like the one in the PS3.
> 
> YOU COULD NOT
> 
> and the PS3 can
> 
> Same with the PS4, thats why we can see amazing games like Horizon or Uncharted 4 with hardware from 2012-2013
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> You can't be serious, please tell me you're not, otherwise just change that avatar
Click to expand...

I'd be curious to know what your reasoning is behind disagreeing with him. He is right.

Please feel free to elaborate, oxidized.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I'd be curious to know what your reasoning is behind disagreeing with him. He is right.
> 
> Please feel free to elaborate, oxidized.


I feel like i'm being trolled...nvm then


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> I feel like i'm being trolled...nvm then


No, I'm not trolling you. I'm genuinely interested in why you would disagree with him. So... lets have it. What is your point of view on this?


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> No, I'm not trolling you. I'm genuinely interested in why you would disagree with him. So... lets have it. What is your point of view on this?


A pc with those specs couldn't run the same game in the same way, so what? It's like complaining about the fact that ryzen isn't as fast as some top intel cpus in gaming on older games, how weird is it? Console games like those he was talking about were build ground up based on that hardware, and optimized the best way possible to make it run the fastest possible, how do you think that devs find the development of a console game harder and trickier compared to the development of the same game on a pc? Console have a complex architecture, and it changes much the way games are coded/developed. Also, since consoles is where the market's at, guess who takes the priority and most of the funds and everything when developing a game? That's how console games look (and run) not that far behind when compared to the same games on pc, imagine if the priority was on the pc version of those games? There wouldn't even be a fight, that is why (i hate to repeat myself) in older games, especially pre ps3, we could see much clearly the far superior quality of pc games. FYI ps3/x360/wiiu is where my respect for consoles ended completely. In short those games ran on console decently only because there was much more work behind the optimization on that given hardware, which is what disappeared on pc years ago.


----------



## Flames21891

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> -snip-


Uhhh, I think you just inadvertently agreed with him.

At least the way I read it, his point wasn't that the PS3 had some magically superior hardware, but that there were other forces at work which allowed the performance of the system to remain competitive.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Flames21891*
> 
> Uhhh, I think you just inadvertently agreed with him.
> 
> At least the way I read it, his point wasn't that the PS3 had some magically superior hardware, but that there were other forces at work which allowed the performance of the system to remain competitive.


I never said i don't agree with him, thing is it seems to me that people don't realize the meaning of "holds back", consoles ARE holding back pc quality, it's a fact, it's not something debatable, and it started when pissed off console users were looking at pc games from below, and crying required more equality between games versions. Come on guys, think it this way, if that didn't happen roughly 10-12 year ago, consoles would've disappeared by now, think of something that could've been better on consoles, if developers kept prioritizing the pc version of games (i mean i can't think of anything even know aside from a few exclusives one of which is metal gear solid, and the fifth was also on pc), there's just nothing, literally nothing, not even ease of use.
Imagine a 500/600€/$ PC running EVERYTHING max settings, i mean...


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> *A pc with those specs couldn't run the same game in the same way, so what?* It's like complaining about the fact that ryzen isn't as fast as some top intel cpus in gaming on older games, how weird is it? Console games like those he was talking about were build ground up based on that hardware, and optimized the best way possible to make it run the fastest possible, *how do you think that devs find the development of a console game harder and trickier compared to the development of the same game on a pc?* Console have a complex architecture, and it changes much the way games are coded/developed. Also, since consoles is where the market's at, guess who takes the priority and most of the funds and everything when developing a game? That's how console games look (and run) not that far behind when compared to the same games on pc, imagine if the priority was on the pc version of those games? There wouldn't even be a fight, that is why (i hate to repeat myself) in older games, especially pre ps3, we could see much clearly the far superior quality of pc games. FYI ps3/x360/wiiu is where my respect for consoles ended completely. *In short those games ran on console decently only because there was much more work behind the optimization on that given hardware, which is what disappeared on pc years ago.*


First point made. A PS3 could not run the PC version of Grand Theft Auto 5, and yet the PS3 version of GTA V ran on a system that had 256MB system RAM, 256MB GPU RAM, and the equivalent of a gimped, custom Nvidia Geforce 7800 GTX. The optimization that went into making that happen must have been immense!

For your second point about developing on a console, I'd actually argue it as the other way around. Developing on a console is "easy", while developing for PC is difficult. On consoles prior to the PS4/Xbox One, you had one hardware configuration per system. That's it. For PC, you have a nearly infinite number of hardware combinations, and you have to try and squash bugs on as many of them as possible. Developing complex games for PC must be quite daunting. The beauty of this generation of consoles is that they are basically PC hardware already, so the development cycle for multi-plats is probably far simpler.

This also explains why PC doesn't get as much optimization. You have high level APIs like DirectX which do a lot of the heavy lifting for the GPU and make the code run on a wide variety of hardware configurations. In creating this ease-of-use scenario, it saps absolute performance from PC hardware. Consoles do not have these limitations in their APIs, so see much closer to metal optimization.

For the third point, I'm not really sure where that's coming from. If anything, I would argue that PC has received far more optimization as of recent time simply because PS4 and Xbox One are both x86 now and not some IBM PowerPC server thing as was seen in the PS3.

Also, based on the most recent crop of games from Sony, especially with Uncharted 4 and Horizon Zero Dawn, I would argue that we are again seeing some amazing optimization on console hardware.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> For your second point about developing on a console, I'd actually argue it as the other way around. Developing on a console is "easy", while developing for PC is difficult. On consoles prior to the PS4/Xbox One, you had one hardware configuration per system. That's it. For PC, you have a nearly infinite number of hardware combinations, and you have to try and squash bugs on as many of them as possible. Developing complex games for PC must be quite daunting. The beauty of this generation of consoles is that they are basically PC hardware already, so the development cycle for multi-plats is probably far simpler.


The number of hardware configuration doesn't matter, it's not like they have to simulate a game with every cpu or gpu existent, it's not like that, that's why architecture with multiple flavours of cpus or gpus exists, once you figured out how to work on a certain architecture you're done. Consoles being all the same quite removes the issue of trying everything on different architectures yes, but its architecture is already much more complicated to figure out, of course once you're done it's done for all consoles on earth, but still that's the tricky part, basically console architecture much harder to code/develop on, but it's single, pc architectures, far simpler but many of them, at the end of story even console games are coded on computers, so...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> For the third point, I'm not really sure where that's coming from. If anything, I would argue that PC has received far more optimization as of recent time simply because PS4 and Xbox One are both x86 now and not some IBM PowerPC server thing as was seen in the PS3.


Where's it's coming from? I mean just go something like 10-12 years back, for instance there were less multiplatform titles, and often PC only titles ran pretty good, and there were much less day one patches, much less need to fix stuff. An example first Crysis, published in 2007, pc only, it was the heaviest title ever seen back then, but also the one with best graphics, and physics mechanics. It took 4 years and a new gen of consoles for it to become a multiplatform, and it was some gimped version which run worse and everything else that comes with consoles titles, so what?
I can now use the reversed argument of before? 2011 console were at least as good as 2007 PC, still, did it run or look the same? Not even close.
Actually in 2007 PS3 was already out and the game came out on it 4 years later? I mean seriously? And 2007 was when game devs started prioritizing consoles over pc while in development, that when console ported games were born, and that's why now we have 80% of triple A or double A titles "consolized" version of games for pc, you can even tell from the HUD the game uses, it's unbelievable.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Also, based on the most recent crop of games from Sony, especially with Uncharted 4 and Horizon Zero Dawn, I would argue that we are again seeing some amazing optimization on console hardware.


That's what happens when you try harder and harder to cut price hardware wise, that even the most optimized thing ever done will start to show some flaws, after all it's the reason behind PS4 and few years later PS4 Pro...the 4K advertising was just an excuse (the proof is that not even a ps4 pro runs at real 4K with stable framerate, the vast majority of videogames, even those which already run pretty good on the og ps4).


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> I never said i don't agree with him, thing is it seems to me that people don't realize the meaning of "holds back", *consoles ARE holding back pc quality, it's a fact, it's not something debatable,* and it started when pissed off console users were looking at pc games from below, and crying required more equality between games versions. Come on guys, think it this way, if that didn't happen roughly 10-12 year ago, consoles would've disappeared by now, think of something that could've been better on consoles, if developers kept prioritizing the pc version of games (i mean i can't think of anything even know aside from a few exclusives one of which is metal gear solid, and the fifth was also on pc), there's just nothing, literally nothing, not even ease of use.
> Imagine a 500/600€/$ PC running EVERYTHING max settings, i mean...


Its not a "fact" at all, its your opinion. The fact that this thread alone has generated nearly 1000 posts already would seem to indicate that the topic is imminently debatable, contrary to your assertions. The existence of consoles does NOT stop developers from being able to focus on good PC titles if they so choose. Ultimately it is the industry, if anything, that is holding back PC gaming (if it even is being held back at all, which I would dispute). Just because the games YOU want to play are not necessarily being made does not mean that PC gaming is being held back. Your particular preferences are, after all, still your opinion. And there are plenty of PC games out there that I find quite enjoyable, despite the claims that PC gaming is being held back...


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> PS4's (and Nintendo Switch's) game library excludes almost every single title that the PS3 had. Small selection of games compared to other platforms. There's your data. Anyone should be able to deduce that.


Deduction is not a fact. Basically you would need a proper study on this. You don't know how much games would or would not have sold .Thus your argument is flawed since you can't draw a conclusion out of it.

They are locked for ease of use to the average person. Their only function should be to play games but they do that and other things,very well for their price. Lack of hardware upgrading? Once again,it's a mainstream,trouble free system. Hardware upgrading is none of that. Forced upgrades? No different than other device. Newer devices get the new tech,older devices are abandoned for the new one.

As of now only the PS4 and Nintendo Switch consoles do not have backwards compatibility. Generalizing past and future ones is not ok. Additionaly,there is nothing wrong without having backwards compatibility. The CPU's are not manufactured by Sony,Nintendo or Microsoft so if they are underpowered,blame the manufacturer,AMD and nVidia in this case.

Pretty much all games offer mouse and keyboard on PC,so how do consoles limit that? As of now no better alternative to a gamepad has been invented,if you have a better idea goa head.

None of the things you cited could in any way limit the delevopment of games besides modding,but once again,it's a user friendly device to play games,not a computer to delevop games and mess with files.

Additionaly thankfully PC can do those things,so those games could be delevoped on a PC then ported to consoles.

As of now,im honestly done here,the only claim you had left is not relevant since it's missing data.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Its not a "fact" at all, its your opinion. The fact that this thread alone has generated nearly 1000 posts already would seem to indicate that the topic is imminently debatable, contrary to your assertions. The existence of consoles does NOT stop developers from being able to focus on good PC titles if they so choose. Ultimately it is the industry, if anything, that is holding back PC gaming (if it even is being held back at all, which I would dispute). Just because the games YOU want to play are not necessarily being made does not mean that PC gaming is being held back. Your particular preferences are, after all, still your opinion. And there are plenty of PC games out there that I find quite enjoyable, despite the claims that PC gaming is being held back...


Not my opinion, we're discussing on some indie dev's words, and possibly many other dev's words (when they're not told to keep their mouth shut). It's not debatable, doesn't matter what you say or think, it's just like that, but casual players like you don't see it (or don't want to, i honestly don't know or care)."And there are plenty of PC games out there that I find quite enjoyable" that's always related to the fact you're a casual player, and videogames are art, you don't change art just because a lot of people (non-expert) says otherwise, and non-experts opinion shouldn't matter that much in order to keep the level high, but that's what happened with videogames, software house just bent towards the most profitable source of money, and now towards quality. Over and out...


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

So only "expert gamer" opinions matter and casual gamers can just suck wind? Is that right? Jeez this thread...


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Deduction is not a fact. Basically you would need a proper study on this fact. You don't know how much games would or would not have sold .Thus your argument is flawed since you can't draw a conclusion out of it.


I'm not trying to guess how much PS3 gen games would sell on PS4. It's just an undeniable fact that PS4's game library is relatively tiny due to its lack of backwards compatibility, thus a lot less potential sales.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> They are locked for ease of use to the average person. Their only function should be to play games but they do that and other things,very well. Lack of hardware upgrading? Once again,it's a mainstream,trouble free system. Hardware upgrading is none of that. Forced upgrades? No different than other device. Newer devices get the new tech,older devices are abandoned for the new one.


You don't need an entirely closed ecosystem to have a plug and play gaming system. See what Valve tried with SteamOS. Likewise, hardware upgrades should be optional. Yes, planned obsolescence is not rare, but the past architectural changes were disastrous for gaming. At least they're finally on x86 so that should be over with, but we'll still have to deal with the hardware being outdated and limiting gaming-right now only the CPU really, but in a few years it will be all of it. Yes, game studios can always just go PC exclusive if they want to avoid this, but no doubt gaming as a whole would be better if consoles were not so limited, this way we wouldn't have these problems in the first place.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> As of now only the PS4 and Nintendo Switch consoles do not have backwards compatibility. Generalizing two consoles for past and future ones is not ok. Additionaly,there is nothing wrong without having backwards compatibility. The CPU's are not manufactured by Sony,Nintendo or Microsoft so if they are underpowered,blame the manufacturer,AMD and nVidia in this case.


That's 2/3 of the consoles currently in production. Your insistence on repeating "there is nothing wrong without having backwards compatibility" like a broken record is pointless, you're just voicing your ignorant opinion and no more can possibly be communicated on this subject. I provided data that proves how popular older games are on PC, so that shows the potential there.

You're also content with making excuses for consoles. I'm not interested in excuses, I'm just stating the way things are. The lacking CPU power is a limiting factor.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Pretty much alll games offer mouse and keyboard on PC,so how do consoles limit that? As of now no better alternative to a gamepad has been invented,if you have a better idea goa head.


Just pointing out another limitation that people forget and deny. Numerous games cannot function fully on a controller because they require more functionality than a controller provides.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> None of the things you cited could in any way limit the delevopment of games besides modding,but once again,it's a user friendly device to play games,not a computer to delevop games and mess with files.
> 
> Additionaly thankfully PC can do those things,so those games could be delevoped on a PC then ported to consoles.


It is clear you haven't the slightest idea about game development or any sort of programming. Although it's not just the development process that's more limited but the games themselves.

> Working around underpowered CPU is a limitation.
> Having to conform to a closed ecosystem, narrowing down available engines/tools and other technologies is a limitation, although these consoles being x86 makes this less limiting this time around. As a result, a few engines at least have easy exporting to consoles and other platforms, such as Unreal Engine 4. But consoles are still so behind even now, much less in a few years when other technologies arise. No variable refresh rate on consoles, no eye tracking to my knowledge, only two hardware devices (one of which tied to a specific headset) can provide virtual surround.
> Games only having a lifespan equal to the consoles' lifespan is hugely limiting.
> Game releases being completely controlled by Sony and Microsoft is limiting.
> Being unable to host dedicated game servers, instead being a slave to Sony and Microsoft's online monarchy, is hugely limiting.
> Minimal to no modding is very limiting.
> Games being locked down to one graphics preset is incredibly limiting.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> As of now,im honestly done here,you have failed to understand that your claims do not have base in reality and you neither can prove them.


Of course, after all your flip flopping around the most you've accomplished is questioning my claim that game prices are generally lower on PC (via used games).


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I'd be curious to know what your reasoning is behind disagreeing with him. *He is right*.
> 
> Please feel free to elaborate, oxidized.


How is he right?

He's equating consoles based on PowerPC with consoles based on x86, and then states you cannot directly compare them with PC.. You can't directly compare with PowerPC, but you *absolutely can* with x86.

This thread revolves around the x86-based PS4. I doubt anyone would argue the PS3 and 360 were under powered when they were released.. I haven't looked to see if PC's from 2005 could keep up with PS360, but I'd guess only very high-end systems from the time could, and they probably fell behind very quickly. The PS4 and X1 are a completely different story, as has been proved ad nauseam, even mid-range PC's from 2012 can, and high to enthusiast level systems slaughter them.. Why? - because they're based on x86, just like PC.

The two generations are not comparable *at all*. Games like Horizon and Uncharted 4 are possible because they have enormous budgets, long development times, and studios only have to focus on that single system.

Optimization on PS360 was a big deal because the hardware was highly customized, and required a lot of engineering/tricks to extract the performance from them (which is why there is such a drastic improvement in games from launch to EOL). The PS4/X1 are far simpler, developers pushed them from day-1.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTR Mclaren*
> 
> People needs to stop comparing specs directly.
> 
> Try to play what, Killzone 3, The Last of Us, GTA5 in 720p and 30fps or others similar in a PC with a CPU from 2005, when the PS3 was designed. Or with 256mb of RAM or a GPU from the ice age like the one in the PS3.
> 
> *YOU COULD NOT*
> 
> and the PS3 can
> 
> *Same with the PS4*, thats why we can see amazing games like Horizon or Uncharted 4 with hardware from 2012-2013


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> How is he right?
> 
> He's equating consoles based on PowerPC with consoles based on x86, and then states you cannot directly compare them with PC.. You can't directly compare with PowerPC, but you *absolutely can* with x86.
> 
> This thread revolves around the x86-based PS4. I doubt anyone would argue the PS3 and 360 were under powered when they were released.. I haven't looked to see if PC's from 2005 could keep up with PS360, but I'd guess only very high-end systems from the time could, and they probably fell behind very quickly. The PS4 and X1 are a completely different story, as has been proved ad nauseam, even mid-range PC's from 2012 can, and high to enthusiast level systems slaughter them.. Why? - because they're based on x86, just like PC.
> 
> The two generations are not comparable *at all*. Games like Horizon and Uncharted 4 are possible because they have enormous budgets, long development times, and studios only have to focus on that single system.
> 
> Optimization on PS360 was a big deal because the hardware was highly customized, and required a lot of engineering/tricks to extract the performance from them (which is why there is such a drastic improvement in games from launch to EOL). The PS4/X1 are far simpler, developers pushed them from day-1.


This is all spot on.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> I doubt anyone would argue the PS3 and 360 were under powered when they were released.. I haven't looked to see if PC's from 2005 could keep up with PS360, but I'd guess only very high-end systems from the time could, and they probably fell behind very quickly.


Cell is an interesting quasi-RISC design. The basic bottom line seems to be that it promotes streaming performance (SIMD) and power conservation over branched logic performance. So, things like complex AI may have had more trouble on Cell than on a G5 or Intel CPU of the time, while tasks that can make use of its 6-8 vector cores could be high-performance. The PS3 disabled one of the vector cores so it had 7, plus the main in-order more general-purpose PPC control core.

Put simply, the Cell didn't seem to be ideal as a general-purpose PC processor but had appeal, at the time, for game design purposes.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stokes of Ars*
> Multithreading a workload is hard, and so is optimizing your code for a statically scheduled machine with weak hardware branch prediction. Branch hints, code and data prefetching, and other compile-time techniques that require coders to shoulder the burden of optimally using a complex array of hardware execution resources are no fun for developers. Even more importantly, it's not yet clear exactly how or even if all of this stuff can be profitably applied to some important classes of software. So any developer in their right mind would vastly prefer a traditional, dynamic execution CPU with a beefy branch predictor and a large cache to what IBM produced. That's because the traditional CPU does many of the hard parts of the coder's work for them: the dynamic execution core uses its instruction window to reschedule code optimally at run-time, the branch prediction hardware means that the developer doesn't have to rely on branch hints and other software tricks to keep the pipeline full, and the large cache means that the developer doesn't have to hassle with code and data prefetching and the like. In short, a CPU like the Athlon64 is designed to run anything but the most pathologically worst-case code fast.
> 
> The developer frustration expressed in the article is in large part a result of the fact that the free ride is over for the software industry. In the good old days before we hit the power wall, the vast majority of performance improvements came from improvements on the hardware side. Furthermore, the two hardware improvements that coders could count on with each generation of CPUs were more clockspeed and more cache. Clockspeed and cache sizes increases have literally carried the industry along for the past two decades. Sure, software optimization matters at the level of the individual platform--optimized code clearly runs faster than unoptimized code on any given processor. But looking at the big picture, clockspeed and cache size increases have been the real macro-level software performance drivers.
> 
> That free ride is over, and now it's time to face the multithreaded, multicore music. In the new world, a world of which both the Xenon and the Cell are a part, programmers have a whole lot more work to do, in terms of both splitting their applications up into threads and of optimizing those individual threads. This hardware makes a number of developer-unfriendly leaps that PC hardware won't make for some time, and it makes those leaps in some ways that exacerbate the associated pain. By the time PC hardware makes those leaps, it'll be vastly easier to code for two reasons: a) software development will have had time to transition to the multicore paradigm and b) those multiple cores will each be more programmer-friendly (i.e., dynamic execution hardware, good branch prediction, more cache) than the cores that power Cell and Xenon. So of course developers would be happier with a more traditional CPU architecture. The interesting question is whether they'll eventually come around, but that's impossible to answer at this point.


One thing he didn't mention, that other analysts looking at Cell did mention, is the importance of the compiler. They said the compiler should be good, capable of doing a lot of the heavy lifting - to reduce the amount of optimization coders have to do to get good performance. It's also interesting that Jaguar developers had similar complaints. To make matters worse with the Jaguar, though, was the severe hardware bug that it shipped with, causing it to be much tougher to get good performance with one's code.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I'd be curious to know what your reasoning is behind disagreeing with him. He is right.
> 
> Please feel free to elaborate, oxidized.


*It has never happened again.*

A PS4 vs a similar specced PC always loses to the PC. This means console optimizations, when they are on equal architecture with the PC (X86-64) simply dont amount to much.

This makes me think the only reason those fairly ugly games released on PS3 and ran at the required 22 fps for console gamers is - they were made from the ground up for that hardware. However, a PC based, X86-64 system of the same or similar brute force would achieve the same if the games were built from the ground up for it.

Again, a PS4 or Xbox One kinda have their necks broken by OCed 7850s. COnsole optimization exists, but its overhyped and underdelivered. As for TLOU and other PS3 games - 2007 PC exclusives curb stomped them so hard technologically that some PS4 games STILL cant win









Its only somewhat impressive games are Horizon and UC4. And those dont look that amazing, so many shortcuts with AO and lighting and LOD were made.

Developers also whine about how hard it is to get their games working well for PS4 Pro due to bandwidth limitations. 4A Games has stated its PC versions were easier than console ones (which required fine tuning at every step of the way for the pathetic hardware). PC development isnt harder, for technologically ambitious games its better even.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> So only "expert gamer" opinions matter and casual gamers can just suck wind? Is that right? Jeez this thread...


You know, if you are an engineer or scientist and some hobbyist (at best) comes to argue, you ignore them. Sorry, but it is how it is in the real world.

Also, in school people are taught that there is a limit to subjectivity. Even in art. And that people are not entitled to their opinions, as they arent entitled to ignorance. If people state it, they should be able to defend it.

But I guess I am just from a rougher place and we are stronger and less pampered and better at math /s


----------



## DarkBlade6

Console used to have very specialized hardware only good at *ONE* thing: Make 2D or 3D graphics.
Now they use general purpose GPU and CPU , just like PC. This is not specialized hardware at all and the old ''console optimization (meme)'' need to die. Right now they don't optimize anything, there's literally nothing that let them run a game better than a PC with similar hardware, they just turn down some knob to make sure the game run at a steady 30fps. Off course they still use ''unique'' hardware that can't be bought off the shelf (mainly the 8 cores jaguar CPU) but if you couple an equivalent GPU (7870 or 7850) with an ''OK'' x86 CPU, like the G4560, you can easily get similar result. No wonder why Xbox no longer have any exclusive, might as well get some sell out of the PC gamer right? It's so easy to ''Port'' (its not even a Port, it was made to run on PC in the first place). The only reason why there are still exclusive on PS4 is because it sold 4(PS4):1(XBOX) this generation.


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> 4A Games has stated its PC versions were easier than console ones (which required fine tuning at every step of the way for the pathetic hardware).


I remember them, they complained about Wii U's CPU being "slow". Maybe those whiners should just learn to code.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-22-thq-clarifies-wii-u-horrible-slow-cpu-claim-but-developer-concern-remains
What's with all the entitled developers nowadays? In the PS2/PS3 era nobody complained about "slow consoles", they just made great games that pushed the envelope in terms of graphics, scale and game design.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> I remember them, they complained about Wii U's CPU being "slow". Maybe those whiners should just learn to code.
> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-22-thq-clarifies-wii-u-horrible-slow-cpu-claim-but-developer-concern-remains
> What's with all the entitled developers nowadays? In the PS2/PS3 era nobody complained about "slow consoles", they just made great games that pushed the envelope in terms of graphics, scale and game design.


4A Games are some of the absolute best in the video game industry. If they say its slow, then it is slow. I mean we all know it is slow, but their word weighs a lot.

Remember, they managed to get the PS4 and Xbox One to run MEtro LL and Redux 2033 at 1080P, 60 fps locked, High settings. They pushed graphics (by a lot) and physics on consoles (and on PC to some extent). So yeah, their words are valid. Calling them whiners especially when they managed to release such beautiful and stable games even on other conslows despite working under such conditions is insulting:
http://www.pcgamer.com/4a-games-working-conditions/
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-15-jason-rubin-metro-last-light-is-the-triumph-of-an-underdog
So yeah


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> 4A Games are some of the absolute best in the video game industry. If they say its slow, then it is slow. I mean we all know it is slow, but their word weighs a lot.
> 
> Remember, they managed to get the PS4 and Xbox One to run MEtro LL and Redux 2033 at 1080P, 60 fps locked, High settings. They pushed graphics (by a lot) and physics on consoles (and on PC to some extent). So yeah, their words are valid. Calling them whiners especially when they managed to release such beautiful and stable games even on other conslows despite working under such conditions is insulting:
> http://www.pcgamer.com/4a-games-working-conditions/
> http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-05-15-jason-rubin-metro-last-light-is-the-triumph-of-an-underdog
> So yeah


I believe it's commonly referred to as crapping on the hand that feeds you. These guys came from nothing and managed to produce something that still sets a benchmark to date. I played the originals, and then I played Redux years later. In fact, I'd consider replaying them again now!


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> I believe it's commonly referred to as crapping on the hand that feeds you. These guys came from nothing and managed to produce something that still sets a benchmark to date. I played the originals, and then I played Redux years later. In fact, I'd consider replaying them again now!


I believe its saying the truth really. They dont really need Nintendo as Nintendo (especially with the Wii U) was in a bad position. Under-powered, bad marketing, bad sales.

In a sense they aint biting the hand that feeds them. But even if they did - I appreciate the honesty. CDPR also displayed how hard it is to develop for consoles as they had several small teams trying to get those versions in a stable and playable position as well as a few months of work (since December, 2014 at least till release).

The " Consoles are easier to develop for" meme is outdated and lacks the context and nuance it actually has.


----------



## The Robot

If all those devs think modern consoles are "hard" then they should've tried to code for a Nintendo 64. 4KB of texture cache is not a joke, even Nintendo's own Zelda runs at 20 fps. Those devs who are good at using async and GPGPU should have no problems with consoles, CDPR just wanted to use old PC techniques and thus had to downgrade their game which still had embarrassing FPS dips.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> If all those devs think modern consoles are "hard" then they should've tried to code for a Nintendo 64. 4KB of texture cache is not a joke, even Nintendo's own Zelda runs at 20 fps. Those devs who are good at using async and GPGPU should have no problems with consoles, CDPR just wanted to use old PC techniques and thus had to downgrade their game which still had embarrassing FPS dips.


They had FPS problems only in Novigrad (CPU limited, nothing can be done, its just too much for a console) and in some foggy areas. All other places they had 29-30 fps locked.

I am pretty sure that 4A would manage just fine on a Nintendo 64. However, Metro 2033 or Last Light are impossible on that hardware. There are certain limits to hardware, boundaries than even the best cant work through. And 4A are some of the best







.

Still, I get your point, but these days developing a AAA or technologically ambitious game for consoles is harder than on PC. An indie or not as demanding title? Sure, PC and consoles will be equally hard/easy and I am in no way calling out those games as bad at all nor am I calling them inferior. Its just what the devs want to do that matters.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I believe its saying the truth really. They dont really need Nintendo as Nintendo (especially with the Wii U) was in a bad position. Under-powered, bad marketing, bad sales.
> 
> In a sense they aint biting the hand that feeds them. But even if they did - I appreciate the honesty. CDPR also displayed how hard it is to develop for consoles as they had several small teams trying to get those versions in a stable and playable position as well as a few months of work (since December, 2014 at least till release).
> 
> The " Consoles are easier to develop for" meme is outdated and lacks the context and nuance it actually has.


If it wasn't obvious (obviously wasn't







), I was talking about the post above yours, in slating 4A Games. Ultimately they are the hand that is feeding us!


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> If it wasn't obvious (obviously wasn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ), I was talking about the post above yours, in slating 4A Games. Ultimately they are the hand that is feeding us!


Ahh sorry mate. It wasnt on purpose, its just something I have heard before against any devs that criticize consoles









Have a good one mate


----------



## Glottis

PC devotees can bash PS4 all they want, but Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted 4 look absolutely incredible on my PS4 Pro. Now let's check PC exclusive game graphics, Dota2, LoL, WoW, CS:GO.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> PC devotees can bash PS4 all they want, but Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted 4 look absolutely incredible on my PS4 Pro. Now let's check PC exclusive game graphics, Dota2, LoL, WoW, CS:GO.


Sometimes I wonder...


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!







Now the truth is, I dont care much for graphics. But the hypocrisy is still funny.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> PC devotees can bash PS4 all they want, but Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted 4 look absolutely incredible on my PS4 Pro. Now let's check PC exclusive game graphics, Dota2, LoL, WoW, CS:GO.


Enjoy those two games. Also, that's a pretty big straw-man. Don't think there was any debating exclusivity.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> Enjoy those two games. Also, that's a pretty big straw-man. Don't think there was any debating exclusivity.


There was. Those two games look good but have AF, LOD and AO issues as well as imperfect shadows and lighting. If you know where to look, you can see where the devs paid the price.

I dont think they are that good games either, but that is largely subjective. Still I dont want them to one day die


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> There was. Those two games look good but have AF, LOD and AO issues as well as imperfect shadows and lighting. If you know where to look, you can see where the devs paid the price.
> 
> I dont think they are that good games either, but that is largely subjective. Still I dont want them to one day die


There's always a lot of trickery, but we know why that is even if the end result is it looks quite nice. Ultimately that trickery takes time, and time is money. Money that in those instances probably comes from the console vendor for the rights to the game lol.

Ultimately, if there was enough money invested nobody can argue that games would look a hundred times better if built around a modern gaming PC. That's the point they're making, and it's a valid one.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> There's always a lot of trickery, but we know why that is even if the end result is it looks quite nice. Ultimately that trickery takes time, and time is money. Money that in those instances probably comes from the console vendor for the rights to the game lol.
> 
> Ultimately, if there was enough money invested nobody can argue that games would look a hundred times better if built around a modern gaming PC. That's the point they're making, and it's a valid one.


However to a person that actually knows where and what to look for, they dont impress.

Instead of vapid general good looks (and faltering in all the details) developers should go and advance physics or AI or something. Their somewhat generally good looking games are neither the new Crysis nor a gameplay/story revolution. Crysis was a good game to boot as well


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Silent Scone*
> 
> There's always a lot of trickery, but we know why that is even if the end result is it looks quite nice. Ultimately that trickery takes time, and time is money. Money that in those instances probably comes from the console vendor for the rights to the game lol.
> 
> Ultimately, if there was enough money invested nobody can argue that *games would look a hundred times better* if built around a modern gaming PC. That's the point they're making, and it's a valid one.


Are you sure it's just 100 times and not 103 times?







Also, no one is stopping anyone from building a game around a modern gaming PC, heck, people actually gone and did that, crazy, isn't it? And these PC only games don't look 100 or 57 or 43 or 11 times better...


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> Are you sure it's just 100 times and not 103 times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, no one is stopping anyone from building a game around a modern gaming PC, heck, people actually gone and did that, crazy, isn't it? And these PC only games don't look 100 or 57 or 43 or 11 times better...


Well...
2007's Crysis and 2008's STALKER Clear Sky looked far better than any PS3 or X360 game. Like a generation ahead in all but VA and animation (where money can to some extent trump or compensate talent or power) with AI that is still unmatched and better physics than even most current gen games (even on PC). I mean ...

When PC devs do use it and they use this power on an easy to compare genre (RTS/RTT/Tycoon can look amazing, but the scale is where most power goes to use) it shows.


----------



## Silent Scone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> Are you sure it's just 100 times and not 103 times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, no one is stopping anyone from building a game around a modern gaming PC, heck, people actually gone and did that, crazy, isn't it? And these PC only games don't look 100 or 57 or 43 or 11 times better...


Care to name these games? There's isn't a big enough market for developers to do this. So no, it hasn't been done (at least anything that has come to market). In terms of raw processing, either you're refusing to understand just how powerful NVIDIA Pascal is for instance, or you simply don't.

It hasn't been done. Please stop with the straw man, also. Doesn't matter if it's 100 or 111. It's figurative, a bit like your actually gone and did that example.


----------



## Megaman_90

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> Are you sure it's just 100 times and not 103 times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, no one is stopping anyone from building a game around a modern gaming PC, heck, people actually gone and did that, crazy, isn't it? And these PC only games don't look 100 or 57 or 43 or 11 times better...


The problem is the engines that most devs use are throttled by consoles. Building your own engine is a massive undertaking.


----------



## Xevv

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Megaman_90*
> 
> The problem is the engines that most devs use are throttled by consoles. Building your own engine is a massive undertaking.


And anyone going to the effort and cost of building said engine sure isnt going to limit themselves to a very small portion of possible users.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Well...
> 2007's Crysis and 2008's STALKER Clear Sky looked far better than any PS3 or X360 game. Like a generation ahead in all but VA and animation (where money can to some extent trump or compensate talent or power) with AI that is still unmatched and better physics than even most current gen games (even on PC). I mean ...
> 
> When PC devs do use it and they use this power on an easy to compare genre (RTS/RTT/Tycoon can look amazing, but the scale is where most power goes to use) it shows.


Sure you can take a tech demo and make it a game. You could not run Crysis at lunch even with the best GPU of the generation. It took years before you could play it with high fps.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> PC devotees can bash PS4 all they want, but Horizon Zero Dawn and Uncharted 4 look absolutely incredible on my PS4 Pro. Now let's check PC exclusive game graphics, Dota2, LoL, WoW, CS:GO.


Some games are designed to be graphics showcases, others aren't. Those PC exclusives obviously aren't.

Star Wars: Battlefront and Battlefield 1 on PC have better overall graphics quality than every other game right now, although both of these along with the two games you listed have some very obvious shortcomings as well to the point where many 2000s PC games beat them in some important areas like number of dynamic lights and shadows, particle effects, fluid physics and perhaps other areas of physics as well.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Sure you can take a tech demo and make it a game. You could not run Crysis at lunch even with the best GPU of the generation. It took years before you could play it with high fps.


Oh please. I ran it on a 9550 Radeon at Low settings and still had fun. It is a great game. Less of a tech demo and more of a game than TLOU...

And STALKER, even Clear Sky (which was buggy as sin) are anything but a tech demo. Calling them that is an insult to gaming.

Not that even tech demos cant be good. Serious Sam STARTED as a tech demo and turned into a game. Penumbra was a tech demo, the same team gave us Overture, Amnesia and SOMA after that due to their demo's success.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Oh please. I ran it on a 9550 Radeon at Low settings and still had fun. It is a great game. Less of a tech demo and more of a game than TLOU...
> 
> And STALKER, even Clear Sky (which was buggy as sin) are anything but a tech demo. Calling them that is an insult to gaming.
> 
> Not that even tech demos cant be good. Serious Sam STARTED as a tech demo and turned into a game. Penumbra was a tech demo, the same team gave us Overture, Amnesia and SOMA after that due to their demo's success.


Lol. You make no sense. You say Crysis was this great looking games and then you say you played it on Low setting.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Lol. You make no sense. You say Crysis was this great looking games and then you say you played it on Low setting.


Makes plenty of sense. Crysis was the best looking game in every area except for facial animations and water physics (both bested by Source). The fact that it also has lower graphics settings which he played on doesn't affect that.

The point he was making is that Crysis was never just a tech demo and that such claims are misleading, insulting the efforts of the developers since they actually made both a competent single player game and competent multiplayer (one of the best in class in each really). So much good work was put into its mechanics (for which it has more than most other shooters with outstanding fluidity), multiplayer, modding capability/user friendliness, and more. And it uses its advanced technology (especially physics) to benefit the gameplay, unlike a tech demo.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Lol. You make no sense. You say Crysis was this great looking games and then you say you played it on Low setting.


it was literally the best looking game for me at the time, even at Low.

Crysis 1 Low settings > many other game's medium or even high settings.

Also all that Boredgunner said is 100% valid


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> it was literally the best looking game for me at the time, even at Low.
> 
> Crysis 1 Low settings > many other game's medium or even high settings.
> 
> Also all that Boredgunner said is 100% valid


That is just false. Crysis in low looks terrible. I liked the game but after playing it one it was only used as a benchmark.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> That is just false. Crysis in low looks terrible. I liked the game but after playing it one it was only used as a benchmark.


Agreed. Crysis on Low looks absolutely atrocious. Hell, it looked atrocious in 2007 when it was released.


----------



## JTHMfreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> I remember them, they complained about Wii U's CPU being "slow". Maybe those whiners should just learn to code.
> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-22-thq-clarifies-wii-u-horrible-slow-cpu-claim-but-developer-concern-remains
> What's with all the entitled developers nowadays? In the PS2/PS3 era nobody complained about "slow consoles", they just made great games that pushed the envelope in terms of graphics, scale and game design.


I feel like pc gaming wasn't as big back then, heck gaming in general has exploded since ps2.
I think the problem is in the shareholders. You have companies such as EA that in the past are used to turning quick reliable profits (who here remembers EA Sports?).
Those sports games never really needed a whole lot of development, just update the rosters/stats, and you have a game every year.
EA started buying up and investing in other companies and the rich men just want to see how fast their investment turns a quick buck.
This leads to not just making the consoles the main focus, but also broken games needing tons of updates.
I think the biggest issue I can remember from pre-ps3 days was if a game froze. There weren't any updates or patches, you couldn't get them anyways. Games had to just work. As soon as companies figured they could remotely fix a product it Went downhill. Companies are also far more interested in piracy than giving a good product. If the product was good there would be less piracy.
In all the time I have put into witcher 3 I have enjoyed not only some beautiful visuals, but only one broken quest, which wasn't too much of an issue since there was plenty of other stuff to do anyways. And, this is even coming from a fairly young company. CDPR listens to consumers, does everything they can to make them happy, no DRM even.


----------



## oxidized

This is what atrocious looks like https://youtu.be/i5gEnkj3vA8?t=35 please people...









10 years old game


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> This is what atrocious looks like https://youtu.be/i5gEnkj3vA8?t=35 please people...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 years old game


Try the actual setting a Radeon 9550 could play this game at... low @ 1024x768.


----------



## boredgunner

Crysis on low looked like most other PC games on low settings at the time. On medium settings it looked better than many games at the time maxed out, well above average. High settings annihilated everything in the ways I described in my previous post, as did very high. Not that this is relevant to the discussion.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Try the actual setting a Radeon 9550 could play this game at... low @ 1024x768.


I played it at low settings 1024 x 768 for more than a year probably. One of the better gaming years in my life, since most genres were better at the time especially multiplayer games (and communities, there seemed to be far less children). Crysis was my most played game during that time too, graphics fidelity is just a bonus for the most part, higher settings almost never affects gameplay and never affects writing. Although it actually affected gameplay in Crysis lol, most physics including all destruction effects were disabled.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> You know, if you are an engineer or scientist and some hobbyist (at best) comes to argue, you ignore them. Sorry, but it is how it is in the real world.
> 
> Also, in school people are taught that there is a limit to subjectivity. Even in art. And that people are not entitled to their opinions, as they arent entitled to ignorance. If people state it, they should be able to defend it.
> 
> But I guess I am just from a rougher place and we are stronger and less pampered and better at math /s


You really are clueless aren't you? "Engineers and scientists" are dealing with provable, objective facts. Your suppositions about how consoles damage the "art form" of gaming are simply subjective opinions which are not provable (because they are based not on actual data but on your own personal biases and feelings) and are a completely different matter entirely. The fact that you fail to understand that is what rings so absolutely illogical to me.

And another thing, please enlighten me as to how your superior math skills allow you to prove objectively that consoles are useless and have damaged the gaming industry? Do you have an equation for that hypothesis?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> *Well...
> 2007's Crysis and 2008's STALKER Clear Sky looked far better than any PS3 or X360 game.* Like a generation ahead in all but VA and animation (where money can to some extent trump or compensate talent or power) with AI that is still unmatched and better physics than even most current gen games (even on PC). I mean ...
> 
> When PC devs do use it and they use this power on an easy to compare genre (RTS/RTT/Tycoon can look amazing, but the scale is where most power goes to use) it shows.


Well...

Hardly anyone was able to run Crysis on Very High back when it came out, thus the "Can it play Crysis?" meme so that's really kind of irrelevant. The PS3 and 360 were actually far more powerful compared to their era of average PC hardware than the current consoles are. Meanwhile, PC gaming was no where near as popular as it is now, yet a PC-exclusive game like Crysis was still developed. How'd that happen?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> This is what atrocious looks like https://youtu.be/i5gEnkj3vA8?t=35 please people...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 10 years old game


I think the point was that it looks atrocious compared to Crysis on Very High. Crysis on Low doesn't really look any better than COD 2 did on PS3. Crysis on Ultra still looks good enough to be a modern game today, ten years later.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I think the point was that it looks atrocious compared to Crysis on Very High. Crysis on Low doesn't really look any better than COD 2 did on PS3. Crysis on Ultra still looks good enough to be a modern game today, ten years later.


I think HD 5850 was the first card I could play Crysis properly at 1680x1050. That was almost 3 years after the game came out.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Exactly right. Heck, my 580L that I got in 2011 still struggled with that game on Very High four years after its release. My point was that its disingenuous to point out how much better Crysis looked than any console game when hardly anybody could actually play it on PC at the time.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Exactly right. Heck, my 580L that I got in 2011 still struggled with that game on Very High four years after its release. My point was that its disingenuous to point out how much better Crysis looked than any console game when hardly anybody could actually play it on PC at the time.


3 x 8800 Ultra in SLI baby.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Exactly right. Heck, my 580L that I got in 2011 still struggled with that game on Very High four years after its release. My point was that its disingenuous to point out how much better Crysis looked than any console game when hardly anybody could actually play it on PC at the time.


