Some PC graphics cards are now as much as 24 times more powerful than current console cards, so you can expect a huge amount from the next generation of consoles expected in late 2013 or early 2014.
(Dev, E3, Industry, Microsoft, Next-Gen, NVIDIA, PC, PS3, Sony, Tech, Wii U, Xbox 360)
@DwightOwen you do know that it wasn't sony but square who released the ff 7 tech demo, which wasn't meant to be game play but show what a pre-rendered scence would like like on the ps3 at the time.
Killzone 2 ended up looking better except for some particle effects
Beyond was gameplay footage
TLOU was gameplay footage
FFVII tech demo was released by square and was never stated to be in game.
I game on PC and it is amazing but you have to respect what sony was doing on consoles. KZ2 looked amazing when it came out, so did uncharted, and God of War. For 6 year old tech they're doing pretty amazing things.
@DwightOwen Clearly you did not see gameplay and BTW it looks far better http://www.youtube.com/watc... Oh yea the game takes place over a Frackin lifetime just sayin
@beerkeg......That's not really a great example considering that THE WITCHER 2 is on consoles. The Witcher 2 also can be played on Walmart'ish PCs btw.
Just sayin.
EDIT IN....
Also, beerkeg, I didn't realise that what I said to you yesterday upset you so bad that you blocked me. Seems childish to get so upset over a strictly a video game topic.
The Witcher 2 cannot be played on walmart PCs. You can play high end games on low end equipment if you sacrifice all the graphical fidelity and play at a super low resolution.
The witcher 2 still would not run on a walmart-ish computer because integrated graphics or low end gfx cards would simply black out once the game loaded.
^ Err, I don't think running a game at the lowest settings, in sub-HD and sub-30fps is much of an argument since those games are considered unplayable.
If you're going to those depths, then there aren't exactly a whole lot of PC games that can't be played like that. It's just that, not many people would be able to enjoy it.
Lol sure running on 800x600 res I said you could do it if you ran it in ancient resolutions with everything disabled or set to low. The game is unplayable in that state, but you know what it did run so I'll give you that.
Again like I said if you sacrifice all of the graphical fidelity and the bells and whistles that are exclusive to PC then sure you could get it to run horribly.
If I was going to go to the trouble of spending 60 bucks on a game I wouldn't play it in a convoluted mess on a walmart pc (why you would buy a walmart pc to game is beyond me). If that's how you want to play your games with uneven framerates and horrific graphical fidelity then by all means enjoy them.
"^ Err, I don't think running a game at the lowest settings, in sub-HD and sub-30fps is much of an argument since those games are considered unplayable. "
Isn't that what all ps3 games do but you guys love it???
A lot of once PC-only developers have abandoned the practice for a reason: it doesn't yield the sales figures that they want.
Consoles are absolutely ****NOT**** "holding back" PCs, because they aren't making enough money by catering to just PC, and definitely aren't by catering just to high end PCs.
Go to Happy Kool-aid Imagination Land if you want to live in a world where developers can afford to make massive games catered towards higher end PCs. Otherwise, we'll be back on Earth. Don't forget to write!
What you talking about Willis, "hardcore gamers" always find a way to get the latest kit and the hardest games are usually on PC whether you like it or not , you can't argue the facts.
Yes Demon Souls I know I have it , its awesome and hard but still I could name much harder games if that's how you are defining hardcore.
Don't really see how playing GTA for several hours makes you hardcore , just a waste of time finding pointless collectables after the main story.
@DwightOwen Actually most "hardcore gamers" are willing to shell out a few hundred dollars for a new console every few years. The way I see it is that when "Next-Gen" consoles come out at anywhere between 400-600 bucks I'll be spending LESS money on another graphics card that will outperform those. That is, if I'm even feeling the effects of being left behind at all. I'm just going to get another GTX 570 and call it a day because I'm almost positive that the newer Xbox and Playstation won't be outperforming SLI 570's.
