260°
Submitted by bunt-custardly 474d ago | opinion piece

Far Cry 3 PC versus Xbox - are consoles holding back PC games?

A Far Cry 3 PC versus console comparison video. When all is said and done are the differences that large when in the thick of it. The question is asked are consoles hampering PC game development of multiplatform games? (Far Cry 3, PC, PS3, Xbox 360)

Attached Video
SteveQuinn  +   474d ago
I assume its the PC footage being shown 1st and the 2nd time around its the Xbox360? If so maybe put that in the article sometime.
-MD-  +   474d ago
You assume? The intense screen tearing and awful frame rate wasn't a dead giveaway?
hennessey86  +   474d ago
I'm playing
The 360 version and I wouldn't call the screen tearing intense. It's only slight and so are the frame ate drops
Bordel_1900  +   474d ago
hennesy, what this video doesn't show is the PC version running in 1080p native with a rock steady v-synced 60 frames per second. DX11 on ultra with 4xMSAA.

Console versions struggle to keep 30 fps at 720p.

http://www.youtube.com/watc...
#1.1.2 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(21) | Disagree(8) | Report
MikeMyers  +   474d ago
I don't get the disagrees. This is like a bunch of people arguing over DVD versus bluray.

I also want to ask why some (not here but we've seen it before) are eager to say that the Xbox 360 holds back the PS3 yet ignore how both are holding back the PC? The differences between the PS3 and Xbox 360 are minimal in comparison. They are also minimal in comparison to the Wii versus the Xbox 360. That you saw a real difference. You don't really see much difference between the Xbox 360 and the PS3.

Time and time again you see those who mention games like Uncharted and Killzone as the pinnacle of console graphics yet when you compare the latest Killzone to the latest Halo is there really that much difference? Not really. Go compare the high settings on Far Cry 3 to the PS3 version or better yet Killzone. That's a difference people can actually appreciate. Go compare Call of Duty on the Wii to the Xbox 360. That's the real difference. This has been going on for awhile now, not just the latest PC games. Battlefield 3, Crysis and so on all showed a superior edge. One easily identified.

Instead for the past 6 or so years we've been brainwashed into thinking that the Ps3 versus the Xbox 360 is all that matters. Forums ran wild between the two camps (and embarrassingly still do), then we have sites like Lens of Truth popping up. Why was that the center of attention? was it because they were actually a lot closer than some wanted to admit so they tried to make any little difference stand out?

These current consoles have run their course. Yes excellent looking games like The Last of Us are coming but new technology won't ruin it. I understand the cycle of game development where it takes time to learn the new hardware and some of the great games come out near the end of that cycle. Then don't make hardware that makes development harder than it ought to. Look at how long it took publishers to grasp the PS3 hardware. There's really no need for that. The original Xbox showed how to make advanced hardware due to coming out later and still make things easy on programmers. The PC continues to push any console while still being developer friendly. So it is possible to offer powerful hardware and make that hardware developer friendly.
#1.1.3 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(17) | Disagree(18) | Report
If pc sold 3 million with most games you know what would hold it back? nothing. Yet the low end games like diablo 3($8M), mincraft($8M), torchlight 2(1M+ in a few months), WOW(12M players), GW2(2M +) & Fp2's like planetside 2 & Warface(5M players) are doing great!

Be honest should devs spend 50 Million+ buck to make a pc exclusive AAA game? If I had bill gate cash I wouldn't spend that much.

When it comes to MMOs and F2Ps pc is not being held back it seems since there are 1000 new mmos a month.

I love pc but it time to be honest about big budget games that could push pc to the limit in every way.

I know pc started farcry but if theer was no console versions would farcry 3 be on pc at all?

But pc is till grow as console gamers seem to be moving to pc. And steam box would also help.

I play on pc for cool and new experiences like day z but AAA games Like "the last of us" are just console style.
#1.1.4 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(2) | Report
BattleAxe  +   474d ago
I think that developers are holding the PC back since the PC is capable of producing a far higher level of graphics and physics. I've been playing Far Cry 3 on PS3, and while it looks descent, we're starting to see the limits of consoles in terms of graphics capabilities.
NukaCola  +   473d ago
PC games aren't held back by consoles. The PC versions are maxed out, the consoles are maximized for the best version they can have.
badz149  +   473d ago
we're still at this?
are people really THAT thick headed to still think that pc games are held back by consoles? it's like saying the popularity of people's cars Toyota as a brand has hindered the development of supercars which is totally not true!