Depends what's playable to you.

Remember that the 360/PS3 experience was *sub* 720P with framerates in the 20's in demanding titles.. Your context of what is or isn't playable should be compared to the standard of those consoles.

Very High was brutal, absolutely. But if the standard is ~30fps and only about *graphics quality* (which was the original point I think), then even on very high more cards than you guys are leading to believe were capable of it.

Not sure why the discussion moved to Very High if the goal is to get a better looking game than the 360/PS3 though.. Medium should achieve that, and High would crush them..

Edit: Dug up some ancient benches.









Even in 07/08 it was *possible* I guess..





But even those aren't apples to apples, the resolution is higher than the consoles. In any case Very High is pretty unreasonable in those days, high was amazing when I saw it for the first time.

To me Very High/Ultra back then was to replay a game with a new toy in a few years, now ultra can be achieved on day one if you have the cash, and you maybe get a 5% boost in image quality if you're lucky..


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> That is just false. Crysis in low looks terrible. I liked the game but after playing it one it was only used as a benchmark.


Well I wasnt able to play any games on high. So Crysis's Low > other game's low. It was the best looking game up until then for me.
I guess context is hard (and this one is obvious context







)









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Try the actual setting a Radeon 9550 could play this game at... low @ 1024x768.


Pretty much. Though I used a lower rest. This is better than HL2 EP2 low. Literally the best looking game for me that I have played on *my hardware at the time.*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> You really are clueless aren't you? "Engineers and scientists" are dealing with provable, objective facts. Your suppositions about how consoles damage the "art form" of gaming are simply subjective opinions which are not provable (because they are based not on actual data but on your own personal biases and feelings) and are a completely different matter entirely. The fact that you fail to understand that is what rings so absolutely illogical to me.
> 
> And another thing, please enlighten me as to how your superior math skills allow you to prove objectively that consoles are useless and have damaged the gaming industry? Do you have an equation for that hypothesis?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well...
> 
> Hardly anyone was able to run Crysis on Very High back when it came out, thus the "Can it play Crysis?" meme so that's really kind of irrelevant. The PS3 and 360 were actually far more powerful compared to their era of average PC hardware than the current consoles are. Meanwhile, PC gaming was no where near as popular as it is now, yet a PC-exclusive game like Crysis was still developed. How'd that happen?


There is a limit to subjectivity in art. Not all of it is subjective.
Dude the other console gamer here actually believes consoles are immortal and will outlast all other inventions humanity has ever made. He also knows zero about modding. I mean why should I take his opinion as anything even approaching my own in sanity?
We already talked about how consoles harm gaming long term. Your nostalgia for them will have you defending them to the ends of the earth. My childhood also had a console, why do I call them useless still?

By 2008 and 2009 many PCs were capable of playing Crysis at 720P, Ultra, 30 fps. The fact that few people would actually be able to see the game in 2007 at Ultra is irrelevant as that wasnt my point. Crysis doesnt need to be on Ultra, a mixture of high and ultra is enough to trump all the games ever on the PS3 and X360.

Look on the bright side though. All it took to obliterate the combined talent of all console developers on the PS3 and X360 were some drunken Ukrainians without a QC department and a budget of 10 liters of vodka and a Lada.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I think HD 5850 was the first card I could play Crysis properly at 1680x1050. That was almost 3 years after the game came out.


Less than 2 years*
Consoles didnt do 1680x1050 back then. They were 720P or less and sub-30 fps.


----------



## Glottis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Some games are designed to be graphics showcases, others aren't. Those PC exclusives obviously aren't.
> 
> Star Wars: Battlefront and Battlefield 1 on PC have better overall graphics quality than every other game right now, although both of these along with the two games you listed have some very obvious shortcomings as well to the point where many 2000s PC games beat them in some important areas like number of dynamic lights and shadows, particle effects, fluid physics and perhaps other areas of physics as well.


Meh. Theres hardy any real difference between PC and console versions in most multiplatform games, especially when compared against PS4 Pro and the upcomming XBX. Usually you need to flick between two uncompressed screenshots to notice slightly better shadows or draw distance in PC version. It's crazy when you consider that PC can cost 3-5 times as much as consoles.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> Meh. Theres hardy any real difference between PC and console versions in most multiplatform games, especially when compared against PS4 Pro and the upcomming XBX. Usually you need to flick between two uncompressed screenshots to notice slightly better shadows or draw distance in PC version. It's crazy when you consider that PC can cost 3-5 times as much as consoles.


Well all you need to crush a PS4 Pro, is a G460 and an RX 570 (which I know isnt sold at MSRP right now, miners did it) . That is what you need to beat the PS4 Pro.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> Meh. Theres hardy any real difference between PC and console versions in most multiplatform games, especially when compared against PS4 Pro and the upcomming XBX. Usually you need to flick between two uncompressed screenshots to notice slightly better shadows or draw distance in PC version. *It's crazy when you consider that PC can cost 3-5 times as much as consoles*.


A $1200 - $2000 PC isn't limited to med-high settings, 1440P ckeckerboarding, and ~30fps..


----------



## epic1337

"Playstation 4 is like a 5 Year Old PC Holding Back Game Dev says A Way Out Creator"

ummm, stop comparing consoles to PCs and concentrate on making your engines efficient instead?
relying on hardware upgrades to make your games prettier is simply counter productive.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> "Playstation 4 is like a 5 Year Old PC Holding Back Game Dev says A Way Out Creator"
> 
> ummm, stop comparing consoles to PCs and concentrate on making your engines efficient instead?
> relying on hardware upgrades to make your games prettier is simply counter productive.


There is a limit to technology. So critiquing the consoles is valid.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Try the actual setting a Radeon 9550 could play this game at... low @ 1024x768.


We're talking about 2007, it looked good enough for back then. I remember playing it decently smooth with medium settings at 1440x900 with a 8800GTS G92 + E8500

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I think the point was that it looks atrocious compared to Crysis on Very High. Crysis on Low doesn't really look any better than COD 2 did on PS3. Crysis on Ultra still looks good enough to be a modern game today, ten years later.


Agreed, the difference is huge, but it makes more sense like this compared what we have today, since this actually could make you play it in case you had a low end pc, now, often, lowering everything isn't even enough, but games are much closer to highest settings compared to before in terms of look at least.


----------



## Megaman_90

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Sure you can take a tech demo and make it a game. You could not run Crysis *at lunch* even with the best GPU of the generation. It took years before you could play it with high fps.


What about running it at breakfast or dinner? Crysis wasn't optimized for lunch which is normally cold meals or sandwiches. It worked well for dinner though and cooking hot meals on your PCs GPU.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I mean why should I take his opinion as anything even approaching my own in sanity?.


That's not what i said,by the way,way to talk when you post stuff like this:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> A console isnt convenience, its punishment. Since it isnt equal to a PC, it cant be convenient.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I had some expectations that I aint talking to Joe average that can barely tie their shoelaces by themselves.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> That's not what i said,by the way,way to talk when you post stuff like this:


Its what I understood. You think consoles will outlast humanity's accomplishments and fail to address long term problems. Either express yourself better or concede.

A console isnt convenient. Slow load times, slow to use UI, slow to update, costs money to use online, cant do any work (only plays a tiny ammount of games), often has no settings or tweaks... I dont see the convenience. The machine is even harder to use than a PC due to its UI design and control scheme. Sure MAYBE first time investment for a console is smaller, but long term it costs more. Sure, it has 10 exclusives, but it either has limited or no backwards compatibility.

And BTW some of the mods you mock > your AAA exclusives.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Slow load times, slow to use UI, slow to update, costs money to use online, cant do any work (only plays a tiny ammount of games), often has no settings or tweaks... I dont see the convenience.


isn't this all software issues?
even "can't do any work" is pretty much a software issue as it hadn't been ported or optimized well enough.

its just like the iOS vs Android comparison.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> isn't this all software issues?
> even "can't do any work" is pretty much a software issue as it hadn't been ported or optimized well enough.
> 
> its just like the iOS vs Android comparison.


Technically speaking, since consoles are literally a normal X86-64 PC (well OK, Xbone has some EDRAM and PS4 uses GDDR5 as system memory but both aint a big deal) ... yeah. It is a software issues.

But its one that wont be solved. Because if one would be able to install another OS on these things, they'd be PCs.

As for the slow loading no. Its 5400 RPM HDD + Slow CPU. That is the reason.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> As for the slow loading no. Its 5400 RPM HDD + Slow CPU. That is the reason.


no thats still a software issue, if you used the large RAM pool to buffer every relevant thing, on top of trimming all that junk and reducing all those generic operations, then it wouldn't be loading as slow as it does.

take the other games for example, why do they load just fine on the same hardware?

and on a side note, 5400rpm HDDs are hardly slow, they could consistently push 80MB/s on sequential load, and peaks at a good 120MB/s on a fully buffered access.
someone even did a review comparing 7200rpm to SSDs on a PS3, hardly a big difference considering how fast SSDs are.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> no thats still a software issue, if you used the large RAM pool to buffer every relevant thing, on top of trimming all that junk and reducing all those generic operations, then it wouldn't be loading as slow as it does.
> 
> take the other games for example, why do they load just fine on the same hardware?


Which other games? All games we can compare load a lot slower on a console than on a PC, even a modest one with a Pentium and a 7200 RPM HDD. Sure some very light games where loading is fast exist, but those are easy to load by design









What large RAM pool? The current consoles have 8GB out of which 1 is for the OS and 7 are split for VRAM and RAM. They dont have that much RAM and you still need to GET stuff into the RAM/VRAM in the first place...


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Which other games? All games we can compare load a lot slower on a console than on a PC, even a modest one with a Pentium and a 7200 RPM HDD. Sure some very light games where loading is fast exist, but those are easy to load by design




besides destiny, everything else hardly benefited from an SSD.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> What large RAM pool? The current consoles have 8GB out of which 1 is for the OS and 7 are split for VRAM and RAM. They dont have that much RAM and you still need to GET stuff into the RAM/VRAM in the first place...


how big would a chunk of the initial load needed to be pre-cached? it doesn't even need 8GB.
you aren't pre-loading the entire game folder, you're pre-loading just the next scene.

furthermore, the data being accessed on VRAM and DRAM are mostly redundant.
in fact the GPU needs to send back a copy of the things inside it's VRAM to the DRAM every time it finishes it's computation task.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> 
> how big would a chunk of the initial load needed to be pre-cached? it doesn't even need 8GB.
> you aren't pre-loading the entire game folder, you're pre-loading just the next scene.
> 
> furthermore, the data being accessed on VRAM and DRAM are mostly redundant.
> in fact the GPU needs to send back a copy of the things inside it's VRAM to the DRAM every time it finishes it's computation task.


From what you sent me it seems different games have different needs. And damn the consoles need a better CPU!

I was hoping that Xbox One X would have a Ryzen CPU inside it of some sorts but alas its still Jaguar (albeit a modified one, so it will be a tad better but not by much)


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> From what you sent me it seems different games have different needs.


thats exactly the point, the games which requires vastly higher specs to even remotely reach the other game's load speed is simply poorly optimized.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> thats exactly the point, the games which requires vastly higher specs to even remotely reach the other game's load speed is simply poorly optimized.


Occam's Razor makes me think its just the consoles being the problem.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Occam's Razor makes me think its just the consoles being the problem.


why? its not even an assumption, even if you do the same comparison on a desktop rig the differences in loading speed between, say, need for speed and sleeping dogs would be the same.
simply put, games like those are poorly optimized, thats why they load so slowly.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> why? its not even an assumption, even if you do the same comparison on a desktop rig the differences in loading speed between, say, need for speed and sleeping dogs would be the same.
> simply put, games like those are poorly optimized, thats why they load so slowly.


Because its a pathetic CPU paired with a terrible HDD? I mean its easy to directly go there.

So basically consoles are so easy to program for that only 2-3 developers can even get decent loading times on them ? And even then it takes 42 seconds on a base PS4 to load a UC4 level









Either that or I can whine to developers that games load slowly (fairly, still faster than a PS4) on my hard disk?


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Because its a pathetic CPU paired with a terrible HDD? I mean its easy to directly go there.
> 
> So basically consoles are so easy to program for that only 2-3 developers can even get decent loading times on them ? And even then it takes 42 seconds on a base PS4 to load a UC4 level
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either that or I can whine to developers that games load slowly (fairly, still faster than a PS4) on my hard disk?


no? how would that be any different from a "poorly optimized software"?

no, the games themselves weren't designed to run great, they just kept stuffing it with whats on their hand, and hiring an exceptionally skilled programmer is out of their budget.
otherwise there wouldn't be much loading difference between driveclub, need for speed, and the crew, yes they're all the same category of game, graphically similar as well.

yes you can whine to the developers by saying "please optimize your games properly".


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> no? how would that be any different from a "poorly optimized software"?
> 
> no, the games themselves weren't designed to run great, they just kept stuffing it with whats on their hand, and hiring an exceptionally skilled programmer is out of their budget.
> otherwise there wouldn't be much loading difference between driveclub, need for speed, and the crew, yes they're all the same category of game, graphically similar as well.
> 
> yes you can whine to the developers by saying "please optimize your games properly".


Software can be fixed or worked around without costing too much time and/or resources. Also, as long as the hardware aint the limit, possibilities ain't with an end in sight.

Why do you think they are the same type of game? Do they have the same geometric complexity? Background detail? Music and/or audio assets and cues? Animation detail? Same size of tracks? Many more variables I cant talk about because I dont play many racing games these days... just too many variables man.

Listen. Some things are just impossible when you dont have the hardware.No level of software wizardry will be enough, no level of passion or budget can manage if the hardware is the hard limit. I aint saying more cant be done, I am sure it can, but a PS4 will always load slowly compared to even an OK made PC game. Its hard disk is antiquated and its CPU is pretty bad. In fact I am surprised games dont load EVEN slower.

Is Naughty Dog the height of console exclusive optimization? Because 42 second to load a linear vehicle section is not amazingly fast either.


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Software can be fixed or worked around without costing too much time and/or resources.


could you tell the linux devs to make windows games work on their OS, please?
you can even start a kick-starter campaign and earn millions if you manage to get the linux devs to make it happen.

hell, i'd bet the masses would call you Lord-Gaben Lord-Charcharo if you do make it happen.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Why do you think they are the same type of game? Do they have the same geometric complexity? Background detail? Music and/or audio assets and cues? Animation detail? Same size of tracks? Many more variables I cant talk about because I dont play many racing games these days... just too many variables man.


according to some reviewers driveclub has the 2nd best graphics and audio, 1st being project cars.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> 
> could you tell the linux devs to make windows games work on their OS, please?
> you can even start a kick-starter campaign and earn millions if you manage to get the linux devs to make it happen.
> 
> hell, i'd bet the masses would call you lord-gaben if you do make it happen.


I can tell them if you wish.








If you guys want to give me *tens* of *billions* of dollars, I promise I will not run away and change my name as I go into hiding with my money on a private volcanic island get all games on Linux. All of them. Anyone from MS or Apple that threatens my operation will wake up with their family tied to a tree in Siberia and used as target practice by my PMC will be convinced that the good of gaming requires my methods.

Though Nintendo and Sony wont like what will happen to them if I had that much money







!

Also, semi-jokes aside, hardware problems cant be defeated without better hardware or absurd levels of engineering (and even that to a point). Software ones are easier to deal with. Consoles have anemic CPUs and HDDs, so chances are high those are the issue.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Depends what's playable to you.
> 
> Remember that the 360/PS3 experience was *sub* 720P with framerates in the 20's in demanding titles.. Your context of what is or isn't playable should be compared to the standard of those consoles.
> 
> Very High was brutal, absolutely. But if the standard is ~30fps and only about *graphics quality* (which was the original point I think), then even on very high more cards than you guys are leading to believe were capable of it.
> 
> Not sure why the discussion moved to Very High if the goal is to get a better looking game than the 360/PS3 though.. Medium should achieve that, and High would crush them..
> 
> Edit: Dug up some ancient benches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even in 07/08 it was *possible* I guess..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But even those aren't apples to apples, the resolution is higher than the consoles. In any case Very High is pretty unreasonable in those days, high was amazing when I saw it for the first time.
> 
> To me Very High/Ultra back then was to replay a game with a new toy in a few years, now ultra can be achieved on day one if you have the cash, and you maybe get a 5% boost in image quality if you're lucky..


This is all bringing back some powerful nostalgia for me. But you are spot on again, during those times 60 FPS was rather uncommon in cutting edge games (not just Crysis), 30 FPS was much more accepted by PC gamers back then. People were very satisfied with what a single 8800GTX could do at a mix of high/very high at 1680 x 1050 in Crysis.

Nowadays the hardware has surpassed the games, 60 FPS is easy on PC and PC gamers are less accepting of 30 FPS. Also, there was nothing bad about Crysis being technologically ahead of its time since it was super scalable and used that tech in a way that greatly improved the game.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Glottis*
> 
> Meh. Theres hardy any real difference between PC and console versions in most multiplatform games, especially when compared against PS4 Pro and the upcomming XBX. Usually you need to flick between two uncompressed screenshots to notice slightly better shadows or draw distance in PC version. It's crazy when you consider that PC can cost 3-5 times as much as consoles.


I would say you're exaggerating. Just using 2015-2017 AAA games as examples, huge differences in the following games:



Fallout 4 - MASSIVE performance drops on console versions and very noticeable graphics improvement on PC ultra (shadows and AA mostly).
Star Wars: Battlefront - Huge difference in visual quality and PC performance is amazing.
Battlefield 1 - Huge difference in visual quality and PC performance is amazing.
Gears of War 4 - No idea how it looks on consoles but PC performance is amazing.
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided - Very noticeable graphics improvement on PC, not sure if it's a 30 FPS console title.
Mass Effect: Andromeda - Huge difference in graphics quality, not sure if it's a 30 FPS console title.
Prey - Excellent PC performance.
Can't speak for The Witcher 3.


----------



## JTHMfreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Megaman_90*
> 
> What about running it at breakfast or dinner? Crysis wasn't optimized for lunch which is normally cold meals or sandwiches. It worked well for dinner though and cooking hot meals on your PCs GPU.


You sir, you have made my day. That was brilliant, few things have made me laugh like that.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Its what I understood. You think consoles will outlast humanity's accomplishments and fail to address long term problems.


Which long term problems? All consoles up to Wii have been emulated and their games backed up. PS3/X360 is just a matter of time,same for PS4,Xbox One and Wii U.


----------



## rcfc89

I keep hearing this $400-$500 dollar PC argument comparing it to a PS4 Pro. This is hilarious at best. Optimization is what closes the gap for console. Look at my RIg I recently sold to switch to console. The difference is minimal at best graphically. The frames were higher yes but graphically not as wide as you would expect. For me to jump back into PC would take a hell a lot more then a $500 PC that would honestly get smashed by a PS4 Pro or upcoming Scorpio. It would cost at least $2200 to sway me back in. 7700k, 32gb 3000mhz ram, 1080Ti, 500gb SSD. A far cry from the $500 people on here are claiming who have neither played on a PS4 Pro or ever had a high-end PC to compare the two like I have. Simply not worth it to me even though I could easily afford it.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Which long term problems? All consoles up to Wii have been emulated and their games backed up. PS3/X360 is just a matter of time,same for PS4,Xbox One and Wii U.


According to you conslows have zero issues and are sunshine and rainbows and improve gaming greatly or something. We spent several pages explaining it to you... and you still dont know it.

English is my third language, but the communication issue here ain't on me.

Good luck emulating X86-64. I mean I hope you are right, if that happens I win as well. I will be able to watch your shallow Uncharted movies play PS4 exclusives in the way God intended and our children wont look down on us thinking we were just all a bunch of egotistical shallow fools... but I cant be sure.

We shall see though. Consoles make no sense but I guess Americans and their silly nostalgia and illusion of lower costs and hate for modding can make sense to someone.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> I keep hearing this $400-$500 dollar PC argument comparing it to a PS4 Pro. This is hilarious at best. Optimization is what closes the gap for console. Look at my RIg I recently sold to switch to console. The difference is minimal at best graphically. The frames were higher yes but graphically not as wide as you would expect. For me to jump back into PC would take a hell a lot more then a $500 PC that would honestly get smashed by a PS4 Pro or upcoming Scorpio. It would cost at least $2200 to sway me back in. 7700k, 32gb 3000mhz ram, 1080Ti, 500gb SSD. A far cry from the $500 people on here are claiming who have neither played on a PS4 Pro or ever had a high-end PC to compare the two like I have. Simply not worth it to me even though I could easily afford it.


RX 470 beats the PS4 Pro.
Console optimization is a lie. The HD 7870 still beats the PS4. Even a Gimped Kepler GTX 760 can beat a PS4 and it does in almost all scenarios.

The Xbox One X would be around AIB OCed RX 580 level. A GTX 1080 Ti dances on it.

The Pentium G4560 is superior to all the console CPUs currently in use...

*Also Ryzen is better


----------



## Megaman_90

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JTHMfreak*
> 
> You sir, you have made my day. That was brilliant, few things have made me laugh like that.











Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> I keep hearing this $400-$500 dollar PC argument comparing it to a PS4 Pro. This is hilarious at best. Optimization is what closes the gap for console. Look at my RIg I recently sold to switch to console. The difference is minimal at best graphically. The frames were higher yes but graphically not as wide as you would expect. For me to jump back into PC would take a hell a lot more then a $500 PC that would honestly get smashed by a PS4 Pro or upcoming Scorpio. It would cost at least $2200 to sway me back in. 7700k, 32gb 3000mhz ram, 1080Ti, 500gb SSD. A far cry from the $500 people on here are claiming who have neither played on a PS4 Pro or ever had a high-end PC to compare the two like I have. Simply not worth it to me even though I could easily afford it.


Higher frames is generally why most people play on PC. Consoles are 30FPS at best. If you spend your money right a 500-700$ PC is plenty capable.

I've never heard of anyone ditching a mid-range PC and becoming a console gamer out of choice. You sir are an enigma.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> According to you conslows have zero issues and are sunshine and rainbows and improve gaming greatly or something. We spent several pages explaining it to you... and you still dont know it.
> 
> The Pentium G4560 is superior to all the console CPUs currently in use...
> 
> *Also Ryzen is better


It's seems you are the issue...they are fine for what they cost. Have you forgotten the price? 250 dollars/250 EUR.

lol suggesting a build with a dual core in 2017. Proof that a G4560 is superior to a eight core CPU? Maybe in single thread games,but what game runs on a single core in 2017¿?


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> It's seems you are the issue...they are fine for what they cost. Have you forgotten the price? 250 dollars/250 EUR.
> 
> lol suggesting a build with a dual core in 2017. Proof that a G4560 is superior to a eight core CPU? Maybe in single thread games,but what game runs on a single core in 2017¿?


It can actually reach 60 fps







. Seriously, even a FX 6300 is superior to the PS4 Pro CPU and the Pentium beats the FX in games...

I mean seriously, I understand looking down on the G4560, but for its price its amazing and performs really well if all you are doing is games. For 60 euro you cant do better (unless you go second hand, which I admit might be an even better choice!).

Its better in all games BTW. Its 2c/4t and had over twice the IPC and higher clocks to Jaguar... this isnt a fair fight.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> It can actually reach 60 fps
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Seriously, even a FX 6300 is superior to the PS4 Pro CPU and the Pentium beats the FX in games...
> 
> I mean seriously, I understand looking down on the G4560, but for its price its amazing and performs really well if all you are doing is games. For 60 euro you cant do better (unless you go second hand, which I admit might be an even better choice!).
> 
> Its better in all games BTW. Its 2c/4t and had over twice the IPC and higher clocks to Jaguar... this isnt a fair fight.


I don't see the benchmarks....come on you claim things,must have seen it somewhere or you had a relevation?

I have three games that run at 60 fps on the ps4,the point being?

A FX 6300 is a discrete CPU,no wonder it's superior. Doubt the pentium is better when multithreading matters


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> I don't see the benchmarks....come on you claim things,must have seen it somewhere or you had a relevation?
> 
> I have three games that run at 60 fps on the ps4,the point being?
> 
> A FX 6300 is a discrete CPU,no wonder it's superior. Doubt the pentium is better when multithreading matters


You have 3 games that can run at 60 fps on Low-medium settings on your console. That is cute. The G4560 can at least get to 60 in pretty much any game*













*Except some RTS/RTT games but you hate those anyway so its not a big deal.


----------



## TB13

Console hardware has been a disease, plaguing the gaming industry for years due the the incredibly slow hardware. Finally we are seeing the rise of X86 based consoles which is great, but the hardware still isn't even in the same league as the hardware most PC gamers are running today.

With that said, 5 years old PC hardware is much more powerful than a PS4. In 2010 PC hardware was far superior to what Sony released in 2013.

I'm still rocking an LGA1366 system, a platform released in 2008, paired with an Xeon X5670 which was released in 2010. I had this paired with a GTX 780, released in 2013, and it was capable of playing most modern titles at 1080P with all setting on high easily around the 60FPS sweet spot. The PS4 was released after this GPU in 2013 and a whooping 5 years after the birth of the LGA1366 platform.

I am still running that same old Xeon with a 980Ti now and this setup is and will continue to be more powerful than new consoles that are released.

Now I know price is what drives most to purchase consoles, but when you look at used hardware, you can get a few generation old setup for around the cost of a console and get more performance with the ability to upgrade in the future. With the way Intel IPC gains have been to the past decade, a 1st, 2nd or 3rd i5/i7 is still completely relevant and capable of driving a current gen GPU.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> You have 3 games that can run at 60 fps on Low-medium settings on your console. That is cute. The G4560 can at least get to 60 in pretty much any game*
> 
> *Except some RTS/RTT games but you hate those anyway so its not a big deal.


Fallout 4,Watch Dogs 2,Hitman,Rise Of The Tomb Raider,Forza Horizon 3. Games that come to mind on wich the pentium can't hold 60 fps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TB13*
> 
> With that said, 5 years old PC hardware is much more powerful than a PS4. In 2010 PC hardware was far superior to what Sony released in 2013.
> .


Maybe CPU's,the 7850 that is the gpu the PS4 has is faster than the 5870/6970.

Seriously doubt you can buy a better thing with 250$. A GPU like a 7850 or 960 costs minimum 100$ used and you have left 150$ for cpu ram psu and the rest.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Fallout 4,Watch Dogs 2,Hitman,Rise Of The Tomb Raider,Forza Horizon 3. Games that come to mind on wich the pentium can't hold 60 fps
> Maybe CPU's,the 7850 that is the gpu the PS4 has is faster than the 5870/6970.
> 
> Seriously doubt you can buy a better thing with 250$. A GPU like a 7850 or 960 costs minimum 100$ used and you have left 150$ for cpu ram psu and the rest.


The PS4 does 30 fps on those and even dips with LOWER settings. So its fine.

All you need to do is use PS4 settings on those games and it will get to 60 fps








*And the cities in FO4 will still dip, those even dip on 5GHz 7700Ks, so yeah. Still not 30 fps.

GTX 760 is all you need mate. No need to go for 960. Yes, even KEPLER is good enough.


----------



## TB13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Seriously doubt you can buy a better thing with 250$. A GPU like a 7850 or 960 costs minimum 100$ used and you have left 150$ for cpu ram psu and the rest.


Check out the link in my signature, there are guys rocking LGA775 systems with a 771 Xeon CPU pushing modern GPU's. No, its not the most efficient setup, but it works.

My brother has a 775/771 setup he games on, it had a GTX 480 in it for a while and chugged through 1080p games he played no problem while costing around $280 to build. All of the hardware in his system is from 2010, playing any recent title on his PS4 vs his PC always looks better and plays better on the PC, bottom line.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> This is all bringing back some powerful nostalgia for me. But you are spot on again, during those times 60 FPS was rather uncommon in cutting edge games (not just Crysis), 30 FPS was much more accepted by PC gamers back then. People were very satisfied with what a single 8800GTX could do at a mix of high/very high at 1680 x 1050 in Crysis.
> 
> Nowadays the hardware has surpassed the games, 60 FPS is easy on PC and PC gamers are less accepting of 30 FPS. Also, there was nothing bad about Crysis being technologically ahead of its time since it was super scalable and used that tech in a way that greatly improved the game.


Yeah, I doubt we'll get games that have such huge differences between Ultra and medium again.. These days if Ultra can't be run on a 1060, games are called unoptimized junk. The PC community has made devs very weary of making builds for future tech. Which has diminished the value we get from games a bit imo.

But I still think the standards of the average PC port is vastly ahead of the quality we used to get. The last title I had a crash on was *Arkham Knight*.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> I keep hearing this $400-$500 dollar PC argument comparing it to a PS4 Pro. This is hilarious at best. Optimization is what closes the gap for console. Look at my RIg I recently sold to switch to console. The difference is minimal at best graphically. The frames were higher yes but graphically not as wide as you would expect. For me to jump back into PC would take a hell a lot more then a $500 PC that would honestly get smashed by a PS4 Pro or upcoming Scorpio. It would cost at least $2200 to sway me back in. 7700k, 32gb 3000mhz ram, 1080Ti, 500gb SSD. A far cry from the $500 people on here are claiming who have neither played on a PS4 Pro or ever had a high-end PC to compare the two like I have. Simply not worth it to me even though I could easily afford it.


I agree with the entry price argument, PC is absolutely more expensive to get started on, makes sense when you consider every component has a different company all trying to make money. But the entry costs to PC I think are grossly exaggerated. $2-300 more than a console gets you a vastly superior experience on PC, and most importantly people have choice. If I want to play @4K/30 I can, or if I'm playing an fps I can drop the res and play at high fps, etc.

But that $300 entry price is made up quite a bit in the long term, $70 in online fees per year on consoles for example, usually cheaper games (although that case isn't as strong as it used to be). The biggest difference though is the *ability to upgrade* individual components.. If you make educated purchases on your CPU, then a build can last a long time while only needing to upgrade the GPU if you _choose_. I built my PC in *2011*, and I spent $200 on a GPU upgrade.. It could compete with the PS3/360, then the PS4/X1, then the PS4 Pro, and now it can even compete with the X1X @ 4K if console fidelity settings and 30fps is acceptable to me.. Whereas an X1/PS4 owner will need to spend $400-$500 on an entirely new system if they want an upgrade, and those OG systems were only released in 2014..

What's more, Sandy Bridge with my overclock is perfectly capable of driving a 1080, *possibly* even the 1080Ti. Instead of needing to buy a whole new $500 console in November, I could spend that $500 on a high-end GPU and once again be at the cutting edge if I wanted.. It's pretty cool how long a PC can last if you make good purchases.

That $2200 price is ridiculous btw, you really think you need a 7700K, a 1080Ti, and an SSD to compete with a 30fps 1440P machine?


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Yeah, I doubt we'll get games that have such huge differences between Ultra and medium again.. These days if Ultra can't be run on a 1060, games are called unoptimized junk. The PC community has made devs very weary of making builds for future tech. Which has diminished the value we get from games a bit imo.
> 
> But I still think the standards of the average PC port is vastly ahead of the quality we used to get. The last title I had a crash on was *Arkham Knight*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the entry price argument, PC is absolutely more expensive to get started on, makes sense when you consider every component has a different company all trying to make money. But the entry costs to PC I think are grossly exaggerated. $2-300 more than a console gets you a vastly superior experience on PC, and most importantly people have choice. If I want to play @4K/30 I can, or if I'm playing an fps I can drop the res and play at high fps, etc.
> 
> But that $300 entry price is made up quite a bit in the long term, $70 in online fees per year on consoles for example, usually cheaper games (although that case isn't as strong as it used to be). The biggest difference though is the *ability to upgrade* individual components.. If you make educated purchases on your CPU, then a build can last a long time while only needing to upgrade the GPU if you _choose_. I built my PC in *2011*, and I spent $200 on a GPU upgrade.. It could compete with the PS3/360, then the PS4/X1, then the PS4 Pro, and now it can even compete with the X1X @ 4K if console fidelity settings and 30fps is acceptable to me.. Whereas an X1/PS4 owner will need to spend $400-$500 on an entirely new system if they want an upgrade, and those OG systems were only released in 2014..
> 
> What's more, Sandy Bridge with my overclock is perfectly capable of driving a 1080, *possibly* even the 1080Ti. Instead of needing to buy a whole new $500 console in November, I could spend that $500 on a high-end GPU and once again be at the cutting edge if I wanted.. It's pretty cool how long a PC can last if you make good purchases.
> 
> That $2200 price is ridiculous btw, you really think you need a 7700K, a 1080Ti, and an SSD to compete with a 30fps 1440P machine?


Most AAA multiplatform games indeed have no additional issues on PC compared to consoles, as expected due to consoles moving to x86 (although it took longer than expected). Although I guess you missed out on Deus Ex: Mankind Divided at launch, it is quite the exception and had every issue in the book including memory leaks. Good job Square Enix.

As for entry fees, I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'd much rather game on a $300 pre-built PC than a PS4 Pro and XBOX One X. Obviously the PC would be giving up a lot of graphics quality, but those are minor compared to game selection, modding (using mods and making mods), and proper multiplayer game functionality (not limited to only "official" servers and can host/customize your own). Hell, I'd rather game on my old E8400 + GeForce 8500GT which flat out can't run most of today's games. It'd still have a far larger (and better) game library than even XBOX One X.


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Which long term problems? All consoles up to Wii have been emulated and their games backed up. PS3/X360 is just a matter of time,same for PS4,Xbox One and Wii U.


OG Xbox is not emulated though. Dreamcast is half-emulated with last nullDC version released in 2010. I'm not even talking about the less popular consoles of 90s like Jaguar, Saturn, etc, as well as some arcade machines.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Not sure why the discussion moved to Very High if the goal is to get a better looking game than the 360/PS3 though.. Medium should achieve that, and High would crush them..
> .


When people bring up Crysis to argue how superior PC games look to consoles they are generally referring to the orgasmic Very High settings to do so. I agree that High or even Medium in Crysis was still enough to beat console visuals of the day, but Crysis was very much an outlier at the time. In fact, I can't think of a single other game that launched on PC in 2007 that I could still play today (in 2017) and still believe it could be a current game. In all honesty, I don't think any other game in history has ever been more ahead of its time on release (at least in terms of pure eye candy) than the original Crysis was. It was really quite the bold move by Crytek to release a game that almost no current hardware could even play at the time. We haven't seen anything really like that ever since.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Well all you need to crush a PS4 Pro, is a G460 and an RX 570 (which I know isnt sold at MSRP right now, miners did it) . That is what you need to beat the PS4 Pro.


You're not going to "crush" a PS4P with a G4560 (I assume that's the CPU you meant) and an RX570. In fact, with that dual core CPU you'll be CPU bottlenecked in certain games. And yet again even that setup will cost more than a PS4P, be much more difficult to set up and maintain, will not meet the SFF or power envelope of the PS4P, and will not be as simple to diagnose issues and RMA if you build it yourself. There are many reasons to want a console rather than a PC, even though PC can certainly be the superior performing platform. You just continue to think that your own personal preferences should be everyone else's.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Megaman_90*
> 
> What about running it at breakfast or dinner? Crysis wasn't optimized for lunch which is normally cold meals or sandwiches. It worked well for dinner though and cooking hot meals on your PCs GPU.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> You're not going to "crush" a PS4P with a G4560 (I assume that's the CPU you meant) and an RX570. In fact, with that dual core CPU you'll be CPU bottlenecked in certain games. And yet again even that setup will cost more than a PS4P, be much more difficult to set up and maintain, will not meet the SFF or power envelope of the PS4P, and will not be as simple to diagnose issues and RMA if you build it yourself. There are many reasons to want a console rather than a PC, even though PC can certainly be the superior performing platform. You just continue to think that your own personal preferences should be everyone else's.


Please tell me you realize that the G4560 is faster than the PS4 Pro CPU. Goldii3 already got schooled.

You are mocking a dual core CPU, yet you dont mock 2007 IPC and less than 2.5Ghz?

The PC is cheaper than the PS4P in the mind and long run, no idea for the short run. We are humans, we can think and are *made to think long term* so if the conslow gamer whines, then they have a problem.
Do you seriously think a PC is hard to set up and maintain?

Also lol, the difference in stock power consumption is not that great. 150-160 watts vs 220. Undervolt and the PS4P will be matched in consumption and obliterated in perf/watt.

Reasons to own a console that are possible and logical:
- Nostalgia
- Consoles require 50 IQ to set up, PC requires 60 IQ
- Perhaps lower initial investment, but otherwise greater money spent for a lesser experience with less content


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I know that building your own PC can be fraught with issues, especially for someone who has never done it before. Is it "hard"? Not really, but its certainly harder than plugging in a PS4 and inserting a disk.

We all know that the PC is the superior platform in almost every way (this is OCN after all). It can be configured in any way that you want and custom tailored to your needs. But that flexibility comes at the cost of simplicity, which is what consoles are designed for. And yes, for the millionth time, consoles are cheaper. In the short term, the long term, in every term, they're cheaper.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I know that building your own PC can be fraught with issues, especially for someone who has never done it before. Is it "hard"? Not really, but its certainly harder than plugging in a PS4 and inserting a disk.
> 
> We all know that the PC is the superior platform in almost every way (this is OCN after all). It can be configured in any way that you want and custom tailored to your needs. But that flexibility comes at the cost of simplicity, which is what consoles are designed for. And yes, for the millionth time, consoles are cheaper. In the short term, the long term, in every term, they're cheaper.


No. They aren't cheaper. The proof is simple - richer country = consoles, poorer country = PC. A console is a toy, a luxury item, a PC can and does do work. A console has only few games, a PC has dozens of times more + mods. The value consideration is absolutely obvious. It is not a close fight, its a slaughter in PC favor.

Sure if all you want to do is buy the console, buy second hand a video game, play it once and then sell it again - Console gaming is cheaper. And you do not care anything else (be it old games, other titles, modding, ONLY a handful of exclusives) only then does it make sense. To all other scenarios its worse. As for that one scenario - such a person can hardly be called a gamer and that is destructive consumerism long term, so defend it if you wish...

This is OCN yet I had to teach you guys about the Pentium G4560







, one of the most hyped low end CPUs these days









The difference between difficulty of use is so absurdly small, that to sentient, intelligent creatures it should be irrelevant. Both are simple to set up. Hell console UI is worse and slower to use... there is that if you want.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> No. They aren't cheaper. The proof is simple - richer country = consoles, poorer country = PC. A console is a toy, a luxury item, a PC can and does do work.
> 
> The difference between difficulty of use is so absurdly small, that to sentient, intelligent creatures it should be irrelevant. Both are simple to set up. Hell console UI is worse and slower to use... there is that if you want.


A PC is also a luxury item. A pc does work if you need it to,then it becomes a tool. Your average person uses it to browse facebook and youtube.

Hence why smartphones are so popular right now since a phone is really a work tool.

If you are poor,you will care about price not "bang for the buck" or value. If you have a set budget won't make a difference if a pc makes you coffee if it's over your budget.

And we know that the latter is not true. Building a PC is not an easy task at all. A lot of stuff can go wrong on the building alone,then you need to take care of it periodically,keep a look on temperatures and drivers. There's also the fact that a built pc is not a single product but a conjuction of them,so they all have individual warranties.

If you have a problem with a prebuilt,that costs way more,or a console,you can just send in the whole unit.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And yes, for the millionth time, consoles are cheaper. In the short term, the long term, in every term, they're cheaper.


They're not cheaper in the long run, if you're the average console user that buys 4/5 games a year and pays ps gold (or whatever it's called) or the equivalent for xbox, buy multiple gamepad (at least 1 in addition to the original). Otherwise if you're are the type that buys 1/2 game every year only owns 1 controller, and pays no kind of subscription, then it's probably cheaper, but still not cheaper in the longest run.


----------



## TB13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And yes, for the millionth time, consoles are cheaper. In the short term, the long term, in every term, they're cheaper.


Really? Lets do some simple math and see if it really is cheaper. I'm going to use pricing that would be relevant to a new console launch.

*Initial cost:*
Console: $500
Extra controller: $60
Yearly online service: $60
Extra game: $60

*Long term ownership:*
3x Yearly online service: $180
Extra controller: $60
10x Extra games: $600
Headset: $50

So if you are buying a console and owning it for its life cycle, purchasing new games, paying online services, you will be spending around $1500 over the course of 4 years. After that period of time, a new console is released and your old console is worth $300 with all of the extra controllers, games etc.

If you spent $1000 today, you could build a PC that would play current gen titles and still be relevant in 4 years with the ability to simply upgrade your GPU to increase performance instead of replacing the entire system and proprietary peripherals. Spend the other $500 on keyboard, mouse, monitor, games and you end up with much better bang for the buck.

I am not factoring everything into either console or PC, but when you look at long term neither are cheap.


----------



## rcfc89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Yeah, I doubt we'll get games that have such huge differences between Ultra and medium again.. These days if Ultra can't be run on a 1060, games are called unoptimized junk. The PC community has made devs very weary of making builds for future tech. Which has diminished the value we get from games a bit imo.
> 
> But I still think the standards of the average PC port is vastly ahead of the quality we used to get. The last title I had a crash on was *Arkham Knight*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the entry price argument, PC is absolutely more expensive to get started on, makes sense when you consider every component has a different company all trying to make money. But the entry costs to PC I think are grossly exaggerated. $2-300 more than a console gets you a vastly superior experience on PC, and most importantly people have choice. If I want to play @4K/30 I can, or if I'm playing an fps I can drop the res and play at high fps, etc.
> 
> But that $300 entry price is made up quite a bit in the long term, $70 in online fees per year on consoles for example, usually cheaper games (although that case isn't as strong as it used to be). The biggest difference though is the *ability to upgrade* individual components.. If you make educated purchases on your CPU, then a build can last a long time while only needing to upgrade the GPU if you _choose_. I built my PC in *2011*, and I spent $200 on a GPU upgrade.. It could compete with the PS3/360, then the PS4/X1, then the PS4 Pro, and now it can even compete with the X1X @ 4K if console fidelity settings and 30fps is acceptable to me.. Whereas an X1/PS4 owner will need to spend $400-$500 on an entirely new system if they want an upgrade, and those OG systems were only released in 2014..
> 
> What's more, Sandy Bridge with my overclock is perfectly capable of driving a 1080, *possibly* even the 1080Ti. Instead of needing to buy a whole new $500 console in November, I could spend that $500 on a high-end GPU and once again be at the cutting edge if I wanted.. It's pretty cool how long a PC can last if you make good purchases.
> 
> *That $2200 price is ridiculous btw, you really think you need a 7700K, a 1080Ti, and an SSD to compete with a 30fps 1440P machine?*


Not compete. But sway me to get back into PC. It would take that powerful of a rig to make me want to drop that kind of money and be a big enough difference graphically over the PS4 Pro. The PS4 Pro is actually quite impressive for what it is. I'm currently loving Tomb Raider in 4k 30fps.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> A PC is also a luxury item. A pc does work if you need it to,then it becomes a tool. Your average person uses it to browse facebook and youtube.
> 
> Hence why smartphones are so popular right now since a phone is really a work tool.
> 
> If you are poor,you will care about price not "bang for the buck" or value. If you have a set budget won't make a difference if a pc makes you coffee if it's over your budget.
> 
> And we know that the latter is not true. Building a PC is not an easy task at all. A lot of stuff can go wrong on the building alone,then you need to take care of it periodically,keep a look on temperatures and drivers. There's also the fact that a built pc is not a single product but a conjuction of them,so they all have individual warranties.
> 
> If you have a problem with a prebuilt,that costs way more,or a console,you can just send in the whole unit.