I have not been a PC gamer for years but am turning back onto the idea. The PS3 when it first hit NZ was around $1400NZD. Can actually build a pretty good upgradable gaming rig for less but the added bonus is that its also useful as a PC.
I have tired of consoles being positioned as so called media hubs when they don't support a lot of todays media formats.
umm yes we know the PS3 was expensive when it was first release.But not anymore so why keep bringing up the past.Maybe the reason some video formats are not on consoles is probably because of some type of patent.
I dont know what console you have but mine can show about any/all websites or videos I decide too visit.
You should man! I turned back 2 years ago and it was definitely a good decision. Steam helps too, ya know:)...but yeah, it does everything my 360 and PS3 did except MUCH MUCH better.
@younglj01 While I agree, that the PS3 IS inexpensive the price of buying games is through the roof on consoles. The prices start too high, are uniform for almost all games, and don't drop in price fast enough (comparatively speaking). Also, I used my PS3 for browsing the internet and tried to justify it but the fact remains that even my CELL PHONE browses the internet better than my PS3 EVER has.
Gtx 690 are selling for $1200... Incoming!!!! They are selling out also! The unreal engine runs on gtx 680s.... Nothing lower yet, maybe it will in a few years or maybe this spring wink!
Beyond:Two Souls is the standard of gaming today.After watching the 23 min real-time gameplay I was blown away at the detail of the game.When she was running through the woods was very realistic looking.
If Sony just tease the demo at the end of their conference I would have bet it was a prototype IP for the PS4.And even with showing off Beyond Quantum Dreams still want too work on the PS3 for 5 more years.Thats saying alot about the untap power the PS3 have.
Just saying even though the PC have better graphics there are not that many developers using it.Think about an Naughty Dog or Quantum Dream exclusive PC title would look like?
I couldn't be less excited for Beyond Two Souls, Quantic Dream are THE most overrated developers ever and I just don't see what's so special about that game. It's just going to be another "mature" "moody" game that treats it's themes in a really immature way, complete with really dodgy voice work.
That said I like David Cage's design philosophy with the whole game over thing. The idea that if you fail the game just goes in another direction. More games should do that.
Your comment brilliant outlines the ignorance of the general populous of this website.
Everyone on this website pretends they're experts on software development, when it's painfully obvious that most haven't even the faintest idea how to write even a basic "Hello World" program (and I would assume a great majority don't even know what that is).
The reason that developers focus on consoles so much is because of how much easier it is to develop for. When you don't have to constantly fuss over things like how many bits are in an int, or how much ram the machine has available, much of the dirty work in development is absent.
This is why consoles will always be closed-source, restricted pieces of hardware that I have little interest in anymore. The PC version will almost always be superior to the console version, and if not, there's always user-made patches that will make it superior.
I develop software and you are completely wrong. Developing for console is much harder as you must talk to Sony and Microsoft and hope they give you the SDK. "When you don't have to constantly fuss over things like how many bits are in an int" yes you do. Memory limitations are even worse on console so you fuss about it more. "much of the dirty work in development is absent." Actually I don't spend much time fussing over anything as I don't have many limitations to worry about when developing for the PC
@Bladesfist After reading your comment, there are only two conclusions I can come to.
1. You completely misread my comment. 2. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm willing to put my money on the latter though.
-
Your first point is absolutely ridiculous. Claiming that the actual software development process is more difficult because you need permission to do so is probably the single most moronic thing I've seen on this thread.
You're obviously clueless regarding my point about datatype sizes, as you're talking about something completely different (which I will get to in a moment). I was referring to the fact that the size of datatypes vary from machine to machine on PC, while they remain constant on consoles.
You bring up that consoles have less RAM than PCs as though this somehow helps your case, when in reality it's just more ammo for me to use against you. What you fail to realize is that the amount of RAM is consistent from machine to machine on consoles. This eliminates the need to write multiple code paths based on the amount of RAM you have available.
In summary, consoles are far easier to develop for because the specs of each machine are identical to those of another machine. PC programs need to be far more complex in order to account for differences in each machine (such as rendering capabilities [OpenGL & DirectX] versions).