games are made on pc - even console games! if pc games are not performing at the super duper level that pc gamers expect them to, it's not because of the consoles, but it's the devs holding them back! there's really nothing limiting devs on pc and devs are not at all required to make pc games to perform at the same level as their console counterparts, but seems like devs are taking the easy way and that was what makes the real difference between pc games and console games are just resolution and fps - barely anything more except for some, like player counts of BF3 for example!

consoles are not to be blamed here and never was! still wanna blame someone, blame the devs! consoles don't make games, devs do!
SteveQuinn  +   473d ago
@MD depends on the specs :D
Bordel_1900  +   474d ago
These video comparisons are kinda retarded. When you get the game up and running on a 55" display at home the difference is really big. I've compared a lot of games on console to their PC counter part, it's silly how big the difference is. PC is years ahead of consoles at this point.

And it isn't strange, consoles are 7 years old, my GTX 680 is probably better than what next gen consoles will deliver.
#1.2 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(30) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
geth1gh  +   474d ago
Yea, when I see supposed "1080p" recordings of pc gameplay on youtube these days I still think it looks more like a console.

I guess it is just the encoding on the recording software or yotube, or both.

When I watch those "1080p" recordings on my gaming rig with a 1080p monitor, they still lack the graphical detail that gives me that "Wow!" factor when running the game.

There are probably various reasons to that though. For one, youtube runs in 30fps. So it doesn't show off any higher framerate than possible console counterparts. For those of you who don't know, 120fps on a 120hz monitor is like the leap from standard to hdtv.

I think this is the reason that a lot of kiddies on the net are quick to think their consoles are anywhere near the quality of current day PCs. They have never actually sat down in front of a decent gaming rig and seen the beauty for themselves.

Sidenote: FC3 is getting a lot of flak for the graphics in the PC version. I don't get it. I think it is one of the better looking games to date. It's so full of color and really just looks gorgeous at times.
#1.2.1 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(11) | Disagree(2) | Report
FlameBaitGod  +   474d ago
I'm pretty sure next gen wont even match the GTX400 series, there's no way its gonna be close to the 600 series.
Yourworstenemy  +   473d ago
No shit Sherlock, consoles are 5 years old!! It's 'silly' to keep comparing the 2, It's like comparing PS3 to PS2 or XBOX 360 to XBOX!!
Tvensky  +   473d ago
I dont see any F****** difference............ you have to be a massive geek to complain about so tiny changes...

Edit: and I know that PC looks better nowdays, its a fact.. thats until new consoles arrives, then again they will be powerful enough to compete with PC's for couple of years, and even beat it with some exclusives...
#1.2.4 (Edited 473d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report
FlameBaitGod  +   472d ago
Tvensky your really delusional lol. Learn a little about GPU performance and how much each one cost. You don't see a difference because you don't have a way to experience it.
#1.2.5 (Edited 472d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report
dedicatedtogamers  +   474d ago
Consoles have been holding back PC even more than ever in recent years. I remember "back in the day" where you had PC-to-console ports of games like Civilization, Ultima, SimCity, Doom, Starcraft, etc and the console versions didn't diminish the development time (or quality) of the PC version one bit.

Nowadays, since the console and PC versions are developed simultaneously, it is rare to see a PC version of a multiplatform game TRULY utilize the power of the platform.
#1.3 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(7) | Report | Reply
TheBlackSmoke  +   474d ago
No, you are the minority by a huge mile. PC is not a standardised platform, just because your PC can run games maxed out doesn't mean the next 100 PC gamers can.

The most popular games on PC are games with low system requirements. WOW, LOL, the sims, source engine games, torchlight etc. These games are not being held back by console at all, the fact is the MAJORITY of pc gamers dont care about jerking off to higher resolution and AA, they want games they can actually run.