Oh please I built my first PC as a child and I didnt even know English all that well (as its my third language). It was still not hard.

Poor people arent idiots. They can understand that spending a little more might actually save them money or grief. Is this not obvious?

I dont know how it is in Murica, but in here the store can build you a PC for a small fee (and in many stores its a free service after a certain price point) provided most of the parts (not ALL) are from that store. You can also take a computer to a store and for a fee (or none, depends) they can check it or do anything you wish to be done. Its even faster than conslow RMA.

I work on my PC. And again, smartphones are the reason Handheld consoles need to roll over and die as well.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> Not compete. But sway me to get back into PC. It would take that powerful of a rig to make me want to drop that kind of money and be a big enough difference graphically over the PS4 Pro. The PS4 Pro is actually quite impressive for what it is. I'm currently loving Tomb Raider in 4k 30fps.


You mean 2x 1080p @ 30 FPS and I assume you mean Rise of the Tomb Raider. If I loved the game, I'd be loving it at 1440p (very similar resolution) 70-80 FPS or so and much less input lag.

I'd like to see what an RX 480/580 can do on similar settings at 1440p. It averages 39 FPS on ultra (with a 5960x for what it's worth, would rather see benchmark with R5 1600), which is undoubtedly much higher settings than console (mix of medium/high).


----------



## JTHMfreak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> I keep hearing this $400-$500 dollar PC argument comparing it to a PS4 Pro. This is hilarious at best. Optimization is what closes the gap for console. Look at my RIg I recently sold to switch to console. The difference is minimal at best graphically. The frames were higher yes but graphically not as wide as you would expect. For me to jump back into PC would take a hell a lot more then a $500 PC that would honestly get smashed by a PS4 Pro or upcoming Scorpio. It would cost at least $2200 to sway me back in. 7700k, 32gb 3000mhz ram, 1080Ti, 500gb SSD. A far cry from the $500 people on here are claiming who have neither played on a PS4 Pro or ever had a high-end PC to compare the two like I have. Simply not worth it to me even though I could easily afford it.


Some people will never get it. They don't understand how much consoles have actually helped gaming by bringing it to as many people as possible, or that nobody is forcing them to spend 5x the money of a console on pc parts.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JTHMfreak*
> 
> Some people will never get it. They don't understand how much consoles have actually helped gaming by bringing it to as many people as possible, or that nobody is forcing them to spend 5x the money of a console on pc parts.


Some people will never accept that the "console optimization" argument doesn't apply to today's x86 based consoles, as older mid range hardware in a PC that costs about the same as a console has been shown to kill them in relative performance.

Consoles did help gaming in the 80s and 90s definitely. That's not relevant to this thread however.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Oh please I built my first PC as a child and I didnt even know English all that well (as its my third language). It was still not hard.
> 
> Poor people arent idiots. They can understand that spending a little more might actually save them money or grief. Is this not obvious?
> 
> I dont know how it is in Murica, but in here the store can build you a PC for a small fee (and in many stores its a free service after a certain price point) provided most of the parts (not ALL) are from that store. You can also take a computer to a store and for a fee (or none, depends) they can check it or do anything you wish to be done. Its even faster than conslow RMA.
> 
> I work on my PC. And again, smartphones are the reason Handheld consoles need to roll over and die as well.


You couldn't be more wrong. Support is everything for a gaming platform. If you don't get games,who is going to purchase your platform? Android games pale in comparison to the games aviable on handhelds.

A phone is a thing,a portable console is another whole thing.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TB13*
> 
> Really? Lets do some simple math and see if it really is cheaper. I'm going to use pricing that would be relevant to a new console launch.
> 
> *Initial cost:*
> Console: $500
> Extra controller: $60
> Yearly online service: $60
> Extra game: $60
> 
> *Long term ownership:*
> 3x Yearly online service: $180
> Extra controller: $60
> 10x Extra games: $600
> Headset: $50
> .


Lol a console 500 usd...maybe the Xbox One X,both PS4,PS4 Pro and Xbox One never costed more than 400$ at lauch.

Extra controller what for? To play co-op games? That's something you also need on PC. Same for games and the headset.

The only real cost is 400 when it launched and the ps subscription. The rest is all optional and things you may also need to purchase for a PC.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> You couldn't be more wrong. *Support is everything for a gaming platform*. If you don't get games,who is going to purchase your platform? Android games pale in comparison to the games aviable on handhelds.
> 
> A phone is a thing,a portable console is another whole thing.


Hence why consoles are living on borrowed time, all of them









You liked playing numbers game earlier, did you not? Until the Pentium killed of the PS4 Pro that is. Mobile games have a commanding lead in both popularity and money, and I thought that was all you cared about?

EDIT:
Subscriptions dont exist on PC








Its just Sony and MS milking the weaker willed.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Hence why consoles are living on borrowed time, all of them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You liked playing numbers game earlier, did you not? Until the Pentium killed of the PS4 Pro that is. Mobile games have a commanding lead in both popularity and money, and I thought that was all you cared about?
> 
> EDIT:
> Subscriptions dont exist on PC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its just Sony and MS milking the weaker willed.


5 years is what it usually takes to launch the next model. More than enough.

Those "games" on phones are just P2W crap that does not have any meaningfulness at all,so? it's business not games.

Try looking what happened to the last Android console....Ouija....


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> 5 years is what it usually takes to launch the next model. More than enough.
> 
> Those "games" on phones are just P2W crap that does not have any meaningfulness at all,so? it's business not games.
> 
> Try looking what happened to the last Android console....Ouija....


My 2009 PC lasted me more than 6 and it still plays games... like I can still actually play titles on it. Even most new ones.

Those games on consoles are just discounted movies unfit to exist in the same art form Tarkovsky has been working with. See, I can do it too









The same thing that will happen to the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X CPU when faced with a cheap 60 dollar pentium CPU - squashed like a bug (or the Japanese army in Manchuria)


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> My 2009 PC lasted me more than 6 and it still plays games... like I can still actually play titles on it. Even most new ones.
> 
> Those games on consoles are just discounted movies unfit to exist in the same art form Tarkovsky has been working with. See, I can do it too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The same thing that will happen to the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X CPU when faced with a cheap 60 dollar pentium CPU - squashed like a bug (or the Japanese army in Manchuria)


You honestly don't even know what you are talking about. A PS Vita or 3DS is infinitely superior to a smartphone in the role of a handheld console. They don't even have physical buttons.

Educate yourself


----------



## Tower44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Hence why consoles are living on borrowed time, all of them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You liked playing numbers game earlier, did you not? Until the Pentium killed of the PS4 Pro that is. Mobile games have a commanding lead in both popularity and money, and I thought that was all you cared about?
> 
> EDIT:
> Subscriptions dont exist on PC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its just Sony and MS milking the weaker willed.


Been reading your posts and I gotta say you are an Idiot of the worst kind.... you think you know so much when in fact you know very little. You try to compare the hardware of a pc to a console as if it's an apples to apples comparison which could not be further from the truth. Consoles have always been able to do a lot more with a lot less.... YouTube ps pro vs titan pascale for rise of the tomb raider..... you won't be building a $400-500 pc which will pull off the same thing as you get with the pro.... Dunce king.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tower44*
> 
> Been reading your posts and I gotta say you are an Idiot of the worst kind.... you think you know so much when in fact you know very little. You try to compare the hardware of a pc to a console as if it's an apples to apples comparison which could not be further from the truth. Consoles have always been able to do a lot more with a lot less.... YouTube ps pro vs titan pascale for rise of the tomb raider..... you won't be building a $400-500 pc which will pull off the same thing as you get with the pro.... Dunce king.


*Sigh*




Why do I need to google Titan XP /Xp/1080 Ti vs PS4 Pro?
The 1060 wins...




So much for me not knowing much mate








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> You honestly don't even know what you are talking about. A PS Vita or 3DS is infinitely superior to a smartphone in the role of a handheld console. They don't even have physical buttons.
> 
> Educate yourself


At this point I kind of get the vibe its the opposite situation.


----------



## TB13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Lol a console 500 usd...maybe the Xbox One X,both PS4,PS4 Pro and Xbox One never costed more than 400$ at lauch.
> 
> Extra controller what for? To play co-op games? That's something you also need on PC. Same for games and the headset.
> 
> The only real cost is 400 when it launched and the ps subscription. The rest is all optional and things you may also need to purchase for a PC.


Woah, I said $500 instead of $400 you've completely shattered my argument







You didn't even read my whole post...

Every console owner I know has more than one controller and at a minimum 5-6 games, most having a whole shelf of games and 3+ controllers along with other accessories. Obviously these things aren't needed, but you'll find most console owners do not just have one controller and one game. Talk to some die hard console owners, you'll see what I mean.

Of course nothing is necessary, if I wanted to play a game with friends I'd whip out cards against humanity and have a laugh for a whooping $20.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> At this point I kind of get the vibe its the opposite situation.


It's called coping mechanism.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TB13*
> 
> Woah, I said $500 instead of $400 you've completely shattered my argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't even read my whole post...
> 
> Every console owner I know has more than one controller and at a minimum 5-6 games, most having a whole shelf of games and 3+ controllers along with other accessories. Obviously these things aren't needed, but you'll find most console owners do not just have one controller and one game. Talk to some die hard console owners, you'll see what I mean.
> 
> Of course nothing is necessary, if I wanted to play a game with friends I'd whip out cards against humanity and have a laugh for a whooping $20.


Yeah...and everyone i know does not. Anecdotal evidence familiar with it?

I have a pc and also have a headset and a controller....and obviously games...you think those are not expenses you need to face if you buy a pc?


----------



## epic1337

time to lock the thread?


----------



## Mad Pistol

I was hoping this thread would remain civil. It's the same people over and over beating the same drum, continually skewing their perception into "facts", and then insulting others.

I don't care how you present the information. STOP INSULTING EACH OTHER!!! It's incredibly tiring to see fellow posters treat each other with such disrespect.

Being able to see/present different points of view is great, but when you throw out an insult, you lose credibility. So either stop the insults or stop posting.

Thanks.


----------



## TB13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> It's called coping mechanism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...and everyone i know does not. Anecdotal evidence familiar with it?
> 
> I have a pc and also have a headset and a controller....and obviously games...you think those are not expenses you need to face if you buy a pc?


Still haven't read my entire post...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TB13*
> 
> *If you spent $1000 today, you could build a PC that would play current gen titles and still be relevant in 4 years with the ability to simply upgrade your GPU to increase performance instead of replacing the entire system and proprietary peripherals. Spend the other $500 on keyboard, mouse, monitor, games and you end up with much better bang for the buck.
> 
> I am not factoring everything into either console or PC, but when you look at long term neither are cheap.*


----------



## rcfc89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> You mean 2x 1080p @ 30 FPS and I assume you mean Rise of the Tomb Raider. If I loved the game, I'd be loving it at 1440p (very similar resolution) 70-80 FPS or so and much less input lag.
> 
> I'd like to see what an RX 480/580 can do on similar settings at 1440p. It averages 39 FPS on ultra (with a 5960x for what it's worth, would rather see benchmark with R5 1600), which is undoubtedly much higher settings than console (mix of medium/high).


^Wrong. Its 4k 30fps. You have a option to do 1080p 60 fps as well.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JTHMfreak*
> 
> Some people will never get it. They don't understand how much consoles have actually helped gaming by bringing it to as many people as possible, or that nobody is forcing them to spend 5x the money of a console on pc parts.


Some people will never get it. They don't understand that consoles have nothing to do with gaming but more like with playing.


----------



## Boomer1990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TB13*
> 
> Woah, I said $500 instead of $400 you've completely shattered my argument
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't even read my whole post...
> 
> Every console owner I know has more than one controller and at a minimum 5-6 games, most having a whole shelf of games and 3+ controllers along with other accessories. Obviously these things aren't needed, but you'll find most console owners do not just have one controller and one game. Talk to some die hard console owners, you'll see what I mean.
> 
> Of course nothing is necessary, if I wanted to play a game with friends I'd whip out cards against humanity and have a laugh for a whooping $20.


Hardcore console owner here, on my ps4 I have 1 controller, I rarely have ps+ not needed on all games, I buy brand new games for 20% off thanks to Amazon Prime. After I finish the game I make the choice, if it was a great game like the "last of us" it gets added to my collection. If the game sucked or has no replay value I sell it back to Amazon for 30+$. So on some games I end up spending less than 20$ for a brand new game, without having to wait for a steam sale.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TB13*
> 
> Still haven't read my entire post...


1000$ is 2.2x of 450. That's not pennies at all,and certainly not cheaper than a console wich starts at 450$. A console cycle lasts 5-6 years then it's 400$ again.

I just made a quick build and something with a Pentium G4560 and a GTX 1050 Ti comes around 600 EUR. That's around 2.2x too of what a console sold by Amazon costs (280 EUR)

It's a base so maybe two year from now that pentium is going to eat dirt and you will need a hexa core at least wich is like 185 euros.

There's simply little you can build for 250 usd or euros that allows you to play games,it's the reality.

Offers are also abundant with the Slim now that the PS4 Pro is out,one retailer is selling ps4 slim + a game and an extra controller for 250$. Even the pro has dropped in price,same bundle but with the Pro 400$.


----------



## MythTFLfan29

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> 1000$ is 2.2x of 450. That's not pennies at all,and certainly not cheaper than a console wich starts at 450$. A console cycle lasts 5-6 years then it's 400$ again.
> 
> I just made a quick build and something with a Pentium G4560 and a GTX 1050 Ti comes around 600 EUR. That's around 2.2x too of what a console sold by Amazon costs (280 EUR)
> 
> It's a base so maybe two year from now that pentium is going to eat dirt and you will need a hexa core at least wich is like 185 euros.
> 
> There's simply little you can build for 250 usd or euros that allows you to play games,it's the reality.
> 
> Offers are also abundant with the Slim now that the PS4 Pro is out,one retailer is selling ps4 slim + a game and an extra controller for 250$. Even the pro has dropped in price,same bundle but with the Pro 400$.


Can I get a link to that retailer if it's in the US and is new not used? Everywhere I look PS4 Pro still 400 without any games or extra controllers..


----------



## TheReciever

You can build a m4600 laptop with the 2860qm 3.4Ghz 4 core turbo and m5100 which overclocks just shy of 860m for about 250.


----------



## Tower44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> *Sigh*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do I need to google Titan XP /Xp/1080 Ti vs PS4 Pro?
> The 1060 wins...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much for me not knowing much mate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point I kind of get the vibe its the opposite situation.


Those vids are a classic joke and have been proven to be false because of the very fact if you build a pc for that cheap you will not be gaming with it for the lifespan of a console for the simple fact that you will have needed to dump more and more money into it just to keep it relevant. Again... YouTube titan pascal vs ps pro rise of the tomb raider... you can barely tell the 2 apart and you won't be pulling that off with a budget build. You are the worst kind of elitist dude and I'm both a high end pc gamer and ps pro gamer.


----------



## JTHMfreak




----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tower44*
> 
> Those vids are a classic joke and have been proven to be false because of the very fact if you build a pc for that cheap you will not be gaming with it for the lifespan of a console for the simple fact that you will have needed to dump more and more money into it just to keep it relevant. Again... YouTube titan pascal vs ps pro rise of the tomb raider... you can barely tell the 2 apart and you won't be pulling that off with a budget build. You are the worst kind of elitist dude and I'm both a high end pc gamer and ps pro gamer.


Lol

You know, at least you are funny.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tower44*
> 
> Yeah right... again, YouTube pascal titan vs ps pro rise of
> You know, at least I have an actual rebuttal. Get rekt.?


I did. The 1080 Ti wins easily. Its a tad over twice the 1060's performance at 4K. If the 1060 could crush the PS4 Pro, what hope doe it have against an even more powerful GPU?


----------



## Ithanul

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> The difference between difficulty of use is so absurdly small, that to sentient, intelligent creatures it should be irrelevant. Both are simple to set up. Hell console UI is worse and slower to use... there is that if you want.


Sorry to say, but I meet many peeps that look at me with doe in head lights when asked about PCs. Major kicker, most don't know how to map a printer, image a HDD/SDD, setup the email client, and other actions that most here would find easy to do.







Then, don't say PC terms like RAM, IP, CPU, GPU, etc. They get so confused when you use terms like that. And, a good chunk are peeps my age (20-30 year range). Even bigger kicker when it is peeps with college degrees.

Pretty much, do help desk, and you learn super quick that most peeps see a computer as a magic black box.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> ^Wrong. Its 4k 30fps. You have a option to do 1080p 60 fps as well.


It's 2x2 checkerboard rendering. Not that a console gamer would know any better.

http://gamingbolt.com/sony-explains-how-checkerboard-rendering-works-on-the-ps4-pro


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> They're not cheaper in the long run, if you're the average console user that buys 4/5 games a year and pays ps gold (or whatever it's called) or the equivalent for xbox, buy multiple gamepad (at least 1 in addition to the original). Otherwise if you're are the type that buys 1/2 game every year only owns 1 controller, and pays no kind of subscription, then it's probably cheaper, but still not cheaper in the longest run.


I bought my Xbox One S back in February along with used copies of Forza 6, Forza Horizon 3, and Madden 17 at BB for about $400 altogether and haven't spent another dime since (though I'm about to go ahead and pick up a used copy of GTAV since I don't have my PS3 anymore). I also have absolutely no interest in XBLive personally so, yeah, for me the console has been imminently cheaper than either of my PC's and that will remain true forever. I know that average console gamers buy a lot more games than I have and probably spring for the online stuff and a few accessories but to my mind they still come out ahead in terms of value over any decent gaming PC. Sure you can build a potato for around the price of an Xbox One but it certainly won't be able to play modern games as well as the console does. With the X you can put together a rig that will marginally perform better (well, not in certain games that will be bottlenecked by a dual core) but you certainly will have no future proofing going that route, meanwhile the console will be guaranteed to reach a baseline of performance in ALL games available for it over its entire life span.

And none of that even addresses the fact that the console experience simply allows for things like simplicity, casual gaming, and SFF that no PC can match. Again, the sweet spot is to have both a decent gaming rig for serious PC eye candy sessions and a console for the couch and Madden / popcorn sessions. Real gamers don't unnecessarily limit their options to a single platform just because of some silly pride-induced (and arrogant) mantra of superiority over others...


----------



## Tobiman

Every gamer can appreciate the finer details and better controls on PC but it's not everyone that's rushing out to get one. Still, there's so much yapping about how a 1060 is faster than a PS4 Pro but you certainly aren't walking into a store and picking up a built RX 580/GTX 1060 system for $400 though with keyboard and mouse. You most certainly aren't picking up a pre-built 1050 or 1050TI system for that cheap either. Those wannabe smart-ass that cram old parts into a PC and makes comparisons to consoles make me laugh.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And none of that even addresses the fact that the console experience simply allows for things like simplicity, casual gaming, and SFF that no PC can match. Again, the sweet spot is to have both a decent gaming rig for serious PC eye candy sessions and a console for the couch and Madden / popcorn sessions. Real gamers don't unnecessarily limit their options to a single platform just because of some silly pride-induced (and arrogant) mantra of superiority over others...


SFF is easily doable with PC as well. See HTPC cases and ITX cases in general like the Dan Cases A4-SFX. PC has tons of casual gamers, probably more than consoles (see the popularity of games like The Sims). You guys describe PC gaming as if it requires above average intelligence to operate. Obviously not the case given its popularity.

More simplicity, casual gaming, and perhaps even smaller form factor vs far more games in almost every genre, backwards compatibility, modding and tweaking, dedicated servers, far better video recording and streaming, much better online services that are all free, the other things I mentioned in the post above yours and more. Not to mention again that PC also has casual gaming, SFF, and simplicity even if not as much in the last two areas (SFF is debatable).

The irony with your "Real gamers" comment is that you're attempting to exert superiority with that very statement. "Real gamers" don't support something that is so limiting and harmful to the gaming industry as consoles. Real gamers see gaming as an art form and don't support something destructive to that end like consoles are (due to their lack of game preservation and all the limiting factors that have been discussed here). It's clear that such gamers objectively care more about gaming, so if anyone is a "real gamer" it is those kinds of gamers.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tobiman*
> 
> Those wannabe smart-ass that cram old parts into a PC and makes comparisons to consoles make me laugh.


It makes me laugh too since those older PCs in the videos posted previously are shown to outperform consoles, and are still far better gaming systems than consoles despite their age and there's hardly anything a console can do that those PCs can't do. Not to mention those "wannabe smart-asses" posting video proof of their performance provide a far more complete argument than anything you've come up with.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Here's a quick wish list I put together on Newegg that is about as cheap as I can go for a decent gaming PC (which does not even include accessories like KB, mouse, etc or even an OS):



Granted, it would be a bit more powerful than an XOneX but is still significantly more expensive to buy and you have to put it together yourself (and deal with each individual component for RMA). That's also assuming you have no DOA parts, the thing posts when you put it all together, and you have the knowledge to diagnose any issues that might arise without panicking at the sight of a blank screen after first start up! I also don't believe that is a 4K BD player so its inferior to the Xbox there...


----------



## Tobiman

My main argument probably flew over your head which is why you are quoting just a portion of what I said out of context. Your only argument is that a PC is faster and offers more customization than a console. Big deal. Just about everyone has that figured out. You don't need to be special or an all A's student.
My argument is that consoles offer more bang for buck and are more readily available and require far less hassle. Why don't you show me a readily available pre-built system with said GTX 1060 for $400? If that's too hard for you then try with a 1050 or 1050TI. I'll wait.


----------



## epic1337

pretty much, consoles are simply those devices that "just works" and has little hassle besides it's mediocre performance.

on the other hand, if you're willing to spend time and money then a dedicated rig would do wonders, its a lot of effort but worth the money spent.


----------



## mushroomboy

Consoles revolutionized gaming, during a time. Hardware wasn't out of reach, it was hard to deal with. Console gaming made it easy for both consumers and producers.

Now, it's easy to make a computer, the internet holds your hands with tutorials and refunds. Heck we even abuse the refund with overclocking.

It's another battle of new vs tried and true. Which a bunch of crap they are yelling their way is the future. Which is absolute crap on either side.

Without consoles gaming wouldn't be what it is, without computers gaming wouldn't be what it is.

so what we now need is a way to tie production between the two. Ms is doing an ok job, Nintendo and Sony are making a rift. Nintendo will survive, it's what they do. They go out of the way to make a unique console where Sony and ms don't. Problem is ms has its own out, Sony doesn't.

The answer? Idk but it's def not all this stupid bickering I've seen on this forum. You should prob back ms but I'd rather see Nintendo backed. Due to other reasons, however if your focus is healthy gaming back ms. Seriously, it's the best option.

So go adopt win10, allow dev for dx12/Vulcan to flourish. It's THE BEST OPTION for gaming. Otherwise I'd rather see less posts, meaning don't say crap cause it takes forever to read all that drivel.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I bought my Xbox One S back in February along with used copies of Forza 6, Forza Horizon 3, and Madden 17 at BB for about $400 altogether and haven't spent another dime since (though I'm about to go ahead and pick up a used copy of GTAV since I don't have my PS3 anymore). I also have absolutely no interest in XBLive personally so, yeah, for me the console has been imminently cheaper than either of my PC's and that will remain true forever. I know that average console gamers buy a lot more games than I have and probably spring for the online stuff and a few accessories but to my mind they still come out ahead in terms of value over any decent gaming PC. Sure you can build a potato for around the price of an Xbox One but it certainly won't be able to play modern games as well as the console does. With the X you can put together a rig that will marginally perform better (well, not in certain games that will be bottlenecked by a dual core) but you certainly will have no future proofing going that route, meanwhile the console will be guaranteed to reach a baseline of performance in ALL games available for it over its entire life span.


Yeah, most people doesn't only buy older or used games, they also buy brand new games, and yet again anyone keeps personalizing this, many also have a subscription, doesn't matter you don't, it's not about what me or you do, also imagine a more realistic (and common) scenario you'll realize that a the average console user spends more in the long run. What it seems to me is that people keep ignoring the fact that consoles have poor hardware, and the fact that they're able to run modern games is only possible because it's the games that gets adapted or gimped in the upcoming years, if developers created games with no console limits, and optimizing at the same level on every platform, consoles wouldn't last a year at decent levels, and this is only given by the fact that consoles have the priority over pc in the mind of software houses, just because they move more money.

Besides most of the people that use a console as entertainment, also have a pc to use for schools, study, work, etc, which was bought separately from the console itself, even if it's just a 300/400€/$ laptop, just push that budget together and you'll magically see a machine that makes the entertainment, much more enjoyable, and with a much wider choice, and also a machine that does faster what you need to do for schools, study, work, etc. In case of a laptop with roughly a bit more than 900€/$ you could still get a quite decent pc, which would perform pretty much like a console, in case of a desktop pc even with something around 800€/$ well... you would just piddle on every console. I agree it's probably a bit harder to get a pc working, but we should really change that, everyone should begin to understand how to build a pc, and everything, it really requires not that much of expertise nowadays, anyway, so well...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And none of that even addresses the fact that the console experience simply allows for things like simplicity, casual gaming, and SFF that no PC can match. Again, the sweet spot is to have both a decent gaming rig for serious PC eye candy sessions and a console for the couch and Madden / popcorn sessions. Real gamers don't unnecessarily limit their options to a single platform just because of some silly pride-induced (and arrogant) mantra of superiority over others...


One cannot be a true gamer (not what you mean) and a casual gamer, either one or the other, you just confuse the 2, because nowadays the terms are inappropriately used by anyone. A true gamer is someone who sees playing videogames almost like a job (not that he doesn't enjoy it). Just playing multiple games and finished them on every platform doesn't make you a true gamer, a true gamer is also someone passionate about videogames, who sees it as art (because it's what it is, whether or not you believe it), and understands it and follows it. A casual gamer on the other hand, is someone who plays the most common games just for fun, because either he doesn't have the time, or just likes to try everything, and his level of knowledge on videogame world is inevitably low, and he doesn't care to improve his level of knowledge of it, mainly because he sees it just as a entertainment, a toy, and doesn't think it's serious or important enough to actually spend more time on it and educate himself on a such matter of questionable importance.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oxidized*
> 
> Yeah, most people doesn't only buy older or used games, they also buy brand new games, and yet again anyone keeps personalizing this, many also have a subscription, doesn't matter you don't, it's not about what me or you do, also imagine a more realistic (and common) scenario you'll realize that a the average console user spends more in the long run. What it seems to me is that people keep ignoring the fact that consoles have poor hardware, and the fact that they're able to run modern games is only possible because it's the games that gets adapted or gimped in the upcoming years, if developers created games with no console limits, and optimizing at the same level on every platform, consoles wouldn't last a year at decent levels, and this is only given by the fact that consoles have the priority over pc in the mind of software houses, just because they move more money.
> 
> Besides most of the people that use a console as entertainment, also have a pc to use for schools, study, work, etc, which was bought separately from the console itself, even if it's just a 300/400€/$ laptop, just push that budget together and you'll magically see a machine that makes the entertainment, much more enjoyable, and with a much wider choice, and also a machine that does faster what you need to do for schools, study, work, etc. In case of a laptop with roughly a bit more than 900€/$ you could still get a quite decent pc, which would perform pretty much like a console, in case of a desktop pc even with something around 800€/$ well... you would just piddle on every console. I agree it's probably a bit harder to get a pc working, but we should really change that, everyone should begin to understand how to build a pc, and everything, it really requires not that much of expertise nowadays, anyway, so well...
> One cannot be a true gamer (not what you mean) and a casual gamer, either one or the other, you just confuse the 2, because nowadays the terms are inappropriately used by anyone. A true gamer is someone who sees playing videogames almost like a job (not that he doesn't enjoy it). Just playing multiple games and finished them on every platform doesn't make you a true gamer, a true gamer is also someone passionate about videogames, who sees it as art (because it's what it is, whether or not you believe it), and understands it and follows it. A casual gamer on the other hand, is someone who plays the most common games just for fun, because either he doesn't have the time, or just likes to try everything, and his level of knowledge on videogame world is inevitably low, and he doesn't care to improve his level of knowledge of it, mainly because he sees it just as a entertainment, a toy, and doesn't think it's serious or important enough to actually spend more time on it and educate himself on a such matter of questionable importance.


I really don't care for labels to begin with, I was just countering those who claim that only they speak for what "true" gamers are or want. I am absolutely a casual gamer but does that make my money less valuable or my opinions less valid? The idea that only "true" gamers who limit themselves to only one type of experience have authority to dictate what everyone else who also enjoys gaming can or can't buy is the true definition of elitist IMO. Its not a contest between casual and ultimate gamers. We all have a right to enjoy ourselves in whichever way we see fit and the market is more than capable of delivering excellent experiences for both. If you find no value in consoles then of course nobody is putting a gun to your head to force you to buy one but the majority of people out there (be they casual or true gamers) will generally opt to have both a dedicated gaming rig along with at least one console for the living room, and there is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *epic1337*
> pretty much, consoles are simply those devices that "just works" and has little hassle besides it's mediocre performance.



Quote:


> Xbox 360's Red Ring of Death cost Microsoft $1 billion
> 
> Of course, I don't have my original launch 360. That device died long ago, as did many other of the originals. After all, the dreaded Red Ring of Death was a serious issue that lasted for years. I had to send off mine three different times before the final replacement period ran out. As it turns out, repair and replacement costs tallied up to roughly $1 billion.


Just works, until it doesn't. And, until it doesn't again. And again. And again.

The original Xbox has faulty engineering, too. A capacitor will burst, ruining the board because Microsoft didn't design the circuit properly.
Quote:


> As it turns out, it was the fact that they went into the design of the console backwards. They focused on the design and aesthetic, and then worked on finding ways to cram everything into the housing that they designed. As a result, there were thermal issues that couldn't be resolved. While they made a number of changes, the RRoD wasn't fixed until they introduced the Slim


Microsoft could have learned from Apple, which made the same mistake _in 1980_ with the Apple III.


----------



## punker

DUDE the main issuse is sony used AMD chips and a IGPU with shared ran

it's no better then my pentium 4 with 845GL IGP


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *punker*
> 
> DUDE the main issuse is sony used AMD chips and a IGPU with shared ran
> 
> it's no better then my pentium 4 with 845GL IGP


We're all still better off if consoles use (relatively) weak hardware.

Most games will always be designed to run at 30fps on consoles, that's probably never going to change. If the PS5 gets CPU single thread performance close to a high end PC, most games designed for that hardware wouldn't even be able to hit 60fps on PC.

Given that we can't control the behavior or developers, they need to be starved of power in order to make games run efficiently.
That also happens to line up with the priorities of console manufacturers trying to sell a product at mass market prices, and having 8 weak cores in current consoles means the industry has spent the last 4 years investing in multi-core software, if consoles had used a high power dual core it probably would have taken another decade for multi-threading performance to reach the point where it is today.

The current situation of the PS4 having about 1/4 as much single thread performance as a high end CPU is probably less than ideal, but chances are 240hz monitors wouldn't exist if that weren't the case either.


----------



## oxidized

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I really don't care for labels to begin with, I was just countering those who claim that only they speak for what "true" gamers are or want. I am absolutely a casual gamer but does that make my money less valuable or my opinions less valid? The idea that only "true" gamers who limit themselves to only one type of experience have authority to dictate what everyone else who also enjoys gaming can or can't buy is the true definition of elitist IMO. Its not a contest between casual and ultimate gamers. We all have a right to enjoy ourselves in whichever way we see fit and the market is more than capable of delivering excellent experiences for both. If you find no value in consoles then of course nobody is putting a gun to your head to force you to buy one but the majority of people out there (be they casual or true gamers) will generally opt to have both a dedicated gaming rig along with at least one console for the living room, and there is nothing wrong with that.


Democracy and liberalism, doesn't work for everything, and when you force it on something it doesn't work well with, the outcome is a mess, pretty much like what we have now.
Whatever, i'm not here to make anyone change his mind, as i wouldn't like someone trying to do that to me, so keep thinking whatever suits you best, doesn't change the fact that something just doesn't work as you think, whether i or you like it or not.


----------



## The Robot

Who is a "true gamer" anyway? The only sensible explanation is a person who earns his living by gaming, a pro gamer who competes in championships such as MLG and others. Therefore, he might not even own a gaming PC, an Xbox is enough for practice. Anyway, I don't think anyone in this thread is a pro gamer, therefore it's another pretend e-peen title with washed-out criteria like "PCMR", "overclocker", or "enthusiast".


----------



## epic1337

i'm a "true bench warmer", in a way that i'd sit on an entire game.








if one were to ask whether i'd like to play or not, i'd say no, but i'd play if needed.


----------



## Redwoodz

Who would ever think a console should match the latest PC hardware? That's just ******ed.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redwoodz*
> 
> Who would ever think a console should match the latest PC hardware? That's just ******ed.


It's also a straw man.

The real meat of the issue is that consoles offer nothing of value to the gaming market. All they are is a way for two or so companies to skim a profit from peddling obsolete hardware. Consoles are a drag on gaming. They waste developers' time - time/effort/money that should be put to better use than trying to push toothpaste back into the tube (getting games to perform well on obsolete hardware). They degrade the gaming experience for gamers, by not offering good performance and midrange PC quality standards. They absurdly fracture the development of games into walled-off fiefdoms, even though x86 is a shared standard.

Linux, Vulkan, and the DRM in recent CPUs make hardware-based walled gardens unnecessary, if gaming companies think walled gardens are necessary. They can be done in software, using the DRM features of the CPU. A standard Linux software layer atop the standard x86 hardware is what makes sense.

In contrast to the straw man, x86 hardware comes in many flavors, not just overpriced high-end stuff like the GTX 1080 Ti. Ease-of-use PC gaming boxes can be sold to consumers just like consoles are, only without the obsolete hardware being forced on them.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> Who is a "true gamer" anyway? The only sensible explanation is a person who earns his living by gaming, a pro gamer who competes in championships such as MLG and others. Therefore, he might not even own a gaming PC, an Xbox is enough for practice. Anyway, I don't think anyone in this thread is a pro gamer, therefore it's another pretend e-peen title with washed-out criteria like "PCMR", "overclocker", or "enthusiast".


Pretty much.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> Who is a "true gamer" anyway? The only sensible explanation is a person who earns his living by gaming, a pro gamer who competes in championships such as MLG and others. Therefore, he might not even own a gaming PC, an Xbox is enough for practice. Anyway, I don't think anyone in this thread is a pro gamer, therefore it's another pretend e-peen title with washed-out criteria like "PCMR", "overclocker", or "enthusiast".


This is hyperbole.

"True gamer" isn't great terminology but we can all get a rough sense of what it means. It doesn't mean someone who plays Windows Solitaire or Angry Birds. Those are casuals. It also doesn't have to mean a professional or an addict.

What it obviously refers to is someone who games significantly enough to be considered a _gaming enthusiast_.

A gaming enthusiast is the sort of person who cares about seeing games evolve, seeing the technology that's behind them get better so the games can become more sophisticated.

A casual is the sort of person who wouldn't care about such things. The might ooh and ahh for two seconds at the latest impressive graphics but they're not going to make the effort to play any challenging/demanding game deeply.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> It's also a straw man.
> 
> The real meat of the issue is that consoles offer nothing of value to the gaming market. All they are is a way for two or so companies to skim a profit from peddling obsolete hardware. Consoles are a drag on gaming. They waste developers' time - time/effort/money that should be put to better use than trying to push toothpaste back into the tube (getting games to perform well on obsolete hardware). They degrade the gaming experience for gamers, by not offering good performance and midrange PC quality standards. They absurdly fracture the development of games into walled-off fiefdoms, even though x86 is a shared standard.
> 
> Linux, Vulkan, and the DRM in recent CPUs make hardware-based walled gardens unnecessary, if gaming companies think walled gardens are necessary. They can be done in software, using the DRM features of the CPU. A standard Linux software layer atop the standard x86 hardware is what makes sense.
> 
> In contrast to the straw man, x86 hardware comes in many flavors, not just overpriced high-end stuff like the GTX 1080 Ti. Ease-of-use PC gaming boxes can be sold to consumers just like consoles are, only without the obsolete hardware being forced on them.


They are priced accordingly to their obsolete hardware - 250 usd/eur. Yeah,im sure that is the case. Yet common sense alone proves you wrong since all major AAA publishers have been selling their games on those platforms for ages. Surely they know better than you if it's worth it. And it looks like it is,since their games sell millions and they keep making them.

Care to elaborate on how do they fracture the delevopment of games? They are x86 based and the PS4 runs off FreeBSD or some other linux Distro,and the XBOX runs off Windows.

Consoles offer a streamlined and easy to use product that is relatively cheap and the only way to play games for certain people. They certainly do have positive qualities that make them popular otherwise no one would buy them.


----------



## TheReciever

If we didnt have consoles then we would just be complaining about what the target performance level should be when developing games.

That said Im still a PC guy, but I wish more titles made it to the PC platform naturally...


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> They are priced accordingly to their obsolete hardware - 250 usd/eur.


They are sold for a profit, not at a break-even point or at a loss. Console makers are making money from peddling obsolete hardware. That hardware is a drag on gaming development for the reasons I listed.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Yet common sense alone proves you wrong since all major AAA publishers have been selling their games on those platforms for ages. Surely they know better than you if it's worth it. And it looks like it is,since their games sell millions and they keep making them.


Did common sense prevent the first video game crash? What about the second?

Did common sense prevent Atari, Sega, and Nintendo from becoming bit players in the gaming market, or even completely irrelevant?

Did common sense prevent Apple from being burned when Japanese DRAM makers pushed US DRAM makers out of business in the 80s by dumping DRAM below cost - then raising prices very high after they corned the market?

Business is not as simple as you are trying to argue it is. There are a lot of factors, including products that aren't very good but are "successful". Having monopolies and quasi-monopolies prop them up can certainly help. Monopolization is typified by the selling of less valuable products at higher price points.

Jaguar CPU based PCs are worth less than what consoles are selling for. No one is buying the class of GPUs in the consoles for even lower-level enthusiast gaming anymore. No one has been buying CPUs and video cards this week for a long time. When Jaguar came out it was already weaker than Bulldozer. Please tell me that Bulldozer and Piledriver were huge market successes.

One of the factors that can go into a product selling, even though it offers poor value, is hype. Another is inertia. But, the market forces have, over the long haul, consolidated around the x86 hardware standard. Even the precious consoles have done that. So, the next logical ("common sense" if you prefer) step is to consolidate around a software layer for that hardware standard. This was done with DOS/Windows but DOS/Windows carries big taxes. Again, being tied to a monopoly helps to explain why. Having to be able to be all things to all people, including enterprise, is another explanation. A Linux layer, by contrast, doesn't come with those costs.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Care to elaborate on how do they fracture the delevopment of games?


Put a PS4 game into your PC and let me know if it will run. Same with XBox. Take PC games and run them on the PS4 and XBox. Let me know the results.

More to the point - the very weak Jaguar CPU, a CPU that's weaker than the 2011 Bulldozer, is a big bottleneck. It's an anchor around the neck of developers. The GPU is old, quite obsolete, as well. The effort put into trying to make games on consoles look and behave relevant - with outdated hardware - is wasted effort. It's wasted time, money, etc. Jaguar is not even a desktop-quality CPU. It wouldn't have even qualified as a midrange gaming PC part when it came out.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Consoles offer a streamlined and easy to use product that is relatively cheap and the only way to play games for certain people.


All of those things can apply to a standard based on x86 and Linux/Vulkan. Red herring. Nothing stands in the way of making things streamlined and easy-to-use. You're trying to have it both ways. You argue that the development cost isn't significant because of the common hardware standard (x86) and, simultaneously, argue that there's something special about the console hardware that makes them so compelling (streamlined and easy-to-use).

There is no reason why a common Linux/Vulkan software layer can't be just as easy-to-use and streamlined. In fact, it would be MORE streamlined, by far, because all game development of significance would be compatible with that software layer, instead of fragmented by hardware-based walled garden DRM - *where people literally have to buy and manage three different boxes if they want to play the games available for each. Now, that system is not streamlined, nor is it easier to use.*
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> They certainly do have positive qualities that make them popular otherwise no one would buy them.


People waited for years, hoping for a Trabant.

Again, things are not nearly as simplistic as your arguments try to make them.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> If we didnt have consoles then we would just be complaining about what the target performance level should be when developing games.


We shouldn't cure someone's deadly cancer because they'll still complain about their gout.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> That said Im still a PC guy, but I wish more titles made it to the PC platform naturally...


All titles should be on the PC platform. The hardware is x86. The only thing stopping it is bad business. Monopolies are not good for the market. MS, for instance, has a huge incentive to block the solution I've been discussing. MS obviously won't like the idea of their software layer being moved to the side, for gaming, in favor of a low-cost standard.