Now please; stop with your nonsensical arguments. Its painfully obvious to anyone with even a hint of programming knowledge that you're just bluffing.
You definitely pay more upgrading your PC for ten years than you do buying a new console every 10 years. I just don't have the money to stay on top of the PC game. Seems like only rich kids and people who do nothing but use computers can afford it. I have other interests, I can't be pumping all my money into a PC.
Plus I just kind of prefer consoles, they're so much more stable. PCs games always have all sorts of technical bugs and compatibility issues. Console games just run right out of the box and don't bluescreen because of some anomalous error. You get the full game on a console, whereas on a PC, a lot of the time you can't even run a game at full settings, and so you get shortchanged a lot unless you have some monster PC. Yeah the game is probably a superior version on PC (ie Crysis 2) but most people probably get shortchanged because their pc can't actually manage the gamee at full settings. Consoles get what's on the disc, nothing more nothing less.
I'm not anti-pc btw, nor am I a console elitist, I'm just arguing that for some people, myself probably included, a console is understandably preferable. I wish I had an amazing PC, but I'd probably never upgrade it over the years because of the costs and so it's just the same as buying a non-upgradable console (as all consoles are).
Who upgrades a PC every 10 years? LOL. Getting a new graphics card every 2 years only costs around $200 if wait for the right price drop. A PC is better in the long run money wise.
I said upgrading FOR 10 years. So a graphics card every 2 years over the space of 10 years = $1000 by your calculations. Add that to the actual PC and other upgrades and you're probably shelling out well over 2000, even more for games unless you pirate everything, in fact in total you must pay over 3000 eventually.
Console = a once off payment of like 500-600 every 10 years. How much you spend on games depends on a lot of things. But on average expenses on all things console probably come to about 1600.
Its not as bad if you have a job. Even minimum wage, you can resell your parts when you upgrade and if your building a desktop, its not particularly expensive.
Built my PC back in around 2009 for $800 and havn't upgraded since. You just have to know what to focus on when you're building a PC. Plus it's a PC so I need one anyway. Runs BF3 maxed out smoothly without overclocking.
You don't have to be "top of the game" to run all the latest games.
Than that means games like TLOU and Beyond running in a 6 year old hardware are pretty much humillianting the pc games that are supposed to look 24x better that those!
Hey, but let's pretend Uncharted 2 never existed and never owned all the other games graphics back in 2009.
I have recently played through the Witcher 2 on PC which is heralded as one of the best looking games on PC to date, and yet I am seeing many of the same visual effect that were used in that game on these upcoming games.
Other than resolution and fps PC gamers are simply getting the same level of quality. I mean, come on, a 360/PS3 costs 250, and it costs 500 for a PC that "runs it all" at the same level of visual fidelity except for res and fps, and then it still has hiccups.
I just don't find the "increased performance" to be worth the admission price.
Sure, there is steam for the long run, but between resold disks, and PS+ I've been getting a better deal on console games.
Sure, there is a mod community, but first comes the nudes, then comes the slightly better textures, then comes everything only a $2000 rig can run. Its been a long time since I've seen a mod that actually added new ways to play and new experiences to a game, rather than "better textures #1247".
I'm just not seeing the bang for your buck in PC games anymore.
I disagree that the difference is just resolution. The Witcher 2 is clearly considerably superior to the console version before you even get to how much better resolution and smoother framerates make it looks besides. It looks far superior and more subtle on PC. One glance at the first comparison shot here shows how much more detail PC packs into all the textures and models and effects in the same resolution as console:
Now imagine all that with twice the resolution of console too and a smoother framerate and no tearing. Naturally, witcher 2 looks amazing on PC when compared directly.
I personally get a much better deal on PC because i tend to keep the games i buy. I buy quite a few games, and i usually save at least 10 pounds or more on every single cross platform game which i purchase on PC.
In the past year alone i estimate that has saved me at least 200 pounds, 200 pounds or more a year which is easily enough to maintain a quality gaming PC hardware and keep up to date.