PC gaming is being held back by itself. the cost of entry is too high to justify. Sorry but most people aren't willing to invest thousands of dollars in a PC to play videogames and neither should they.
MRMagoo123  +   474d ago
I think there is a spot between dediccatedtogamers comment and Theblacksmoke that is where the truth is, I guess some pc games may not be as good as they can be because of developing on console at the same time but they also have the limit of who has what tech in their pcs at home, if they make a game that cant be played by most ppl running mid range to low range pcs they lose a lot of customers.
cogniveritas  +   474d ago
I think PC gamers (especially owners of mid range to low end specs) can be thankful for the side effect that the extended console cycle of the PS3/360 generation has had in keeping those low to mid range PC specs relevant for so long this time around without the immediate need to upgrade.
kevnb  +   473d ago
there are a ton of games that look amazing on pc, far cry 3 is actually one of them.
Temporary  +   474d ago
YES PC games are held back cause of consoles, and NO no one cares. All the good developers flock to consoles ... who df cares about PC's graphics downgrading a little, play the game not the graphics.
Lior  +   474d ago
I had the ps3 version and then bought a gaming pc with the geforce gtx 670 and I see now that the console version is actual trash it dips to around 27fps at times and i am playing right now at 80fps on ultra. Once you go on pc you do not go back FACT.
frostbite06  +   474d ago
I went back once.........
darkride66  +   474d ago
I used to be a PC gamer, now I'm a console only gamer. To me, PC gaming just wasn't worth the time or money commitment anymore considering that, with kids now, my gaming time is limited as is.

Plus, I'm on my PC 8 hours a day for work. The last thing I want to do is fire it up for play as well. It just depends on where your priorities lie. For me, the convenience of console gaming trumps the graphical edge some PC games enjoy. Frankly, better framerates/better resolution simply don't matter to me. Plus, the games I want to play are all found on the console for the most part.

I'm not taking anything away from PC gaming here, if that's your thing more power to you but it's simply not for everyone. It has it's pros and cons just like console gaming.

As for consoles holding PC gaming back, developer resources are more likely what's holding PC games back. It takes a tremendous amount of money, time and talent to push PC's, just like it does to push consoles. If it wasn't developer resources, on the consoles every game would look like Uncharted or Gears of War. Clearly that's not happening. It's not because it's not possible, it's because not all developers have the resources to put out games of this calibre. PC gaming is no different.
solar  +   474d ago
anyone who honestly thinks any 360 or ps3 game looks better than a PC game is absolutely insane. or delusional. or ScareCrow from Batman AA.
MRMagoo123  +   474d ago
what about civilization 2 ? I cant think of one ps3 or xbox game that looks that bad?
Yourworstenemy  +   473d ago
It's idiocy to compare any technology that's 5 years apart especially computer technology but YOU'RE doing it! Every article has you PC fanboys pointing it out and repeating yourself is a sure sign of madness!! LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!
#1.6.2 (Edited 473d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report
The_Infected  +   474d ago
@hennessey86

Yes it is intense. It makes my head hurt just to play it. I'm a console only gamer but the frame rate and screen tearing is horrible.
Jaces  +   473d ago
Don't care either way. I play all three. I got FC3 for PS3 and plan on buying it again for PC. Love this game despite it being a lesser spectacle when compared to PC version graphics.
Gamer1982  +   473d ago
Consoles never held back games and PCs the devs chose to do it. They didnt have to. PC gaming should have evolved a long time ago.
piroh  +   474d ago
well, best looking games of this generation are console exclusives. Far Cry 3 on max is nice but nothing special, same with Crysis

people wants good graphics, not a good resolution. that´s why console games like Halo 4, Journey won almost every graphics award in 2012
#2 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(45) | Report | Reply
Bordel_1900  +   474d ago
On what planet are you living piroh?

PC graphics are miles and years ahead of consoles.
aLiEnViSiToR  +   474d ago
Miles xD ?! Its more like light years ahead :D
vickers500  +   474d ago
I think that he's trying to say those games "art style" look better, which is a valid opinion. He just did a terrible job at articulating himself. At least I think that's what he was trying to convey.

For instance, something like Journey on ps3 is far more visually pleasing TO ME (and many others)than a game like Battlefield 3 on max settings on PC, because I like the art style more, while BF3 is the technologically superior game.
DoctorNefarious123  +   473d ago
@ aLiEnViSiToR
A light year is a measurement of distance not time. It is the distance that light travels in a year.
LapDance1974  +   474d ago
"Far Cry 3 on max is nice but nothing special, same with Crysis."

LOL, name one console exclusive that looks better than either one of those games maxed out.
D3athc3ll  +   473d ago
Ninja 5
Knushwood Butt  +   473d ago
Crysis is meh, whether maxed out or not.
BlmThug  +   474d ago
That's taking 'fanboy' to a whole different level. I don't even own a decent spec PC, just a 360 yet I know that PC graphics are far better than that of the consoles because PC is open to upgrade whereas consoles are limited to components that are 7 years old
Lior  +   474d ago
That is no excuse, you may as well not develop the game then on that hand for the consoles. It is running on low setting and its hardly even getting 30fps at times PULL IT!
Ezz2013  +   474d ago
1.those awards don't count pc they only count consoles
if they count pc
ps3 can't win gfx awards

