Crytek: It's impossible for next-gen consoles to match the power of gaming PCs

Ahead of Sony and Microsoft's next PlayStation and Xbox announcements, which are expected to herald a significant leap in graphics power for home console gaming, one developer with knowledge of what's to come from both machines has said PC gaming will remain the place to be for the best possible visuals.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
decrypt1917d ago (Edited 1917d ago )

Well they will be lucky to match even Midrange PCs, its not just high end PCs. Mid range PCs costing 600-800usds will walk all over the next gen consoles.

Next gen consoles are rumored to sport GPUs comparable to 7870, which by todays standard is essentially mid range. By the time the consoles do launch 7870 will be closer to low end model.

Hence consoles will just be locked down branded PCs, charging royalties on every game sold, lacking any sort of BC or modding options.


Hardware is useless without the software. Console makers can sell hardware at a loss, however they will rip you off with the software. I would think paying a bit more for the hardware initially then paying a lot less on the software is economic in the long run, specially for real gamers who want to be buying 2-3 games a month.

Btw Wii U is pretty out dated to begin with, PS4 or Xbox 720 wont be selling less than 400usd, might even be 500usd so thats not too far behind a mid range PC.


I am sure playing the handful of exclusives is amazing :) its not hard owing a console for those.

"We buy consoles for exclusive games, cheap cost, knowing every game will play the same"

Cheap cost... What?

Paying more on every game isnt cheap.

Kamikaze1351917d ago

PC price =/= console price.

I'm primarily a PC gamer, so don't go thinking I'm against PC gaming! However, I'm sure it would cost over $300 to get a PC can run games on par with the Wii U - graphically and at a decent framerate.

shutUpAndTakeMyMoney1917d ago (Edited 1917d ago )


lol I can't control my caps.. My keyboard is over powered somehow.

Seeing how the new consoles are like pc then scaling pc games up should be much easier. Pc gamers will get the extra high rez textures maybe every time.

I must say though crytek are one of the few fps devs who encourage brain cell usage.

JsonHenry1917d ago

The new APU from AMD in a cheap motherboard, 8 gigs of ram could be had for around ~$300 and run things at the same low rez textures and low to mid settings that the WiiU runs its games at easy. Top that off with the fact that PCs are not subsidized in price like a console and that is really telling.

one2thr1917d ago (Edited 1917d ago )


But adding the cost for: system case, psu, OS, hard drive, case fans (proper ventilation), controller/keyboard, and your looking at a PCthat cost more than the wii u, that cannot/will not do what the wii u can do...

Heck a pc that's capable of running a game that plays better than GOW: Ascension isnt/aint/can't cost $250 and that's pretty much a fact... Not saying what you said is wrong, but you did kind of forget a few minor details...

reynod1917d ago


When you build a PC you tend to look at as a long term investment.

For example when one builds a machine and later upgrades it. They no longer have to bare the cost of Casing, OS, HDs, Fans etc.

I bought a casing (HAF932) back in 2009, till date i am using the same casing and intend to be doing so for a very long time.

Same goes for my Keyboard Mouse. My Keyboard is atleast 5 years old, i dont intend to change that even if i do upgrade.

Hence for people that already own PCs upgrading can be rather cheap. Most of the time now a days people need not even change the Motherboard, CPU etc. Just upgrade the GPU thats it.

Hence PC gaming is a long term investment, its darn cheap in the long term.

Not to mention all the games can be had for much cheaper prices than console versions. You could easily build an insanely large library over a Steam discount. It would be impossible to create such libraries on console at a reasonable price.

Lets not for get you can actually keep those games over the years, Its not like when you upgrade you wont be able to play old games. With console you cant build a library. Every time a gen is about to end, the thousands of usd worth of games you bought might not run on the next machine.

From a cost perspective PC in the long term is cheaper than console.

MikeMyers1917d ago

Not sure why we need arguments over the PC versus consoles. Do people that watch DVD's argue with those who watch movies on bluray?

PC gaming to me offers more freedom and trying to get the best possible experience. With that comes a little more work and could cost a little to a lot more money. Consoles have many advantages as well, namely their own exclusives and ease of use.

I play games on both and I think both can co-exist with one another.

Qrphe1917d ago (Edited 1917d ago )

You can get a rig that can run 1080p (going by the latest cheapest GPUs) for around $300-$400 depending on where you look.
Of course I'm not taking into account stuff like a kb+m or monitor (but I guess no one counts TV price when talking about consoles either).

Autodidactdystopia1917d ago

I wish that I had the patience to sit here and intelligently answer all this pseudo information.

But im gonna just give you a little juicy fact.

Since consoles have been primarily full 3D roughly psx era. there has only been one chip that has shipped with a console that had any real performance advantage over existing pc hardware.