I think its a bit of a fallacy and falsehood that you have to have an extremely expensive PC to get a lot more visual fidelity these days than a console.
I like how you competely avoided the cost of the PC that it took to get those results.
Yeah, looks SLIGHTLY better, but at what cost? I would bet all my gaming systems including my $1000 rig that that PC cost at least $500, which was exactly my point; your getting SLIGHTLY better for TWICE the cost.
@ KeiserSosay4788 too
Check this...BF3 resold disk on day 3...$30 with the DLC codes too. But, wait that would never happen on Steam, and I still have a disk to sell.
PS+... over $500 worth in games for $50 so far...looking to be over $1000 this year.
I've saved more than twice as much as you did on PC.
Slightly better? Its considerably better, and just at the same resolution, not factoring in how much better it does actually look at higher resolutions and framerates to boot.
I didn't avoid it. Initial outlay is higher for PC, but as i pointed out, the amount you can save on multi platform titles like this is considerable, and other factors like online costs. Within just a couple years of owning a PC that can get the results you see here you will have recouped it back if you buy enough games and keep them, like i do. Basic maths. Over the course of 6 years of 360's lifespan i have definitely saved well in excess of 1200 pounds, on games alone.
Not all of that has actually been spent on my PC, because PC parts that are replaced are sold to subsidise the new ones too. Its nice to have the option. They DO have resale value if you sell at the right time....
Shrewd management is all that is required to keep PC costs pretty minimal and manageable.
There is no way that over these years of gaming have i spent twice as much on my PC, i have actually probably spent LESS, and i can get the quality seen there.....
Your argument isn't great. It short sighted and pretty ignorant. You are the kind of person that buys a car and crows over how cheap it was to buy outright, but then disguises the fact that insurance and fuel consumption and depreciation and tax etc is horrifically costlier than an outright more expensive, better quality vehicle.
Bang for buck is calculated in years for me, not in someone's mind that pretends these machines don't have running costs, like more expensive games, or online fees, or overpriced peripherals etc
Unfortunately it is pretty clear you are extremely lacking in knowledge of this particular situation. You are talking to someone who owns a PS3, and a 360, and a wii, and handhelds and old machines and a gaming PC and a gaming laptop.....
There is no question in the long run, PC is a fairly cheap platform, especially relative to the superior versions you can enjoy.
It was actually cheaper on PC when the game came out AND was 15% off on Steam for pre-order. Name a console game that would ever have a deal like that.
As for your resold disks you're proud of...MS and Sony are trying to kill that with next gen.
Yes, Steam/using the PC is considerably better since I can keep those games in my HDD and even transfer them to another HDD/PC. No need for disc swapping and I can still play the same games with every new PCs I've built. I have some very old games in my PC like Freespace, Giants Citizen Kabuto, Nox...What I see with the consoles, you have to buy your PS2 classics AGAIN (re-mastered/HD version)! You don't save much if you keep buying back those games again and again with every new console release. It would very ridiculous if you have to buy a remastered Halo collection, again, for the X box 720.
As for PC cost, I've stumbled into a state that I encountered with my last PC build : I don't know what else to upgrade. My current upgrade cycle have finished and I'm now just sitting there comparing the latest offers on Steam, GoG and Gamersgate. I'm scouring for the latest mods for some of the simulation I have instead of reading up what the latest GTX680 version is released.
FYI : the nude mods in Skyrim are the among least searched for. The most popular Skyrim mods are mostly textures, graphical enhancements and game tweaks. You know, things that consoles couldn't do or have wait for a patch/DLC first to experience.
I've been gaming since PacMan, Defender, Centipede, and Donkey Kong ate all my allowance quarter by quarter in the local arcade. I've seen it all. If you're the kind of gamer who turns their nose up at console graphics, sorry son, but you're a pussy. And unless you've played something like E.T. or Deadly Towers, you have no idea what a truly bad game is. Try and get some perspective before you show how ignorant you are.