2.halo 4 only won few console GFX awards because it had no big exclusives from ps3 this year
and even then joureny won few gfx awards as well
if ps3 had uncharted 3 or killzone 3 or god of war 3 or the last of us or beyond or god of war ascension in 2012
halo 4 would never won any gfx award

3.ps3 have incredible looking games
but no way they are on the same level as the best looking pc games ...keep it real dude
#2.4 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(8) | Report | Reply
SegaKnuckles86  +   474d ago
You sir are an idiot just like every other console fanboy out there. No wonder I went back to PC gaming.
#2.5 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
ritsuka666  +   474d ago
people wants good graphics, not a good resolution. that´s why console games like Halo 4, Journey won almost every graphics award in 2012 "

............................. ...............________
............................. .......,.-‘”................... ``~.,
............................. ,.-”........................... ........“-.,
.........................,/.. ............................... ..............”:,
.....................,?...... ............................... .................\,
.................../......... ............................... ...................,}
................./........... ............................... ............,:`^`..}
.............../............. ............................... .......,:”........./
..............?.....__....... ............................... ...:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_. .............................,: `........../
.........../(_....”~,_....... .“~,_....................,:`... ....._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.. .....“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/.. ..}
...........((.....*~_.......” =-._......“;,,./`..../”........ ....../
...,,,___.\`~,......“~.,..... ...............`.....}......... ...../
............(....`=-,,....... `........................(..... .;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-.... ...........................\... .../\
.............\`~.*-,......... ............................|,. /.....\,__
,,_..........}.>-._\...... .............................|. .............`=~-,
.....`=~-,_\_......`\,....... ..........................\
...................`=~-,,.\,. ..............................\
............................. ...`:,,........................ ...`\.............._​_
............................. ........`=-,................... ,%`>--==``
............................. ..........._\..........._,-%... ....`\
............................. ......,<`.._|_,-&``..... ...........`\

Let the facepalming begin!
DarthJay  +   473d ago
I have Battlefield 3 on Xbox 360, Playstation 3 and PC and I can assure you, the difference between PC and the other two is so massive it isn't even funny, and it has nothing to do with resolution. I am a PC gamer last on that list, but absolutely everything is better graphically on the PC, settings maxed, GTX 590.
Irishguy95  +   474d ago
It's the developers choice whether or not they let the Console version hold the PC version back. In this case yes it is held back. In Battlefield 3's case. Nope

Again Piroh, it's not about how something looks. It's everything else that is being held back too. Skyrim would have open cities where it developed for PC's. And alot of other features which comes along with the benefits of that. The Draw distance would be much better too. Look at Modded versions of Skyrim and compare them to consoles. Now imagine if the devs themselves didn't restrict themselves to the consoles limits.

Ai, Scale, Physics engine ~ Just some of the major things that Hardware affects besides visuals. Take a look at the last of Us. Do you know how that gets around having a good physics engine? It has Contextual Animations put in, lots and lots of them. Again, it looks amazing because of cutting corners, these corners cannot be cut in other games unless you want them all to be Uncharted clones/hardware wise.

The last of Us is alot like Uncharted, but it simply has different gameplay mechanics. It cuts the same corners as Uncharted though to make it look great. It does not need to waste resources on other things because the developers purposely limited themselves from it. But other games do need it, or at least they should. Drive a car in far cry 3 and tell me it wouldn't have benefited from a better physics engine.
#3 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(14) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
lodossrage  +   474d ago
This is one very tired argument
People act like machines have the power to hold other machines back.

The developers are making a choice to do what they do. Plain and simple. And then you have developers like ID talking and praising how powerful the PC is, yet their product literally showed you how much they didn't give a damn (Rage).

If a PC game is "held back", don't blame the PS3 or 360. Blame the people making it that are WILLINGLY doing so.
audioscience617  +   474d ago
I completely agree with on everything. Developers who focus on PC games imo tend to be very untalented especially compared to console developers. They like to boast about how much better the PC is and haven't shown it to be better once this entire generation except for when it comes to graphics. PC gamers and developers are just looking for a reason to explain why the best games in most genres are console exclusive. The limited power funny enough is probably the reason consoles have been better since it requires you to pay more attention to things like gameplay while still giving you good graphics.
jaymart2k  +   474d ago
Far Cry 3 on console isn't held back.