Windows offers nothing for gaming, over Linux/Vulkan, other than backward compatibility, something console makers haven't cared enough about and which Microsoft isn't caring enough about anymore as well.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> They are sold for a profit, not at a break-even point or at a loss. Console makers are making money from peddling obsolete hardware. That hardware is a drag on gaming development for the reasons I listed.
> Did common sense prevent the first video game crash? What about the second?
> 
> Did common sense prevent Atari, Sega, and Nintendo from becoming bit players in the gaming market, or even completely irrelevant?
> 
> Did common sense prevent Apple from being burned when Japanese DRAM makers pushed US DRAM makers out of business in the 80s by dumping DRAM below cost - then raising prices very high after they corned the market?
> 
> Business is not as simple as you are trying to argue it is. There are a lot of factors, including products that aren't very good but are "successful". Having monopolies and quasi-monopolies prop them up can certainly help. Monopolization is typified by the selling of less valuable products at higher price points.
> 
> Jaguar CPU based PCs are worth less than what consoles are selling for. No one is buying the class of GPUs in the consoles for even lower-level enthusiast gaming anymore. No one has been buying CPUs and video cards this week for a long time. *When Jaguar came out it was already weaker than Bulldozer*. Please tell me that Bulldozer and Piledriver were huge market successes.
> 
> One of the factors that can go into a product selling, even though it offers poor value, is hype. Another is inertia. But, the market forces have, over the long haul, consolidated around the x86 hardware standard. Even the precious consoles have done that. So, the next logical ("common sense" if you prefer) step is to consolidate around a software layer for that hardware standard. This was done with DOS/Windows but DOS/Windows carries big taxes. Again, being tied to a monopoly helps to explain why. Having to be able to be all things to all people, including enterprise, is another explanation. A Linux layer, by contrast, doesn't come with those costs.
> Put a PS4 game into your PC and let me know if it will run. Same with XBox. Take PC games and run them on the PS4 and XBox. Let me know the results.
> 
> More to the point - the very weak Jaguar CPU, a CPU that's weaker than the 2011 Bulldozer, is a big bottleneck. It's an anchor around the neck of developers. The GPU is old, quite obsolete, as well. The effort put into trying to make games on consoles look and behave relevant - with outdated hardware - is wasted effort. It's wasted time, money, etc. Jaguar is not even a desktop-quality CPU. It wouldn't have even qualified as a midrange gaming PC part when it came out.
> All of those things can apply to a standard based on x86 and Linux/Vulkan. Red herring. Nothing stands in the way of making things streamlined and easy-to-use. You're trying to have it both ways. You argue that the development cost isn't significant because of the common hardware standard (x86) and, simultaneously, argue that there's something special about the console hardware that makes them so compelling (streamlined and easy-to-use).
> 
> There is no reason why a common Linux/Vulkan software layer can't be just as easy-to-use and streamlined. In fact, it would be MORE streamlined, by far, because all game development of significance would be compatible with that software layer, instead of fragmented by hardware-based walled garden DRM - where people literally have to buy and manage three different boxes if they want to play the games available for each. Now, that system is not streamlined, nor is it easier to use.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> They certainly do have positive qualities that make them popular otherwise no one would buy them.
> 
> 
> 
> People waited for years, hoping for a Trabant.
> 
> Again, things are not nearly as simplistic as your arguments try to make them.
Click to expand...

Obsolete based on what? Performance? Because if so,then AMD and nVidia have been doing the same by selling anything but Vega or the 1080 Ti.

Sorry,but you made a huge word salad...and it still does not explain why are companies,according to you,wasting money,time and effort on something? I mean,im sorry but you are just plain wrong on that.

Games sell millions on consoles and always have. That's how we have studios that originated in the 90's still alive today. It's profitable. If it was not,no one would be bothering.

Hardware fracturating delevopment happens also on PC - Have you forgotten not everyone has the same CPU or GPU combo? Sacrifices have to be made even on PC. If you were to take a system with an i7 and a GTX 1080 as the point of reference,it would be a mess.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Obsolete based on what? Performance?


Uh, yeah.

Did you miss the part about it being weaker than Bulldozer/Piledriver when it was released?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Because if so,then AMD and nVidia have been doing the same by selling anything but Vega or the 1080 Ti.


Logical trainwreck there.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Sorry,but you made a huge word salad


No, I posted a detailed analytical response.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Games sell millions on consoles and always have. That's how we have studios that originated in the 90's still alive today. It's profitable.


PC gaming is also profitable, so I guess that proves - since you continue to hold up one factor as if it is the only one when making points - that only PC gaming is legitimate. It's profitable, after all. Millions of PC games are sold and have been sold.

Consoles have not always sold well. Read up on the first and second console crashes. Nintendo had to bribe retailers into taking the NES, offering to buy any unsold stock.

There are a lot of factors involved in sales and profitability.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Hardware fracturating delevopment happens also on PC - Have you forgotten not everyone has the same CPU or GPU combo? Sacrifices have to be made even on PC.


*You're claiming that having to buy and deal with three different boxes to play a variety of games is less fractured than being able to play everything on one box - that this situation represents a higher level of ease-of-use and streamlining.*

You're also forgetting that standards can be set in the framework I described. There is nothing preventing walled gardens, minimum standards, and the ability to adjust quality settings. It's a more flexible approach and far less redundant. It also doesn't force people to choose between paying for obsolete hardware or not getting to play a game in a franchise they value.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> If you were to take a system with an i7 and a GTX 1080 as the point of reference,it would be a mess.


Straw man.

The bottom line here is that, since consoles have adopted the x86 standard due to market pressure it's time to adopt a common software layer so people only need one box and backward compatibility can be a thing.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> Uh, yeah.
> 
> Did you miss the part about it being weaker than Bulldozer/Piledriver when it was released?


Ok,we know that it's obsolete,but you implied they were gaining some kind of illegitimate profit by selling them for more than they are worth? How'd you reach that conclusion if you only have the price of the unit,not the single component?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> Logical trainwreck there.


Not really,the same logic can be applied on that example. Since we have GPU's that are way more powerful than let's say,an RX 460 GPU,AMD and nVidia are selling obselete hardware based on performance,because when the RX 460 came out,there were already faster GPU's like the Fury X or 980 Ti.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> PC gaming is also profitable, so I guess that proves - since you continue to hold up one factor as if it is the only one when making points - that only PC gaming is legitimate. It's profitable, after all. Millions of PC games are sold and have been sold.
> 
> Consoles have not always sold well. Read up on the first and second console crashes. Nintendo had to bribe retailers into taking the NES, offering to buy any unsold stock.


All the examples you cited happened 20 years ago,maybe? Don't think it's relevant as you are talking about current consoles,i presume.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> You're claiming that having to buy and deal with three different boxes to play a variety of games is less fractured than being able to play everything on one box - that this situation represents a higher level of ease-of-use and streamlining


? Where i'd claim that? You are misrepresenting what i said. I claimed consoles offered a streamlined product that was easy to use,and that is true compared to PC.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> Straw man.
> 
> The bottom line here is that, since consoles have adopted the x86 standard due to market pressure it's time to adopt a common software layer so people only need one box and backward compatibility can be a thing.


You need to ease off that strawman...i just made an example.

That's not going to happen though,since Sony,Microsoft and Nintendo have been producing consoles for years,and there is also the fact that it would be a new product,adoption would not be guaranteed and it could fail. Didn't steam already try to do something similar with Steam Boxes,how'd that go?


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Ok,we know that it's obsolete,but you implied they were gaining some kind of illegitimate profit by selling them for more than they are worth?


I've explained all this.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Since we have GPU's that are way more powerful than let's say,an RX 460 GPU,AMD and nVidia are selling obselete hardware based on performance,because when the RX 460 came out,there were already faster GPU's like the Fury X or 980 Ti.


Even if we want to claim that Jaguar would have succeeded in the market, in terms of significant sales volume, without being propped up by monopoly forces, it's now 2017. Linux is more compelling now than it was then, thanks to Vulkan and the drawbacks of Windows 10.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> All the examples you cited happened 20 years ago,maybe? Don't think it's relevant as you are talking about current consoles,i presume.


You presume incorrectly. History is essential for understanding what can happen because it tells us what has happened.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> You are misrepresenting what i said. I claimed consoles offered a streamlined product that was easy to use,and that is true compared to PC.


Again, the situation isn't that simple. People have three different boxes they have to juggle. The consoles keep throwing out backward compatibility as well, even more than MS has.

Consoles offer nothing of added value anymore. They once did. That time has ended. Now, they are simply maintained with coercive tactics, like tying them into the latest optical media DRM and holding beloved franchises hostage.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> You need to ease off that strawman...i just made an example.


Straw man? It's a clear, and important, fact that the market has consolidated around x86 over time. Apple was drawn in, eventually. Console makers also abandoned all the custom designs in favor of x86.

It makes no sense to argue in favor of people having to buy redundant boxes, two of which have obsolete hardware in them - just so they can have access to a variety of games. That's an antique approach to gaming that makes no sense for anyone but Sony and MS.

Your argumentation suggests that you see the market as static. It's not. It has steadily made the incompatible console a relic of the past. The push toward standardization around x86 is linked to the push toward standardization around a common software layer. The only reason we haven't seen that push incompatible consoles out of the market is because MS is a monopoly and Sony is helping them.

Monopolies distort markets dramatically, leading to inferior products. But, I think the MS monopoly is cracking. Linux/Vulkan and the x86 standardization momentum is leaving gaming developers and gamers with less and less value found in having a bunch of redundant boxes to deal with, poor (if any) backward compatibility, and being forced to use obsolete hardware just to have access to beloved franchises.

Bad business typically fails in the long haul. The market is not static. And, even though you'd like to ignore historical precedent (the video game crashes), the history can be learned from. It matters. Microsoft could have avoided the red ring of death had it learned from Apple's mistake back in 1980. Only the foolish refuse to learn from history.

We have important standards based in software walled gardens, standards that have been profitable and successful for companies. Look at iOS vs. Android. It is not necessary to use hardware redundancy to have control.


----------



## Mad Pistol

So, what's the answer for consoles?

The arguements right now (just to recap):


Not powerful enough
Sold for a profit
Hurting gaming (how?)

I'm curious on these arguments. People lay out the problems, but not the solution.

Making a profit is not a crime. That's how companies survive, but yet, if the consoles were more powerful, they would have to raise the price and then risk people not buying them. And whether people want to believe this or not... if consoles die, the hardcore gaming industry dies. They represent a revenue stream that simply cannot be matched on PC alone.

Please understand this... hardcore PC gaming/customization is a niche market. It's an expensive hobby that most people do not want to invest in. Enter consoles, a plug-and-play medium that makes gaming accessible for a lower price. Some people here hate consoles because they have experience the glorious PCMR. Most people out there don't care that their consoles are slower or provide a gaming experience below what we are used to. However, there are a lot more people that buy consoles than buy gaming PCs, thus, the audience on consoles (at least here in the United States) is far larger.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> People lay out the problems, but not the solution.


The solution has been laid out repeatedly.

Use a common software layer (Linux/Vulkan - with CPU-based DRM) atop a common hardware layer (x86).

This solves big problems for developers and presents a much higher level of value for the consumer. More people win than lose.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Please understand this... hardcore PC gaming/customization is a niche market. It's an expensive hobby that most people do not want to invest in. Enter consoles, a plug-and-play medium that makes gaming accessible for a lower price.


Straw man, like the "profit is not a crime" bit.

The actual unnecessary complexity is asking people to juggle multiple x86 boxes. That's also the heart of the unnecessary expenditures.

There is a logical pretzel people are twisting themselves into:

"Consoles are x86, PC hardware. Therefore, PC gaming must be complex/difficult/niche."


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> The solution has been laid out repeatedly.
> 
> *Use a common software layer (Linux/Vulkan - with CPU-based DRM) atop a common hardware layer (x86).*
> 
> This solves big problems for developers and presents a much higher level of value for the consumer. More people win than lose.
> Straw man, like the "profit is not a crime" bit.
> 
> *The actual unnecessary complexity is asking people to juggle multiple x86 boxes.* That's also the heart of the unnecessary expenditures.


CPU-based DRM doesn't cut it for consoles. DRM can be spoofed/cracked, even at the hardware level... and once it is cracked, your entire platform is worthless. Let's break down the business of how this actually works.


3 Companies currently compete in the console market (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft)
All of them have pros/cons to their platforms.
They do not share games because a portion of profit from that game goes to the system manufacturer (licensing).
A game publisher/developer chooses to make a game on that platform, they are not forced to.
The more appealing a platform is (more games sold), the more likely a developer is to make a game on it.

Your theory works in a vacuum. But the fact is, gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry. If you owned a business worth millions or billions of dollars, would you be willing to "share" your proprietary designs with your competition in favor of an open market?

I can think of so many other markets that are far more divided than the gaming. Cars, appliances, TV makers, etc. Regardless of what you think the solution is, it just doesn't work; it would cause the industry to implode on itself because it would be impossible for anyone to make a profit.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> CPU-based DRM doesn't cut it for consoles. DRM can be spoofed/cracked, even at the hardware level.


So, you're contradicting your own point. If hardware DRM can be cracked then how are you making a point? A CPU is hardware. It's logically more efficient to deploy microcode updates to CPUs, to combat piracy, than it is to put out separate firmware updates for a bunch of redundant boxes.

That requires developers to develop and support anti-piracy DRM for multiple boxes. They have to deal with the software and hardware of multiple systems. Meanwhile, a pirate only has to target one to make his/her mark in the world.

All this is is yet another example of how this redundancy doesn't add value. It detracts from the value offered by the gaming market to the consumer. Efficiency is king.

There are too many advantages to standardization which is why x86 has pushed out so many incompatible standards over time.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> 3 Companies currently compete in the console market (Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft)
> All of them have pros/cons to their platforms.


Nintendo is marketing portables. That's a different debate. Small portables are one area where consoles still have some relevance.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> They do not share games because a portion of profit from that game goes to the system manufacturer (licensing). A game publisher/developer chooses to make a game on that platform, they are not forced to.


Nintendo and others use beloved franchises to force people to buy low-grade hardware. That doesn't benefit the consumer. Nintendo gets much more of a pass on this because portables are a different market than the one we're been discussing.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Your theory works in a vacuum. But the fact is, gaming is a multi-billion dollar industry. If you owned a business worth millions or billions of dollars, would you be willing to "share" your proprietary designs with your competition in favor of an open market?


Once again, there is no objective reason why software gardens can't replace hardware gardens. Look at iOS vs. Android. They're both ARM but they have software gardens. Apple and Google have control. Profits are being made.

For non-portable boxes, x86 has become the definitive standard. If fighting DRM with redundancy were truly of paramount importance then we certainly wouldn't see x86 be so standard. Instead, we would still have PPC consoles. It's tougher for a seasoned x86 hacker to crack PPC stuff. Security via obscurity.

The new DRM that is being added to CPUs today is powerful enough to base software walled gardens on.

As for proprietary designs? Like the overheating XBox 360 case? There is nothing special about consoles anymore, aside from whatever cruddy optical DRM the RIAA and MPAA cook up. They don't even have incompatible controller plugs like they once did.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I can think of so many other markets that are far more divided than the gaming. Cars, appliances, TV makers, etc.


TV is more divided? No, it isn't. Television hardware is highly standardized. Cars are as well.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Splitting up your points and writing an essay makes it nearly impossible to follow your rebuttal.

I'm out of this convo again... I don't know why I even bother.


----------



## superstition222

Another thing I pointed out is that USB stick dongles are a solution for those who think the CPU-based DRM isn't strong enough.

It's a lot easier for everyone involved to have consumers stick a USB stick into a single box to gain access to a walled garden than it is for them to have to deal with multiple redundant boxes.

USB dongles are used by some developers in pro audio.


----------



## rcfc89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReciever*
> 
> If we didnt have consoles then we would just be complaining about what the target performance level should be when developing games.
> 
> That said Im still a PC guy, but I wish more titles made it to the PC platform naturally...


That's why if you're a true gamer you must own both. I'm likely going to build another monster PC but no way am I missing out on Sony exclusives like Gran Turismo and the Uncharted series to name a few. GT will also be in 4K 60fps which is a major plus.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> I've explained all this.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Even if we want to claim that Jaguar would have succeeded in the market, in terms of significant sales volume, without being propped up by monopoly forces, it's now 2017. Linux is more compelling now than it was then, thanks to Vulkan and the drawbacks of Windows 10.
> You presume incorrectly. History is essential for understanding what can happen because it tells us what has happened.
> Again, the situation isn't that simple. People have three different boxes they have to juggle. The consoles keep throwing out backward compatibility as well, even more than MS has.
> 
> Consoles offer nothing of added value anymore. They once did. That time has ended. Now, they are simply maintained with coercive tactics, like tying them into the latest optical media DRM and holding beloved franchises hostage.
> Straw man? It's a clear, and important, fact that the market has consolidated around x86 over time. Apple was drawn in, eventually. Console makers also abandoned all the custom designs in favor of x86.
> 
> It makes no sense to argue in favor of people having to buy redundant boxes, two of which have obsolete hardware in them - just so they can have access to a variety of games. That's an antique approach to gaming that makes no sense for anyone but Sony and MS.
> 
> Your argumentation suggests that you see the market as static. It's not. It has steadily made the incompatible console a relic of the past. The push toward standardization around x86 is linked to the push toward standardization around a common software layer. The only reason we haven't seen that push incompatible consoles out of the market is because MS is a monopoly and Sony is helping them.
> 
> Monopolies distort markets dramatically, leading to inferior products. But, I think the MS monopoly is cracking. Linux/Vulkan and the x86 standardization momentum is leaving gaming developers and gamers with less and less value found in having a bunch of redundant boxes to deal with, poor (if any) backward compatibility, and being forced to use obsolete hardware just to have access to beloved franchises.
> 
> Bad business typically fails in the long haul. The market is not static. And, even though you'd like to ignore historical precedent (the video game crashes), the history can be learned from. It matters. Microsoft could have avoided the red ring of death had it learned from Apple's mistake back in 1980. Only the foolish refuse to learn from history.
> 
> We have important standards based in software walled gardens, standards that have been profitable and successful for companies. Look at iOS vs. Android. It is not necessary to use hardware redundancy to have control.


No,you did not.

Additionally,i have just realized a very important fact: Lets take as an example the PS4. It uses custom made APU. Yes,APU. Comparing it to CPU's and GPU's is not an equal comparison.

Your,or the other two peoples claim that it has outdated hardware is simply not true.

The PS4 APU has a GPU with 1152 SP with 18 CU and a 800 MHz core clock. It also has a octacore processor,though it has a very low clock at 1.6 GHz compared to the other APU's.

Still,it is way better than any other commercial APU sold by AMD. The last FM2 APU made by AMD,the A10-7890K sports a 512 SP GPU and 12 CU with a clock of 866 MHz. The CPU is still a quad core,but with a higher clock.

The PS4 APU surpasses every single APU aviable. And it's not obsolete. This is now a fact.

https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2085/playstation-4-gpu

The A10 7890K is priced at 143$ on Amazon. That's more than half the price of console for the APU alone. Sony offers an incredible deal by selling the PS4 with a significantly more powerful APU at 250$. Your claims are wrong on the pricing. Once again,this proves the value of consoles.

PC gaming can dream of an APU like the PS4 has.


----------



## TheReciever

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> That's why if you're a true gamer you must own both. I'm likely going to build another monster PC but no way am I missing out on Sony exclusives like Gran Turismo and the Uncharted series to name a few. GT will also be in 4K 60fps which is a major plus.


I just keep playing GT3 if I ever do play, only interested in Horizon but most of story rich fantasy RPG

If the graphics are of ps2 level and above, Im game for an immersive story line. Seems like Xenoblade is the last RPG (that I know of) and that was on the Wii I think.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> This is hyperbole.
> 
> "True gamer" isn't great terminology but we can all get a rough sense of what it means. It doesn't mean someone who plays Windows Solitaire or Angry Birds. Those are casuals. It also doesn't have to mean a professional or an addict.
> 
> What it obviously refers to is someone who games significantly enough to be considered a _gaming enthusiast_.
> 
> A gaming enthusiast is the sort of person who cares about seeing games evolve, seeing the technology that's behind them get better so the games can become more sophisticated.
> 
> A casual is the sort of person who wouldn't care about such things. The might ooh and ahh for two seconds at the latest impressive graphics but they're not going to make the effort to play any challenging/demanding game deeply.


And?? The casual gamer's money is just as valuable as the "Xtreme" gamer's money and their opinions are thusly just as consequential (perhaps even more since there are likely more casual gamers). This is a free market and if there wasn't an overwhelming demand for consoles I assure you they wouldn't be here. I just don't understand why so many of you seem to think this is a zero sum game? There's plenty of the market to go around for all of us and this "state of the art form" crap is just silly. Sure there are issues with PC gaming but to hear you guys talk you'd think there wasn't a single decent game being produced for PC these days!


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TweakTown in 2015*
> One of the biggest kicks in the nuts with VRAM usage is that we're being heavily constrained and held back by consoles. There's no denying it, we're being held back right now.
> 
> We have truly unbelievable amounts of power in even mid-range GPUs right now, but with 8GB of VRAM there are simply no games making true use of it. Once we get some proper super high-end titles out that are built on the PC and scale up with the incredible power of our video cards, then 8GB of VRAM will become something worth being envious of. Until then, 4GB is more than enough.


Perhaps this is why Witcher 3 was watered-down so much from the demo and some reviewers were shocked by how low its VRAM requirements ended up being.

link


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> And?? The casual gamer's money is just as valuable as the "Xtreme" gamer's money and their opinions are thusly just as consequential (perhaps even more since there are likely more casual gamers). This is a free market and if there wasn't an overwhelming demand for consoles I assure you they wouldn't be here. I just don't understand why so many of you seem to think this is a zero sum game? There's plenty of the market to go around for all of us and this "state of the art form" crap is just silly. Sure there are issues with PC gaming but to hear you guys talk you'd think there wasn't a single decent game being produced for PC these days!


The problem is that the casual market whilst higher in total revenue is more finicky, not as dependable, much less passionate and despite all that - easier to cater to.

Satisfy those that made you great first, then satisfying those that didnt even know you existed is both less risky and easier. Alas people these days with their short term thinking cant quite gasp that.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> No,you did not.
> 
> Additionally,i have just realized a very important fact: Lets take as an example the PS4. It uses custom made APU. Yes,APU. Comparing it to CPU's and GPU's is not an equal comparison.
> 
> Your,or the other two peoples claim that it has outdated hardware is simply not true.
> 
> The PS4 APU has a GPU with 1152 SP with 18 CU and a 800 MHz core clock. It also has a octacore processor,though it has a very low clock at 1.6 GHz compared to the other APU's.
> 
> Still,it is way better than any other commercial APU sold by AMD. The last FM2 APU made by AMD,the A10-7890K sports a 512 SP GPU and 12 CU with a clock of 866 MHz. The CPU is still a quad core,but with a higher clock.
> 
> The PS4 APU surpasses every single APU aviable. And it's not obsolete. This is now a fact.
> 
> https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2085/playstation-4-gpu
> 
> The A10 7890K is priced at 143$ on Amazon. That's more than half the price of console for the APU alone. Sony offers an incredible deal by selling the PS4 with a significantly more powerful APU at 250$. Your claims are wrong on the pricing. Once again,this proves the value of consoles.
> 
> PC gaming can dream of an APU like the PS4 has.


One of the reasons I cant wait for Raven Ridge. A CPU that is 4-5 times the speed of the PS4 Pro's CPU with a GPU faster than the PS4's.

PS:
No human or company is above history. Stop insinuating they are. Its insulting and disrespectful to basically all of mankind...


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> The problem is that the casual market whilst higher in total revenue is more finicky, not as dependable, much less passionate and despite all that - easier to cater to.
> 
> *Satisfy those that made you great first, then satisfying those that didnt even know you existed is both less risky and easier.* Alas people these days with their short term thinking cant quite gasp that.
> One of the reasons I cant wait for Raven Ridge. A CPU that is 4-5 times the speed of the PS4 Pro's CPU with a GPU faster than the PS4's.
> 
> PS:
> No human or company is above history. Stop insinuating they are. Its insulting and disrespectful to basically all of mankind...


You act like these companies owe you something... they don't. Telling them how to run their business will get you nowhere.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> You act like these companies owe you something... they don't. Telling them how to run their business will get you nowhere.


I dont owe them a thing either and I reserve my entire right to mock them or call out their stupidity. That it my right and duty as a consumer









However, what I basically paraphrased is a general rule that seems to have been forgotten by some (not all) publishers. Support those who made you great first, then go for the others. Something THQ failed at, for example.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> You act like these companies owe you something... they don't. Telling them how to run their business will get you nowhere.


Corporations owe us everything.

They're financial ephemera - collective fiction (in terms of the ridiculous corporate personhood idea). Corporations only exist because we say they do. They are nothing without the public to prop them up, to give them form and meaning. That includes taxes to pay for all the resources they use, like roads and railways. It includes tolerance for their pollution and consumption. It includes tolerance of their lobbying, advertising, and golden parachutes. It includes giving them our money in exchange for products and services. It includes giving them our labor, too.

Corporations are ostensibly in business to provide the products and services we need, supposedly more efficiently than non-corporate entities can. That's the entire justification for their existence. They are supposed to be serving us and serving us well.

You are looking at them as if they're owner/operator businesses. Even a good owner/operator, though, is going to listen closely to feedback.


----------



## Charcharo

For all the hype about lowest common denominator and the like, some points from this (actually old) video hold true for most of the art forms:


----------



## superstition222

He says no consumer thought of wanting extra chunky sauce, even though they had a preference for it. That's obviously a false claim. He's acting as if what corporations provide is the only thing there is - that consumers are completely beholden to corporations for everything. People make homemade pasta sauces. There are restaurants that serve pasta sauces that are nothing like Ragu and Prego garbage. The only useful thing about the extra chunky revelation is that corporations can, and do, provide products without providing other products that large/significant numbers of people want to buy. It also means that all of the products being provided may not be ideal, just what happen to be in the market, especially due to inertia from branding power. Making 100 variations of Ragu is also not simply about giving people what they want. Companies have realized there is money to be made in getting people to buy something to sample it. So, constantly churning out variations gets people to buy product, even if they won't like it, so they can try it.

Now that I've finished the video, with his comparison with the video game market, I'm struck by the thing he didn't mention that makes his comparison the most powerful.

Prego and Ragu are both low-quality pasta sauces.

The vision of gaming options he shows, the one big publishers are ignoring, is like choosing between Prego and Ragu - even if they have 200 sauces each.

There is more out there. The alternative games he showed, for instance, were all violent/gory/macho - the same thing we get in game after game after game. Knifing someone in slow motion to watch the blood stream out of them is on the same plane of gaming as the generic FPS. Gamers all over the world have blinders on, where they think only The Sims (a franchise EA has destroyed) and Cities Skylines (a franchise established because EA destroyed SimCity) can exist without violence and excessive macho posturing.

What his analysis doesn't get is that there are different tiers of consumer. Some consumers demand higher quality than others - instead of different varieties of the same low-grade stuff. It's time for video gaming to have more games that are not about excessive violence and macho nonsense. But, good luck getting a job at a game company if you're not going to want to work toward creating another me-too product.

Nintendo's success with the NES and Sony's success with the PlayStation both came about due to adventure game depth. Even Super Mario Bros is an adventure game. When compared with the all-action-all-the-time Atari mindset, games like Zelda, Final Fantasy, SMB, and Metroid brought adventure into the mix. More complexity. Worlds to explore and experience. Sure, you went around killing everything in sight in the process, but it was a major step forward. Final Fantasy VII was a big success, in large part, due to the quality of its music and its story-driven plot. It was not about how much gore one could find or how monstrously macho every male who appeared in the game was.

There is opportunity beyond games like FFVII, to create immersive worlds to explore without macho posturing and constant violence. And, no, they don't have to be tedious puzzle games like MYST, or seemingly pointless "ooh, pretty" world builders like that dinosaur game (can't remember the name offhand).


----------



## Charcharo

I honestly have no idea what Ragu and Prego are as I just use homemade sauce.

The point here was that emulating only the 2-3 most successful things wont get you a niche nor critical success. You wont beat GTA at being GTA. So Saints Row did something else. You wont carve out a niche against CoD by being CoD, you need something different. And you can not declare entire genres dead like horror or strategy, as those are either cyclical or always in demand (maybe not THE HIGHEST demand, but a good portion nonetheless).

Many games these days arent purely about machismo, their themes and ideas, main ones are tied to different things. Even titles such as the newer Wolfenstein games or the Witcher are not thematically about just violence. Violence itself isnt necessarily shallow either. I agree gaming needs to try more things, else literature and even cinema will continue to be outright superior forever, but gaming already has some, if small strides.

I want to see a game tackle in a way thats actually not terrible things such as love or comradely... but even I am not sure how it can do that. And in the toxic entitle meme culture of today it will be very risky.

But hey, such is art. We defeat conslows and stop monopolies and kill of DRM and I'd be satisfied already


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I dont owe them a thing either and *I reserve my entire right to mock them or call out their stupidity.* That it my right and duty as a consumer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, what I basically paraphrased is a general rule that seems to have been forgotten by some (not all) publishers. Support those who made you great first, then go for the others. Something THQ failed at, for example.


Support whoever you want, but the fact is... the people that run those companies are making more money than you are. Guess the system is working for them, even if it isn't for you.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> *Corporations owe us everything.*
> 
> They're financial ephemera - collective fiction (in terms of the ridiculous corporate personhood idea). Corporations only exist because we say they do. They are nothing without the public to prop them up, to give them form and meaning. That includes taxes to pay for all the resources they use, like roads and railways. It includes tolerance for their pollution and consumption. It includes tolerance of their lobbying, advertising, and golden parachutes. It includes giving them our money in exchange for products and services. It includes giving them our labor, too.
> 
> Corporations are ostensibly in business to provide the products and services we need *want*, supposedly more efficiently than non-corporate entities can. That's the entire justification for their existence. *They are supposed to be serving us and serving us well.*
> 
> You are looking at them as if they're owner/operator businesses. Even a good owner/operator, though, is going to listen closely to feedback.


You're confusing a public corporation with a political group. (and not all game companies are public, btw.)

I just get this feeling of entitlement from your statement here, in that because you want something, they should immediately focus their efforts to create it.

And most corporations out there don't get handouts from the government. Quite the opposite actually; they pay a ton of taxes each year. I'm not sure where you get this idea that game companies are propped up by the government... that's literally one of the craziest things I have ever heard.









Companies are in the business of making money. If they are a publicly traded company, their first obligation is to their shareholders. Usually, they make their money by making their customers happy and providing a quality product, but that isn't "serving". It might be providing a service for a fee, or it might be providing a product for a fee (or both), but I think you're confusing serve and service. Companies make money because people buy their products or use their services. That's how business works.

The United States government SERVES the people; the government is run by publicly elected officials to provide a voice for the people. A company is not a government entity. Please research the difference.

Publicly traded corporations do not serve the public. They serve their stock holders. Private companies serve themselves.

Companies owe you nothing. They remain in business because people buy their products or use their services. Capitalism.


----------



## Raghar

I probably missed few things. I'm just disabled ex-freeware game developer, why did they talk about corporations?

Technically current copyright and game development is quite degenerate case, in case of Japanese corporations it's actually behind border of felony. Disney copyright act wrongly extended copyright, and there isn't any leavay for digital use for personal reasons. They would obliterate TV news when they would not make permission about coincidental recording, but PC and other gaming platform degenerate fast, and it goes against original intent of copyright laws.

Technically general public should create freeware for everyone, same reason as for free education.

Companies are abusing theirs monopoly situation, or better say theirs situation where they removed anyone who would kill theirs profits, and sometimes also prevented a freely available better alternative. I'd call Intel victim of negative part of being corporation. They wanted profits, Intel saved few tens millions by using thermal paste, and lost skills that allowed efficient use of solder in HEDT. It kills Intel's renomee, and would make it hard to compete against Threadripper. Well considering pricing, it's also hard to compete against Ryzen 6 and 8 cores.

But this doesn't have much to do with game development. Game developers 20 years ago were people who were willing to work for 1/3 of salaries in equally skilled field, just because they had passion and wanted to make complex SW called game. And no, it wasn't about licencing engine like now, it was about making a working reliable complex SW in time AND art assets.

Current situation is much worse 1. there are engines which makes things easier, but on the other hand game developers lost skills. (And worse, 20 years ago there was non negligible chance of high school dropout to self educate into SW eng, and earn its place on SW eng position. Considering inflation of education, I'm not sure if this thing is possible now.)
2. Current commercial games fell into the same trap as movies. Family movies were supposed to be profitable because whole family went to them. Games with high development costs should pay development costs. And now there is a problem, would someone risk something uncommon which would likely be disliked by majority of common users? Bland graphically appealing games without any risk would likely return investment.
Actually one of blatant examples is Pillars of Eternity. Main developer thought players want exactly old stuff including oversights in UI. He also degraded already bad character system with things, he though players want (they paid for our Kickstarter). Players loathed it.

Game development matured, and with maturity of game development field came stagnation and degeneration.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Support whoever you want, but the fact is... the people that run those companies are making more money than you are. Guess the system is working for them, even if it isn't for you.
> You're confusing a public corporation with a political group. (and not all game companies are public, btw.)
> 
> I just get this feeling of entitlement from your statement here, in that because you want something, they should immediately focus their efforts to create it.
> 
> And most corporations out there don't get handouts from the government. Quite the opposite actually; they pay a ton of taxes each year. I'm not sure where you get this idea that game companies are propped up by the government... that's literally one of the craziest things I have ever heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Companies are in the business of making money. If they are a publicly traded company, their first obligation is to their shareholders. Usually, they make their money by making their customers happy and providing a quality product, but that isn't "serving". It might be providing a service for a fee, or it might be providing a product for a fee (or both), but I think you're confusing serve and service. Companies make money because people buy their products or use their services. That's how business works.
> 
> The United States government SERVES the people; the government is run by publicly elected officials to provide a voice for the people. A company is not a government entity. Please research the difference.
> 
> Publicly traded corporations do not serve the public. They serve their stock holders. Private companies serve themselves.
> 
> Companies owe you nothing. They remain in business because people buy their products or use their services. Capitalism.


Dont underestimate me. I am just a student working part time but I do intend to be rich.









Why isnt it working for me? They are disappointing me and damaging gaming, it will be our children that judge them as idiots. I always have superior literature to fall back on.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Dont underestimate me. *I am just a student working part time but I do intend to be rich.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isnt it working for me? They are disappointing me and damaging gaming, it will be our children that judge them as idiots. I always have superior literature to fall back on.


Funny... I said the same thing when I was younger.

I wish you much luck, but trust me, it isn't easy and it takes a lot of work.


----------



## MythTFLfan29

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Funny... I said the same thing when I was younger.
> 
> I wish you much luck, but trust me, it isn't easy and it takes a lot of work.


So true. I'm not rich but as I've gotten older I've realized in theory I am when I consider myself to be much more fortunate than many others across the globe (what they're going through financially, socially, geographically and religious persecution in lots of areas to name a few) and try to take that into account anytime I'm dealing with things.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> You're confusing a public corporation with a political group. (and not all game companies are public, btw.)


No, I'm not.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> I just get this feeling of entitlement from your statement here, in that because you want something, they should immediately focus their efforts to create it.


_Ad hominem_ isn't a rebuttal.

If you're worried about entitlement-mindedness, consider your position - that companies exist as parasites on the public rather than existing because they provide a service the public desires, thus enabling them to exist via permission.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> And most corporations out there don't get handouts from the government. Quite the opposite actually; they pay a ton of taxes each year. I'm not sure where you get this idea that game companies are propped up by the government... that's literally one of the craziest things I have ever heard.


None of this is relevant to the points I made. Red herrings.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Companies are in the business of making money.


Wrong.

Companies exist because they serve the public. Otherwise, the public wouldn't allow them to exist.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> The United States government SERVES the people; the government is run by publicly elected officials to provide a voice for the people.


People who run charities serve people. Friends serve each other. There are lots of different avenues for serving people.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> A company is not a government entity.


Generally, no, although the boundaries can be heavily blurred.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Publicly traded corporations do not serve the public.


LOL. *Publicaly-traded* companies don't serve the *public*, eh?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> They serve their stock holders. Private companies serve themselves. Companies owe you nothing. They remain in business because people buy their products or use their services. Capitalism


You're not looking at the big picture. In the big picture, companies are accepted by the public due to the service they provide to the public. Otherwise, they would not be tolerated.


----------



## rcfc89

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Dont underestimate me. I am just a student working part time but I do intend to be rich.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isnt it working for me? They are disappointing me and damaging gaming, it will be our children that judge them as idiots. I always have superior literature to fall back on.


Damaging gaming? There would be no PC gaming without Console. There simply isn't enough revenue coming in on the PC side to give developers the tools to make great games. Console which attracts the masses because of price easily brings in 10x the revenue PC gaming does. You're really cutting yourself short with this idea that console is the enemy and at the same time missing out on some fantastic games. Sony exclusive's like Uncharted and the God of War series are some of the best gaming experiences I've ever had. Days Gone is another very interesting title coming out soon. All of these experiences you will miss out on because of your idea that Console is beneath you. That's honestly your loss man. I prefer to have both PC and Console. That's what makes a true gaming enthusiast.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rcfc89*
> 
> Damaging gaming? There would be no PC gaming without Console. There simply isn't enough revenue coming in on the PC side to give developers the tools to make great games. Console which attracts the masses because of price easily brings in 10x the revenue PC gaming does. You're really cutting yourself short with this idea that console is the enemy and at the same time missing out on some fantastic games. Sony exclusive's like Uncharted and the God of War series are some of the best gaming experiences I've ever had. Days Gone is another very interesting title coming out soon. All of these experiences you will miss out on because of your idea that Console is beneath you. That's honestly your loss man. I prefer to have both PC and Console. That's what makes a true gaming enthusiast.


Read more from the thread then respond. Every single one of your points except the last one has received a retort many times.

A gaming enthusiast thinks about more than himself and the short term good. They think long term for gaming even after their death and can call out bad stuff without a need to soften it up just because some rich Americans prefer conslows due to nostalgia...


----------



## Boomer1990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Read more from the thread then respond. Every single one of your points except the last one has received a retort many times.
> 
> A gaming enthusiast thinks about more than himself and the short term good. They think long term for gaming even after their death and can call out bad stuff without a need to soften it up just because some rich Americans prefer conslows due to nostalgia...


The long term is exclusives for Sony seem to make the company enough profit for them to continue to take risks and make new ip's which in turn means new games. The Playstation brand is the main thing keeping the company earning profit, which allows for more jobs and more ip's to be funded that would not get the same type of funding if they released only on the PC. PC has plenty of new ip's that come out but it seems too many are buggy greenlight titles. It would be nice to see more PC only games get massive funding on the level of Star Citizen. There is no nostalgia with the ps4, my nostalgia lies in the super nintendo and n64, with games like Jet Force Gemini, A Link to the Past, Star Fox and Ocarina of TIme.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> The long term is exclusives for Sony seem to make the company enough profit for them to continue to take risks and make new ip's which in turn means new games. The Playstation brand is the main thing keeping the company earning profit, which allows for more jobs and more ip's to be funded that would not get the same type of funding if they released only on the PC. PC has plenty of new ip's that come out but it seems too many are buggy greenlight titles. It would be nice to see more PC only games get massive funding on the level of Star Citizen. There is no nostalgia with the ps4, my nostalgia lies in the super nintendo and n64, with games like Jet Force Gemini, A Link to the Past, Star Fox and Ocarina of TIme.


There is little risk in cinematic third person bad movies action adventures with stealth elements and third person open world action games. Nothing unique there, sorry.

If Sony's best way to keep afloat is by keeping games hostages and using a machine made by AMD engineers (not even Sony)... then perhaps they dont deserve to be on the market.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> No, I'm not.
> _Ad hominem_ isn't a rebuttal.
> 
> If you're worried about entitlement-mindedness, consider your position - that companies exist as parasites on the public rather than existing because they provide a service the public desires, thus enabling them to exist via permission.
> None of this is relevant to the points I made. Red herrings.
> Wrong.
> 
> Companies exist because they serve the public. Otherwise, the public wouldn't allow them to exist.
> People who run charities serve people. Friends serve each other. There are lots of different avenues for serving people.
> Generally, no, although the boundaries can be heavily blurred.
> LOL. *Publicaly-traded* companies don't serve the *public*, eh?
> You're not looking at the big picture. In the big picture, companies are accepted by the public due to the service they provide to the public. Otherwise, they would not be tolerated.


Again, serve and service are not the same. You're confusing these terms.

If you're going to argue this point, you will need to learn the difference between them first.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> There is little risk in cinematic third person bad movies action adventures with stealth elements and third person open world action games. Nothing unique there, sorry.
> 
> If Sony's best way to keep afloat is by keeping games hostages and using a machine made by AMD engineers (not even Sony)... then perhaps they dont deserve to be on the market.


Those are types of gameplay,the unique element is always found on the story. If that's how you reason,no game is unique since they always use the same type of gameplay,be it third person,first person etc.

Sony has put together multiple studios wich dedicate to create exclusive games for their platforms,they are the one paying for it. Hostage is not even applicablie in this situation. You should check what it actually means.


----------



## Boomer1990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> There is little risk in cinematic third person bad movies action adventures with stealth elements and third person open world action games. Nothing unique there, sorry.
> 
> If Sony's best way to keep afloat is by keeping games hostages and using a machine made by AMD engineers (not even Sony)... then perhaps they dont deserve to be on the market.


Lol, why does it matter if AMD engineered it? I mean we only have two main graphic card companies and neither makes games, by your statement I guess no game companies deserve to be on the market. Sony owns and keeps people employed at multiple first party studios. These studios would not exist as is without Sony, and, it keeps people employed, it allows people to feed their families, it creates new ip's that would not exist otherwise.

It does not matter what you think of the type of games Sony makes, at the end of the day a lot of people enjoy the games and while they get to have fun playing those games you will keep remaining a bitter person while console generations just keep selling better than the previous, and those of us without some mis-aligned hate for consoles will continue to enjoy the offerings the consoles bring as well as the joys of what PC allows us to do and what they bring to the table.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> I mean we only have two main graphic card companies and neither makes games


Both AMD and Nvidia give money to developers. Nvidia, as far as I know, distributes more funds ("sponsors"). That's why stuff like Gameworks is particularly useful as a tool to make its cards look better at AMD's expense. If AMD excels in compute then Gameworks will use extreme levels of tessellation. If Nvidia were merely interested in advancing game technology then why make Gameworks a black box? Why not make it open source?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> Sony owns and keeps people employed at multiple first party studios. These studios would not exist as is without Sony, and, it keeps people employed, it allows people to feed their families, it creates new ip's that would not exist otherwise.


People were kept employed building Trabants.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> It does not matter what you think of the type of games Sony makes, at the end of the day a lot of people enjoy the games and while they get to have fun playing those games you will keep remaining a bitter person


People put themselves on long-term waiting lists, hoping for a Trabant.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> while console generations just keep selling better than the previous


So, low-end PCs are more popular than less compatible consoles? That reinforces what I've written about the trend toward x86 standardization and the increasing marginalization the console, in favor of the PC.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> and those of us without some mis-aligned hate for consoles will continue to enjoy the offerings the consoles bring as well as the joys of what PC allows us to do and what they bring to the table.