Everybody says that console gaming is holding back PC gaming. Well, I do both. And I can honestly say that it's some of the publishers that are holding back PC gaming. The pubs don't want to spend all that money on PC gaming because they think that their game is just going to get pirated. Little do they know, us gamers are kind and will buy a product that treats us like first rate customers. Hence, bad ports get pirated (not by me) a lot more than dedicated PC games. If anyone has any questions I'd be glad to elaborate :)
Read the artical, and be it true or not why dont Sony and Microsoft make easy to accress graphic cards that they can sell and easy to use systems that even a average joe can pop off some clips and quickly switch them out. just saying so this PC vs Console thing can die, and also NO company can use the "graphics are not powerful enough.:
Please note im not a graphics hound just pointing that out, also creativity dosent depend on graphics power, some amazing games have come out that are not power houeses.
Lol thats how easy it is to install a graphics card into a work PC. Stick graphics card in pci e slot. Wait till you hear a click. Plug power cable into card. Done.
I like awesome graphics just as much as the average joe.That being said, my 2009 Vista laptop/budget won't allow for /it./ a super spec pc. I don't want to have to worry about making sure a game client is up to date or that my ani virus is squared with said game client. I don't like worrying about whether I have the minimum ram/cpu /gpu necessary to play. I don't like being told that I must be consistently connected to enjoy gameplay.
That is why I enjoy gaming on my console/ps3! Graphics are a bonus for me, gameplay matters too.
"Eyecandy" the video game coming soon in late 2014 min req should be 8gb ram by then.
every time i read one of these pc games and gamers are the best stories i wonder why the hate. why do pc people hate on the consoles. if you like pc fine but you all know you game on either a xbox are ps as well. and if the consoles suck so much how come almost every game that comes out goes to consoles first and than pc. just sayin
why do Ps3 gamers on this site hate on xbox gamers? Because they believe they are getting a better service and so everybody should have it. Same reason behind PC elitism. I don't have a PS3 or Xbox 360 so your other point is not valid. Can't play a game below 60fps and 1080p. I can feel the input lag.
So your saying you never had one of the consoles, so you missed out on a lot of great games. And just because you 1 person doesn't own either 360 or PS3 doesn't mean he's wrong. No nintendo, no handheld, nothing else, Really?
In all reality you probably only play 3 to 5 games a year.
Doesn't anybody REALLY expect that hardware that's six and seven years old can keep up with stuff that just came out?
How many top sports cars of yesteryear outdo their counterparts from today? Sure, they may be able to keep up with the low and mid-tier vehicles, but not too many of them are putting up Veyron, 'Vette, or 911 numbers.
Exactly it's not like they are talking about 6 year old PC's Find a Six year old PC that has not been modified in any way and tell that is still putting out 360 and PS3 level graphics of today.
30°
10°
10°
20°
Ad 
40°
I went PC about a year ago, and I NEVER touch my consoles now except for exclusives.
Believe me when I say there is NOTHING Sony or Microsoft can show that will impress me, graphics-wise.
and you do know the last of us was gameplay dude.
you cannot deny it. its a fact of life, i know the graphics were unbelievable and probably blew you away but those were real graphics.
Killzone 2 ended up looking better except for some particle effects
Beyond was gameplay footage
TLOU was gameplay footage
FFVII tech demo was released by square and was never stated to be in game.
I game on PC and it is amazing but you have to respect what sony was doing on consoles. KZ2 looked amazing when it came out, so did uncharted, and God of War. For 6 year old tech they're doing pretty amazing things.
Clearly you did not see gameplay and BTW it looks far better http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Oh yea the game takes place over a Frackin lifetime just sayin
[--] ------> Trolling
Last of Us was gameplay. Nice try.
Did The Witcher 2 come from console money?
The Witcher 2 also can be played on Walmart'ish PCs btw.
Just sayin.
EDIT IN....
Also, beerkeg, I didn't realise that what I said to you yesterday upset you so bad that you blocked me. Seems childish to get so upset over a strictly a video game topic.
The witcher 2 still would not run on a walmart-ish computer because integrated graphics or low end gfx cards would simply black out once the game loaded.