Battlefield 3 is tho. Smaller maps , Smaller player count , less frames per second.
Hufandpuf  +   474d ago
Far Cry 3 looks so bad on consoles. The compared to other console games it holds up a bit, but when compared with the PC version, sometimes I can bring myself to play FC3 sometimes. Great game though.
Janitor  +   474d ago
But the article is about "are consoles holding PC games back". But if Far Cry 3 runs and looks better on PC then how are consoles holding it back? Stupid article makes no sense.
#3.2.2 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(2) | Report
ForgottenProphecy  +   474d ago
what corners are being cut? I'm sorry, I just don't understand.
DwightOwen  +   474d ago
Assets for multiplat games are always developed with the lowest common denominator in mind, then handed off to each respective team to be programmed into something the platform can run using dev kits. That's why, for many PC versions of major releases, there are no noticeable differences besides an increase in resolution. Some developers tack on DX11 features onto their titles (Max Payne 3, Far Cry 3), but because they're not engine-native, they are inefficient and require tons of raw power to enjoy at max settings.

Some developers have bucked this trend recently - Battlefield 3 immediately comes to mind, and also the upcoming Crysis 3 - by building their games to perform on the latest hardware and then whittling away what's needed in order to get the game to run smooth on consoles, which results in a better overall experience for everyone.
Hicken  +   474d ago
The problem really isn't the consoles but, as you say, the developers.

When they want to, they've shown they can make PC games that aren't hindered by the need to also make a console version... when they want to. But it seems, more often than not, that they DON'T want to.

And then, inexplicably, consoles get the blame. That's like somebody with an iPhone blaming somebody with a flip phone for their phone service being bad.
DwightOwen  +   473d ago
It's really the publisher who deserves the blame. Since they fund the projects, they determine which platforms the game is released on and which platforms get the most attention. People always give Crytek shit about how Crysis 2 being a console port, but that was EA's decision for them to focus on the console version and not the PC.
joffa81  +   474d ago
That's the big issue here games are always developed for the most popular platform and for the last 6 years that has been the Xbox 360. Sure there have been exceptions to this but those are few and far between.

As with everything game development is all about maximum potential profit and as such 99% of all games are developed for consoles its nothing to do with consoles holding back games its about games developer wanting maximum finicial reward for their work.
MysticStrummer  +   474d ago
"games are always developed for the most popular platform and for the last 6 years that has been the Xbox 360."

I guess the facts that the Wii outsold 360 and PS3, and that PS3 has outsold the 360 overall since it launched, have escaped your attention.
SAE  +   474d ago
Both debvelopers and hardwares are effecting , you cant denie one of them , consoles need to step up and evolve , i want the ps4 to do just like what ps3 did , costs didnt matter , if the tech is available then why limit the next generation ?.. Price will go down in some point so why not demand the highest tech ?..
#6 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
black911  +   474d ago
The 360 has been holding the PS3 Back.

(Just Look)

http://24.media.tumblr.com/...
lodossrage  +   474d ago
Nobody holds anyone back, joffa81 pointed out pretty well
No system holds the other back. Developers make a choice to do the things they do. Does that mean some systems may/ may not get maximized? Yes, it does.

But that's a developer's choice. The same way developers make a choice to be lazy and NOT use all the resources available to them. Whether these are financial choices or choices made via time constraint, they are choices regardless. And they aren't made by the systems, they're made by the developing parties.
dazzrazz  +   474d ago
Bla bla nobody gives a shit bout 2-3 PS3 exclusive games rest of em are done on xbox and they run better
enkeixpress  +   474d ago
Not every multi-platform title runs better on Xbox 360. If a multi-platform title is developed properly & with the PS3 as lead platform.. Both versions of the title will then look & run the same or PS3 version will look & run slightly better.. with only slightly different contrast/brightness levels.

Depends entirely on the developer.
#7.2.1 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(4) | Report
cpayne93  +   474d ago
They generally only run better at launch, then they run the same after a few patches... And there's a lot more than 3 ps3 exclusives.
gazgriff2k12  +   474d ago
wow hope that's real time. can remember this