They bring drawbacks to the table that are bigger than the advantages - for the larger portion of the gaming market. That includes propping up Windows, which is a drag on the PC platform.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Those are types of gameplay,the unique element is always found on the story. If that's how you reason,no game is unique since they always use the same type of gameplay,be it third person,first person etc.
> 
> Sony has put together multiple studios wich dedicate to create exclusive games for their platforms,they are the one paying for it. Hostage is not even applicablie in this situation. You should check what it actually means.


Then why is their story not unique and kinda mediocre too? Before you go all in on the "muh TLOU emotions"... mate we have cinema and effin literature. Do you seriously think it can compare? It isnt even of the same dimension of quality (no video games are there yet) let alone being inventive or unique.

The second part is that most of the exclusives are just that. One or two types of games. Talk about limited fanbase.

Those games will die, they dont have any aspirations for art like other games have... only because of consoles. Even if I dont like them, no art deserves death out of greed and stupid short sightedness.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> Lol, why does it matter if AMD engineered it? I mean we only have two main graphic card companies and neither makes games, by your statement I guess no game companies deserve to be on the market. Sony owns and keeps people employed at multiple first party studios. These studios would not exist as is without Sony, and, it keeps people employed, it allows people to feed their families, it creates new ip's that would not exist otherwise.
> 
> It does not matter what you think of the type of games Sony makes, at the end of the day a lot of people enjoy the games and while they get to have fun playing those games you will keep remaining a bitter person while console generations just keep selling better than the previous, and those of us without some mis-aligned hate for consoles will continue to enjoy the offerings the consoles bring as well as the joys of what PC allows us to do and what they bring to the table.


Because it means Sony didnt even make it. They dont have the engineering prowess to do it, they cant even accomplish that. Its a good thing an actually competent company came in and made their newer gen consoles.

Those engineers would be working (if they were actually good after all) in other, better companies. This is the same reason I aint afraid for Nvidia or AMD or Intel in case one of them fails, at least not for their employees. They are the best in their work, they will have a job. Maybe the janitors wont, but alas such is life.

As for Sony's "game developers" well they'd either do something else or make games for other platforms/PC. The only difference would be that we'd see their vision less filtered by corporate greed so the games might be better. And a new IP that is the same as the previous one, is not impressive at all. Its useless.

Yeah, I will keep being bitter about less intelligent rich people making stupid decisions and ruining an art form with extreme short sightedness. That can make any person with *actual* passion bitter.


----------



## Boomer1990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Then why is their story not unique and kinda mediocre too? Before you go all in on the "muh TLOU emotions"... mate we have cinema and effin literature. Do you seriously think it can compare? It isnt even of the same dimension of quality (no video games are there yet) let alone being inventive or unique.
> 
> The second part is that most of the exclusives are just that. One or two types of games. Talk about limited fanbase.
> 
> Those games will die, they dont have any aspirations for art like other games have... only because of consoles. Even if I dont like them, no art deserves death out of greed and stupid short sightedness.
> Because it means Sony didnt even make it. They dont have the engineering prowess to do it, they cant even accomplish that. Its a good thing an actually competent company came in and made their newer gen consoles.
> 
> Those engineers would be working (if they were actually good after all) in other, better companies. This is the same reason I aint afraid for Nvidia or AMD or Intel in case one of them fails, at least not for their employees. They are the best in their work, they will have a job. Maybe the janitors wont, but alas such is life.
> 
> As for Sony's "game developers" well they'd either do something else or make games for other platforms/PC. The only difference would be that we'd see their vision less filtered by corporate greed so the games might be better. And a new IP that is the same as the previous one, is not impressive at all. Its useless.
> 
> Yeah, I will keep being bitter about less intelligent rich people making stupid decisions and ruining an art form with extreme short sightedness. That can make any person with *actual* passion bitter.


Yes Sony only has two types of games. /s http://gematsu.com/exclusives/ps4 You call others less intelligent yet you seem to be unable to do a 1 second google search. Yes those developers might be doing something else but guess what they are making new IP's for Sony. If they worked for a different company they might be lucky and get on a team that does not have a filtered vision, but how many good AAA quality PC only games that push boundaries are there currently being made atm? You act like there is not greed on the pc side yet all you have to do is look at some of the games coming out from Steam greenlight that make millions and then development stops and the creators go work on something else while their game remains a buggy mess. There are plenty of people with passion making games for multiple systems. Just because you're bitter and angry that not everyone feels the same way as you does not make their passion worth any less than yours.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> Lol, why does it matter if AMD engineered it? I mean we only have two main graphic card companies and neither makes games, by your statement I guess no game companies deserve to be on the market. Sony owns and keeps people employed at multiple first party studios. These studios would not exist as is without Sony, and, it keeps people employed, it allows people to feed their families, it creates new ip's that would not exist otherwise.
> 
> It does not matter what you think of the type of games Sony makes, at the end of the day a lot of people enjoy the games and while they get to have fun playing those games you will keep remaining a bitter person while console generations just keep selling better than the previous, and those of us without some mis-aligned hate for consoles will continue to enjoy the offerings the consoles bring as well as the joys of what PC allows us to do and what they bring to the table.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> Yes Sony only has two types of games. /s http://gematsu.com/exclusives/ps4 You call others less intelligent yet you seem to be unable to do a 1 second google search. Yes those developers might be doing something else but guess what they are making new IP's for Sony. If they worked for a different company they might be lucky and get on a team that does not have a filtered vision, but how many good AAA quality PC only games that push boundaries are there currently being made atm? You act like there is not greed on the pc side yet all you have to do is look at some of the games coming out from Steam greenlight that make millions and then development stops and the creators go work on something else while their game remains a buggy mess. There are plenty of people with passion making games for multiple systems. Just because you're bitter and angry that not everyone feels the same way as you does not make their passion worth any less than yours.


The most overhyped SOny exclusives are ATM 2 types. Naughty Dog's cinematic third person action adventure thing, and the Witcher 3 knock off except without the literary basis and storytelling - Horizon Zero Dawn.

AAA video gams and pushing boundaries? Id believe an indie title pushing boundaries, a mod pushing boundaries, a low budget game pushing boundaries, but these days I outright approach with skepticism the idea for a AAA game doing the same.

There is greed on PC, but it isnt long term affecting greed. The greenlight trolls and asset flippers, AAA developers and anti-modding alliances are huge issues, but none of them represent as big of a long term threat as Sony or Nintendo or MS's XboX division.
Seriously, you have those wackos at Sony taking a stance against cross-platform play... how can you defend that?


----------



## Superplush

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> The most overhyped SOny exclusives are ATM 2 types. Naughty Dog's cinematic third person action adventure thing, and the Witcher 3 knock off except without the literary basis and storytelling - Horizon Zero Dawn.


Arguing personal opinion there. In -my- opinion Horizon is a metric frikken tonne better than The Witcher 3 ever was storyline wise and prettier to boot. However it is just opinion, the same as when people say "Cinematic, walking simulators are crap" I've enjoyed Uncharted much more than the latest rehashes of squeenix's screw up, Tomb raider. Then again, I also enjoyed Heavy rain, Last of us and Beyond two souls. Just because it doesn't explode every two seconds doesn't make it a bad game, it just means it's not your cup of tea is all.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> AAA video gams and pushing boundaries? Id believe an indie title pushing boundaries, a mod pushing boundaries, a low budget game pushing boundaries, but these days I outright approach with skepticism the idea for a AAA game doing the same.
> 
> There is greed on PC, but it isnt long term affecting greed. The greenlight trolls and asset flippers, AAA developers and anti-modding alliances are huge issues, but none of them represent as big of a long term threat as Sony or Nintendo or MS's XboX division.
> Seriously, you have those wackos at Sony taking a stance against cross-platform play... how can you defend that?


You sound like a Triple-A titled studio can't push bounderies, which we both know they can and are responseable for the biggest 'pushes' because they are higher profile. Sure, most of the games are sticking to the same formulae but others do indeed take something older and make it better. In the previous example Horizon: Zero Dawn is the Ubisoft "FarCry" but it's smoother, prettier and acts better than ubisofts titular series. I usually let certain companies off with certain things, with Guerilla games ( Horizon, Killzone ) they have -never- done a 3rd person, open world game before and I think their first try was spectacular even if the gamers think it's a lazy clone. On the other hand The Witcher 3 wasn't that good coming from a company that has done nothing more than 3rd person RPG's and has a history of porting games, backed by a massive online distribution platform like GoG which they wholly own. It's all relative with opinion thrown in for good measure.

Personally I think these indie games on greenlight have done more to harm the reputation of PC more than AAA developers and their 'safe series' games ever have, sure they haven't progressed but at least they haven't shown the world that even a 5 year old with a crayon can make a game and release it on Greenlight with a small financial backing. Sure, not all Indie dev's are like that but people are unwilling to wade through the crap to get to the cream and wait for either word of mouth or until they come across it one day on their featured games lists. I can't off the top of my head anyways, think of any ground-breaking Mods to games either. Might be because it's early and my brain hasn't engagued but Mod's tend to boost the original games graphics to suit a Niche demographic or to bring something people complain about changing back to the nostalgic crowd. ( Seriously, how many Morrowind mods do we need for every elder scrolls games to bring it back? )

IMHO I'm usually against PC / console cross platform because I don't like the online console community, dumbing PC's down to plug-and-play platforms for the front room and adding no oversight for age and you have the bottom of the barrel personalities jumping on and throwing around racial slurrs and refferances to homosexuality just because you were the better player. Added to the fact PC have the supierior imput method for everything but driving games and we end up either being handicapped or they get unfair advantages like aim assistance.
Now for PS4 / XB1 cross platform, I could see where they're coming from. As a PS4 owner, I tend to see it as the 'grown ups' console whereas the XB1 is more of the 'kiddie, A.D.D, explosion' platform. So no, in that respect I wouldn't want to deal with XB1 users on there either, besides the only games you tend to see having a long online life are FPS' which're owned by 3rd party publishers like EA or Activison so I don't think there would be much of a problem for cross-platform unless Sony specifically said or went out of their way.


----------



## artemis2307

I'm still amazed how they pulled off HZD on basically a HD7850. If PC was that well optimized 4k 60fps on a RX580 is not impossible


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Superplush*
> 
> Arguing personal opinion there. In -my- opinion Horizon is a metric frikken tonne better than The Witcher 3 ever was storyline wise and prettier to boot. However it is just opinion, the same as when people say "Cinematic, walking simulators are crap" I've enjoyed Uncharted much more than the latest rehashes of squeenix's screw up, Tomb raider. Then again, I also enjoyed Heavy rain, Last of us and Beyond two souls. Just because it doesn't explode every two seconds doesn't make it a bad game, it just means it's not your cup of tea is all.
> You sound like a Triple-A titled studio can't push bounderies, which we both know they can and are responseable for the biggest 'pushes' because they are higher profile. Sure, most of the games are sticking to the same formulae but others do indeed take something older and make it better. In the previous example Horizon: Zero Dawn is the Ubisoft "FarCry" but it's smoother, prettier and acts better than ubisofts titular series. I usually let certain companies off with certain things, with Guerilla games ( Horizon, Killzone ) they have -never- done a 3rd person, open world game before and I think their first try was spectacular even if the gamers think it's a lazy clone. On the other hand The Witcher 3 wasn't that good coming from a company that has done nothing more than 3rd person RPG's and has a history of porting games, backed by a massive online distribution platform like GoG which they wholly own. It's all relative with opinion thrown in for good measure.
> 
> Personally I think these indie games on greenlight have done more to harm the reputation of PC more than AAA developers and their 'safe series' games ever have, sure they haven't progressed but at least they haven't shown the world that even a 5 year old with a crayon can make a game and release it on Greenlight with a small financial backing. Sure, not all Indie dev's are like that but people are unwilling to wade through the crap to get to the cream and wait for either word of mouth or until they come across it one day on their featured games lists. I can't off the top of my head anyways, think of any ground-breaking Mods to games either. Might be because it's early and my brain hasn't engagued but Mod's tend to boost the original games graphics to suit a Niche demographic or to bring something people complain about changing back to the nostalgic crowd. ( Seriously, how many Morrowind mods do we need for every elder scrolls games to bring it back? )
> 
> IMHO I'm usually against PC / console cross platform because I don't like the online console community, dumbing PC's down to plug-and-play platforms for the front room and adding no oversight for age and you have the bottom of the barrel personalities jumping on and throwing around racial slurrs and refferances to homosexuality just because you were the better player. Added to the fact PC have the supierior imput method for everything but driving games and we end up either being handicapped or they get unfair advantages like aim assistance.
> Now for PS4 / XB1 cross platform, I could see where they're coming from. As a PS4 owner, I tend to see it as the 'grown ups' console whereas the XB1 is more of the 'kiddie, A.D.D, explosion' platform. So no, in that respect I wouldn't want to deal with XB1 users on there either, besides the only games you tend to see having a long online life are FPS' which're owned by 3rd party publishers like EA or Activison so I don't think there would be much of a problem for cross-platform unless Sony specifically said or went out of their way.


There is a limit to subjectivity even in storytelling. I wont take someone who says Twilight has good writing seriously, for example as that simply is not the case. HZD isnt that bad and TW3 isnt exactly above mid-range literary level either, so its closer, I give you that much. Still it should be a fairly obvious and easy grading still, to those that know storytelling.

Uncharted is the definition of cinematic action. My issue is not that it isn't quite Call of Duty level of Abrams exploding in nuclear flame every 3 seconds of action, its that it follows in the footseps of cinema too much without being even close to good cinema. It, to me, looks like a developer being ashamed of gaming and wishing they'd be doing movies instead. Sure, a higher art form for now, but it still is insulting a bit.

Hell I love games with far more downtime than Uncharted, it isnt about how many troops die on screen every 5 seconds









Which bondaries have AAA games pushed in the passed 10 years? Graphics? Nope, Mid tier games like Metro 2033 and Last Light (both between 10 and 20 million USD) and the only 22 million dollar Crysis 1 and 10 million dollar STALKER did pushes far greater than any console game. AI? Nope, it has regressed, STALKER was the last huge push baring strategy games. Physics? Pft that is a sick joke. Men of War has better than AAA action titles... Game design in general? I havent seen anything all that revolutionary coming from huge developers in quite awhile. Again, they HAVE done it in the past, they CAN do it still, but they DON'T do it.

I dont consider The Witcher 3 to be an RPG. The Witcher itself had a small risk of being based on books, but it did that when it was a low budget game, so TW3 did nothing. Still, trying to paint a big developer with the backing of Sony vs a Polish developer with a budget of only 80 million USD as the underdog seems questionable. They are probably near equal in theoretical capability.

Its fair that to you the greenlight titles have made a bad impression. I only heard of them due to Jim Sterling. Otherwise I am the opposite, I hear of the AAA schlock, near US/USSR propaganda levels of stupidity in CoD and sad attempts at being a movie from other AAA developers and greedy publishers. Hence why I automatically dread AAA games as being intellectually inferior by default, which is technically not true either. As for the indie titles, I am a believer that the situation will fix itself over time and a few great titles are worth a thousand terrible ones. Thar is how I think of course.

Modding has been a big force for good so far. If your memory cant start for some reason, I will refresh it







!

I dont know how I feel for PC/Console as I dont want to have to pull up even worse players than I already do... though in reality since I am in Eastern Europe and we are the PC Gaming Empire I probably wont have to deal with many console gamers either way... hmm.

However, PS4 and Xbox One/Switch players should easily play together. There is no proof that the Xbox One platform has younger players by any significant degree. The truth is, Sony is BSing its own fans to remain on top and it kind of sickens me to see you defend them. Sony specifically said it doesnt want it BTW.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *artemis2307*
> 
> I'm still amazed how they pulled off HZD on basically a HD7850. If PC was that well optimized 4k 60fps on a RX580 is not impossible


I dont think the normal PS4 is doing 4K 60 fps on HZD... more like 30 fps with drops at 1080P... dont lie please


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Then why is their story not unique and kinda mediocre too? Before you go all in on the "muh TLOU emotions"... mate we have cinema and effin literature. Do you seriously think it can compare? It isnt even of the same dimension of quality (no video games are there yet) let alone being inventive or unique.
> 
> The second part is that most of the exclusives are just that. One or two types of games. Talk about limited fanbase.
> 
> Those games will die, they dont have any aspirations for art like other games have... only because of consoles. Even if I dont like them, no art deserves death out of greed and stupid short sightedness.
> .


We're talking about games here. The story is mediocre? Well that's according to you. Other people think otherwise.

Most games are the same? Are you suggesting most games have the same story? Don't think so.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Which bondaries have AAA games pushed in the passed 10 years? Graphics? Nope, Mid tier games like Metro 2033 and Last Light (both between 10 and 20 million USD) and the only 22 million dollar Crysis 1 and 10 million dollar STALKER did pushes far greater than any console game. AI? Nope, it has regressed, STALKER was the last huge push baring strategy games. Physics? Pft that is a sick joke. Men of War has better than AAA action titles... Game design in general? I havent seen anything all that revolutionary coming from huge developers in quite awhile. Again, they HAVE done it in the past, they CAN do it still, but they DON'T do it.


Yes, this is all a matter of fact and it has been mentioned in this thread before. AAA studios are afraid to innovate and as long as people keep buying the same low quality crap, they'll keep putting out the same low quality crap. Game design has largely gone backwards in many ways, including some of the most technological features believe it or not such as physics (so many 2000s PC games humiliate modern AAA games in this regard), AI, sound, dynamic lighting and shadows.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

One of the interesting trends I've noticed lately is that Playstation and Xbox seem to be splitting into different genres, not even because of the choices of publishers, but players refuse to deviate from the platfom's norm.

When the PS4 launched everything I saw about Killzone Shadowfall indicated it would be one of the best games in the series, and Killzone being Sony's only major FPS franchise you would think the fanbase would rally to support it. The new direction looked like a smart, fresh take on the franchise... but in the end the PS4 userbase rejected it.

Over on Xbox, just about no-one bought Quantum Break. Yes, the game was widely panned, but PS4 users seem incredibly forgiving of even The Order 1886, with the way people on that platform gobble up story content, I have little doubt that if Quantum Break had been a PS4 game it would have been a moderate success and classified as an instant "cult classic" instead of being almost wholly ridiculed the way it has been.
Not to mention the performance of Tomb Raider, which while not a failure by any means, was also a (timed) exclusive that didn't seem to mesh with the audience.

Now we have comments from Bungie that they're putting as much story content as they possibly can into Destiny 2, which should come as no surprise given all the PS4 exclusive content deals over the last few years.

I have to wonder if Killzone wouldn't have sold better as an Xbox game?


----------



## SpeedyVT

The console did come out how many years ago?

Anyway A Way Out developer isn't very good at make games mechanically speaking. Pretty good with stories though.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> One of the interesting trends I've noticed lately is that Playstation and Xbox seem to be splitting into different genres, not even because of the choices of publishers, but players refuse to deviate from the platfom's norm.
> 
> When the PS4 launched everything I saw about Killzone Shadowfall indicated it would be one of the best games in the series, and Killzone being Sony's only major FPS franchise you would think the fanbase would rally to support it. The new direction looked like a smart, fresh take on the franchise... but in the end the PS4 userbase rejected it.
> 
> Over on Xbox, just about no-one bought Quantum Break. Yes, the game was widely panned, but PS4 users seem incredibly forgiving of even The Order 1886, with the way people on that platform gobble up story content, I have little doubt that if Quantum Break had been a PS4 game it would have been a moderate success and classified as an instant "cult classic" instead of being almost wholly ridiculed the way it has been.
> Not to mention the performance of Tomb Raider, which while not a failure by any means, was also a (timed) exclusive that didn't seem to mesh with the audience.
> 
> Now we have comments from Bungie that they're putting as much story content as they possibly can into Destiny 2, which should come as no surprise given all the PS4 exclusive content deals over the last few years.
> 
> I have to wonder if Killzone wouldn't have sold better as an Xbox game?


You are quite right, and this isn't very recent. It dates back to the PS3/XBOX 360 era, maybe even the original XBOX for the XBOX consoles. XBOX has always been all about shooters, which weakens it even more since PC annihilates it as far as exclusive shooters go. PlayStation saw the boom of cinematic wannabe movies, set into motion by the original Uncharted perhaps (2007).


----------



## Boomer1990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> One of the interesting trends I've noticed lately is that Playstation and Xbox seem to be splitting into different genres, not even because of the choices of publishers, but players refuse to deviate from the platfom's norm.
> 
> When the PS4 launched everything I saw about Killzone Shadowfall indicated it would be one of the best games in the series, and Killzone being Sony's only major FPS franchise you would think the fanbase would rally to support it. The new direction looked like a smart, fresh take on the franchise... but in the end the PS4 userbase rejected it.
> 
> Over on Xbox, just about no-one bought Quantum Break. Yes, the game was widely panned, but PS4 users seem incredibly forgiving of even The Order 1886, with the way people on that platform gobble up story content, I have little doubt that if Quantum Break had been a PS4 game it would have been a moderate success and classified as an instant "cult classic" instead of being almost wholly ridiculed the way it has been.
> Not to mention the performance of Tomb Raider, which while not a failure by any means, was also a (timed) exclusive that didn't seem to mesh with the audience.
> 
> Now we have comments from Bungie that they're putting as much story content as they possibly can into Destiny 2, which should come as no surprise given all the PS4 exclusive content deals over the last few years.
> 
> I have to wonder if Killzone wouldn't have sold better as an Xbox game?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> You are quite right, and this isn't very recent. It dates back to the PS3/XBOX 360 era, maybe even the original XBOX for the XBOX consoles. XBOX has always been all about shooters, which weakens it even more since PC annihilates it as far as exclusive shooters go. PlayStation saw the boom of cinematic wannabe movies, set into motion by the original Uncharted perhaps (2007).


I think you are both wrong, I know the charts are not 100% perfect but lets go with vgchartz sales.
Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare - Ps4 Sales - 6,286,593, Xbox One Sales - 3,961,497 -Both at 9 weeks on market.
Battlefield 1 - Ps4 Sales - 6,253,014, Xbox One Sales - 4,318,025 - 11 weeks on market.
Black Ops 3 - Ps4 Sales - 4,140,691 Xbox One Sales - 1,434,574 - 2016
10,556,687 5,824,272 - 2015
Destiny-2015 - Ps4 Sales - 4,422,631, Xbox One Sales - 2,428,397, - 17 weeks on market

Killzone lifetime sales are - 2,171,296

Edit: Something interesting I noticed. Halo 5 total sales - 4,660,923, Fallout 4 Xbox One total sales - 4,403,619. I find it interesting that Fallout 4 on Xbox one almost has more total sales than Microsoft's bread and butter Halo.

http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2017/Global/

Xbox as a slightly higher attach rate when it comes to shooters(assuming that Ps4 has sold double the consoles as Xbox One), but nothing drastic.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> One of the interesting trends I've noticed lately is that Playstation and Xbox seem to be splitting into different genres, not even because of the choices of publishers, but players refuse to deviate from the platfom's norm.
> 
> When the PS4 launched everything I saw about Killzone Shadowfall indicated it would be one of the best games in the series, and Killzone being Sony's only major FPS franchise you would think the fanbase would rally to support it. The new direction looked like a smart, fresh take on the franchise... but in the end the PS4 userbase rejected it.
> 
> Over on Xbox, just about no-one bought Quantum Break. Yes, the game was widely panned, but PS4 users seem incredibly forgiving of even The Order 1886, with the way people on that platform gobble up story content, I have little doubt that if Quantum Break had been a PS4 game it would have been a moderate success and classified as an instant "cult classic" instead of being almost wholly ridiculed the way it has been.
> Not to mention the performance of Tomb Raider, which while not a failure by any means, was also a (timed) exclusive that didn't seem to mesh with the audience.
> 
> Now we have comments from Bungie that they're putting as much story content as they possibly can into Destiny 2, which should come as no surprise given all the PS4 exclusive content deals over the last few years.
> 
> I have to wonder if Killzone wouldn't have sold better as an Xbox game?


Killzone didn't sell well because it was a bland and boring game.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> I think you are both wrong, I know the charts are not 100% perfect but lets go with vgchartz sales.
> Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare - Ps4 Sales - 6,286,593, Xbox One Sales - 3,961,497 -Both at 9 weeks on market.
> Battlefield 1 - Ps4 Sales - 6,253,014, Xbox One Sales - 4,318,025 - 11 weeks on market.
> Black Ops 3 - Ps4 Sales - 4,140,691 Xbox One Sales - 1,434,574 - 2016
> 10,556,687 5,824,272 - 2015
> Destiny-2015 - Ps4 Sales - 4,422,631, Xbox One Sales - 2,428,397, - 17 weeks on market
> 
> Killzone lifetime sales are - 2,171,296
> 
> Edit: Something interesting I noticed. Halo 5 total sales - 4,660,923, Fallout 4 Xbox One total sales - 4,403,619. I find it interesting that Fallout 4 on Xbox one almost has more total sales than Microsoft's bread and butter Halo.
> 
> http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2017/Global/
> 
> Xbox as a slightly higher attach rate when it comes to shooters(assuming that Ps4 has sold double the consoles as Xbox One), but nothing drastic.


I don't think he was saying that any shooter will sell better on XBOX than PlayStation (I certainly wasn't). I would wager any popular game on both platforms will sell better on PS4 because PS4 destroyed XBOX One in sales and reception.

But so many of these cinematic wannabe movies are PlayStation exclusive, as are JRPGs. That split is there. Shooters are popular on every platform, although these days the only exclusives XBOX has are... is Halo?

Also it is nice to see that most of those sales numbers are lower than I would have expected. Call of Duty and Battlefield in particular are blights on the gaming industry, far too controlled by the publishers (you can only use their official servers and rent one on PC for Battlefield, no modding).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Killzone didn't sell well because it was a bland and boring game.


It has more gameplay variety (slightly) and a more elaborate game mode than Call of Duty and Battlefield, which isn't saying much. Many of these popular AAA games are objectively very bland, reusing the same gameplay design formula that revolves around just a few repetitive simple mechanics that have been done a thousand times before.


----------



## 222Panther222

Will this thread ever die


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> One of the interesting trends I've noticed lately is that Playstation and Xbox seem to be splitting into different genres, not even because of the choices of publishers, but players refuse to deviate from the platfom's norm.
> 
> When the PS4 launched everything I saw about Killzone Shadowfall indicated it would be one of the best games in the series, and Killzone being Sony's only major FPS franchise you would think the fanbase would rally to support it. The new direction looked like a smart, fresh take on the franchise... but in the end the PS4 userbase rejected it.
> 
> Over on Xbox, just about no-one bought Quantum Break. Yes, the game was widely panned, but PS4 users seem incredibly forgiving of even The Order 1886, with the way people on that platform gobble up story content, I have little doubt that if Quantum Break had been a PS4 game it would have been a moderate success and classified as an instant "cult classic" instead of being almost wholly ridiculed the way it has been.
> Not to mention the performance of Tomb Raider, which while not a failure by any means, was also a (timed) exclusive that didn't seem to mesh with the audience.
> 
> Now we have comments from Bungie that they're putting as much story content as they possibly can into Destiny 2, which should come as no surprise given all the PS4 exclusive content deals over the last few years.
> 
> I have to wonder if Killzone wouldn't have sold better as an Xbox game?
> 
> 
> 
> Killzone didn't sell well because it was a bland and boring game.
Click to expand...

I could argue the same for Halo 5 and Gears 4. One of the biggest complaints I hear in reviews of Killzone Shadowfall is that the story was uninteresting, where the same fault almost doesn't affect Halo at all.
(Note that I haven't played any of the games being mentioned except for Infinite Warfare on PC. I like space ships.)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> One of the interesting trends I've noticed lately is that Playstation and Xbox seem to be splitting into different genres, not even because of the choices of publishers, but players refuse to deviate from the platfom's norm.
> 
> When the PS4 launched everything I saw about Killzone Shadowfall indicated it would be one of the best games in the series, and Killzone being Sony's only major FPS franchise you would think the fanbase would rally to support it. The new direction looked like a smart, fresh take on the franchise... but in the end the PS4 userbase rejected it.
> 
> Over on Xbox, just about no-one bought Quantum Break. Yes, the game was widely panned, but PS4 users seem incredibly forgiving of even The Order 1886, with the way people on that platform gobble up story content, I have little doubt that if Quantum Break had been a PS4 game it would have been a moderate success and classified as an instant "cult classic" instead of being almost wholly ridiculed the way it has been.
> Not to mention the performance of Tomb Raider, which while not a failure by any means, was also a (timed) exclusive that didn't seem to mesh with the audience.
> 
> Now we have comments from Bungie that they're putting as much story content as they possibly can into Destiny 2, which should come as no surprise given all the PS4 exclusive content deals over the last few years.
> 
> I have to wonder if Killzone wouldn't have sold better as an Xbox game?
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> You are quite right, and this isn't very recent. It dates back to the PS3/XBOX 360 era, maybe even the original XBOX for the XBOX consoles. XBOX has always been all about shooters, which weakens it even more since PC annihilates it as far as exclusive shooters go. PlayStation saw the boom of cinematic wannabe movies, set into motion by the original Uncharted perhaps (2007).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think you are both wrong, I know the charts are not 100% perfect but lets go with vgchartz sales.
> Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare - Ps4 Sales - 6,286,593, Xbox One Sales - 3,961,497 -Both at 9 weeks on market.
> Battlefield 1 - Ps4 Sales - 6,253,014, Xbox One Sales - 4,318,025 - 11 weeks on market.
> Black Ops 3 - Ps4 Sales - 4,140,691 Xbox One Sales - 1,434,574 - 2016
> 10,556,687 5,824,272 - 2015
> Destiny-2015 - Ps4 Sales - 4,422,631, Xbox One Sales - 2,428,397, - 17 weeks on market
> 
> Killzone lifetime sales are - 2,171,296
> 
> Edit: Something interesting I noticed. Halo 5 total sales - 4,660,923, Fallout 4 Xbox One total sales - 4,403,619. I find it interesting that Fallout 4 on Xbox one almost has more total sales than Microsoft's bread and butter Halo.
> 
> http://www.vgchartz.com/yearly/2017/Global/
> 
> Xbox as a slightly higher attach rate when it comes to shooters(assuming that Ps4 has sold double the consoles as Xbox One), but nothing drastic.
Click to expand...

I actually do think it would be "possible" for a game to sell better overall on Xbox than PS4, though it is clear that the possibility would require an extremely limited scenario.

Yes, multiplatform shooters as a whole sell better on PS4, but it gets more interesting when you break that down by region.

PS4 and Xbox sales are neck and neck on most titles in the U.S. and Battlefield 1 even sold 50% better on Xbox than it did on PS4 "in that region".
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/110843/battlefield-1/
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/110844/battlefield-1/

Almost all Gears of War sales come from the U.S.
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/85730/gears-of-war-4/
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/85776/gears-of-war-ultimate-edition/

And let's consider Microsoft's biggest strength in Xbox Live, "Destiny" sold better on PS4 overall, but look at the numbers for the expansion:
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/85936/destiny-the-taken-king/
http://www.vgchartz.com/game/85935/destiny-the-taken-king/
This would indicate that the long term player engagement in America is 10% higher on Xbox.

Not that region specific sales actually matter outside of where to allocate marketing dollars, and making anything "platform exclusive" is a undoubtedly a terrible idea right now, but if you really target the American audience I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility for total sales to perform better on Xbox.

It's really unfortunate that publishers and manufacturers are the only ones who know the real sales data: http://wccftech.com/halo-5-sold-5-million-copies-within-3-months/


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Killzone didn't sell well because it was a bland and boring game.


Yeah, Killzone series were always about showcasing graphics and technical prowess of Sony's consoles, the game itself is as generic as it comes.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *222Panther222*
> 
> Will this thread ever die


Sadly, not until everyone who can appreciate and enjoy both console and PC gaming admits that we're all a bunch of suckers who are ruining gaming and demand that all consoles be discontinued immediately to save the gaming "art form" for the PCMR's who are, of course, the ONLY gaming enthusiasts that exist or matter...


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *222Panther222*
> 
> Will this thread ever die


As soon as the problem (obsolete PC hardware being repackaged in an obsolete redundant format that hinders game development) dies.

Consoles are a tax on the game industry that benefits Microsoft, Sony, and the big media groups like the MPAA.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> As soon as the problem (obsolete PC hardware being repackaged in an obsolete redundant format that hinders game development) dies.
> 
> Consoles are a tax on the game industry that benefits Microsoft, Sony, and the big media groups like the MPAA.


PS4's APU is fastest than any APU on the PC market. Obsolete has a concrete meaning,and that is not what you are implying.


----------



## 222Panther222

Well i think console only hold back pc only if they are on a completely different architecture that they code engines for it, and the studio don't want to spend times/ resources to port it, like so many games in the ps3/xbox360 era.

Also if there is some new technology added to gpu, not just more powerful ones, nowadays they can make the game engines scales good across all platforms.

In the end i think it just come down to preference (at least in this gen), some will always game on console and some always game on pc.
Some people don't know anything about pc, some people prefer console even if they know the benefits of pc gaming.
Some people will prefer the advantages of a powerful pc, where they can be more in their bubble, with more fluidity and better graphics/texture/lightning/mods/cheaper games and the hardware tinkering that goes with it.

The industry is only aiming for console because that's where they make the most cash, not everyone wait for sales like on steam.

The console game sales are build on hype, and everyone got to play the brand new thing, that why E3 is the way it is, with cringey business man trying to please their investors and make profits, with dlc planned before a game release, and early access.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> PS4's APU is fastest than any APU on the PC market.


We've been through this before. The Jaguar CPU was already less powerful than Bulldozer/Piledriver when it came out in 2012. If you don't think something less powerful than Bulldozer isn't obsolete in PC terms I think you'll have quite a debate with a lot of people.

If this discussion were about casual games on Atom class CPUs then you'd have a point.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> We've been through this before. The Jaguar CPU was already less powerful than Bulldozer/Piledriver when it came out in 2012. If you don't think something less powerful than Bulldozer isn't obsolete in PC terms I think you'll have quite a debate with a lot of people.
> 
> If this discussion were about casual games on Atom class CPUs then you'd have a point.


So according to you,consoles are hindering the industry because they have obsolete hardware based on perfomance? What makes you think that PC gamers are not doing the same? According to your argument,merely having obsolete hardware equals that. That means you are blaming everyone who does not have cutting edge technology eg. GTX 1080 Ti's and Ryzen/Intel i9

Anyway that still does not change the fact that the PS4 is mounting an APU,and if you want to have a coherent argument,you'd compare it to APU's,not separate CPU's and GPU's. But whatever to fit your argument i guess.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Jaguar isn't even holding anything back as long as console games run at half the framerate of PC's.
Things are pretty close to ideal now with virtually all games running above 90fps on any high end CPU less than 5 years old.
We aren't even to the point where 120hz is universally attainable yet.

If someone ever did make a game that runs at 30fps on a 4Ghz i7 people around here would be screaming bloody murder.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Jaguar isn't even holding anything back as long as console games run at half the framerate of PC's.
> Things are pretty close to ideal now with virtually all games running above 90fps on any high end CPU less than 5 years old.
> We aren't even to the point where 120hz is universally attainable yet.
> 
> If someone ever did make a game that runs at 30fps on a 4Ghz i7 people around here would be screaming bloody murder.


Even if they want to target 60 fps it is very hard. Sure PS4 and Xbox One can be limited to 30 fps due to the GPU but its you have a faster GPU it would be nice if those games can run 60 fps.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Jaguar isn't even holding anything back


No. Jaguar held things back when it was released in 2012. It was slower than Bulldozer.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> So according to you,consoles are hindering the industry because they have obsolete hardware based on perfomance? What makes you think that PC gamers are not doing the same? According to your argument,merely having obsolete hardware equals that. That means you are blaming everyone who does not have cutting edge technology eg. GTX 1080 Ti's and Ryzen/Intel i9.


Recycling the same debunked argument...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Anyway that still does not change the fact that the PS4 is mounting an APU


Red herring.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Its not debunked at all. The PS4 and XB1 both are more powerful than a lot of the gaming PC's normal people actually use, yet somehow the potatoes that the average Steam users are running are not holding back PC gaming at all? Give me a break.

Also, as he mentioned, the consoles are basically APU's so comparing them to discrete CPU/GPU setups (even BD) is just disingenuous. You're basically arguing that any console that doesn't have a Ryzen CPU and a 1080 in it is holding back gaming, without understanding the economics involved. If everybody had the money and inclination to build their own cutting-edge gaming PC's then sure, maybe consoles would be pointless. But most people don't and thus we have $300 consoles that fill a massive market demand. No more, no less...


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Its not debunked at all. The PS4 and XB1 both are more powerful than a lot of the gaming PC's normal people actually use, yet somehow the potatoes that the average Steam users are running are not holding back PC gaming at all? Give me a break.
> 
> Also, as he mentioned, the consoles are basically APU's so comparing them to discrete CPU/GPU setups (even BD) is just disingenuous. You're basically arguing that any console that doesn't have a Ryzen CPU and a 1080 in it is holding back gaming, without understanding the economics involved. If everybody had the money and inclination to build their own cutting-edge gaming PC's then sure, maybe consoles would be pointless. But most people don't and thus we have $300 consoles that fill a massive market demand. No more, no less...


You have 1% PC games with high end hardware
Middle Class : Consoles
Plebeians: Most PC games.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> PS4's APU is fastest than any APU on the PC market. Obsolete has a concrete meaning,and that is not what you are implying.


Until Raven Ridge comes with a CPU that is 6-7 times faster and a better GPU that uses less energy. Like an Abrams tank going through a Japanese version of an Assad Babil, a slaughter.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> You have 1% PC games with high end hardware
> Middle Class : Consoles
> Plebeians: Most PC games.


Open the Steam Hardware summary.
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/

GTX 1060? Faster that PS4 Pro, MUCH faster than PS4. 6.29%.
GTX 750 Ti? Around PS4 Level. 5.88%.
GTX 960? A lot faster than PS4, useless IMHO but at 5.75%.
The 3.5/4 GPU? At 5.2%. Faster than PS4 Pro...
GTX 1070? A lot faster than Xbox One X. At 3.6%.

Also, I call plebeians those that disrespect modding, emulation and backwards compatibility. Hardware has zero influence on who is a pleb and who isnt. A quad SLI GTX Titan X owner can still be a pleb if they act like a pleb, no matter how much money they pour into not being one.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Jaguar isn't even holding anything back as long as console games run at half the framerate of PC's.
> Things are pretty close to ideal now with virtually all games running above 90fps on any high end CPU less than 5 years old.
> We aren't even to the point where 120hz is universally attainable yet.
> 
> If someone ever did make a game that runs at 30fps on a 4Ghz i7 people around here would be screaming bloody murder.
> 
> 
> 
> Even if they want to target 60 fps it is very hard. Sure PS4 and Xbox One can be limited to 30 fps due to the GPU but its you have a faster GPU it would be nice if those games can run 60 fps.
Click to expand...

Videogame performance is primarily bottlenecked on this heinous thing called "marketing".

You could give console developers a 5Ghz 16 core CPU and they would still target 30fps.
It's been the same story through every generation in console history, "Next gen will have better framerates" and then when the time arrives we're fed a consistent supply of choppy 30fps games.

If anyone is ever going to do 60fps they're already doing it now.

At least the One X with VRR support gives us a glimmer of hope for games that run "above 30fps" on average once the framerates on these games get unlocked.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> No. Jaguar held things back when it was released in 2012. It was slower than Bulldozer.
> Recycling the same debunked argument...
> Red herring.


Where's the debunk? The logic can be applied on PC too. AMD/Intel has held back gaming because they sold processors like Pentium,i3 or FX 4300 or FX 6300 when they were already obsolete compared to the i5,i7's and FX 8XXX

Nvidia and AMD have held back gaming by releasing cards such as the GTX 750 Ti,GTX 760 or GTX 960 when more powerful cards where already aviable when they launched. Apply ad-infinitum

Your argument is this. What a joke.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Where's the debunk? The logic can be applied on PC too. AMD/Intel has held back gaming because they sold processors like Pentium,i3 or FX 4300 or FX 6300 when they were already obsolete compared to the i5,i7's and FX 8XXX
> 
> Nvidia and AMD have held back gaming by releasing cards such as the GTX 750 Ti,GTX 760 or GTX 960 when more powerful cards where already aviable when they launched. Apply ad-infinitum
> 
> Your argument is this. What a joke.


The irony is the Pentiums are stronger than the PS4 Pro's CPU lol. Same for the old Piledriver parts.

760 > PS4, same for 96-. 750 Ti is same level as PS4, correct.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> The irony is the Pentiums are stronger than the PS4 Pro's CPU lol. Same for the old Piledriver parts.
> 
> 760 > PS4, same for 96-. 750 Ti is same level as PS4, correct.


Ok but a 760 doesn't run a PC by itself, nor does a 750 Ti. In a vacuum, they are great products, but a console is the complete package (GPU, CPU, RAM, hard drive, OS, etc.) And as a $250 package for the standard PS4 and $400 for the pro, it represents a good value.

You have to dig into a used parts bin in order to build a decent gaming PC for the same money.

Also, no one is arguing that Intel's chips aren't stronger, but from a perspective of value, the PS4/Pro still represents a good value for most people.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Ok but a 760 doesn't run a PC by itself, nor does a 750 Ti. In a vacuum, they are great products, but a console is the complete package (GPU, CPU, RAM, hard drive, OS, etc.) And as a $250 package for the standard PS4 and $400 for the pro, it represents a good value.
> 
> You have to dig into a used parts bin in order to build a decent gaming PC for the same money.
> 
> Also, no one is arguing that Intel's chips aren't stronger, but from a perspective of value, the PS4/Pro still represents a good value for most people.


Its unfair to compare an obsolete old GPU with a new console price.
The RX 460 is noticeably faster than the PS4 as well. Get one of those.

It represents value for those that play very few games and dont pay for online. And cant buy used hardware (which is easy to get even with a warranty). And care only for a select few new games and nothing else. And dont do any modding. And hate old games.

I am sure such people in America (especially) exist. I am yet to find them here (thank God).


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Where's the debunk? The logic can be applied on PC too. AMD/Intel has held back gaming because they sold processors like Pentium,i3 or FX 4300 or FX 6300 when they were already obsolete compared to the i5,i7's and FX 8XXX
> 
> Nvidia and AMD have held back gaming by releasing cards such as the GTX 750 Ti,GTX 760 or GTX 960 when more powerful cards where already aviable when they launched. Apply ad-infinitum
> 
> Your argument is this. What a joke.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Its not debunked at all. The PS4 and XB1 both are more powerful than a lot of the gaming PC's normal people actually use, yet somehow the potatoes that the average Steam users are running are not holding back PC gaming at all? Give me a break.
> 
> Also, as he mentioned, the consoles are basically APU's so comparing them to discrete CPU/GPU setups (even BD) is just disingenuous. You're basically arguing that any console that doesn't have a Ryzen CPU and a 1080 in it is holding back gaming, without understanding the economics involved. If everybody had the money and inclination to build their own cutting-edge gaming PC's then sure, maybe consoles would be pointless. But most people don't and thus we have $300 consoles that fill a massive market demand. No more, no less...