Witcher 2 on a WALMART'ish PC
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
Nuff said.
If you're going to those depths, then there aren't exactly a whole lot of PC games that can't be played like that.
It's just that, not many people would be able to enjoy it.
Again like I said if you sacrifice all of the graphical fidelity and the bells and whistles that are exclusive to PC then sure you could get it to run horribly.
If I was going to go to the trouble of spending 60 bucks on a game I wouldn't play it in a convoluted mess on a walmart pc (why you would buy a walmart pc to game is beyond me). If that's how you want to play your games with uneven framerates and horrific graphical fidelity then by all means enjoy them.
Isn't that what all ps3 games do but you guys love it???
Consoles are absolutely ****NOT**** "holding back" PCs, because they aren't making enough money by catering to just PC, and definitely aren't by catering just to high end PCs.
Go to Happy Kool-aid Imagination Land if you want to live in a world where developers can afford to make massive games catered towards higher end PCs. Otherwise, we'll be back on Earth. Don't forget to write!
Yes Demon Souls I know I have it , its awesome and hard but still I could name much harder games if that's how you are defining hardcore.
Don't really see how playing GTA for several hours makes you hardcore , just a waste of time finding pointless collectables after the main story.
Don't really see how playing World of Warcraft makes you hardcore. It's as pointless as Angry Birds.
I see what you mean but someone playing mobile games non stop you wouldn't refer to as hardcore right ? :)
I'm looking from the angle of the guy who macros his army in RTS Vs the guy who fire birds at funny shaped pigs and other casual mobile games xD
Thats alot of coin for slightly better graphics on the same games (pretty much)
Actually most "hardcore gamers" are willing to shell out a few hundred dollars for a new console every few years. The way I see it is that when "Next-Gen" consoles come out at anywhere between 400-600 bucks I'll be spending LESS money on another graphics card that will outperform those. That is, if I'm even feeling the effects of being left behind at all. I'm just going to get another GTX 570 and call it a day because I'm almost positive that the newer Xbox and Playstation won't be outperforming SLI 570's.
I have tired of consoles being positioned as so called media hubs when they don't support a lot of todays media formats.
I dont know what console you have but mine can show about any/all websites or videos I decide too visit.
@younglj01
While I agree, that the PS3 IS inexpensive the price of buying games is through the roof on consoles. The prices start too high, are uniform for almost all games, and don't drop in price fast enough (comparatively speaking). Also, I used my PS3 for browsing the internet and tried to justify it but the fact remains that even my CELL PHONE browses the internet better than my PS3 EVER has.
If Sony just tease the demo at the end of their conference I would have bet it was a prototype IP for the PS4.And even with showing off Beyond Quantum Dreams still want too work on the PS3 for 5 more years.Thats saying alot about the untap power the PS3 have.
Just saying even though the PC have better graphics there are not that many developers using it.Think about an Naughty Dog or Quantum Dream exclusive PC title would look like?
That's not a knock on their game making ability, but having to concentrate on one system is much easier than making a game for many systems.
That said I like David Cage's design philosophy with the whole game over thing. The idea that if you fail the game just goes in another direction. More games should do that.
Everyone on this website pretends they're experts on software development, when it's painfully obvious that most haven't even the faintest idea how to write even a basic "Hello World" program (and I would assume a great majority don't even know what that is).
The reason that developers focus on consoles so much is because of how much easier it is to develop for. When you don't have to constantly fuss over things like how many bits are in an int, or how much ram the machine has available, much of the dirty work in development is absent.
This is why consoles will always be closed-source, restricted pieces of hardware that I have little interest in anymore. The PC version will almost always be superior to the console version, and if not, there's always user-made patches that will make it superior.
After reading your comment, there are only two conclusions I can come to.
1. You completely misread my comment.
2. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm willing to put my money on the latter though.
-
Your first point is absolutely ridiculous. Claiming that the actual software development process is more difficult because you need permission to do so is probably the single most moronic thing I've seen on this thread.