Related video
Norrison  +   474d ago
All the wounds are low res and the clothing too, specially the collars. Nothing impressive.
#7.4 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
DwightOwen  +   473d ago
Her necklace is ####-ugly too.
Ravenor  +   473d ago
Considering Beyond isn't a game in the same vein as KZ3, Uncharted or Halo 4 it isn't half as impressive. It's real easy to optimize shit when the game is about as dynamic as a book.
TardcoreGamer  +   474d ago
It's silly to compare PC vs console with youtube videos. You really need to see the game running at 1080p@60fps on pc first hand to understand the gulf between the two. I have the game running on a gtx670 fyi. It's tits.
Belking  +   474d ago
Far cry 3 looks beautiful on my 55in, 480 HZ,LED 3D Samsung smart TV running on xbox360. Does it look or run better than the PC version? Probably not, but it hasn't stopped me from enjoying the game, and that is all that counts for me.
#9 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
franko  +   474d ago
Tired of this...
Who gives a crap? Play what you got. Enjoy the game!
jp_footy2  +   474d ago
If that's not a sensible comment then I don't know what is.
gazgriff2k12  +   474d ago
its not the console silly its the devs they could optimize the sh*t out of there pc version but dont
chukamachine  +   474d ago
I think a lot of people don't understand.

Were it not for the consoles, a lot of these games would not get made, and would not get the sales they enjoy. Although there are game that sell well on PC.

But these old consoles are pushed to the limit on old hardware with 512mb ram.

I've actually enjoyed more games on CONSOLE then I have on PC.

Best games this gen are from console.

UNCHARTED
DEADSPACE
HALO - For some people:)
ASSASINS CREED - for some people:)

Yes you can goto a higher rez, and more fps. But the gameplay is the same.

I actually play BF3 on pc because of the larger amount of players, like bf2, and 60FPS. KB/M is always welcome in BF games.

Consoles do not hold PC back, if PC has something new to show, instead of console games, then show it.

Just like Wii u- just ports.

I use PC for many things other then games, if I did not. I would not have a one.

PS3 is the best console this gen by a mile. imo.
Norrison  +   474d ago
2 of these games are on PC running much better and looking miles ahead of Console exclusives while giving a better and smoother gameplay experience. PC got a lot more exclusives too, most of them are AAA quality.
MysticStrummer  +   474d ago
I see people throw around the term "AAA quality" a lot, but I'm not sure what it means. I personally game on the platform that has the games I want to play. For me that's PS3, but for others it might be Wii, WiiU, 360, PC, etc. To each his own.

As for the tired premise of the article, devs hold back PC gaming, not consoles, and it's mostly because of the gamers who pirate their games instead of buying them. Yes consoles have pirate problems as well, but it's not nearly to the extent that PC does. End of story.
legendof117  +   474d ago
I play all three platforms. PS3, Xbox 360, and PC.

I honestly enjoy my experience on Xbox 360 more because most of my friends play that.

I love my PC. I always pick up games I know will have heavy mod support and SDK's.

A lot of people don't realize why people pledge to consoles.

Technology is a beast and some people are turned off by PC's. They simply pick up a 360, and insert a game and bam they play. It's all hold your hand on consoles.

I have friends who can "game" but they sometimes don't know how to download history, transfer licenses, and delete shit.
Bladesfist  +   474d ago
Well steam pretty much handles everything for you now. When you do get into trouble you can just use google. I don't understand how anyone can complain that PC Gaming is hard anymore, plenty 14 year olds doing it.
Yomaster  +   474d ago
Why so many disagrees here? Merely because he chooses one console over the other?

This is a completely true statement here, and a good argument as well. PC gaming is an entirely different beast. You have to deal with driver updates, software updates, troubleshooting, etc., not to mention keeping on top of the PC gaming scene hardware-wise is ridiculously more expensive unless you plan on running things on medium or low or building new PC's every 3 years. It makes sense to those of us who have familiarized ourselves with it, but other people are turned off by the fact that PC's are far more complex machines than consoles, and don't desire to put in an effort to learn. That fact alone means it simply isn't for everyone.

I love gaming on PC, but a console game is so easy to pick up and play, it's understandable why most people turn to playing on consoles. Even I admittedly play some games on console over my PC merely for the fact I can just press a button and start playing from the comfort of my couch. That explains why I've spent so much time and money configuring my PC setup to be allowed to play on my couch with a controller in front of a 51" HDTV, rather than on my office chair at a desk in front of a 23" monitor. It's a huge difference.

Strictly on the grounds of gaming experience alone (thus, graphics/controls/etc. aside), I'm not saying one medium is better than the other, and no one really can. It's purely a matter of opinion and desired functionality. They both have their pros and cons that make them vastly different.
#13.2 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
D3athc3ll  +   473d ago
Give that man a bubble!
legendof117  +   473d ago
@Yomaster thanks for the back up!! BUBBLE MOTHERFUCKAAAAAA
Mithan  +   474d ago
PC's have been held back by the Console's for about 5 years now.
MysticStrummer  +   474d ago
No. Devs and pirates hold PCs back.
Mithan  +   473d ago
You are a dumbass. Clearly we are discussing graphics. Get a brain.
chuckyj1  +   474d ago
No developers are. Of course PCs will always be way more powerful in the end, because of constant upgrades.