This is the last time I'm going to explain this.

1) It's hyperbolically disingenuous to argue that needing something better than Atom class means the CPU has to be top-tier. _Instead, of, for instance, a processor that's weaker than Piledriver and clocked low we have to have the top-end Intel CPU in the console or it's holding back gaming._ No. I never said that. It's an example of using hyperbole to evade the real point.

2) The real point, for the last time, is that the hardware isn't good enough. If consoles were offering something of value in hardware then they would justify their existence as hardware-based. That's basic logic, something you two can't evade with hyperbole and red herrings. _Not good enough_, as an argument, does not mean let's throw a can of hyperbole at it and see if any sticks.

3) It's also not the ridiculous argument that because product segmentation exists that means segmentation doesn't exist enough to be understood as having more than two tiers! Again, if you're going to mention the fact that PC gaming hardware is segmented you should also realize that it's segmented into more than one tier, not just very low-end and very high-end.










4) Because PC hardware, which is what consoles are using now, in case you've forgotten, is segmented into many tiers - it makes no sense to argue that consoles should represent such a low tier. No, again, that does not mean it has to be one of the highest tiers. Obviously, to keep "consoles" affordable the hardware needs to target the midrange of what's available. The Jaguar CPU was not midrange even when it was released. That is what I've been saying over and over again.

5) APUs are a red herring. The cost savings is not large enough to justify using such a cruddy APU rather than discreet parts. Consoles have had discreet CPUs and GPUs in the past - and even with hardware that was much less affordable from mass production scaling than an x86 CPU and AMD/Nvidia standardized GPU.

Cell had no economy of scale when it was released. It was also untested in the market, with bug potential and yield issues being a very real concern. Sony even locked out at least one of the streaming co-processors. The Emotion Engine had no economy of scale either. Etc. Projections could be made, of course, along with die shrinks. But, the scale is still smaller than a mainstream part that is common with PC hardware.

But, please, recycle these same fallacious "points' if you two wish to. There is a reason why no PC buyers who are at all serious about modern video gaming have Jaguar-grade CPUs in their PCs and never have. It is not because they all own top-end stuff nor is it because they're barred from buying APUs. If someone buys a derpy APU to play eSports that's great for them. That is hardly the entirety of the gaming market that is best served by so-called consoles (small PCs now).

And, AMD offered better CPU performance from its PC APUs as far as I know, at least the ones people bought for gaming. Sure, the GPU portion may have been better in the PS4 APU but that's no excuse for pairing it with a low-grade CPU. It saves the "console" sellers a few bucks but it's a bigger loss to the gaming world than that savings is worth - in the big picture.

Discreet CPU and GPU components also make cooling easier by spreading the heat out. That, in turn, opens up the potential for better clocks.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> 2) The real point, for the last time, is that the hardware isn't good enough. If consoles were offering something of value in hardware then they would justify their existence as hardware-based. That's basic logic, something you two can't evade with hyperbole and red herrings. _Not good enough_, as an argument, does not mean let's throw a can of hyperbole at it and see if any sticks.
> 
> 5) APUs are a red herring. The cost savings is not large enough to justify using such a cruddy APU rather than discreet parts. Consoles have had discreet CPUs and GPUs in the past - and even with hardware that was much less affordable from mass production scaling than an x86 CPU and AMD/Nvidia standardized GPU.
> .


A pentium CPU is also not good enough when compared to an i7 CPU. It's not good enough for the price it has? False. It has a price that can compete with PC's up to 2x the cost of that. For 400$ you can barely build yourself a gaming PC. And it's not guaranteed to be superior. Even after 5 years that console has been out. Imagine how it was when it launched.

This is what you said: "No. Jaguar held things back when it was released in 2012. It was slower than Bulldozer"

"No. Vishera held things back when it was released in 2012. It was slower than Ivy Bridge"

or

"No. Pitcairn held things back when it was released in 2012. It was slower than Tahiti"

I just replaced words. It has the same meaning. No hyperbole or whatever. You call your own example hyperbole? That's funny.

Lol yeah,you don't even know what the fallacy you are touting is.

You know there is also this right?

"The fallacy fallacy"

PS4 is mounting an APU. This is a fact. AMD has not released an APU as fast as the one in the PS4. This is also a fact. Keep shouting "fallacy fallacy" all you want,won't change the truth. You are so disingenous it's actually not funny. It's like comparing iGPU's with discrete graphics.


----------



## superstition222

You're still trying to rebut an argument I didn't make.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> PS4 is mounting an APU. This is a fact. AMD has not released an APU as fast as the one in the PS4. This is also a fact.


It helps to read my posts before replying to them, too.


----------



## superstition222

EA figured it could scam gamers with Sims 4 by telling them the $600+ they spent on Sims 3 content was moot. _It's time to buy the Sims Pets expansion for the third time!_

What did Sims gamers get in exchange for this great deal? Worse graphics and a reversion to the Sims 2 walled garden gaming style. Goodbye open world. The game didn't even ship with a 64-bit binary, even though resource bloat was a huge problem for both the Sims 2 and Sims 3 engines, something EA should have prepared for by making Sims 4 64-bit.

The rumor was that it was meant to be a tablet game and EA quickly scuttled that after it destroyed SimCity with its lies. So, should PC gamers fork over AAA prices to purchases a glorified mobile game that lacked some of the most basic features the Sims have always had, like toddlers and pools? Sure, why not!

What's the point of this anecdote? The most successful game franchise was destroyed by nickle-and-diming consumers to death, offering them less and less value for their money. EA even had a guy threaten Sims fans, saying that if they didn't buy all that Sims 4 junk there probably wouldn't be a Sims 5. "Console" makers would love to do what EA has done with the Sims - get people to re-buy the same tired content, with worse quality. Replacing PC gaming standards with a lesser standard, for the same game cost. Jaguar, as a CPU, was the equivalent of Sims 4. Some people are satisfied by it but it could have been a lot better and still had been profitable. You'll find plenty of fans of Sims 4. There are fans of anything. Some will even argue that buying Pets for the third or fourth time is a good use of their money. They won't say that the game should have been innovative and had basic obvious improvements rather than lacking some of the most basic content.

This is the _sell less for more_ mantra of capitalism that I mention frequently because people frequently forget that it underpins the economy. It means that consumers have to stand up for themselves and demand the products they want to buy rather than passively forking over their money for products that aren't good enough.

If some here are satisfied with gaming being the equivalent of the Sims then my hat is off to them.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> You're still trying to rebut an argument I didn't make.
> It helps to read my posts before replying to them, too.


Yeah,of course. Also it seems it is you who needs to read my post,before posting stuff like the last sentence.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Jaguar, as a CPU, was the equivalent of Sims 4. Some people are satisfied by it but it could have been a lot better and still had been profitable..


Citation needed. This claim you have made is nothing but conjecture on your part.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Yeah,of course.


Then do it and reply accordingly or consider your posts on ignore from here on out.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Then do it and reply accordingly or consider your posts on ignore from here on out.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> As soon as the problem (obsolete PC hardware being repackaged in an obsolete redundant format that hinders game development) dies.
> 
> Consoles are a tax on the game industry that benefits Microsoft, Sony, and the big media groups like the MPAA.


You are blaming consoles of hindering the industry by selling "outdated hardware". You haven't even explained in a coherent way how does it happen. Not to mention that what you are saying also happens on the PC market,companies produce products that are obsolete on D1 if compared to their more expensive and superior product,but most times not if compared to the product in their price range.

Hence again,the PS4 has no competitor at 250$ and 400$. They offer poor CPU performance,true. But for that money you can not build a gaming computer equal to them.

You also have to prove how it is a redudant format when it sells millions of copy of games each year and has been like this for years.

Basically all your claims,again,like those other two people,are based on next to no facts,and just basically is your opinion posed as a fact,being extremely biased against consoles.

Go ahead and suit yourself,like i care honestly. Atleast you will stop spreading FUD altogether,silly of me to entertain you.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> You are blaming consoles of hindering the industry by selling "outdated hardware". You haven't even explained in a coherent way how does it happen.


I did explain it, and clearly. I even offered a pretty useful comparison, in that Sims anecdote.

Corporations exist to get profit. Profit is based on the idea of selling things for more than they're worth. Sell less for more.

Sony, Microsoft, and the MPAA like the console model. It's profitable for them. It's not beneficial for the gaming industry, in the big picture. I've explained why with a huge amount of detail. The "console" is basically dead, though, as a thing. It has become nothing more than x86 hardware redundancy. As I've said many times, it's very possible, and clearly superior, to move the walled garden ecosystems to a standard software layer to sit atop the standard x86 hardware layer. "Consoles" don't offer all the value they used to offer to the market, from custom controllers with custom plugs, to highly-custom GPU/CPU hardware.

Sony, Microsoft, and the MPAA are powerful. They are either monopolies or near to it. It is very possible for large companies to distort the market and to offer products that don't meet consumers' needs, products that aren't good enough. There is a long list of examples, like the Ford Pinto and the Chevrolet Vega. Those examples also show how customers can be duped by a low price tag into getting a product that is inadequate, despite that price tag.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> But for that money you can not build a gaming computer equal to them.


The "consoles" are selling at a profit, which proves that your claim is false.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Not to mention that what you are saying also happens on the PC market,companies produce products that are obsolete on D1 if compared to their more expensive and superior product,but most times not if compared to the product in their price range.


Apples and oranges. You're, once again, mixing up segmentation with obsolescence. Obsolescence is when something doesn't perform well enough to meet the segment.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> You also have to prove how it is a redudant format when it sells millions of copy of games each year and has been like this for years.


Apples and oranges.

apples = games sell on three different x86 boxes (PS4, XBox, PC)
oranges = they're all x86 boxes, all PCs


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> Where's the debunk? The logic can be applied on PC too. AMD/Intel has held back gaming because they sold processors like Pentium,i3 or FX 4300 or FX 6300 when they were already obsolete compared to the i5,i7's and FX 8XXX
> 
> Nvidia and AMD have held back gaming by releasing cards such as the GTX 750 Ti,GTX 760 or GTX 960 when more powerful cards where already aviable when they launched. Apply ad-infinitum
> 
> Your argument is this. What a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> The irony is the Pentiums are stronger than the PS4 Pro's CPU lol. Same for the old Piledriver parts.
> 
> 760 > PS4, same for 96-. 750 Ti is same level as PS4, correct.
Click to expand...

This is Sean Tracy talking about CryEngine: https://youtu.be/k_jq_dCW6Jc?t=16m14s

"As soon as we had to do consoles for the CryEngine we had to thread this"

8 thread CPU's would be useless today if consoles hadn't have forced heavy Multi-Threading on the gaming industry.
If consoles had taken a Pentium then the best gaming CPU on the market would still be a Dual Core CPU.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> This is Sean Tracy talking about CryEngine: https://youtu.be/k_jq_dCW6Jc?t=16m14s
> 
> "As soon as we had to do consoles for the CryEngine we had to thread this"
> 
> 8 thread CPU's would be useless today if consoles hadn't have forced heavy Multi-Threading on the gaming industry.
> If consoles had taken a Pentium then the best gaming CPU on the market would still be a Dual Core CPU.


Agner Fog also explained why the only reason people are chasing so many threads is because it's hard to chase clocks now.

It's not because having lots of threads is better. It's not. Faster clocks generally trump parallelism because parallelism is more difficult to extract (more expensive to code for) and is less consistent.

"Consoles" are so poorly clocked, as well as low in IPC, that developers were obviously forced to try to use what they were given to work with. The Cell architecture was designed around multithreading much more than x86, which still benefits more from high clocks in gaming than it does from a combination of low IPC and lots of threads (e.g. Piledriver).

"Console" makers, with the Jaguar iteration, wanted to profit as much as possible. So, they used an x86 knock-off APU at a low clock.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> This is Sean Tracy talking about CryEngine: https://youtu.be/k_jq_dCW6Jc?t=16m14s
> 
> "As soon as we had to do consoles for the CryEngine we had to thread this"
> 
> 8 thread CPU's would be useless today if consoles hadn't have forced heavy Multi-Threading on the gaming industry.
> If consoles had taken a Pentium then the best gaming CPU on the market would still be a Dual Core CPU.


Oh please. There is an IPC mountain to climb and getting higher clocks is harder than ever.
Conslows or no conslows, developers have no choice. Multi-thread or... well be stuck with a terrible game.

If consoles had taken the Pentium, they'd be FASTER and we'd still be seeing multi-threaded games.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> If consoles had taken the Pentium, they'd be FASTER and we'd still be seeing multi-threaded games.


The Pentium vs. Jaguar dichotomy is also using hyperbole to evade the point. The point is that a dual core Intel with 4 threads would have been fine, provided that the clocks were high enough. The performance would have been better than Jaguar's.

A dual core locked to just 2 threads, artificially, is not the thing to compare Jaguar with. Also, Intel's cores at 14nm are really really small, in terms of die area. Look at Broadwell C. Half of the chip is GPU. The cores are tiny.

So, a quad would not be expensive to make, in terms of die area/yields.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> The Pentium vs. Jaguar dichotomy is also using hyperbole to evade the point. The point is that a dual core Intel with 4 threads would have been fine, provided that the clocks were high enough. The performance would have been better than Jaguar's.
> 
> A dual core locked to just 2 threads, artificially, is not the thing to compare Jaguar with. Also, Intel's cores at 14nm are really really small, in terms of die area. Look at Broadwell C. Half of the chip is GPU. The cores are tiny.
> 
> So, a quad would not be expensive to make, in terms of die area/yields.


I obviously know that, am mostly making sure people understand just how weak PS4 Pro's CPU is









I have some hope the next consoles will be with a 7nm Ryzen 8 core 16 thread CPU.


----------



## jarble

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> The Pentium vs. Jaguar dichotomy is also using hyperbole to evade the point. The point is that a dual core Intel with 4 threads would have been fine, provided that the clocks were high enough. The performance would have been better than Jaguar's.
> 
> A dual core locked to just 2 threads, artificially, is not the thing to compare Jaguar with. Also, Intel's cores at 14nm are really really small, in terms of die area. Look at Broadwell C. Half of the chip is GPU. The cores are tiny.
> 
> *So, a quad would not be expensive to make, in terms of die area/yields*.


Not arguing that having a faster cpu would have helped consoles but you can't count the gpu out of your die/yields equation. Jaguar cores are tiny in comparison to the gpu as well. Amd simply had the best value solution at the time.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> This is Sean Tracy talking about CryEngine: https://youtu.be/k_jq_dCW6Jc?t=16m14s
> 
> "As soon as we had to do consoles for the CryEngine we had to thread this"
> 
> 8 thread CPU's would be useless today if consoles hadn't have forced heavy Multi-Threading on the gaming industry.
> If consoles had taken a Pentium then the best gaming CPU on the market would still be a Dual Core CPU.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please. There is an IPC mountain to climb and getting higher clocks is harder than ever.
> Conslows or no conslows, developers have no choice. Multi-thread or... well be stuck with a terrible game.
> 
> If consoles had taken the Pentium, they'd be FASTER and we'd still be seeing multi-threaded games.
Click to expand...

You still have it backwards, the maximum framerate on PC is still limited by the highest performing single thread on consoles.
If consoles were to get even one strong core that matches the single thread performance of a high end CPU then every game would be CPU capped to the same framerate as consoles.

It's a gross assumption to say that games would be running on 8 threads without consoles. If game engines were being designed for 4 threads on consoles, that's probably what you would get on PC, and again in that scenario an i3 would be the best gaming CPU on the market.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> If consoles had taken the Pentium, they'd be FASTER and we'd still be seeing multi-threaded games.
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentium vs. Jaguar dichotomy is also using hyperbole to evade the point. The point is that a dual core Intel with 4 threads would have been fine, provided that the clocks were high enough. The performance would have been better than Jaguar's.
> 
> A dual core locked to just 2 threads, artificially, is not the thing to compare Jaguar with. Also, Intel's cores at 14nm are really really small, in terms of die area. Look at Broadwell C. Half of the chip is GPU. The cores are tiny.
> 
> So, a quad would not be expensive to make, in terms of die area/yields.
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that Intel "could" have done better than the 8 Jaguar cores for the same price, but that situation is limited by the motivation of the company.
"Would" Intel be willing to sell their tech on lower margins? Probably not.

The APU design also enables better GPGPU functionality, and apparently that was one of the key points to convincing Sony to adopt an x86 design.


----------



## SpeedyVT

Weaker systems help programers become better programers. More power machines would make us all crysis users and would take two strokes off your swing. There are plenty 1080P 60fps PS4 games that look stunning, those that complain are spoiled by forcing graphics to happen instead of learning to optimize.

A great developer optimizes and takes those optimizations toward the PC environment to make it look even better. If you do the opposite you're a porter.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> Weaker systems help programers become better programers.


Nope.

Higher-level languages and more powerful hardware help people become better programmers. Project efficiency is king. There is a reason why assembly language and machine language coding are niche activities today. They have their uses but they are not even close to being the dominant method of programming.

Higher-level languages and increasingly powerful hardware = increased ease of development for increasingly complex programs.

People who peddle this "weak system = better programmer" fallacy should ask themselves why we're not still using 640K. After all, it should be enough for anyone.

But, here we are, many many pages back - since you recycled the same debunked argument again.

I am waiting Crysis on the Fairchild VES. Is there a programmer mighty enough to do it?


----------



## SpeedyVT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Nope.
> 
> Higher-level languages and more powerful hardware help people become better programmers. Project efficiency is king. There is a reason why assembly language and machine language coding are niche activities today. They have their uses but they are not even close to being the dominant method of programming.
> 
> Higher-level languages and increasingly powerful hardware = increased ease of development for increasingly complex programs.
> 
> People who peddle this "weak system = better programmer" fallacy should ask themselves why we're not still using 640K. After all, it should be enough for anyone.
> 
> But, here we are, many many pages back - since you recycled the same debunked argument again.
> 
> I am waiting Crysis on the Fairchild VES. Is there a programmer mighty enough to do it?


You have to understand that you can't get performance from nothing and getting performance from everything its not good either way. There is a threshold a developer needs to be within when developing. I've seen games that should run on an i3 that run still subpar on an i7. AND THEY ARE 2D!


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> You still have it backwards, the maximum framerate on PC is still limited by the highest performing single thread on consoles.
> If consoles were to get even one strong core that matches the single thread performance of a high end CPU then every game would be CPU capped to the same framerate as consoles.
> 
> It's a gross assumption to say that games would be running on 8 threads without consoles. If game engines were being designed for 4 threads on consoles, that's probably what you would get on PC, and again in that scenario an i3 would be the best gaming CPU on the market.


It is not a gross assumption. The laws of physics wont change because of consoles. Developers have no choice and as such they have one option. Not more.

BTW, even in the quad core era, a decent Quad was winning vs Dual cores. Even nowadays, provided IPC and clocks are the same, a 10 core HT will win against a 4 core 8 thread even in games. By very little but it will. Modern games can use 16 threads or more, the 4A Engine, Cry Engine, id Tech 6... and more probably.

Weak console CPUs simply lead to bad physics and terrible AI.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> This is the last time I'm going to explain this.
> 
> 1) It's hyperbolically disingenuous to argue that needing something better than Atom class means the CPU has to be top-tier. _Instead, of, for instance, a processor that's weaker than Piledriver and clocked low we have to have the top-end Intel CPU in the console or it's holding back gaming._ No. I never said that. It's an example of using hyperbole to evade the real point.
> 
> 2) The real point, for the last time, is that the hardware isn't good enough. If consoles were offering something of value in hardware then they would justify their existence as hardware-based. That's basic logic, something you two can't evade with hyperbole and red herrings. _Not good enough_, as an argument, does not mean let's throw a can of hyperbole at it and see if any sticks.
> 
> 3) It's also not the ridiculous argument that because product segmentation exists that means segmentation doesn't exist enough to be understood as having more than two tiers! Again, if you're going to mention the fact that PC gaming hardware is segmented you should also realize that it's segmented into more than one tier, not just very low-end and very high-end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4) Because PC hardware, which is what consoles are using now, in case you've forgotten, is segmented into many tiers - it makes no sense to argue that consoles should represent such a low tier. No, again, that does not mean it has to be one of the highest tiers. Obviously, to keep "consoles" affordable the hardware needs to target the midrange of what's available. The Jaguar CPU was not midrange even when it was released. That is what I've been saying over and over again.
> 
> 5) APUs are a red herring. The cost savings is not large enough to justify using such a cruddy APU rather than discreet parts. Consoles have had discreet CPUs and GPUs in the past - and even with hardware that was much less affordable from mass production scaling than an x86 CPU and AMD/Nvidia standardized GPU.
> 
> Cell had no economy of scale when it was released. It was also untested in the market, with bug potential and yield issues being a very real concern. Sony even locked out at least one of the streaming co-processors. The Emotion Engine had no economy of scale either. Etc. Projections could be made, of course, along with die shrinks. But, the scale is still smaller than a mainstream part that is common with PC hardware.
> 
> But, please, recycle these same fallacious "points' if you two wish to. There is a reason why no PC buyers who are at all serious about modern video gaming have Jaguar-grade CPUs in their PCs and never have. It is not because they all own top-end stuff nor is it because they're barred from buying APUs. If someone buys a derpy APU to play eSports that's great for them. That is hardly the entirety of the gaming market that is best served by so-called consoles (small PCs now).
> 
> And, AMD offered better CPU performance from its PC APUs as far as I know, at least the ones people bought for gaming. Sure, the GPU portion may have been better in the PS4 APU but that's no excuse for pairing it with a low-grade CPU. It saves the "console" sellers a few bucks but it's a bigger loss to the gaming world than that savings is worth - in the big picture.
> 
> Discreet CPU and GPU components also make cooling easier by spreading the heat out. That, in turn, opens up the potential for better clocks.
> 
> *Blah, blah, blah, my opinions are FACT and any arguments to the contrary are just *pick my favorite fallacy**


- Every Superstition post in this thread


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> - Every Superstition post in this thread


Yea, that's the reason I've stopped arguing with him. He's delusional. He thinks that because he posts something, everyone should agree with him, when he has posted nothing more than elevated speculation interspersed with his opinion.

I'm not asking everyone to agree with my opinion, but I don't state it as fact. What IS a fact is that consoles represent a better value than PCs. That's why they sell better, and that's why developers flock to them.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Yea, that's the reason I've stopped arguing with him. He's delusional.


It's interesting that you think the point here is to argue.

It's also interesting that you think posting _ad hominem_ lends credibility to whatever it is you thought you were arguing for.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> - Every Superstition post in this thread


Or, you could just say you have no rebuttal.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> You have to understand that you can't get performance from nothing


This is just repackaging of the fallacy that segmentation doesn't exist, or that it becomes magically different when we're talking about "consoles" rather than "PCs".

Nothing I've written, in any way, is based on any sort of magical thinking - like the notion that higher-end parts are the same price as lower-end parts.

Straw man.

If you want to rebut a claim you think I'm making then you need to quote what I've actually said to demonstrate that I said what you're claiming I said.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> and getting performance from everything its not good either way.


What?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> There is a threshold a developer needs to be within when developing.


What?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> I've seen games that should run on an i3 that run still subpar on an i7. AND THEY ARE 2D!


So? Every program is limited by the resources allocated to its creation. One of the bigger points that I raised is the fact that propping up the redundant+obsolete hardware-based console model reduces the resources available for game development, thus holding back the industry.

This is why x86 became such a strong standard. People realized that having lots of redundancy is inefficient.


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpeedyVT*
> 
> You have to understand that you can't get performance from nothing and getting performance from everything its not good either way. There is a threshold a developer needs to be within when developing. I've seen games that should run on an i3 that run still subpar on an i7. AND THEY ARE 2D!


So true. I'm sure if you leave a bunch of old-school demoscene guys with a PS4, give them enough time and resources they would blow everyone away. Developers now are so entitled, they are given the best tools for debug and performance analysis, coding for consoles is now easier than ever yet they still whine. I was laughing hard when I saw the news about Tetris having performance issues on a PS4.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> It's interesting that you think the point here is to argue.
> 
> It's also interesting that you think posting _ad hominem_ lends credibility to whatever it is you thought you were arguing for.
> *Or, you could just say you have no rebuttal.*


You could also say that countering every argument with a random claim of "fallacy" without actually addressing the comment itself is the same thing. What's it gonna be next, ad hominem, straw man, slippery slope, non-sequiter, etc?? I know you have the logical fallacies site bookmarked for quick reference judging by every single one of your posts in this thread, but you could at least actually try arguing how your opinions are supposed to be facts instead of simply regurgitating the entire list in every post...


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Yea, that's the reason I've stopped arguing with him. He's delusional. He thinks that because he posts something, everyone should agree with him, when he has posted nothing more than elevated speculation interspersed with his opinion.
> 
> I'm not asking everyone to agree with my opinion, but I don't state it as fact. What IS a fact is that consoles represent a better value than PCs. That's why they sell better, and that's why developers flock to them.


-Consoles represent better value
-Rich regions from the world buy consoles
-Poorer ones buy PCs
-Mathematically, a console has dozens of times less content than a PC and is just a gaming device, can do nothing more.

No. Its nostalgia and/or not as intelligent people where you live... or them simply being richer and caring less about their money long term. That is the only logical explanation I can reach for consoles being more popular in the US.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> So true. I'm sure if you leave a bunch of old-school demoscene guys with a PS4, give them enough time and resources they would blow everyone away. Developers now are so entitled, they are given the best tools for debug and performance analysis, coding for consoles is now easier than ever yet they still whine. I was laughing hard when I saw the news about Tetris having performance issues on a PS4.


Developers are stuck in crunch time for months before they release a game. Whilst I mock how pathetic their design, AI and physics are, they still have to deal with more complex code than what the old school guys had to work with. Things are more complex, the budgets are higher, the leeway for failure is smaller, they dont get to see their families or go on breaks for up to a year before they release a game...

Are they incompetent? Often, yeah. But we need to show some humanity here as they dont have it easy at all


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> .
> 
> No. *Its nostalgia and/or not as intelligent people* where you live... or them simply being richer and caring less about their money long term. That is the only logical explanation I can reach for consoles being more popular in the US.


That argument is very tiring and bit offensive too. Just because they prefer the simplicity of consoles does not mean they lack the intelligence.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> That argument is very tiring and bit offensive too. Just because they prefer the simplicity of consoles does not mean they lack the intelligence.


Well, he did say "and/or" but no doubt many of them simply do not know any better (as seen throughout this thread). And what else would you call it for those console gamers (not here obviously) who claim to be incapable of operating a PC?


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> So true. I'm sure if you leave a bunch of old-school demoscene guys with a PS4, give them enough time and resources they would blow everyone away. Developers now are so entitled, they are given the best tools for debug and performance analysis, coding for consoles is now easier than ever yet they still whine. I was laughing hard when I saw the news about Tetris having performance issues on a PS4.


This is my biggest problem with this generation expect some elusive first party games. Devs have gotten so lazy with the tools given and just resort to the first thing something does not go their way.


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> That argument is very tiring and bit offensive too. Just because they prefer the simplicity of consoles does not mean they lack the intelligence.


Agreed. The argument is getting very tiring. I bought my first iPhone about half a year ago. It is easily the best phone I have ever used simply because it is a breeze to use and live with. I no longer bash iPhone owners because I get it. They are super easy to use and work great as a smartphone.

Android phones are also fantastic, but in a different way.

iPhone vs Android is very similar to Console vs PC. One is very simple to use and designed for a sole purpose. The other is a multipurpose device designed to do many things.

I wish more people in this thread would listen to this logic instead of taking a "holier than thou" approach.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> Agreed. The argument is getting very tiring. I bought my first iPhone about half a year ago. It is easily the best phone I have ever used simply because it is a breeze to use and live with. I no longer bash iPhone owners because I get it. They are super easy to use and work great as a smartphone.
> 
> Android phones are also fantastic, but in a different way.
> 
> iPhone vs Android is very similar to Console vs PC. One is very simple to use and designed for a sole purpose. The other is a multipurpose device designed to do many things.
> 
> I wish more people in this thread would listen to this logic instead of taking a "holier than thou" approach.


Not at all. Android vs iOS are the same thing. People that thing they are target to different users have it wrong.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> You still have it backwards, the maximum framerate on PC is still limited by the highest performing single thread on consoles.
> If consoles were to get even one strong core that matches the single thread performance of a high end CPU then every game would be CPU capped to the same framerate as consoles.
> 
> It's a gross assumption to say that games would be running on 8 threads without consoles. If game engines were being designed for 4 threads on consoles, that's probably what you would get on PC, and again in that scenario an i3 would be the best gaming CPU on the market.
> 
> 
> 
> It is not a gross assumption. The laws of physics wont change because of consoles. Developers have no choice and as such they have one option. Not more.
> 
> BTW, even in the quad core era, a decent Quad was winning vs Dual cores. Even nowadays, provided IPC and clocks are the same, a 10 core HT will win against a 4 core 8 thread even in games. By very little but it will. Modern games can use 16 threads or more, the 4A Engine, Cry Engine, id Tech 6... and more probably.
> 
> Weak console CPUs simply lead to bad physics and terrible AI.
Click to expand...

At least Skyrim was not well threaded when it came out.
"Quad Core" is not "Octa-Core" and doesn't necessarily mean an i7 either.
It does seem like a lot of games were well threaded before 2013 (apparently Battlefield 3 ran across 8 cores), but games being threaded doesn't mean they run better on more threads, in 2015 I still bought an i5 4690K and not an i7 because the i7 didn't show any advantage on most games.

The video I posted directly says that Crytek started threading because of consoles, and DOOM 2016 is the first game to use id Tech 6, it's Bethesda's first engine designed from the ground up to run on modern consoles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4A_Engine
The first three paragraphs about development of the 4A engine talk about 360/PS3 compatibility, again it sounds like running on weak console CPU's is the motivation for making games highly threaded.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> The laws of physics wont change because of consoles. Developers have no choice and as such they have one option. Not more.


Saying that developers have no choice but to use multi-threading because of the physical limitations of processor design is the same as saying that modern CPU's must use many cores.
In principle you still agree that consoles need to be highly threaded for maximum efficiency, and the implication is that the 8 core Jaguar actually was the best design available.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> At least Skyrim was not well threaded when it came out.
> "Quad Core" is not "Octa-Core" and doesn't necessarily mean an i7 either.
> It does seem like a lot of games were well threaded before 2013 (apparently Battlefield 3 ran across 8 cores), but games being threaded doesn't mean they run better on more threads, in 2015 I still bought an i5 4690K and not an i7 because the i7 didn't show any advantage on most games.
> 
> The video I posted directly says that Crytek started threading because of consoles, and DOOM 2016 is the first game to use id Tech 6, it's Bethesda's first engine designed from the ground up to run on modern consoles.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4A_Engine
> The first three paragraphs about development of the 4A engine talk about 360/PS3 compatibility, again it sounds like running on weak console CPU's is the motivation for making games highly threaded.
> Saying that developers have no choice but to use multi-threading because of the physical limitations of processor design is the same as saying that modern CPU's must use many cores.
> In principle you still agree that consoles need to be highly threaded for maximum efficiency, and the implication is that the 8 core Jaguar actually was the best design available.


The 4A Engine came after the team's previous work on X-Ray. X-Ray had an Achilles heel - it was single-threaded to a fault.

Modern CPUs must use many cores. Two pages back you guys were mocking the Pentium G4560 (which has 4 threads and 2 cores, it is a multi-core CPU...) despite it curb-stomping the PS4 Pro CPU to the ground so hard that Sony's engineers probably have to avert their eyes at the bloody sight. Modern gaming chips are at 6 cores /12 threads or 4 cores 8 threads. Developers literally have no choice, its do or die.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> That argument is very tiring and bit offensive too. Just because they prefer the simplicity of consoles does not mean they lack the intelligence.


I used and/or. Also, if its the truth, it can't be offensive. I know what its like being poor - and it isnt conslow gaming.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I used and/or. Also, if its the truth, it can't be offensive. I know what its like being poor - and it isnt conslow gaming.


I know what its like being poor as well, and console's lower cost to entry benefits greatly. Also, over here, if you are not financially able to purchase games, we have option to rent games on console.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Robot*
> 
> Poor people buy consoles too. The reason why PS3 flopped at first was that it was very expensive for ghetto dwellers, they couldn't afford it, meanwhile PS2 and Xbox 360 sold well among that population.


Well the poor people here, who are probably a lot poorer than those in the US, dont use consoles.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> I know what its like being poor as well, and console's lower cost to entry benefits greatly. Also, over here, if you are not financially able to purchase games, we have option to rent games on console.


Second verse same as the first. Consoles are not a better deal guys. Up front cost isnt the end all, be all.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Second verse same as the first. Consoles are not a better deal guys. Up front cost isnt the end all, be all.


Up front cost is far more important for those who aren't financially able. After that, you can "rent" games, which is far cheaper option than buying.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> Up front cost is far more important for those who aren't financially able. After that, you can "rent" games, which is far cheaper option than buying.


You also need a PC in the first place, lose out a lot of content and all your old games with a console. You also pay more for games and online and cant play with friends if they have another console.

People here just know of emulation, backwards compatibility and modding. It seems even hardcore American gamers dont know about those things even on OCN


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> You also need a PC in the first place, lose out a lot of content and all your old games with a console. *You also pay more for games* and online and cant play with friends if they have another console.
> 
> People here just know of emulation, backwards compatibility and modding. It seems even hardcore American gamers dont know about those things even on OCN


108 pages and still spreading the same FUD.

Once again,your opinion is not important enough to be passed as fact. Needing a luxury item is completely subjective.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> 108 pages and still spreading the same FUD.
> 
> Once again,your opinion is not important enough to be passed as fact. Needing a luxury item is completely subjective.


Half of Europe, the half that actually has it bad (economically ) vs some rich people's opinion on what costs more.
Yeah. Sorry.

You didnt even know the Pentium's power nor where consoles compare with PCs, nor even basic stuff on mods and PC games or emulators or backwards compatibility. Not dissing you BTW. Not knowing stuff is neither evil nor something to mock.


----------



## GoLDii3

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Half of Europe, the half that actually has it bad (economically ) vs some rich people's opinion on what costs more.
> Yeah. Sorry.
> 
> You didnt even know the Pentium's power nor where consoles compare with PCs, nor even basic stuff on mods and PC games or emulators or backwards compatibility. Not dissing you BTW. Not knowing stuff is neither evil nor something to mock.


The thing is,i don't actually go around flailing my e-peen on forums,defining myself a "gaming connoisseur" like you,showing my delusion of grandeur to everyone.

Facts are facts. I don't know the price of consoles on your country,but i highly doubt a PC would be cheaper than a console,in any place. Unless in places like Brazil wich have overtax on consoles on purpose.

Would you mind sharing the price to a prebuilt/build and a console in your country price? Simply claiming it's not true is useless.

I have played Skyrim,the enitirety of it with mods. That's about it honestly because once again,most games don't even a modding community worth mentioning. I will also comment on how funny it is the high praise you give mods,when if i go to nexusmods,in the top downloads section,we can find stuff like CBBE. My,what a incredible service to the gaming community.

I don't know stuff about basic emulation and backwards compatibility? lol sure,must be true because this guy that doesn't even know me said it.

I do know what the consoles compare to,HD 7850 on the GPU side and APU's on the CPU side. Also not everyone has the time to constantly check the performance of new hardware that comes out.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoLDii3*
> 
> The thing is,i don't actually go around flailing my e-peen on forums,defining myself a "gaming connoisseur" like you,showing my delusion of grandeur to everyone.
> 
> Facts are facts. I don't know the price of consoles on your country,but i highly doubt a PC would be cheaper than a console,in any place. Unless in places like Brazil wich have overtax on consoles on purpose.
> 
> Would you mind sharing the price to a prebuilt/build and a console in your country price? Simply claiming it's not true is useless.
> 
> I have played Skyrim,the enitirety of it with mods. That's about it honestly because once again,most games don't even a modding community worth mentioning. I will also comment on how funny it is the high praise you give mods,when if i go to nexusmods,in the top downloads section,we can find stuff like CBBE. My,what a incredible service to the gaming community.
> 
> I don't know stuff about basic emulation and backwards compatibility? lol sure.
> 
> I do know what the consoles compare to,HD 7850 on the GPU side and APU's on the CPU side. Also not everyone has the time to constantly check the performance of new hardware that comes out.


Facts are facts but you earlier mocked universal truths about hardware dying eventually, effectively mocking all of humanity's engineering achievements to boot.









Instead of using low end Skyrim remodeling mods, why not talk about Enderal? Or perhaps Lost Alpha? Or Call of CHernobyl? Or Underhell? Or Research and Development? Or the Dark Mod?
This is like me me mocking all of gaming, all of it based on Ride to Hell Retribution. Or mocking AMD's engineers based on the PS4









I have to know cheap new hardware because that is what people here use. Cheap PC hardware to play games. Yes, consoles are a worse deal with dramatically worse price/content and only win (they win here as WELL, generally) up front costs. They lose long term, get squashed in content and make no sense for most sensible poor people.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> You also need a PC in the first place
> 
> *Actually, you don't anymore. Smart devices already can do many of the basic functions PC provided. So if you don't need to do much productivity work at home, you don't need a PC at home.
> *
> 
> , lose out a lot of content and all your old games with a console.
> 
> *Debatable, and for people buy PS4, they buy it to play PS4 games, ability to play old game is pretty far down the list of reasons to get new consoles. We joke about backward compatibility as feature everyone asks for, but no one actually uses.
> *
> You also pay more for games and online and cant play with friends if they have another console.
> 
> *Sometimes, console versions of same game gets cheaper than PC versions, so it is again debatable. If you have close set of friends you play MP often with, they will all have same kind of console
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> People here just know of emulation, backwards compatibility and modding. It seems even hardcore American gamers dont know about those things even on OCN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Those are the features PC always had advantage of, but they never were major disadvantages of consoles and probably won't be in the future.
> *


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> Debatable, and for people buy PS4, they buy it to play PS4 games, ability to play old game is pretty far down the list of reasons to get new consoles. We joke about backward compatibility as feature everyone asks for, but no one actually uses.
> 
> Those are the features PC always had advantage of, but they never were major disadvantages of consoles and probably won't be in the future.


The way to prove whether or not this is true is to show the amount of players in popular XBOX 360 games on XBOX One, if that's even possible. There is a lack of data here for both arguments, although if you look at PC gaming, many of the most played games in the world (including the top 2 on Steam and more in the top 5) predate the XBOX One and PS4 era, so the ability to play older games is obviously important to PC gaming at least.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> Sometimes, console versions of same game gets cheaper than PC versions, so it is again debatable. If you have close set of friends you play MP often with, they will all have same kind of console


What do you mean by "gets cheaper?" Launch prices are usually the same now, and I've never seen one cost less on console. Sale prices are another matter but PC has bigger discounts with the likes of Humble Bundle and Bundlestars, and other sales are pretty similar across both platforms from what I've seen.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> What do you mean by "gets cheaper?" Launch prices are usually the same now, and I've never seen one cost less on console. Sale prices are another matter but PC has bigger discounts with the likes of Humble Bundle and Bundlestars, and other sales are pretty similar across both platforms from what I've seen.


That is why I said it is debatable. There are times you could get console games cheaper than PC versions, and vice versa.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> The way to prove whether or not this is true is to show the amount of players in popular XBOX 360 games on XBOX One, if that's even possible. There is a lack of data here for both arguments, although if you look at PC gaming, many of the most played games in the world (including the top 2 on Steam and more in the top 5) predate the XBOX One and PS4 era, so the ability to play older games is obviously important to PC gaming at least.


That is the feature that Xbox One later added 2 years after launch and grew the list, so i doubt that is the primary reason people bought the console. And considering how much PS4, which doesn't even feature BC, outsells Xbox One considerably, BC is not a big selling point of consoles.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> That is the feature that Xbox One later added 2 years after launch and grew the list, so i doubt that is the primary reason people bought the console. And considering how much PS4, which doesn't even feature BC, outsells Xbox One considerably, BC is not a big selling point of consoles.


There are so many reasons the PS4 trounced the XBOX One in sales though, it would be hard to imagine putting backwards compatibility over all of them.


----------



## Tempest2000

Only statistic I've seen shows that only 1.5% of time spent on X1 is on backwards compatibility. (there are numerous articles found about this via google, if you care for a source).

It appears that "no one" cares about backwards compatibility.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> There are so many reasons the PS4 trounced the XBOX One in sales though, it would be hard to imagine putting backwards compatibility over all of them.


Price and Performance.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Only statistic I've seen shows that only 1.5% of time spent on X1 is on backwards compatibility. (there are numerous articles found about this via google, if you care for a source).
> 
> It appears that "no one" cares about backwards compatibility.


Nobody on consoles probably.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> I know what its like being poor as well, and console's lower cost to entry benefits greatly. Also, over here, if you are not financially able to purchase games, we have option to rent games on console.


Why bother arguing facts such as consoles being far cheaper to buy than any comparable PC is when you can use convoluted anecdotes like "My country is poor and everybody I know uses PC's therefore PC's must be the better value"? His argument is so lame and obviously irrelevant that its really unworthy even of discussion.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> *Well the poor people here, who are probably a lot poorer than those in the US, dont use consoles.*
> Second verse same as the first. Consoles are not a better deal guys. Up front cost isnt the end all, be all.


Because of course you personally know every single person that plays games in your entire country and NONE of them use consoles, right? Furthermore, that somehow PROVES that PC's are a better value than provably cheaper consoles?

Okie dokie...