You're obviously clueless regarding my point about datatype sizes, as you're talking about something completely different (which I will get to in a moment). I was referring to the fact that the size of datatypes vary from machine to machine on PC, while they remain constant on consoles.
You bring up that consoles have less RAM than PCs as though this somehow helps your case, when in reality it's just more ammo for me to use against you. What you fail to realize is that the amount of RAM is consistent from machine to machine on consoles. This eliminates the need to write multiple code paths based on the amount of RAM you have available.
In summary, consoles are far easier to develop for because the specs of each machine are identical to those of another machine. PC programs need to be far more complex in order to account for differences in each machine (such as rendering capabilities [OpenGL & DirectX] versions).
Now please; stop with your nonsensical arguments. Its painfully obvious to anyone with even a hint of programming knowledge that you're just bluffing.
Plus I just kind of prefer consoles, they're so much more stable. PCs games always have all sorts of technical bugs and compatibility issues. Console games just run right out of the box and don't bluescreen because of some anomalous error. You get the full game on a console, whereas on a PC, a lot of the time you can't even run a game at full settings, and so you get shortchanged a lot unless you have some monster PC. Yeah the game is probably a superior version on PC (ie Crysis 2) but most people probably get shortchanged because their pc can't actually manage the gamee at full settings. Consoles get what's on the disc, nothing more nothing less.
I'm not anti-pc btw, nor am I a console elitist, I'm just arguing that for some people, myself probably included, a console is understandably preferable. I wish I had an amazing PC, but I'd probably never upgrade it over the years because of the costs and so it's just the same as buying a non-upgradable console (as all consoles are).
Console = a once off payment of like 500-600 every 10 years. How much you spend on games depends on a lot of things. But on average expenses on all things console probably come to about 1600.
You don't have to be "top of the game" to run all the latest games.
And if you really think SMG reviews make it the best game of this generation...lmao
Hey, but let's pretend Uncharted 2 never existed and never owned all the other games graphics back in 2009.
Other than resolution and fps PC gamers are simply getting the same level of quality. I mean, come on, a 360/PS3 costs 250, and it costs 500 for a PC that "runs it all" at the same level of visual fidelity except for res and fps, and then it still has hiccups.
I just don't find the "increased performance" to be worth the admission price.
Sure, there is steam for the long run, but between resold disks, and PS+ I've been getting a better deal on console games.
Sure, there is a mod community, but first comes the nudes, then comes the slightly better textures, then comes everything only a $2000 rig can run. Its been a long time since I've seen a mod that actually added new ways to play and new experiences to a game, rather than "better textures #1247".
I'm just not seeing the bang for your buck in PC games anymore.
360: http://images.eurogamer.net...
PC: http://images.eurogamer.net...
360 looks postively cartoonish here versus PC
360: http://images.eurogamer.net...
PC: http://images.eurogamer.net...
Now imagine all that with twice the resolution of console too and a smoother framerate and no tearing. Naturally, witcher 2 looks amazing on PC when compared directly.
I personally get a much better deal on PC because i tend to keep the games i buy. I buy quite a few games, and i usually save at least 10 pounds or more on every single cross platform game which i purchase on PC.
In the past year alone i estimate that has saved me at least 200 pounds, 200 pounds or more a year which is easily enough to maintain a quality gaming PC hardware and keep up to date.
I think its a bit of a fallacy and falsehood that you have to have an extremely expensive PC to get a lot more visual fidelity these days than a console.
Yeah, looks SLIGHTLY better, but at what cost?
I would bet all my gaming systems including my $1000 rig that that PC cost at least $500, which was exactly my point; your getting SLIGHTLY better for TWICE the cost.
@ KeiserSosay4788 too
Check this...BF3 resold disk on day 3...$30 with the DLC codes too. But, wait that would never happen on Steam, and I still have a disk to sell.
PS+... over $500 worth in games for $50 so far...looking to be over $1000 this year.
I've saved more than twice as much as you did on PC.
Where is the bang for your buck?