It's the developers choice not to take advantage of that.
AKS  +   474d ago
Far Cry 3 is a pretty bizarre example of a PC game supposedly held back by consoles. The PC version probably had the best graphics of any game released in 2012, and it was optimized to utilize quad cores and dual/multicard setups (although the AA is admittedly pretty savage on performance). If anything, Far Cry 3 was made more with PC in mind and left the console versions behind.
ninjahunter  +   474d ago
I like reading the comments of these articles, like it starts with a stupid comment and people build off that opinion and manipulate it, then someone says something relatively smart or logical and people adapt that into their opinion and it just turns into a mess of everyone saying the same thing over and over in slightly different ways.

Some day i would like to see people come up with their own opinions, Honestly, its depressing that people cant create and back up their own thoughts and beliefs.
ZeroX9876  +   474d ago
true.

the article title is just silly. Consoles will always holding bakc pc games (graphic wise). Gameplay wise tough, that`s something else.
ninjahunter  +   474d ago
See kids, thats how you make a good comment, You acknowledge facts, yet still express why you feel it could still be wrong. You sir get a bubble for giving me hope in the internet.
ZeroX9876  +   474d ago
Ok sure consoles are limiting the PC, we already know that, but did PC got more sales tahn PS3/360?

Because with the industry taking a hard toll right now, Devs need the profit to continue making games. I think the steam box will launch the PC gaming community like never before.

Many gamers doesn`t want the bit more higher price and complication of PC gamings ( not a problem for me, but is for others). It`ll also help for privacy, leading to more PC sales.

Microsoft and Sony should be scared.
landog  +   474d ago
nothing wrong with console games, i have had amazing times playing both my ps3 and 360, heck, i still love my ds and psp, but....

you cannot even compare pc to consoles on youtube or any other streaming video, it makes the consoles look better than they do on a 50 inch screen and makes the pc look worse, the pc version of far cry 3 looks better than ps4 and nextbox/720 games will look, there is zero comparisoon, anyone who plays on consoles and pc can tell you this, its not even realistic to compare 8 year old consoles with a modern pc

its like comparing ps2 games to ps3 games, even a bigger divide

on pc, provided you have a good one, there are zero jaggies, no screen tear, no sub-hd textures or pop-in, no sub 30 frames, its more than a full generation beyond consoles

i think ps4 and nextbox will be able to come close to a high end pc from 2010, maybe

they certainly wont be anything like a high end gaming rig of today, capable of 2560x1600p, 8x anti aliasing, ssao, dx11 tesselation...ect...ect....

these articles are irrelevent, when ps4 and nextbox are out this year, then, maybe you can compare the games to pc, but they will still be far behind in resolution, textures and aa
#19 (Edited 474d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
iistuii  +   473d ago
Well said.
coolmast3r  +   473d ago
This.
Ravenor  +   473d ago
I chose to play Far Cry 3 on the 360 over the PC purely to see what people are squeezing out of the aging hardware. I'm well aware that my PC will run it at a higher resolution, framerate, with AA and AF. Buttttt at the end of the day I'm playing the same game and it's really not a game changer.

The game looks good on the PC, it looks sharper and sports wayyyyy better textures, player skins and foliage. But that's like saying the sky is blue, this is true of almost every game that appears on the PC and consoles.

Everyone needs to take a step back, and just enjoy things. Because nitpicking the console version for it's obvious technical failings when you look at the hardwares age is absolutely ridiculous.
coolmast3r  +   473d ago
Current gen consoles still have HUGE potential.
Both PS3 & 360 ARE ABLE TO SHOW ROCK STEADY 30fps in FC3...But only when looking in the sky.