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> At least Skyrim was not well threaded when it came out.
> "Quad Core" is not "Octa-Core" and doesn't necessarily mean an i7 either.
> It does seem like a lot of games were well threaded before 2013 (apparently Battlefield 3 ran across 8 cores), but games being threaded doesn't mean they run better on more threads, in 2015 I still bought an i5 4690K and not an i7 because the i7 didn't show any advantage on most games.
> 
> The video I posted directly says that Crytek started threading because of consoles, and DOOM 2016 is the first game to use id Tech 6, it's Bethesda's first engine designed from the ground up to run on modern consoles.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4A_Engine
> The first three paragraphs about development of the 4A engine talk about 360/PS3 compatibility, again it sounds like running on weak console CPU's is the motivation for making games highly threaded.
> Saying that developers have no choice but to use multi-threading because of the physical limitations of processor design is the same as saying that modern CPU's must use many cores.
> In principle you still agree that consoles need to be highly threaded for maximum efficiency, and the implication is that the 8 core Jaguar actually was the best design available.
> 
> 
> 
> The 4A Engine came after the team's previous work on X-Ray. X-Ray had an Achilles heel - it was single-threaded to a fault.
> 
> Modern CPUs must use many cores. Two pages back you guys were mocking the Pentium G4560 (which has 4 threads and 2 cores, it is a multi-core CPU...) despite it curb-stomping the PS4 Pro CPU to the ground so hard that Sony's engineers probably have to avert their eyes at the bloody sight. Modern gaming chips are at 6 cores /12 threads or 4 cores 8 threads. Developers literally have no choice, its do or die.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> That argument is very tiring and bit offensive too. Just because they prefer the simplicity of consoles does not mean they lack the intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I used and/or. Also, if its the truth, it can't be offensive. I know what its like being poor - and it isnt conslow gaming.
Click to expand...

Did you read the Wiki?
Practically everything they talk about is console compatibility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4A_Engine
Quote:


> Shishkovtsov and his colleagues split from the development of S.T.A.L.K.E.R because that "its inherent inability to be multi-threaded, the weak and error-prone networking model, and simply awful resource and memory management which prohibited any kind of streaming or simply keeping the working set small enough for 'next-gen' consoles" along with its "terrible text-based scripting", which he explained led to the delays in the original game.
> 
> The game is multi-threaded in such that only PhysX had a dedicated thread,[3] and uses a task-model without any pre-conditioning or pre/post-synchronising, allowing tasks to be done in parallel. When the Xbox 360 iteration had been measured during development, they were running it at "approximately 3,000 tasks per 30ms frame on Xbox 360 on CPU-intensive scenes with all hardware threads at 100 per cent load". Shishkovtsov also said that the NV40 architecture of the RSX in the PlayStation 3 proved to be very useful during development noted that there were many "wasted cycles". The engine can utilise a deferred shading pipeline, and uses tesselation for greater performance, and also has HDR (complete with blue shift), real-time reflections, colour correction, film grain and noise, and the engine also supports multi-core rendering.[4]


Between 2005 and 2010 almost all videogame engines being made were created to run across all platforms, and most of them prioritized consoles (and even the PS3 had its 8 SPE's that would demand some form of threading).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Modern CPUs must use many cores. Two pages back you guys were mocking the Pentium G4560 (which has 4 threads and 2 cores, it is a multi-core CPU...) despite it curb-stomping the PS4 Pro CPU to the ground so hard that Sony's engineers probably have to avert their eyes at the bloody sight. Modern gaming chips are at 6 cores /12 threads or 4 cores 8 threads. Developers literally have no choice, its do or die.


The Pentium loses to AMD's Jaguar for the same reason that the i7 7700K loses to Ryzen today: https://youtu.be/UfNMn7RWgLw?t=0m1s
The i7 still costs 50% more and doesn't provide that much benefit.

It's the same situation with consoles, as I was saying a few posts earlier:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> If consoles had taken the Pentium, they'd be FASTER and we'd still be seeing multi-threaded games.
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentium vs. Jaguar dichotomy is also using hyperbole to evade the point. The point is that a dual core Intel with 4 threads would have been fine, provided that the clocks were high enough. The performance would have been better than Jaguar's.
> 
> A dual core locked to just 2 threads, artificially, is not the thing to compare Jaguar with. Also, Intel's cores at 14nm are really really small, in terms of die area. Look at Broadwell C. Half of the chip is GPU. The cores are tiny.
> 
> So, a quad would not be expensive to make, in terms of die area/yields.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no doubt that Intel "could" have done better than the 8 Jaguar cores for the same price, but that situation is limited by the motivation of the company.
> "Would" Intel be willing to sell their tech on lower margins? Probably not.
> 
> The APU design also enables better GPGPU functionality, and apparently that was one of the key points to convincing Sony to adopt an x86 design.
Click to expand...

Intel has all the capability in the world to outperform AMD's CPU's in any application, but their arrogance keeps Intel's CPU prices high (whether that be keeping higher profit margins overall or the continual bizarre insistence on forcing an iGPU onto every CPU die they make).


----------



## epic1337

intel's equivalent of AMD's 8core jaguar is Avoton, which costs a wooping $171 to purchase.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Did you read the Wiki?
> Practically everything they talk about is console compatibility.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4A_Engine
> Between 2005 and 2010 almost all videogame engines being made were created to run across all platforms, and most of them prioritized consoles (and even the PS3 had its 8 SPE's that would demand some form of threading).
> The Pentium loses to AMD's Jaguar for the same reason that the i7 7700K loses to Ryzen today: https://youtu.be/UfNMn7RWgLw?t=0m1s
> The i7 still costs 50% more and doesn't provide that much benefit.
> 
> It's the same situation with consoles, as I was saying a few posts earlier:
> Intel has all the capability in the world to outperform AMD's CPU's in any application, but their arrogance keeps Intel's CPU prices high (whether that be keeping higher profit margins overall or the continual bizarre insistence on forcing an iGPU onto every CPU die they make).


I helped writing that wiki page so yeah, I did read it







. I also need to update it according to the design documents.
4A Engine, especially its newest versions, can use more than 16 threads. Do you see such a conslow anywhere?

The Pentium doesnt lose to Jaguar because in all games it is faster. It is also an objectively faster chip. IPC, and clocks matter.
Ryzen is objectively superior to Kaby Lake in most things, the issue with the 7800X though is due to its mesh + Cut down chip. Why do those results in HU's video surprise you so much?

The iGPU is not a bizzare choice, it is a selling point for some. I also dont need Ryzen hype, I already consider it a success and a marvel of engineering. One that conslows dont have








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Why bother arguing facts such as consoles being far cheaper to buy than any comparable PC is when you can use convoluted anecdotes like "My country is poor and everybody I know uses PC's therefore PC's must be the better value"? His argument is so lame and obviously irrelevant that its really unworthy even of discussion.
> Because of course you personally know every single person that plays games in your entire country and NONE of them use consoles, right? Furthermore, that somehow PROVES that PC's are a better value than provably cheaper consoles?
> 
> Okie dokie...


Because I am yet to even see a console gamer IRL. And I am not a neet, surely they exist?

Have you never wondered why games like STALKER, Tropico, Witcher 1, Men of War and Metro have a PC Focus or are exclusives? Are you, dear monolingual American, going to try to school me on these things







?

Surely after living here for 22 years, speaking 6 languages, going outside (surprisingly) id have met at least console gamer, not hundreds of PC Gamers? I know console gamers here exist, they are just part of the rich people's club exclusives. Even children know consoles dont have mods, emulation, backwards compatibility and are automatically inferior...

If your nation's console gamers dont care for backwards compatibility and modding, then how can you even DARE call them gamers or defend them as equal consumers to us here? Stupid people at best, people insulting mankind's achievements and gaming haters at worst. And no, I wont back down, that is what they are. Even if I dont care for some silly movie game I dont want it to die...

BTW very few people know of Backwards Compatibility on Xbox One since it wasnt an original feature and took a long time to get good. It still sucks compared to PC emulation. But if you defend anti-backwards compatibility or even worse - are one of those people on consoles that simply consumer and throw away like some animal, we probably should not be talking at all


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Did you read the Wiki?
> Practically everything they talk about is console compatibility.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4A_Engine
> Between 2005 and 2010 almost all videogame engines being made were created to run across all platforms, and most of them prioritized consoles (and even the PS3 had its 8 SPE's that would demand some form of threading).
> The Pentium loses to AMD's Jaguar for the same reason that the i7 7700K loses to Ryzen today: https://youtu.be/UfNMn7RWgLw?t=0m1s
> The i7 still costs 50% more and doesn't provide that much benefit.
> 
> It's the same situation with consoles, as I was saying a few posts earlier:
> Intel has all the capability in the world to outperform AMD's CPU's in any application, but their arrogance keeps Intel's CPU prices high (whether that be keeping higher profit margins overall or the continual bizarre insistence on forcing an iGPU onto every CPU die they make).
> 
> 
> 
> I helped writing that wiki page so yeah, I did read it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I also need to update it according to the design documents.
> 4A Engine, especially its newest versions, can use more than 16 threads. Do you see such a conslow anywhere?
> 
> The Pentium doesnt lose to Jaguar because in all games it is faster. It is also an objectively faster chip. IPC, and clocks matter.
> Ryzen is objectively superior to Kaby Lake in most things, the issue with the 7800X though is due to its mesh + Cut down chip. Why do those results in HU's video surprise you so much?
> 
> The iGPU is not a bizzare choice, it is a selling point for some. I also dont need Ryzen hype, I already consider it a success and a marvel of engineering. One that conslows dont have
Click to expand...

The programmers at 4A certainly had a long term vision for their new engine, but they're the exception, and as we can see from the benchmarks most games still benefit from higher clocks more than from having more threads.
High levels of multithreading is still not necessary on PC. If PC were the primary platform for the gaming industry then it would have delayed the broad implementation of multi-core support as we see it today.

With the Ryzen example I didn't clarify my position quite well enough, right now I'm saying the Ryzen R5-1600 is a better value than an i7-7700K. The 7700K is giving about 20% better framerates on average but it costs a lot more than that, and theoretically it's less future-proof as games do inevitably become more multi-thread dependent.

For the most competetive people the i7-7700K is the best you can get, but it comes at a higher cost.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> If your nation's console gamers dont care for backwards compatibility and modding, then how can you even DARE call them gamers or defend them as equal consumers to us here? Stupid people at best, people insulting mankind's achievements and gaming haters at worst. And no, I wont back down, that is what they are. Even if I dont care for some silly movie game I dont want it to die...
> 
> BTW very few people know of Backwards Compatibility on Xbox One since it wasnt an original feature and took a long time to get good. It still sucks compared to PC emulation. But if you defend anti-backwards compatibility or even worse - are one of those people on consoles that simply consumer and throw away like some animal, we probably should not be talking at all


Don't forget that Xbox has Skyrim mods too now, where PS4 only has very stripped down modding capabilities due to Sony being more strict with verification or some such nonsense.

I don't think anyone has ever thrown a gaming console in the trash either, people generally sell their old console at the end of a generation (I gave away my 360 a few years ago, giving is a lot easier than selling and as long as your friends aren't disposable then it still has value).


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Have you never wondered why games like STALKER, Tropico, Witcher 1, Men of War and Metro have a PC Focus or are exclusives? Are you, dear monolingual American, going to try to school me on these things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> Surely after living here for 22 years, speaking 6 languages, going outside (surprisingly) id have met at least console gamer, not hundreds of PC Gamers? I know console gamers here exist, they are just part of the rich people's club exclusives. Even children know consoles dont have mods, emulation, backwards compatibility and are automatically inferior...
> 
> *That kind of attitude is the reason why you are getting hostile replies.
> *
> 
> If your nation's console gamers dont care for backwards compatibility and modding, then how can you even DARE call them gamers or defend them as equal consumers to us here? Stupid people at best, people insulting mankind's achievements and gaming haters at worst. And no, I wont back down, that is what they are. Even if I dont care for some silly movie game I dont want it to die...
> 
> *Modding is the stuff that could be only done on PC, and never been a feature for consoles, so why should a console gamer care about it? Gamers who cares about mods would already been playing games on PC.
> 
> And well, I could say modding is insulting to mankind's achievement because I am modifying the already fine artwork, and that is insulting to developers who worked hard on that game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Caring about preservation of games and enjoying the game itself are totally different matters. Gamers are anyone who enjoys spending their free time on games. There are lot of people who just enjoys the experience of games themselves without caring about all the technical or political crap that goes into it, and that is completely understandable.*


----------



## Boomer1990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Surely after living here for 22 years, speaking 6 languages, going outside (surprisingly) id have met at least console gamer, not hundreds of PC Gamers? I know console gamers here exist, they are just part of the rich people's club exclusives. Even children know consoles dont have *mods*, emulation, *backwards compatibility* and are automatically inferior...


For someone who claims to be so smart you do not seem to get it. So let me put this bold so maybe you will actually learn it. *THE XBOX ONE HAS MODS AND BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY*, you talk about how people are dumb yet you seem to be unable to do a 1 second google search. I expect you to move the goal posts like you usually do though and not say you were wrong and then move to the fact that PC has more games that allow mods and can play more games, which is something that everyone already knows.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> The Pentium loses to AMD's Jaguar for the same reason that the i7 7700K loses to Ryzen today: https://youtu.be/UfNMn7RWgLw?t=0m1s
> The i7 still costs 50% more and doesn't provide that much benefit.


Umm... the i7 7700k beats both the Ryzen 5 1600 and the i7 7800X in that video you posted. And every other CPU in gaming. The same reason why Skylake/Kaby Lake Pentium beats AMD's Jaguar in games-they are more dependent on IPC performance. 20% is a big difference.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Don't forget that Xbox has Skyrim mods too now, where PS4 only has very stripped down modding capabilities due to Sony being more strict with verification or some such nonsense.


A very limited form of modding on the Xbox that is, with standalone total conversion mods (e.g. Underhell, The Dark Mod, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Lost Alpha) not being possible. And I'm guessing multiplayer game modding isn't possible either.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> The Pentium loses to AMD's Jaguar for the same reason that the i7 7700K loses to Ryzen today: https://youtu.be/UfNMn7RWgLw?t=0m1s
> The i7 still costs 50% more and doesn't provide that much benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> Umm... the i7 7700k beats both the Ryzen 5 1600 and the i7 7800X in that video you posted. And every other CPU in gaming. The same reason why Skylake/Kaby Lake Pentium beats AMD's Jaguar in games-they are more dependent on IPC performance. 20% is a big difference.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Don't forget that Xbox has Skyrim mods too now, where PS4 only has very stripped down modding capabilities due to Sony being more strict with verification or some such nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A very limited form of modding on the Xbox that is, with standalone total conversion mods (e.g. Underhell, The Dark Mod, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Lost Alpha) not being possible. And I'm guessing multiplayer game modding isn't possible either.
Click to expand...

"Frames Per Dollar" R5 1600 Wins.
People looking for absolute performance are outnumbered 10:1, price to performance is the priority for 90% of consumers.

At this point modding on consoles is more in the hands of the developers.
I'm not sure how much it actually matters anymore though, modern game engines have highly functional visual scripting tools and you can download UE4 and even publish on consoles almost as easily as anywhere else (PSN is notoriously being filled with low quality Indie games right now).
TC's aren't necessary when whole original works can be created with such ease. And this way people have full rights over their IP.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> I'm not sure how much it actually matters anymore though, modern game engines have highly functional visual scripting tools and you can download UE4 and even publish on consoles almost as easily as anywhere else (PSN is notoriously being filled with low quality Indie games right now).
> TC's aren't necessary when whole original works can be created with such ease. And this way people have full rights over their IP.


This has no impact on modding. Publishing something through UE4 isn't free, that's making a game not a mod and you will have to deal with Epic Games. Total Conversion mods are the reason we have Dota 2 (the #1 most played game on Steam every day averaging 700k - 950k players) thus the genre of MOBA, Counter-Strike series, Team Fortress series, Alien Swarm, Day of Defeat series, DayZ thus the entire genre of persistent world online survival, Garry's Mod, Insurgency and Day of Infamy, Natural Selection 2, Red Orchestra/Rising Storm series, Killing Floor series, etc.

You might be confusing total conversions with addon and overhaul mods. Addons and overhauls are generally designed to improve the base game and these are the mods that Xbox gets, while total conversions are akin to entirely new games that happen to be built upon another game but they ignore the existence of the base game. Total conversions provide tremendous value since it makes one game become more than one game, and more than one genre. And like I pointed out above, they are responsible for the existence of many immensely popular games including some of the most popular and influential games of all time.

Not that they're going away of course. Some of those mods turned games mentioned above were eventually ported to consoles, I just have to point out that Xbox modding is not in the same realm as PC game modding (not to mention you can't even make mods on Xbox in the first place lol).


----------



## epic1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> "Frames Per Dollar" R5 1600 Wins.
> People looking for absolute performance are outnumbered 10:1, price to performance is the priority for 90% of consumers.


sometimes price to performance is 2nd, and max budget is first, e.g. R5-1600 is out of their budget so they take R5-1400 instead.
often times it ends up with them getting a CPU or GPU thats not the best but is within the top10 perf/$.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Why bother arguing facts such as consoles being far cheaper to buy than any comparable PC is when you can use convoluted anecdotes like "My country is poor and everybody I know uses PC's therefore PC's must be the better value"? His argument is so lame and obviously irrelevant that its really unworthy even of discussion.
> Because of course you personally know every single person that plays games in your entire country and NONE of them use consoles, right? Furthermore, that somehow PROVES that PC's are a better value than provably cheaper consoles?
> 
> Okie dokie...


Because I am yet to even see a console gamer IRL
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> For someone who claims to be so smart you do not seem to get it. So let me put this bold so maybe you will actually learn it. *THE XBOX ONE HAS MODS AND BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY*, you talk about how people are dumb yet you seem to be unable to do a 1 second google search. I expect you to move the goal posts like you usually do though and not say you were wrong and then move to the fact that PC has more games that allow mods and can play more games, which is something that everyone already knows.


I know very well that Xbox One has faulty and mediocre, but still existing modding abilities and backwards compatibility. Not as extensive as on PC nor as good, but a significant advantage over PS4.

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

I know consoles well mate. Even if I wont touch them









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Why bother arguing facts such as consoles being far cheaper to buy than any comparable PC is when you can use convoluted anecdotes like "My country is poor and everybody I know uses PC's therefore PC's must be the better value"? His argument is so lame and obviously irrelevant that its really unworthy even of discussion.
> Because of course you personally know every single person that plays games in your entire country and NONE of them use consoles, right? Furthermore, that somehow PROVES that PC's are a better value than provably cheaper consoles?
> 
> Okie dokie...


Because I am yet to even see a console gamer IRL
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> The programmers at 4A certainly had a long term vision for their new engine, but they're the exception, and as we can see from the benchmarks most games still benefit from higher clocks more than from having more threads.
> High levels of multithreading is still not necessary on PC. If PC were the primary platform for the gaming industry then it would have delayed the broad implementation of multi-core support as we see it today.
> 
> With the Ryzen example I didn't clarify my position quite well enough, right now I'm saying the Ryzen R5-1600 is a better value than an i7-7700K. The 7700K is giving about 20% better framerates on average but it costs a lot more than that, and theoretically it's less future-proof as games do inevitably become more multi-thread dependent.
> 
> For the most competetive people the i7-7700K is the best you can get, but it comes at a higher cost.
> Don't forget that Xbox has Skyrim mods too now, where PS4 only has very stripped down modding capabilities due to Sony being more strict with verification or some such nonsense.
> 
> I don't think anyone has ever thrown a gaming console in the trash either, people generally sell their old console at the end of a generation (I gave away my 360 a few years ago, giving is a lot easier than selling and as long as your friends aren't disposable then it still has value).


High levels of multi-threading helps on PC and is slowly becoming the norm. The i7 has 8 threads, the PS4 has 7 threads available to games. The very fact that Haswell and Broadwell 6 and 8 core CPUs with 12 and 16 threads are better in games than their 4/8 counterparts on equal clocks proves it.

I built a Ryzen 5 1600 PC today for a friend. Of course id select the Ryzen 5 over a 7700K in most scenarios. Only if its some intense retro or emulation or STALKER gamer will I even tell them to consider the Intel 7700K (and Ryzen still does well on those BTW). In all other cases id tell the person to get Ryzen 5 1600 or 1700 and ignore Kaby Lake. I aint an Intel fan









Xbox One has limited modding. Yes, its a big step and I support it 100%. But make no mistake, things ain't equal








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*


I dont care for how they respond








All that matters is to be correct.

Most console gamers dont know about modding. Hell you yourself as a PC Gamer still hold some very strange and weird beliefs about it. How is mocking all of human history as bad as someone modifying a game, which often leads to new games? (Day of Defeat, Counter Strike, Team Fortress?) Or to exceptional expansion pack stuff? Or de facto new games which are superior to AAA video games?

I dont get your logic at all. I am studying to become an engineer, that man's assumptions that nothing ever dies is frightening me for real.

No. Stupidity is not understandable nor tolerable....


----------



## Mad Pistol

@Charcharo if I may speak candidly...

Please observe the two things you just wrote.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I know consoles well mate. Even if I wont touch them


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Because I am yet to even see a console gamer IRL


So... you won't touch consoles, but you apparantly know them quite well. That's a flat contradiction of "knowing" something. You THINK you know something, but life has told me that you don't truly know it until you experience it for yourself. You BELIEVE that you know it, but again... this is not a fact. You are projecting your opinions as facts when you have no real experience to back it up.

In those two statements alone, your credibility is completely shot.

This one is also very questionable
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> *I dont get your logic at all.* I am studying to become an engineer, that man's assumptions that nothing ever dies is frightening me for real.
> 
> *No. Stupidity is not understandable nor tolerable....*


First, you shoot your credibility, then you call others stupid... This is something that a student who THINKS they know everything would say. The point? You're a student. You don't know everything. Quit pretending that you do.

If you're studying to be an engineer, that's great. Here's a lesson to go along with it; this world is not made of 1's and 0's. It's not black and white. It's not always right vs. wrong. There is sometimes a NULL value, there is potentially a grey area. There is a human element that separates right from wrong where the two overlap.

Please take this to heart.

Consoles have their place. Your opinion is not fact. Your points have been made and rebuked, and you cannot keep stating over and over again the same points hoping that they will suddenly become fact. I also believe that this thread has run its course. We're at roughly 1100 posts in and no ground has been gained. Time to move on.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> I'm not sure how much it actually matters anymore though, modern game engines have highly functional visual scripting tools and you can download UE4 and even publish on consoles almost as easily as anywhere else (PSN is notoriously being filled with low quality Indie games right now).
> TC's aren't necessary when whole original works can be created with such ease. And this way people have full rights over their IP.
> 
> 
> 
> This has no impact on modding. Publishing something through UE4 isn't free, that's making a game not a mod and you will have to deal with Epic Games. Total Conversion mods are the reason we have Dota 2 (the #1 most played game on Steam every day averaging 700k - 950k players) thus the genre of MOBA, Counter-Strike series, Team Fortress series, Alien Swarm, Day of Defeat series, DayZ thus the entire genre of persistent world online survival, Garry's Mod, Insurgency and Day of Infamy, Natural Selection 2, Red Orchestra/Rising Storm series, Killing Floor series, etc.
> 
> You might be confusing total conversions with addon and overhaul mods. Addons and overhauls are generally designed to improve the base game and these are the mods that Xbox gets, while total conversions are akin to entirely new games that happen to be built upon another game but they ignore the existence of the base game. Total conversions provide tremendous value since it makes one game become more than one game, and more than one genre. And like I pointed out above, they are responsible for the existence of many immensely popular games including some of the most popular and influential games of all time.
> 
> Not that they're going away of course. Some of those mods turned games mentioned above were eventually ported to consoles, I just have to point out that Xbox modding is not in the same realm as PC game modding (not to mention you can't even make mods on Xbox in the first place lol).
Click to expand...

For small developers UE4 is effectively free: https://www.unrealengine.com/faq
Quote:


> UE4 is free to use, with a 5% royalty on gross product revenue after the first $3,000 per game per calendar quarter from commercial products.


If you become successful then the royalty fee they do charge is very reasonable.

"Garry's Mod" is still a Half Life 2 mod that's being monetized, and "Red Orchestra" is a TC, but "Dota 2" shares _nothing_ with Warcraft 3, it was built from the ground up in Source, it is not a TC or a Mod.

Modders do Total Conversions because they want to make something new in the creative environment that they're familiar with, and keep access to a large player base associated with the base game. The downside is that unless the engine you're using already has a friendly licensing agreement then modders would be infinitely better off learning a new engine than being left totally incapable of seeing any potential returns because you're modding something like GTA 5 or a Blizzard game where the engine has no licensing options.

If DayZ counts as a TC then I'd say some of the things done in Halo Forge over the last decade probably do count as TC's. It is extremely limited in comparison but Halo has supported a variety of emergent gameplay types very similar to what you commonly see on PC.
And then Microsoft "tried" to make "Project Spark" a thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPenVqIcFgc
I'm pretty sure it's dead now, but the biggest problem with Project Spark was probably just the limitations of asking people to attempt something like that with a gamepad. Any time "Console vs. PC" comes up I keep coming back to the controls, I see "PC" as a genre of controller more than a hardware platform, the defining characteristics of what people actually do with the hardware seems to be more determined by the input mechanism than the OS or software library. Lots of people use a PC no differently than a console, and I'm sure the reverse could be true if the same interface tools were provided.
The library is still a "problem" but probably not nearly as much as people might expect, if Microsoft can do Project Spark then you could probably run the SDK for most other engines. As soon as Xbox is allowed to use a Mouse and keyboard, and console games ship with an SDK, then 99% of the difference between console mods and PC mods would disappear.
I'm assuming there would be some level of security risk involved in enabling a compiler to run on a console but if they could manage that then you'd really be off to the races.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> @Charcharo if I may speak candidly...
> 
> Please observe the two things you just wrote.
> 
> So... you won't touch consoles, but you apparantly know them quite well. That's a flat contradiction of "knowing" something. You THINK you know something, but life has told me that you don't truly know it until you experience it for yourself. You BELIEVE that you know it, but again... this is not a fact. You are projecting your opinions as facts when you have no real experience to back it up.
> 
> In those two statements alone, you shot your credibility.
> 
> This one is also very questionable
> First, you shoot your credibility, then you call others stupid... This is something that a student who THINKS they know everything would say.
> 
> If you're studying to be an engineer, that's great. Here's a lesson to go along with it; this world is not made of 1's and 0's. It's not black and white. It's not always right vs. wrong. There is sometimes a NULL value, there is potentially a grey area. There is a human element that separates right from wrong where the two overlap.
> 
> Please take this to heart.
> 
> Consoles have their place. Your opinion is not fact. Your points have been made and rebuked, and you cannot keep stating over and over again the same points hoping that they will suddenly become fact. I also believe that this thread has run its course. We're at roughly 1100 posts in and no ground has been gained. Time to move on.


We live in the 21st century. The internet exists









I can google Digital Foundry, I can open Anandtech, I can look at the on spec hardware, I can find comparison videos... I can read console news








You should try it. Also I have had old consoles :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_2_(console)
It was I think near the end of console usefulnes and I am ashamed of owning it. My childhood aint trumping reality









The world isnt 0s and ones, but it has zeros and ones.Sometimes bad stuff exist. Sometimes good exists. It isnt always a golden middle
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoldenMeanFallacy
In this case I see consoles as an evil. One that was necessary for a time but the times have changed.

My points on Emulation, Hardware performance (100% correct) , backwards compatibility, and culture of puchasers havent been rebuked. At most some people whined about how bad mods are (lol https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4jCb2csBg06T2VBY2ZBUjVaSFE/view?ths=true ) but they know literally nothing









The only point some people have given here to trump mine is the possible person that buys a console and ALWAYS sells their games and ALWAYS buys second hand, has a powerful smartphone and does PC tasks on it. A strange person to me, but it can exist as possible human, even if one that isnt a gamer for such short term thinking IMHO.


----------



## Boomer1990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Because I am yet to even see a console gamer IRL
> I know very well that Xbox One has faulty and mediocre, but still existing modding abilities and backwards compatibility. Not as extensive as on PC nor as good, but a significant advantage over PS4.
> 
> Xbox One has limited modding. Yes, its a big step and I support it 100%. But make no mistake, things ain't equal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I dont care for how they respond
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All that matters is to be correct.


Lol you actually did it, I said you were going to move goal posts and you did it exactly how I said you would. I love how now you say you know they have modding but not as good as pc, yet lets look at what you said earlier. "*Even children know consoles dont have mods, emulation, backwards compatibility*" this is what you said. Yet I called it earlier that you would refuse that you were wrong. This is why no one takes you seriously. One moment you said consoles can't do mods then the next you say you know they can.

You also said "*I dont care for how they respond tongue.gif All that matters is to be correct.*" Well time to take your own advice cause you sure as hell were not correct when you made the statement that consoles do not have mods or have backwards compatibility. Please though continue to move goal posts like I know you will.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> Lol you actually did it, I said you were going to move goal posts and you did it exactly how I said you would. I love how now you say you know they have modding but not as good as pc, yet lets look at what you said earlier. "*Even children know consoles dont have mods, emulation, backwards compatibility*" this is what you said. Yet I called it earlier that you would refuse that you were wrong. This is why no one takes you seriously. One moment you said consoles can't do mods then the next you say you know they can.
> 
> You also said "*I dont care for how they respond tongue.gif All that matters is to be correct.*" Well time to take your own advice cause you sure as hell were not correct when you made the statement that consoles do not have mods or have backwards compatibility. Please though continue to move goal posts like I know you will.


If you are so in need of validation, read more of the thread and notice I have stated before in this thread that the Xbox One can do some Backwards Compatibility and some modding. I already did, I mentioned how I support it, I said how at gunpoint due to those things id choose the Xbox Conslow over a PS4 conslow.

Must I waste time and with every single comment of mine retread all points i ever made on the same thread? I can do that, but its just tiring and annoying.

Call me when the Conslow can play Underhell and Call of CHernobyl







btw. and read more before you attack people.


----------



## DETERMINOLOGY

Crazy that yall going back and forth on a lol "console" 111+ pages geez...


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> For small developers UE4 is effectively free: https://www.unrealengine.com/faq
> If you become successful then the royalty fee they do charge is very reasonable.


You're still talking about making games, not mods.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> "Garry's Mod" is still a Half Life 2 mod that's being monetized


No, the mod is not monetized but the game of course is. Every mod/game I mentioned is the same in that they have a mod version, and a game version. Mods are not monetized directly.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> and "Red Orchestra" is a TC, but "Dota 2" shares _nothing_ with Warcraft 3, it was built from the ground up in Source, it is not a TC or a Mod.


You might have missed my point. It was merely that none of those GAMES would exist if it wasn't for the total conversion mods they stem from. Xbox not having total conversion mods is just one big limitation on its modding. I only pointed this out because I don't want to see people talk about Xbox modding as if it's the real deal.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Modders do Total Conversions because they want to make something new in the creative environment that they're familiar with, and keep access to a large player base associated with the base game. The downside is that unless the engine you're using already has a friendly licensing agreement then modders would be infinitely better off learning a new engine than being left totally incapable of seeing any potential returns because you're modding something like GTA 5 or a Blizzard game where the engine has no licensing options.


Yes, and that downside is only a downside if they plan on making their mod a full game. It is interesting and beneficial that many total conversion mod teams turned game studios are switching to UE4 for these reasons.


----------



## Boomer1990

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> If you are so in need of validation, read more of the thread and notice I have stated before in this thread that the Xbox One can do some Backwards Compatibility and some modding. I already did, I mentioned how I support it, I said how at gunpoint due to those things id choose the Xbox Conslow over a PS4 conslow.
> 
> Must I waste time and with every single comment of mine retread all points i ever made on the same thread? I can do that, but its just tiring and annoying.
> 
> Call me when the Conslow can play Underhell and Call of CHernobyl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw. and read more before you attack people.


Then do not make false statements, you are going to get called out if you say consoles can't do mods, instead the correct statement would be consoles can do far less modding.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Boomer1990*
> 
> Then do not make false statements, you are going to get called out if you say consoles can't do mods, instead the correct statement would be consoles can do far less modding.


Ok.
Consoles can do very limited and weak modding, and mostly one of them only (since all consoles are not a single combined entity). Another one has it even more limited and Nintendo's powerhouse of Japanese engineering (almost equal to tanks that can be penetrated by machine-guns... almost) will likely have no modding at all.
Happy ;P ?


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> For small developers UE4 is effectively free: https://www.unrealengine.com/faq
> If you become successful then the royalty fee they do charge is very reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> You're still talking about making games, not mods.
Click to expand...

You incorrectly stated that the use of UE4 inherently costs money, if the game creator doesn't charge money then it's free no different than any game mod, but the creator "can" sell their work if they want.

You are also specifically talking about TC's that eventually become standalone titles, UE4 is entirely relevant in the discussion about TC's (as you yourself point out below).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> "Garry's Mod" is still a Half Life 2 mod that's being monetized
> 
> 
> 
> No, the mod is not monetized but the game of course is. Every mod/game I mentioned is the same in that they have a mod version, and a game version. Mods are not monetized directly.
Click to expand...

When Garry's Mod first became available for purchase there was no difference between the mod and the paid version, if they're the same thing except that one costs money, it's a monetized mod.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> and "Red Orchestra" is a TC, but "Dota 2" shares _nothing_ with Warcraft 3, it was built from the ground up in Source, it is not a TC or a Mod.
> 
> 
> 
> You might have missed my point. It was merely that none of those GAMES would exist if it wasn't for the total conversion mods they stem from. Xbox not having total conversion mods is just one big limitation on its modding. I only pointed this out because I don't want to see people talk about Xbox modding as if it's the real deal.
Click to expand...

Fundameltally there is almost no difference between someone playing with UE4 in their spare time and a modder creating new content using the SDK for their favorite game.
Most of those TC's came about because Valve and Epic started shipping the official SDK with their games, the only difference now is you don't have to buy the game and the tools are given out freely with the intention of people being able to monetize their work.
And that can be published on consoles almost as easily as on PC.

Bringing us back to the point that creative expression is almost just as accessible on any platoform, other than the fact that you need a PC do do any serious creative work no matter what your target platform is.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Modders do Total Conversions because they want to make something new in the creative environment that they're familiar with, and keep access to a large player base associated with the base game. The downside is that unless the engine you're using already has a friendly licensing agreement then modders would be infinitely better off learning a new engine than being left totally incapable of seeing any potential returns because you're modding something like GTA 5 or a Blizzard game where the engine has no licensing options.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and that downside is only a downside if they plan on making their mod a full game. It is interesting and beneficial that many total conversion mod teams turned game studios are switching to UE4 for these reasons.
Click to expand...

Again, there is virtually no difference between "mods" and "game development" in the modern market, the proliferation of shovelware is one of the worst aspects of that reality, but digital content creation is free and widespread across all platforms now.
(Apparently the Xbox Dev Mode is free, though using it properly requires a $19 Dev Center account: https://www.polygon.com/2016/3/30/11318568/xbox-one-dev-kit
And actually publishing on Xbox Live is still curated by the [email protected] program, but that is probably for the best right now.)


----------



## The Robot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Ok.
> Consoles can do very limited and weak modding, and mostly one of them only (since all consoles are not a single combined entity). Another one has it even more limited and Nintendo's powerhouse of Japanese engineering (almost equal to tanks that can be penetrated by machine-guns... almost) will likely have no modding at all.
> Happy ;P ?


Nintendo is not totally oblivious to the outside world though. Mario Maker was obviously influenced by rom hacking scene. Heck, Excitebike on NES allowed you to create custom tracks, so in a way they are the grandparents of modding.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> You incorrectly stated that the use of UE4 inherently costs money, if the game creator doesn't charge money then it's free no different than any game mod, but the creator "can" sell their work if they want.


A free game is not a mod, and I don't see anything in the FAQ that mentions free product releases. A mod can reuse the base game's content (and usually does to some extent).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> When Garry's Mod first became available for purchase there was no difference between the mod and the paid version, if they're the same thing except that one costs money, it's a monetized mod.


The mod was never monetized and always available for free on *ModDB* making them separate products. So if what you say is true, then the game version of Garry's Mod was just a worthless game back when it launched. A mod by definition is free, acknowledging that Valve and Bethesda have tried to change that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Fundameltally there is almost no difference between someone playing with UE4 in their spare time and a modder creating new content using the SDK for their favorite game.
> Most of those TC's came about because Valve and Epic started shipping the official SDK with their games, the only difference now is you don't have to buy the game and the tools are given out freely with the intention of people being able to monetize their work.
> And that can be published on consoles almost as easily as on PC.


There are several other differences. An SDK included with a game includes all of that game's content and won't let you publish to specific platforms. While a standalone SDK will only include a small amount of free to use sample content that's not tied to any game.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Bringing us back to the point that creative expression is almost just as accessible on any platoform, other than the fact that you need a PC do do any serious creative work no matter what your target platform is.


Presumably. I wouldn't know about the experience or requirements of having to deal with Microsoft or Sony and having them approve of your game. There is also the separate issue of game concepts that wouldn't work on consoles due to their limitations, whether it's a large scale visually immersive 3D strategy/tactics game with too much for console hardware to handle like Total War, or a game like Garry's Mod that is too reliant on a level of modding not possible on consoles.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Again, there is virtually no difference between "mods" and "game development" in the modern market, the proliferation of shovelware is one of the worst aspects of that reality, but digital content creation is free and widespread across all platforms now.


If you're using engines that allow for free development like the ones we're discussing, then the difference between creating a total conversion mod and a game is as stated above: you can still use another game's content in the mod. What's interesting is that Steam now has numerous mods in the actual store, as well as free games of course. The mods are still labeled Mods because they use a game's content and usually install over a game (but this is not even required for a total conversion mod in general).


----------



## Tempest2000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> @Charcharo if I may speak candidly...
> 
> Please observe the two things you just wrote.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I know consoles well mate. Even if I wont touch them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Because I am yet to even see a console gamer IRL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So... you won't touch consoles, but you apparantly know them quite well. That's a flat contradiction of "knowing" something. You THINK you know something, but life has told me that you don't truly know it until you experience it for yourself. You BELIEVE that you know it, but again... this is not a fact. You are projecting your opinions as facts when you have no real experience to back it up.
> 
> In those two statements alone, your credibility is completely shot.
> 
> This one is also very questionable
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> *I dont get your logic at all.* I am studying to become an engineer, that man's assumptions that nothing ever dies is frightening me for real.
> 
> *No. Stupidity is not understandable nor tolerable....*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First, you shoot your credibility, then you call others stupid... This is something that a student who THINKS they know everything would say. The point? You're a student. You don't know everything. Quit pretending that you do.
> 
> If you're studying to be an engineer, that's great. Here's a lesson to go along with it; this world is not made of 1's and 0's. It's not black and white. It's not always right vs. wrong. There is sometimes a NULL value, there is potentially a grey area. There is a human element that separates right from wrong where the two overlap.
> 
> Please take this to heart.
> 
> Consoles have their place. Your opinion is not fact. Your points have been made and rebuked, and you cannot keep stating over and over again the same points hoping that they will suddenly become fact. I also believe that this thread has run its course. We're at roughly 1100 posts in and no ground has been gained. Time to move on.
Click to expand...

I called him out on this stuff a long time ago.

First of all, I want to point out that he claims to have played through The Last of Us (and basically thought it was trash). He doesn't own a console and doesn't know any console gamers, so I find his lack of consistency hilarious. Think about that. I guess he "plays" most games by watching other people play them on Twitch? I guess that if people from his country are as poor as he makes it seem, their streaming wuality is pretty low...

Second, he claims that "Uncharted 4 looks bad... I've seen videos of it on youtube". Enough said.

Third, I've pointed out to him, during an argument, that I've designed and written graphics engines from scratch for 3 different platforms (PC, a console, and a mobile console) and yet he still tried to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about and that he does.

It's pure gold


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> *Umm... the i7 7700k beats both the Ryzen 5 1600 and the i7 7800X in that video you posted. And every other CPU in gaming.* The same reason why Skylake/Kaby Lake Pentium beats AMD's Jaguar in games-they are more dependent on IPC performance. 20% is a big difference.
> A very limited form of modding on the Xbox that is, with standalone total conversion mods (e.g. Underhell, The Dark Mod, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Lost Alpha) not being possible. And I'm guessing multiplayer game modding isn't possible either.


You, uh, completely missed his point there guy. Ryzen beats the 7700K because it offers twice the cores for less money (his point, not mine). Jaguar may be slower in IPC but it has twice the threads of the Pentium and is cheaper.


----------



## BWAS1000

This thread, oh boy


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> We live in the 21st century. The internet exists
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can google Digital Foundry, I can open Anandtech, I can look at the on spec hardware, I can find comparison videos... I can read console news
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should try it. Also I have had old consoles :
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_2_(console)
> It was I think near the end of console usefulnes and I am ashamed of owning it. My childhood aint trumping reality
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The world isnt 0s and ones, but it has zeros and ones.Sometimes bad stuff exist. Sometimes good exists. It isnt always a golden middle
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoldenMeanFallacy
> In this case I see consoles as an evil. One that was necessary for a time but the times have changed.
> 
> My points on Emulation, Hardware performance (100% correct) , backwards compatibility, and culture of puchasers havent been rebuked. At most some people whined about how bad mods are (lol https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4jCb2csBg06T2VBY2ZBUjVaSFE/view?ths=true ) but they know literally nothing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The only point some people have given here to trump mine is the possible person that buys a console and ALWAYS sells their games and ALWAYS buys second hand, has a powerful smartphone and does PC tasks on it. A strange person to me, but it can exist as possible human, even if one that isnt a gamer for such short term thinking IMHO.[*


There are also people (like the majority here on OCN) who play games on both consoles and PC's, depending on their current mood or need. To me, a true gamer is one who embraces all types of games from Tetris up to Witcher and all in between. Hell, people still go to arcades even (remember those)! But I suppose those are just another "useless" hindrance for PCMR and should be wiped out as well, huh? The fact of the matter is, YOUR opinion of what makes a person a true gamer is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and you continue to fail at understanding that.

We get it, PC's are far superior to consoles in terms of performance and adaptability. No one is arguing that. But consoles offer their own unique advantages that most people (even PC gamers) find worthwhile. Its not a zero sum game. We can has both!


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> You, uh, completely missed his point there guy. Ryzen beats the 7700K because it offers twice the cores for less money (his point, not mine). Jaguar may be slower in IPC but it has twice the threads of the Pentium and is cheaper.


Value is subjective, performance is not.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> (like the majority here on OCN)


I wonder why you keep saying that. Got any proof?


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

I've been here for over 6 years and am pretty active on this board. Most of the people I have spoken to around here have at least one console along with a gaming PC. But you are right, I haven't personally polled the entire membership to verify if a true majority here own a console. I think its a pretty good bet though considering OCN even has an entire console gaming section. Or did you forget that?


----------



## Mad Pistol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I've been here for over 6 years and am pretty active on this board. Most of the people I have spoken to around here have at least one console along with a gaming PC. But you are right, I haven't personally polled the entire membership to verify if a true majority here own a console. I think its a pretty good bet though considering OCN even has an entire console gaming section. Or did you forget that?