I didn't avoid it. Initial outlay is higher for PC, but as i pointed out, the amount you can save on multi platform titles like this is considerable, and other factors like online costs. Within just a couple years of owning a PC that can get the results you see here you will have recouped it back if you buy enough games and keep them, like i do. Basic maths. Over the course of 6 years of 360's lifespan i have definitely saved well in excess of 1200 pounds, on games alone.
Not all of that has actually been spent on my PC, because PC parts that are replaced are sold to subsidise the new ones too. Its nice to have the option. They DO have resale value if you sell at the right time....
Shrewd management is all that is required to keep PC costs pretty minimal and manageable.
There is no way that over these years of gaming have i spent twice as much on my PC, i have actually probably spent LESS, and i can get the quality seen there.....
Your argument isn't great. It short sighted and pretty ignorant. You are the kind of person that buys a car and crows over how cheap it was to buy outright, but then disguises the fact that insurance and fuel consumption and depreciation and tax etc is horrifically costlier than an outright more expensive, better quality vehicle.
Bang for buck is calculated in years for me, not in someone's mind that pretends these machines don't have running costs, like more expensive games, or online fees, or overpriced peripherals etc
Unfortunately it is pretty clear you are extremely lacking in knowledge of this particular situation. You are talking to someone who owns a PS3, and a 360, and a wii, and handhelds and old machines and a gaming PC and a gaming laptop.....
There is no question in the long run, PC is a fairly cheap platform, especially relative to the superior versions you can enjoy.
'PS+... over $500 worth in games for $50 so far...looking to be over $1000 this year.'
They're on loan though, you don't get to keep them forever.
Yes, Steam/using the PC is considerably better since I can keep those games in my HDD and even transfer them to another HDD/PC. No need for disc swapping and I can still play the same games with every new PCs I've built. I have some very old games in my PC like Freespace, Giants Citizen Kabuto, Nox...What I see with the consoles, you have to buy your PS2 classics AGAIN (re-mastered/HD version)! You don't save much if you keep buying back those games again and again with every new console release. It would very ridiculous if you have to buy a remastered Halo collection, again, for the X box 720.
As for PC cost, I've stumbled into a state that I encountered with my last PC build : I don't know what else to upgrade. My current upgrade cycle have finished and I'm now just sitting there comparing the latest offers on Steam, GoG and Gamersgate. I'm scouring for the latest mods for some of the simulation I have instead of reading up what the latest GTX680 version is released.
FYI : the nude mods in Skyrim are the among least searched for. The most popular Skyrim mods are mostly textures, graphical enhancements and game tweaks. You know, things that consoles couldn't do or have wait for a patch/DLC first to experience.
Please note im not a graphics hound just pointing that out, also creativity dosent depend on graphics power, some amazing games have come out that are not power houeses.
Crysis changed graphics cards it presented a challenge and they engineered cards to meet the challenge.
we need a new game like that.
Vista laptop/budget won't allow for /it./ a super spec pc. I don't want to have to
worry about making sure a game client is up to date or that my ani virus is squared
with said game client. I don't like worrying about whether I have the minimum ram/cpu
/gpu necessary to play. I don't like being told that I must be consistently connected to enjoy gameplay.
That is why I enjoy gaming on my console/ps3! Graphics are a bonus for me, gameplay matters too.
"Eyecandy" the video game coming soon in late 2014
min req should be 8gb ram by then.
And just because you 1 person doesn't own either 360 or PS3 doesn't mean he's wrong.
No nintendo, no handheld, nothing else, Really?
In all reality you probably only play 3 to 5 games a year.
Doesn't anybody REALLY expect that hardware that's six and seven years old can keep up with stuff that just came out?
How many top sports cars of yesteryear outdo their counterparts from today? Sure, they may be able to keep up with the low and mid-tier vehicles, but not too many of them are putting up Veyron, 'Vette, or 911 numbers.
Is console vs PC any different, in that respect?
Find a Six year old PC that has not been modified in any way and tell that is still putting out 360 and PS3 level graphics of today.