lol.
Megaton  +   473d ago
Been playing it on ultra with DX11. Absolutely gorgeous. Looks next-gen compared to current console games.
Yourworstenemy  +   473d ago
I think fanboys are holding back this website!!
DivineHand125  +   473d ago
The only thing holding back the PC graphically is the budget the developers have to work with because there are some games that are being released now that doesn't take full advantage of the console hardware. Also very few PC exclusives are being released that raises the bar graphically.
iistuii  +   473d ago
I don't think consoles are holding back pc gaming as long as the developers put in the extra bells & whistles for us with top end Riggs to turn on. There are some games like off the top of my head dead island which was a complete port where not even Vsync could be turned on when released, & took the modding community to actually make the game playable. But games like Far Cry 3 are on console which is fine, because we still get to max it out & make it look as it should thanks to them taking the time to put in the extra settings.
#25 (Edited 473d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
unicronic  +   473d ago
Console are designed to provide a stable value for money experience. Out of the box consoles provide much better value than out of the box gaming PC's. OOTB console can stay relevant for up to 10 years, OOTB PC 1-2 years.
OniXRuleZ  +   473d ago
Years back the PS 2 was holding back the first XBOX but yet you guys from PLAYSTATION ignore it, and keep playing good games! now is xbox 360 time! but got to say the diference of power was bigger las gen! the first xbox was 3 times more powerfull!
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
kevnb  +   473d ago
I dont know, the pc version seems fine while the console version sort of struggles.
IIJOSEPHXII  +   473d ago
I don't understand why people spend so much money to play console games on their PCs.
RevXM  +   473d ago
Well old consoles are a factor in the big picture of things.

But Im having a laugh when guys on the net thinks that the pc version of a game looks NEXT gen or better than next gen claiming they know how little power there must be in the next consoles.

Come on FC3 on pc is a sharper, smoother, shinier and better version of the game ofc, there are bells and whistles there that aint present on consoles.
And sure Youtube videos doesnt do the comparison any justice but to me the level of detail isnt really THAT much better... so much you can say it looks next gen or better than next gen lol.

No game on pc today looks that good. MOH and BF3 are prolly the closest to next gen out there and they show a little glimpse of next gen, but they dont truly show the power of current hardware either, anyone who thinks its anywhere near 24 or more times better looking than ps360 games are fools... and yes that is about how much more powerful a high end gpu is over the Xenos or RSX today and Im sure its safe to say that CPU's have evolved about as fast as well.

http://www.digitalspy.com/g...

So now that its out there, yes old consoles is a factor.
But really I think it all boils down to where developers can make money.
There are quite a few million 7th gen consoles out there, and a most pc's aint that good and/or runs with 32 bit OS.
So the desire to make new and better technology have been far greater than the will to push it like Crysis did in 2007. I think ol' crysis stacks up pretty well against brand new games such as MOH and BF3 wich kind of proves that pc gaming have been held back no doubdt. (cant wait for Crysis 3, looks really promising in my opinion)

I just hope that the coming generation of consoles will put an end to this problem so that games will finally look, feel, behave and play radically different from what we got now, wich ofc wont happen over night, but within a year and ahalf maybe?
#30 (Edited 473d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Kastinz  +   472d ago
While I agree that new next gen consoles will most likely look, feel, behave, and play radically different. I still disagree that they will ever come close to the capabilities of which a PC can do. The hardware just will not match at any time. I personally refuse to believe a $400-600 will ever be able to keep up. Of course this is too say that you have an actual decent gaming PC (no a $600 "custom built" computer is not one).

PC allows for a more custom gaming experience for those who seek it and it comes with its cost. While the ability to run games at 210% peripheral view with Eyefinity/Nvidia surround, or at 4k resolution comes with its advantages in both quality and experience is great (<---4x crossfire 6gb 7970's with 3 27" 1080p monitors :D:D) it is not the experience that every gamer is looking for and like I said very expensive (my total build was about $6,200 without monitors).

In the end we all play games to play games. Yes, there are different levels of experience but a gamer is a gamer whether on PC or console. We play to play, we play to relax, and we just play.

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
10°

10 Years Later: Unreal Tournament 2004

6m ago - Pixel Critique's month-long look back at the 30 games that defined 2004, wonders if there will ev... | PC
40°

Recreating the Nets’ Hybrid Lineups in NBA 2K14

8m ago - GoodGameBro writes, "The Brooklyn Nets have reinvented their team using hybrid big/small lineups.... | PC
10°

Demon Gaze Review - RPGFan

11m ago - "Reward is the keystone to a punishing video game. Without it, a game crumbles like poorly stacke... | PS Vita

Dark Souls II Review | High-Def Digest

12m ago - While disappointed that the PC version retains the geometry and visual leaks of the last-gen PS3,... | PC
Ad

Enter to Win a PS4 and More!

Now - We are buying one lucky N4Ger a PS4 just for commenting on any N4G story! | Promoted post
30°

The Sims 4 Will be at E3

41m ago - Sims 4 Executive Producer Rachel Franklin announced that The Sims 4 will be making its way to the... | PC
Related content from friends