It's also good to remember that certain game franchises are console only, specifically talking about Nintendo stuff or Sony's Uncharted/Last of Us series, etc. Xbox also has a few exclusives.

If people like those franchises, there's your justification for purchasing the console. As with any good game out there, gameplay and/or story should be first. You can create the best graphics engine in the world, but if you can't build a good story and/or gameplay, those graphics will do very little for the overall experience.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I've been here for over 6 years and am pretty active on this board. Most of the people I have spoken to around here have at least one console along with a gaming PC. But you are right, I haven't personally polled the entire membership to verify if a true majority here own a console. I think its a pretty good bet though considering OCN even has an entire console gaming section. Or did you forget that?


And I've been here for 8 years. All the console subsections have always been pretty much dead like they are now, rarely having more than double digit viewers and often single digits, and many of the most recent posts in those forum sections date back to March. Seems you don't even visit them but I can't blame you.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mad Pistol*
> 
> It's also good to remember that certain game franchises are console only, specifically talking about Nintendo stuff or Sony's Uncharted/Last of Us series, etc. Xbox also has a few exclusives.
> 
> If people like those franchises, there's your justification for purchasing the console. As with any good game out there, gameplay and/or story should be first. You can create the best graphics engine in the world, but if you can't build a good story and/or gameplay, those graphics will do very little for the overall experience.


Yes, and gameplay and story are two areas where console exclusives have been weak in, for the last 10 years. Storytelling techniques that do not take advantage of the video game medium but only copy films (and they will never surpass films at being films so it's futile), repetitive use of a small amount of generic gameplay mechanics that are seen in games on all platforms, repetitive hand-holding quest design. Not that these issues are unique to console exclusives, just AAA action games in general (which describes most console exclusives).


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Well considering this is a PC-centric board I don't find it odd that most of the discussion centers around PC's.







That said, the fact that a PC message board even has a console section at all would indicate that a large part of the membership owns them.

At any rate, regardless of whether or not an actual majority of OCN members own a console, the point remains that there is no reason to demand they be wiped out of the market. Just because I prefer gaming on my PC to gaming on my console does not mean that I don't enjoy my console or that I regret buying it. On the contrary, sometimes I would rather be playing on my Xbox than playing on my PC even if it is no where near as capable at gaming. That is the point you guys keep missing. Just because YOU have decided that the only gaming out there is PC gaming does NOT make that view any less YOUR opinion and NOT a fact.


----------



## Tempest2000

From what I see on the main page, console and console game news tends to completely overshadow PC gaming news. You can claim that the console forum here is "dead" but relative to the rest of the gaming-centric threads here, console gaming as a category is extremely prevalent.

EDIT: Asside from news threads, sure, you'll find a ton of people posting threads about PC games simply because they need help getting the games or their PCs to function properly, or benchmark results. You're obviously not going to have as much, if any of that on consoles.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Well considering this is a PC-centric board I don't find it odd that most of the discussion centers around PC's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the fact that a PC message board even has a console section at all would indicate that a large part of the membership owns them.
> 
> At any rate, regardless of whether or not an actual majority of OCN members own a console, the point remains that there is no reason to demand they be wiped out of the market. Just because I prefer gaming on my PC to gaming on my console does not mean that I don't enjoy my console or that I regret buying it. On the contrary, sometimes I would rather be playing on my Xbox than playing on my PC even if it is no where near as capable at gaming. That is the point you guys keep missing. Just because YOU have decided that the only gaming out there is PC gaming does NOT make that view any less YOUR opinion and NOT a fact.


No, consoles just need to be changed significantly to be more pro-consumer and to not limit game advancement, not wiped off the market. superstition is another poster in this thread who has taken up a similar standpoint.


----------



## Tempest2000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Well considering this is a PC-centric board I don't find it odd that most of the discussion centers around PC's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, the fact that a PC message board even has a console section at all would indicate that a large part of the membership owns them.
> 
> At any rate, regardless of whether or not an actual majority of OCN members own a console, the point remains that there is no reason to demand they be wiped out of the market. Just because I prefer gaming on my PC to gaming on my console does not mean that I don't enjoy my console or that I regret buying it. On the contrary, sometimes I would rather be playing on my Xbox than playing on my PC even if it is no where near as capable at gaming. That is the point you guys keep missing. Just because YOU have decided that the only gaming out there is PC gaming does NOT make that view any less YOUR opinion and NOT a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> No, consoles just need to be changed significantly to be more pro-consumer and to not limit game advancement, not wiped off the market. superstition is another poster in this thread who has taken up a similar standpoint.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, the majority of PC gamers are still playing WOW, League of Legends, DOTA, and CS... and on crap hardware.

The primary PC consumer/market is, by far, the #1 factor holding back PC game advancement.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Console development is very slow. I think the first step in the correct direction was to go x86, as I always felt like it would be easier to design all games for PC first and then scale them back to the capabilities of the various console hardware (rather than trying to scale up games designed for consoles onto PC). We will see how things play out over the next few years when the next generation consoles come out but I would imagine things will get much better for all gamers by then.


----------



## Tempest2000

^^^ That's probably true, althought console software development is leagues ahead of PC development, because it relies on quality, rather than brute force, for a decent experience.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Meanwhile, the majority of PC gamers are still playing WOW, League of Legends, DOTA, and CS... and on crap hardware.
> 
> The primary PC consumer/market is, by far, the #1 factor holding back PC game advancement.


Playing content rich, moddable games with customizable dedicated servers doesn't hold back game advancement. Buying 8-10 hour unmoddable pretend movies and rehashed multiplayer titles with no dedicated server hosting and minimal content without overpriced DLCs is holding back game advancement.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> ^^^ That's probably true, althought console software development is leagues ahead of PC development, because it relies on quality, rather than brute force, for a decent experience.


Yet the absolute most technologically advanced games have historically been designed on PC first (and sometimes PC only).


----------



## Tempest2000

First of all, don't confuse "Technological advancement" with "quality," especially on the subject of software as applied to hardware. Second, console games tend to bring the latest technological advances to the masses, especially in graphical techniques, unlike on PC where barely anyone makes use of them because their target consumers simply can't. Despite these techniques being prototyped on PC (again, used to write graphics engines), consoles games still tend to be the first to put them into product. Third, if you're going to cite the console experience as being tied to "8-10 hour pretend movies" then, well, I can see this isn't gonna go anywhere.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> First of all, don't confuse "Technological advancement" with "quality."


I'm not.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Second, console games tend to bring the latest technological advances to the masses, especially in graphical techniques, unlike on PC where barely anyone makes use of them because their target consumers simply can't.


False. GTX 1050/1050 Ti/1060 are among the most common video cards according to Steam hardware survey and over 75% gamers have DX12 cards (and let's not forget Vulkan), plus it's really multiplatform games that bring that tech to the masses (tech that is usually debuted in PC exclusive games or games developed for PC first).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Despite these techniques being prototyped on PC (again, used to write graphics engines), consoles games still tend to be the first to put them into product.


Examples? Some examples to reinforce my previous post include Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Myst, The Elder Scrolls: Arena, Civilization, Half-Life, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Return to Castle Woflenstein, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Unreal Tournament 2004, F.E.A.R., Crysis, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky, Metro 2033, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Chernobyl (mod), Ashes of the Singularity, etc.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> Third, if you're going to cite the console experience as being tied to "8-10 hour pretend movies" then, well, I can see this isn't gonna go anywhere.


I can see that by the lack of any sort of rebuttal. That is a common length for such games and their emphasis of cinematic copypasta over video game techniques and using gameplay merely as filler between static cutscenes cannot be denied.


----------



## Juub

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Some examples to reinforce my previous post include Wolfenstein 3D, Doom, Myst, The Elder Scrolls: Arena, Civilization, Half-Life, Unreal, Unreal Tournament, Return to Castle Woflenstein, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Unreal Tournament 2004, F.E.A.R., Crysis, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Clear Sky, Metro 2033, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Call of Chernobyl (mod), Ashes of the Singularity, etc.


True but this happens less and less these days.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Juub*
> 
> True but this happens less and less these days.


Yes, it will probably be different now that consoles are x86. I expect more games like DOOM and Star Wars: Battlefront and Battlefield 1 in the future (best case scenario that is): simultaneous multiplatform releases with great optimization relative to all platforms.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tempest2000*
> 
> ^^^ That's probably true, althought console software development is leagues ahead of PC development, because it relies on quality, rather than brute force, for a decent experience.


That seems to be less true with current generation. Most multi play games are brute forced even on consoles.


----------



## ILoveHighDPI

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> You incorrectly stated that the use of UE4 inherently costs money, if the game creator doesn't charge money then it's free no different than any game mod, but the creator "can" sell their work if they want.
> 
> 
> 
> A free game is not a mod, and I don't see anything in the FAQ that mentions free product releases. A mod can reuse the base game's content (and usually does to some extent).
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> When Garry's Mod first became available for purchase there was no difference between the mod and the paid version, if they're the same thing except that one costs money, it's a monetized mod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mod was never monetized and always available for free on *ModDB* making them separate products. So if what you say is true, then the game version of Garry's Mod was just a worthless game back when it launched. A mod by definition is free, acknowledging that Valve and Bethesda have tried to change that.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Fundameltally there is almost no difference between someone playing with UE4 in their spare time and a modder creating new content using the SDK for their favorite game.
> Most of those TC's came about because Valve and Epic started shipping the official SDK with their games, the only difference now is you don't have to buy the game and the tools are given out freely with the intention of people being able to monetize their work.
> And that can be published on consoles almost as easily as on PC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are several other differences. An SDK included with a game includes all of that game's content and won't let you publish to specific platforms. While a standalone SDK will only include a small amount of free to use sample content that's not tied to any game.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Bringing us back to the point that creative expression is almost just as accessible on any platoform, other than the fact that you need a PC do do any serious creative work no matter what your target platform is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Presumably. I wouldn't know about the experience or requirements of having to deal with Microsoft or Sony and having them approve of your game. There is also the separate issue of game concepts that wouldn't work on consoles due to their limitations, whether it's a large scale visually immersive 3D strategy/tactics game with too much for console hardware to handle like Total War, or a game like Garry's Mod that is too reliant on a level of modding not possible on consoles.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> Again, there is virtually no difference between "mods" and "game development" in the modern market, the proliferation of shovelware is one of the worst aspects of that reality, but digital content creation is free and widespread across all platforms now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're using engines that allow for free development like the ones we're discussing, then the difference between creating a total conversion mod and a game is as stated above: you can still use another game's content in the mod. What's interesting is that Steam now has numerous mods in the actual store, as well as free games of course. The mods are still labeled Mods because they use a game's content and usually install over a game (but this is not even required for a total conversion mod in general).
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ILoveHighDPI*
> 
> For small developers UE4 is effectively free: https://www.unrealengine.com/faq
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> UE4 is free to use, with a 5% royalty on gross product revenue after the first $3,000 per game per calendar quarter from commercial products.
Click to expand...

You can make up to $3,000 per three months without being charged a fee for using UE4.

When Garry's Mod was first published on Steam it was the same thing as the free mod and no-one had any reason to buy it except for their appreciation for the mod. I thought it was really strange at the time but this was one of the first instances of a mod maker becoming a millionaire overnight so I guess there was a lot of hype around the situation and people were excited to be able to pay for that kind of content for the first time.
As far as I can tell it still is a monetized mod (unless they strip out all the Half Life 2 assets).
I doubt there is anything stopping Gary's Mod from coming to consoles now that Skyrim has mods, or at least it would probably be fine on Xbox.

At this point I would just call any TC that doesn't re-use any assets an entirely new game. There are so many free game engines now that there's no point in differentiating between the two unless there's a licensing issue.


----------



## boredgunner

Naughty Dog excels in animations, but as far as environmental graphics go (which is most of what comprises a game's graphics), in the last two years only Star Wars: Battlefront, Battlefield 1, and The Division have made noteworthy improvements (and of course only the PC versions, on console they look like crap which is actually unlike Uncharted 4). For The Division it is the global illumination and weather effects, for SWBF and BF1 it is the shaders, shadows, texture quality, object detail in general, although they are lacking in other areas namely particles and excessive use of dynamic lights and shadows.


----------



## ToTheSun!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Naughty Dog excels in animations, but as far as environmental graphics go (which is most of what comprises a game's graphics), in the last two years only Star Wars: Battlefront, Battlefield 1, and The Division have made noteworthy improvements (and of course only the PC versions, on console they look like crap which is actually unlike Uncharted 4). For The Division it is the global illumination and weather effects, for SWBF and BF1 it is the shaders, shadows, texture quality, object detail in general, although they are lacking in other areas namely particles and excessive use of dynamic lights and shadows.


I've played a lot of BF1 by now, but the graphical quality still manages to impress me.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ToTheSun!*
> 
> I've played a lot of BF1 by now, but the graphical quality still manages to impress me.


Even SW:BF2 looks like it's only going to tie it in most areas, although the particle effects look better based on videos. I guess DICE wants to try and beat the modern record for best graphics quality, which I guess was possessed by Crysis/Crysis Warhead (2007-2008 until 2013 I believe).


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> You could also say that countering every argument with a random claim of "fallacy" without actually addressing the comment itself is the same thing.


When a person, other than myself, posts a fallacious statement it has nothing to do with me. Similarly, when someone such as you, posts a lot of noise instead of a rebuttal that isn't my fault. Your clumsy attempt to evade having to post a rebuttal isn't my responsibility. It was your mistake.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> What's it gonna be next, ad hominem, straw man, slippery slope, non-sequiter, etc??


More noise.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I know you have the logical fallacies site bookmarked for quick reference


Cute _ad hominem_. Cute, but stupid. Suggesting that knowing what a fallacy is and how to avoid wasting others' time in a discussing by posting one is somehow bad makes you look stupid.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> judging by every single one of your posts in this thread, but you could at least actually try arguing how your opinions are supposed to be facts instead of simply regurgitating the entire list in every post...


As I said before, *if you have something specific you want to try to rebut then quote it*. Don't waste my time with blather like this.

Posturing/posing/antics/hyperbole/over-generalization/fallacy chains... they're boring. They add nothing of value to this discussion.

Stick to the substantive points that have been under discussion and spare us the drama.


----------



## Neo_Morpheus

I remember sales for pc's increasing nearer the end of the last generation (PS3) I fear they are thinking it's going to be the same, especially with incentives like the new CPU's and the GPU gain.


----------



## Charcharo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kpjoslee*
> 
> AFAIK, Lode Runner was made available as freeware by one of the original developers so there is no problem for you to download it.
> 
> "The conservation of the art form trumps automatically"
> Before that, publishers do have rights on their property. Again, that shouldn't be used as an excuse to obtain games for free as you like. I am not against PC emulations on old consoles games. Actually, I love them. But I am against the idea that emulation somehow gives free pass to all the games.


I cant play it without an emulator.

Publishers do have a right on their property. Humanity has a right to preserve the art form. Last time I checked that is a lot more important than some hurt publisher's feelings on a product they make no money on.
I never said all games... seriously people read what I am saying







. That is morally not good if you do it blindly. I am not the most moral person in the world, but I do know right from wrong...

Hence why I hate conslows


----------



## iTurn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> Its my third... out of 6. And honestly, it ain't my English.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sardonic humor combined with stereotypes is glorious, but it isnt hate.
> 
> Yes I do hate consoles. I can't emulate games that are in production or with living consoles bar Wii U titles (which is a dead platform to be fair but I still consider it as a sellable product). If it isnt on GOG and it isnt on a living console nor a product in active circulation, it is effectively not even piracy (which whilst illegal isnt theft, so dont maim the language). It is morally justified completely and probably a better alternative to games dying. Not probably actually, certainly.
> 
> I see mods have you frightened
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. They are just people who like me were brought up with a console (though I had a PC before my Terminator console) and defend them either out of national pride or nostalgia or out of short term thinking. Nothing else makes sense.


How do YOU get to decide when something is a dead platform? Theyre still ps2 games in reprint fyi.

The thread is about a japanese console, im not even american and it comes across as salty but we'll call it sardonic.









Lol if my currently deployed rig isnt more powerful than your rig the one im assemblying next week is... mods dont 'scare' me.


----------



## Kpjoslee

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Charcharo*
> 
> I cant play it without an emulator.
> 
> Publishers do have a right on their property. Humanity has a right to preserve the art form. Last time I checked that is a lot more important than some hurt publisher's feelings on a product they make no money on.
> I never said all games... seriously people read what I am saying
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . That is morally not good if you do it blindly. I am not the most moral person in the world, but I do know right from wrong...
> 
> Hence why I hate conslows


lol, Humanity has a right to preserve the art form. Sure, we do. But for any games that publishers care about and intend to profit from it, their preservation status is fine and you do not have to worry about that. Any preservation effort should be spent on games that is abandoned and someone has to pick up and save them so it does not disappear, not the ones publishers still holds the rights on and is in no danger of disappearing any time soon.


----------



## prjindigo

It occurs to me that while the PS4 is like a 5 year old computer holding back game development... at least it isn't an Xbox One which is like a five year old computer full of bloatware that was never intended to be used for gaming to begin with.

So I think the entire premise of this thread violates overclock.net's policies on attacking specific products without justification.

I'm reporting the thread for this.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Forget everything I said about PC having all of MS's exclusives; While technically true, using the Windows Store is a damn nightmare, I just spent a week trying to download/install Gears 4 (I've got a terrible ADSL line), 250GB of wasted data and I nearly put my fist through my monitor..

The Windows Store is the biggest piece of garbage I have ever used, It makes Uplay look like the gold standard.. Downloaded 100GB out of the 107GB and it decided to start from scratch again (an issue so common it's almost like a feature at this point), then tried to use Fiddler, a download manager, and PowerShell and it still failed.. When you try to get a refund they will only give you credit for their garbage store. I had this "issue" at launch, and all these months later they still haven't fixed it yet..

Unless you have a good connection avoid their store like the plague, don't give that *garbage* company a cent of your money. I spent $100 in October last year and still can't play the damn game.









Sorry for the rant, just a heads up for anyone tempted to buy Gears, or anything from that freak-show for that matter..


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Forget everything I said about PC having all of MS's exclusives; While technically true, using the Windows Store is a damn nightmare, I just spent a week trying to download/install Gears 4 (I've got a terrible ADSL line), 250GB of wasted data and I nearly put my fist through my monitor..
> 
> The Windows Store is the biggest piece of garbage I have ever used, It makes Uplay look like the gold standard.. Downloaded 100GB out of the 107GB and it decided to start from scratch again (an issue so common it's almost like a feature at this point), then tried to use Fiddler, a download manager, and PowerShell and it still failed.. When you try to get a refund they will only give you credit for their garbage store. I had this "issue" at launch, and all these months later they still haven't fixed it yet..
> 
> Unless you have a good connection avoid their store like the plague, don't give that *garbage* company a cent of your money. I spent $100 in October last year and still can't play the damn game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the rant, just a heads up for anyone tempted to buy Gears, or anything from that freak-show for that matter..


No doubt it's intentional. At least they don't lock their games' graphics settings and resolutions anymore... right?

Thankfully I firmly believe none of their games are worth playing anyway. They don't seem to offer anything I can't get elsewhere, and usually I can get a similar and better experience elsewhere.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GorillaSceptre*
> 
> Forget everything I said about PC having all of MS's exclusives; While technically true, using the Windows Store is a damn nightmare, I just spent a week trying to download/install Gears 4 (I've got a terrible ADSL line), 250GB of wasted data and I nearly put my fist through my monitor..
> 
> The Windows Store is the biggest piece of garbage I have ever used, It makes Uplay look like the gold standard.. Downloaded 100GB out of the 107GB and it decided to start from scratch again (an issue so common it's almost like a feature at this point), then tried to use Fiddler, a download manager, and PowerShell and it still failed.. When you try to get a refund they will only give you credit for their garbage store. I had this "issue" at launch, and all these months later they still haven't fixed it yet..
> 
> Unless you have a good connection avoid their store like the plague, don't give that *garbage* company a cent of your money. I spent $100 in October last year and still can't play the damn game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry for the rant, just a heads up for anyone tempted to buy Gears, or anything from that freak-show for that matter..


You don't need to apologize to me for ranting about MS. They've been substandard for a long long time. Windows XP and Windows 7 were high points but the rest has been mainly disappointment. And, even XP looked pretty garish and cartoonish unless switched to the olive green theme. 95 would have been okay if it wasn't so unstable. It had the most elegant interface (no awful browser stamped in - or tons of redundancy).

Word hasn't been a bad word processor in recent times. I used to use Word 5.1 on the Mac and it was bulletproof. But, then MS came out with Word 6 which was the biggest piece of trash ever released by a major software company (along with Office 4 on the Mac in general). IE on the Mac seemed designed to freeze the system due to memory leaks. The early NT machines I tried to use at university were glacially slow and then slowed down to an unusable crawl over the course of an hour. Windows 98 had the most difficult time with basic features like Windows Update. ME was worse.

But, even the worst interfaces in Windows since, and including, 98 - are better than the UIs I've tried in Linux. Ugh. I've tried a number of them and they're not good. I still do my productivity work on the Mac. I can't stomach Windows 10 for anything but dabbling with benchmarks and such - because I resent being openly abused by an OS vendor and the UI is a god-awful gobbledygook. I'm not a fan of some of the changes to Sierra, though. Next to Metro and its ilk, though...

Can someone, anyone, design a smooth-to-use Linux UI and convince all the software developers to ditch Windows? Pretty please?

Fortunately, for my argument in favor of the Linux/Vulkan/OpenGL software layer, a general productivity UI isn't required. All that's required is the ability of vendors to run whatever gardens they decide to grow upon it.


----------



## GorillaSceptre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> No doubt it's intentional. At least they don't lock their games' graphics settings and resolutions anymore... right?
> 
> Thankfully I firmly believe none of their games are worth playing anyway. They don't seem to offer anything I can't get elsewhere, and usually I can get a similar and better experience elsewhere.


Mostly agree, except I love the Gears formula.. Super disappointed their "store" is such a failure..

Halo was awesome back in the day, too. Unbelievable one of the worlds largest software conglomerates doesn't even have a simple download manager..








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> You don't need to apologize to me for ranting about MS. They've been substandard for a long long time. Windows XP and Windows 7 were high points but the rest has been mainly disappointment. And, even XP looked pretty garish and cartoonish unless switched to the olive green theme. 95 would have been okay if it wasn't so unstable. It had the most elegant interface (no awful browser stamped in - or tons of redundancy).
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Word hasn't been a bad word processor in recent times. I used to use Word 5.1 on the Mac and it was bulletproof. But, then MS came out with Word 6 which was the biggest piece of trash ever released by a major software company (along with Office 4 on the Mac in general). IE on the Mac seemed designed to freeze the system due to memory leaks. The early NT machines I tried to use at university were glacially slow and then slowed down to an unusable crawl over the course of an hour. Windows 98 had the most difficult time with basic features like Windows Update. ME was worse.
> 
> But, even the worst interfaces in Windows since, and including, 98 - are better than the UIs I've tried in Linux. Ugh. I've tried a number of them and they're not good. I still do my productivity work on the Mac. I can't stomach Windows 10 for anything but dabbling with benchmarks and such - because I resent being openly abused by an OS vendor and the UI is a god-awful gobbledygook. I'm not a fan of some of the changes to Sierra, though. Next to Metro and its ilk, though...
> 
> Can someone, anyone, design a smooth-to-use Linux UI and convince all the software developers to ditch Windows? Pretty please?
> 
> Fortunately, for my argument in favor of the Linux/Vulkan/OpenGL software layer, a general productivity UI isn't required. All that's required is the ability of vendors to run whatever gardens they decide to grow upon it.


I actually don't mind Win10 that much, it works pretty well for me. It's mainly the store that is a laughable atrocity..

Yeah, hopefully Vulkans similarity to DX12 will push more devs in that direction..


----------



## pez

I feel like the dev here is just making excuses. He may not have meant it to sound so harsh (yay clickbait), but there are examples that exist on consoles (mostly exclusives) that say otherwise. I'm not a software dev, game creator, etc, though.

Consoles are niche for most of us on OCN. Personally, I buy consoles for exclusives, but lately, 4K HDR on a console has a pretty cheap entry price. For the <$2k I spent on a TV and PS4 Pro, for me to get the experience I want on a PC (21:9 4K, HDR, 100Hz, G-Sync), it's non-existent (to my knowledge) and if it was, It would be much more for just the display I need. Let alone the GPU upgrade I'd need to keep up with it.

The two scenarios aren't comparable there, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy HDR and 4K-ish games on my PS4 Pro.


----------



## Zorngodofall

Back in 08 or 09 I bought a ps3. I had a totally functional PC at the time, (apparently that had better specs than the ps3). That PC was a prebuilt from 06$ i got for 500$new.

Why did I buy the console then. It's rrally simple, I didn't know about PC hardware much. There's a somewhat high barrier of entry when it comes to understanding hardware if its not something you are into already. I think alot of people would ditch consoles if they knew how bad they were.

The 250$ price point of a ps4. Yeah... Ps4's were what 400$ at launch? Tbh there's such a thing as hardware depreciation and its the same for PC's.

The other thing about consoles is the mindshare involved. They are seen as the primary gaming platform because of previous popularity with things like the ps2 and n64 as well as the original nintendo.

I think the discussion about PC hardware is a bit disingenuine. Pc's in that case always have to perform 2x or 3x as good to compare and then the price has to match.

But what if you purposefully built something as close in spec to a ps4 as possible. It's not a perfect example,but an fx 6 core, a 750Ti, run steam OS or something. Use 8gb of ram or even 4gb.

Windows doesn't count in that scenario because of how superior it is to a PS4 OS.

Right now there's a prebuilt 500$ pc on newegg with the cpu and gpu I said. That's pretty close to the ps4's figuresbut thats not my point really.

You need to use equivilent SPECS and then measure, not pc has to be 3x better and then when it cant compete on price, well stuff... And things blah blah consoles are awesome.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pez*
> 
> I feel like the dev here is just making excuses. He may not have meant it to sound so harsh (yay clickbait), but there are examples that exist on consoles (mostly exclusives) that say otherwise. I'm not a software dev, game creator, etc, though.
> 
> Consoles are niche for most of us on OCN. Personally, I buy consoles for exclusives, but lately, 4K HDR on a console has a pretty cheap entry price. For the <$2k I spent on a TV and PS4 Pro, for me to get the experience I want on a PC (21:9 4K, HDR, 100Hz, G-Sync), it's non-existent (to my knowledge) and if it was, It would be much more for just the display I need. Let alone the GPU upgrade I'd need to keep up with it.
> 
> The two scenarios aren't comparable there, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy HDR and 4K-ish games on my PS4 Pro.


And you'd probably enjoy real 4k and HDR more on PC, since it's just better. Although from what I've read there can be some issues with HDR settings in some games, that maybe FreeSync 2 will help remedy.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> And you'd probably enjoy real 4k and HDR more on PC, since it's just better. Although from what I've read there can be some issues with HDR settings in some games, that maybe FreeSync 2 will help remedy.


I enjoy all kinds of content on BOTH platforms. The main difference is when I want to sit down at my computer and when I want to chill on my couch with my big TV. Why is this concept so foreign to you?


----------



## pez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> And you'd probably enjoy real 4k and HDR more on PC, since it's just better. Although from what I've read there can be some issues with HDR settings in some games, that maybe FreeSync 2 will help remedy.


You're most definitely right, but the new Asus (and Acer to follow) monitor is looking to be in the ballpark $2k? I've already spend a lot on a monitor earlier this year and I love it. The crazy part is that even with that Acer monitor at a $2k price point, wasn't there some extreme FALD issues found with it?

I wouldn't' trade my PC setup any day for a console in the end, but the entry price for 4K HDR on consoles right now is much less than it is for a PC. I'm not saying that you're going to get the same performance or experience at all, but if you're wanting to try it *now*, consoles just make it an easier and cheaper solution for the time being.
Quote:


> I enjoy all kinds of content on BOTH platforms. The main difference is when I want to sit down at my computer and when I want to chill on my couch with my big TV. Why is this concept so foreign to you?


His opinion is pretty subjective and you're seemingly upset that he's giving you the reality of it all versus the cherry-topped & fancy sprinkles version of what you want to here. I've known bored to be a no-BS guy in every thread I see. I think you're just taking this a little more personally than you should be lol.


----------



## manolith

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> And you'd probably enjoy real 4k and HDR more on PC, since it's just better. Although from what I've read there can be some issues with HDR settings in some games, that maybe FreeSync 2 will help remedy.
> 
> 
> 
> I enjoy all kinds of content on BOTH platforms. The main difference is when I want to sit down at my computer and when I want to chill on my couch with my big TV. Why is this concept so foreign to you?
Click to expand...

you know you could actually sit down and chill on your big tv with a pc as well. The only downside is that your tv will actually do real 4k hdr rendering which might be an issue with all but a few high end gpus.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I enjoy all kinds of content on BOTH platforms. The main difference is when I want to sit down at my computer and when I want to chill on my couch with my big TV. Why is this concept so foreign to you?


Because you can do it with a PC as well. Why is *that* concept so foreign to you? There is nothing a console can do that a PC can't do better.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pez*
> 
> You're most definitely right, but the new Asus (and Acer to follow) monitor is looking to be in the ballpark $2k? I've already spend a lot on a monitor earlier this year and I love it. The crazy part is that even with that Acer monitor at a $2k price point, wasn't there some extreme FALD issues found with it?
> 
> I wouldn't' trade my PC setup any day for a console in the end, but the entry price for 4K HDR on consoles right now is much less than it is for a PC. I'm not saying that you're going to get the same performance or experience at all, but if you're wanting to try it *now*, consoles just make it an easier and cheaper solution for the time being.


Or you can use the same 4k HDR TV you're using with your console. As for FALD issues, we'll have to wait for it to be reviewed and released. You are referring to one particular piece of footage that showed more haloing than with a VA TV with the same amount of dimming zones, since IPS pixel structure is not nearly as good as VA for controlling light (hence why VA static contrast is much higher).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pez*
> 
> His opinion is pretty subjective and you're seemingly upset that he's giving you the reality of it all versus the cherry-topped & fancy sprinkles version of what you want to here. I've known bored to be a no-BS guy in every thread I see. I think you're just taking this a little more personally than you should be lol.


It is indeed sad how this subject ends up actually offending people, since in the process they get blinded from the truth.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *manolith*
> 
> you know you could actually sit down and chill on your big tv with a pc as well. The only downside is that your tv will actually do real 4k hdr rendering which might be an issue with all but a few high end gpus.


Would the HDR cease functioning at sub 4k? For what it's worth there are also sub 4k HDR monitors (2560 x 1440 right now, 3440 x 1440 either now or in the near future) although the current ones have a worthless FALD implementation that just ruins the image, which makes HDR worthless in games. The upcoming 3440 x 1440 200 Hz quantum dot HDR monitors with 512 dimming zones should be decent though.


----------



## The Robot

I translated an old forum post on the topic, it might provide a different perspective or you might find it funny.
Quote:


> Consoles have a specific set of hardware for games, they have tailor-made software and services for games, they got a controller just for games. PC is something akin to a workhorse vehicle like a tractor. Tinkerers outfitted it with powerful parts, cool body kits and now they think that it makes it an expensive race car. In turn, consoles can be compared with expensive luxury sedans. It's a pure bliss to drive it, this is a car made for maximum ride comfort, it's beautiful, stylish, convenient and carefully assembled. And at this moment when such a car will glide smoothly along the highway, a rattling tractor with body kits and turbo accelerator will fly past it, someone from the tractor will scream: "PC ROCKS CONSOLES SUCK" and then it will swiftly pull away while farting with the exhaust.
> Of course, a PC can still be called a gaming platform, or rather a working gaming platform, because all e-sports is based on a PC, in which case the PC can be compared to a Formula 1 car, it's very fast, powerful, with precise control, such car is a must for pro drivers, after all they strive for the best results. But all this time we are talking about ordinary gamers, those who play just to relax. Yes, the race car is faster, more powerful, more precise in control, but it is still inferior to consoles in terms of comfort, because it's driver is cramped in an uncomfortable cabin and steers with some kind of remote instead of a normal steering wheel, meanwhile the driver of a premium car sits comfortable in a spacious cabin, with a large view, convenient steering wheel, and also, there's always space for friends in it.


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Because you can do it with a PC as well. Why is *that* concept so foreign to you? *There is nothing a console can do that a PC can't do better.*


Except cost less.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pez*
> 
> *His opinion is pretty subjective* and you're seemingly upset that he's giving you the reality of it all versus the cherry-topped & fancy sprinkles version of what you want to here. I've known bored to be a no-BS guy in every thread I see. I think you're just taking this a little more personally than you should be lol.


See, the problem is that he takes his subjective opinions about this topic and then tries to turn them into facts like this:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> It is indeed sad how this subject ends up actually offending people, *since in the process they get blinded from the truth.*


I don't have any issue with people preferring PC to consoles, hell I prefer gaming on my PC to that of my console, but I do not agree that consoles are useless and have no place in the market, or that they are "harming" gaming. They simply offer us another option and I am always in favor of more options as opposed to less...


----------



## superstition222

"Consoles have a specific set of hardware for games" - Not anymore.

"they have tailor-made software and services for games" - Nothing that can't be just as easily done without redundant hardware.

"they got a controller just for games" - Not anymore. The old console controller has a special plug and doesn't work with a PC days are long long gone. Even USB adapters have come out that let people use ancient controllers like the NES controller with their PCs.

The rest of his post is based on the false dichotomy that there is a substantive hardware difference between a console and a PC. There isn't. Custom console hardware isn't a thing anymore.

So, The Robot, your post does show that the past is the past. But, even in the past, there were tiers of PC and the metaphors he tried to use weren't all that great.

A major truth of the past was that Windows was ill-suited to be a console OS. That problem has been rectified by the maturity of Linux as a gaming platform, thanks to Vulkan and OpenGL. (NT-based Windows also finally had enough stability to be usable for consoles but there is the Microsoft tax and the ubiquity of Windows-targeted malware.)

Another major truth was that the console hardware is much different from that of a PC. That's no longer true.

Another major truth (long ago) is that PC hardware is just too expensive. That hasn't been true for a long time now.

Hardware-based console platforms had a good run but it's time to transition to a system that's built atop two standards (x86 hardware + x86 software) rather than just using one standard (x86 hardware). The need for redundant hardware boxes is no longer with us. Let people choose how powerful their systems are. It's not like they won't be able to turn down the quality settings if they want cheaper hardware. That has been a thing in gaming for a long time now.


----------



## Malinkadink

How did this thread get to 100+ pages? You guys are insane.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> There is nothing a console can do that a PC can't do better.


This is pretty much true. You can nit pick little tiny things that are of little significance all day long, but consoles are just dummy proof low end PCs with a walled garden OS. Anyone that disputes that is either ignorant or has some false sense of brand loyalty.

Now this isn't to say that consoles are "bad", they're like a gateway drug to PCs imo. As a little kid i was all about playing on a console and dabbled slightly in PC gaming. Eventually i wanted something better and that was only possible on PC and that is still the case and it will always be that way. I still keep consoles around for exclusive titles, they're the one thing keeping me from completely ditching them, and Sony, MS, Nintendo know it (maybe not MS







).


----------



## pez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Because you can do it with a PC as well. Why is *that* concept so foreign to you? There is nothing a console can do that a PC can't do better.
> Or you can use the same 4k HDR TV you're using with your console. As for FALD issues, we'll have to wait for it to be reviewed and released. You are referring to one particular piece of footage that showed more haloing than with a VA TV with the same amount of dimming zones, since IPS pixel structure is not nearly as good as VA for controlling light (hence why VA static contrast is much higher).
> It is indeed sad how this subject ends up actually offending people, since in the process they get blinded from the truth.
> Would the HDR cease functioning at sub 4k? For what it's worth there are also sub 4k HDR monitors (2560 x 1440 right now, 3440 x 1440 either now or in the near future) although the current ones have a worthless FALD implementation that just ruins the image, which makes HDR worthless in games. The upcoming 3440 x 1440 200 Hz quantum dot HDR monitors with 512 dimming zones should be decent though.


You're not wrong. I've thrown up the idea for quite some time to dedicate a system to this. And it's still not off the table since I have the parts lying around to do it (just a few essentials missing). I had to make that TV purchase first, and to immediately enjoy the added benefits media and gaming, the PS4 Pro was the most accessible, convenient and cheapest way to do it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> Except cost less.
> See, the problem is that he takes his subjective opinions about this topic and then tries to turn them into facts like this:
> I don't have any issue with people preferring PC to consoles, hell I prefer gaming on my PC to that of my console, but I do not agree that consoles are useless and have no place in the market, or that they are "harming" gaming. They simply offer us another option and I am always in favor of more options as opposed to less...


You took his post out of context and didn't refer to what opinion he's making into a fact. I'm all for you being subjective back, but you've seemingly lost the argument and aren't providing evidence to back up your claims.

If it's for the claim of "There is nothing a console can do that a PC can't do better."

...he's not wrong. You presented the argument of 'costing less' but granted a PC is just that....a PC. With a PC, you can do everything a console can, but you can't say the same in the opposite scenario.

I understand your position on the argument, but you're not making an equal argument to refute the real points that others are making. Also I've seen you say that you like the best of the best when you buy stuff, so why wouldn't you take some of that mindset to build a living room PC for gaming? You could even repurpose older parts and buy used to offset the cost. Outside of exclusives, you'd have no real excuse to use the console over the PC for 95% of your gaming.


----------



## superstition222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Malinkadink*
> 
> consoles are just dummy proof low end PCs with a walled garden OS.


The larger point is that PCs can easily be the same thing, only with more flexibility and less redundancy.

People here, again and again, fall into the trap of assuming that high-end enthusiast PCs are the only kind of gaming PC that can be sold to people.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Malinkadink*
> 
> Now this isn't to say that consoles are "bad", they're like a gateway drug to PCs imo.


That's the outdated way to look at this topic.

Now, with the existence of Vulkan + OpenGL, the last remaining objection to having a common software layer atop the common hardware layer has fallen away.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superstition222*
> 
> The larger point is that PCs can easily be the same thing, only with more flexibility and less redundancy.
> 
> People here, again and again, fall into the trap of assuming that high-end enthusiast PCs are the only kind of gaming PC that can be sold to people.
> That's the outdated way to look at this topic.
> 
> Now, with the existence of Vulkan + OpenGL, the last remaining objection to having a common software layer atop the common hardware layer has fallen away.


I do bealive only those very high end PC gamers buy as much games as most consoles gamers do. PC gamers tend to stick only to trendy PC games or free to play games. You can say PC gamers buy more games via Steam sales but at the same time in a lot of poorer countries they use PC because pirating is easy. That is why in a lot of recent AAA games console lead in terms of player base. That is more important to me because I can like any game and not have to worry about finding other people to play it. PC games that have this effect are 99% of the time PC elusive but sometimes I do want to play COD and BF 6 months after launch at set mode and map without waiting ours.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> I do bealive only those very high end PC gamers buy as much games as most consoles gamers do. PC gamers tend to stick only to trendy PC games or free to play games. You can say PC gamers buy more games via Steam sales but at the same time in a lot of poorer countries they use PC because pirating is easy. That is why in a lot of recent AAA games console lead in terms of player base. That is more important to me because I can like any game and not have to worry about finding other people to play it. PC games that have this effect are 99% of the time PC elusive but sometimes I do want to play COD and BF 6 months after launch at set mode and map without waiting ours.


I wouldn't know about Call of Duty player base on PC, but player base isn't an issue for BF1 nor BF4 (despite BF4 being one of the worst PC launches in recent history).

Of course, I would just suggest other games anyway.


----------



## superstition222

Part of reason people are having trouble with this discussion is the way the terminology "PC" is being used.

PC, as it is being used by most here = Windows.

PC, as it actually exists now, doesn't mean just that anymore. It means simply x86, now that Vulkan and OpenGL can, together with Linux, be used as an equivalent software layer atop it, one that doesn't have to involve the Microsoft tax or the Microsoft-Sony battle. Obviously, Sony isn't going to agree to using a Windows-based core with DirectX as the basis for a console because that is under Microsoft's control.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> I wouldn't know about Call of Duty player base on PC, but player base isn't an issue for BF1 nor BF4 (despite BF4 being one of the worst PC launches in recent history).
> 
> Of course, I would just suggest other games anyway.


Well when you think COD you think consoles gamers but for BF its has always been PC gamers with his amazing rig and squad based combat. The sad part is that in all recent BF the consoles player base stomps PC player base.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ZealotKi11er*
> 
> Well when you think COD you think consoles gamers but for BF its has always been PC gamers with his amazing rig and squad based combat. The sad part is that in all recent BF the consoles player base stomps PC player base.


But even though BF4/BF1's player bases are much smaller than console versions, they are big enough (tens of thousands) so that it's not a problem to play. On the contrary, I remember hardcore modes on console BF4 had very few players so it was hard to get into these types of games (my brother is a console gamer which is how I know). Not sure if PC is any different.


----------



## ZealotKi11er

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> But even though BF4/BF1's player bases are much smaller than console versions, they are big enough (tens of thousands) so that it's not a problem to play. On the contrary, I remember hardcore modes on console BF4 had very few players so it was hard to get into these types of games (my brother is a console gamer which is how I know). Not sure if PC is any different.


http://bf1stats.com/


----------



## Majin SSJ Eric

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> But even though BF4/BF1's player bases are much smaller than console versions, they are big enough (tens of thousands) so that it's not a problem to play. On the contrary, I remember hardcore modes on console BF4 had very few players so it was hard to get into these types of games (my brother is a console gamer which is how I know). Not sure if PC is any different.


I would personally never play BF (or any FPS for that matter) on a console. My Xbox is for things like Forza, Madden, and GTA...


----------



## Pibbz

This game dev is just stating the obvious. Consoles have always been inferior graphically to PCs at this point in the generation cycle. Considering the PS4 was released in 2013, it basically IS a 5 yr old PC.
Article is irrelevant.


----------



## boredgunner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Majin SSJ Eric*
> 
> I would personally never play BF (or any FPS for that matter) on a console. My Xbox is for things like Forza, Madden, and GTA...


Didn't notice this until now but I'm curious, but why GTA on console?


----------



## pez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boredgunner*
> 
> Didn't notice this until now but I'm curious, but why GTA on console?


GTA V is such a weird game for me. I've owned it on PS3, Xbox One S and PC and while I've had the most fun playing on PC with friends, the way the game is designed, it's actually pretty enjoyable on the console. Especially if you're partaking in the races online







.


----------