That was the x360 with its x1600 equivalent xenos gpu, who's major performance enhancing feature was; amd's new "unified shader" architecture. which has gone on and been in every subsequent release of a gpu from either amd or nvidia.

that hardware advantage didnt get it far looking at the ps3/360 argument over the years. many would argue that there are many more high quality looking games on ps3 than 360 despite its gpu advantage. cpu is the sole reason for that difference.

the cpus that come out in consoles are always completely destroyed by their x86 counterparts, yes even the allmighty cell was outdated the moment it came out vs many of the proc's of the day, that is a perception that has waited over 5 years to die.

Pcs may be more expensive at times depending on how the fanboy in you decides to look at it.

BUT AS CEVAT Y. stated regardless of price which is adressed in the article

"So, given consumer pricing, and given the cost of production of a gamer PC and the amount of watt of power it needs, which is like a fridge, it's impossible."

"It's very difficult to compete with that. People have these massive nuclear power plants standing in their rooms that will run your games really fast. It's hard to compete with."

I feel that what he said is absolutely correct.

regardless of price. he said nothing about value.

oh well off to work now :)

darthv721916d ago

have far more overhead to have to deal with than a console. So why cant it be that a game optimized for a console cant reach parity with that of a gaming PC?

I think it can but then again, its been since 2008 since I built a gaming PC. I been out of the loop for too long to go back. I prefer my games on console now.

I may not ever see the fully realized vision of a title as played on a high end PC and I'm okay with that. I will choose the path of lower cost of ownership. I can still get the core of the experience out of the game and that matters most to me.

Knight_Crawler1916d ago (Edited 1916d ago )

@Kam but unlike consoles PC's can be used for more than gaming.

Say you own a console, you would still need to buy a PC / Laptop to do other stuff that arent gaming you will be paying for a console and and PC but if your a PC gamer you are only paying for a PC.

Braid1916d ago

I'd say "I hope he's wrong" but how can he be wrong if he had seen the next-gen development kits already? I'm going to have to trust their word on this one, they relaesed three visually unmatched PC games after all.

It's obvious that Sony and MS need to stay within a reasonable price limit which means that you can not expect them to put something like a montstrous GTX 690 in the box, but hearing that they'll be behind current gaming PCs right at the start of a generation is kind of depressing when you think about visual development of video games.

I think we could have played Watch Dogs three years ago in those graphic settings already, and who's to blame is up to you to consider. At least devs like Crytek always try to push the industry forward in terms of visuals, and for that alone I have mad, mad respect for them.

AsimLeonheart1916d ago

There is no denying that PC graphics are superior to consoles but graphics are nothing without appealing games. I buy consoles for the console exclusive which appeal personally to me and I cannot get on the PCs. I cannot play Final Fantasy, Uncharted, Ni No Kuni, Last of Us and God of War on the PC. Moreover, generally I do not like the PC games which are mostly RTS, FPS and TPS. PC gaming also always leaves a person dissatisfied because of varying levels of game performance depending on your hardware. There will always be someone who will have a better rig than you and there will always be the latest GPUs arriving giving you an inferiority complex. Finally I enjoy playing games on my TV while sitting in front of it on my bed or my couch so that I can relax. Playing on the PC is always a chore for me as I cannot move or stretch as easily as on my bed or couch. For all the above reasons I prefer playing on consoles even though the graphics may be inferior.

awi59511916d ago

Console gamers dont get it alot of PC parts can be sold for crazy prices after they get old. I ebay all my pc parts to pay for my upgrades outright. I sold my graphics cards for like 300 dollars. Sold my motherboard for 90 bucks. My cpu i got 90 bucks out of that. I sold my memory for 75 bucks sold my power supply for 75 bucks and my system was just mid range and 3 years old.

Also some parts that are discontinued sale for alot when there are people who dont want to fully upgrade yet. Alot of graphics cards are discontinued but are still powerful that sale for 300 bucks that's the cost they originally sold for. Cpu's that are discontinued as well go for good prices because people have outdated motherboards. By parting out your PC you can cover all you cost. I usually make money or break even on parting out my pc after building my new one.

Mounce1916d ago


The very brain cells that you clearly lack? Thus making your 'opinion' completely invalid?

morganfell1916d ago

Crytek and it's owners (the 3 brothers) all need to adjust their aim. They need to stop concerning themselves with Console vs PC and be more worried about the numerous companies that can make games far better than they can.

Crytek need to be focused on hiring developers than create characters who feel alive rather than seeming more like moving cardboard cutouts with cliche' driven personalities.

Crytek need to learn that graphics are not the end all be all of gaming achievements (of which they are not the champion either) and instead they need to give up the overdone super suit business and get to the business of making something else that includes depth beyond the kiddie pool level.

Crytek make this huge stink near announcement times for their games and then at launch. People can disagree all they want but the truth is the stink raised by Crytek about their titles last far far longer than any fan raving about the same games.

Here today, gone tomorrow in a cloud of forgettable smoke.

Crytek just do not make the games that people rave about over long periods nor do their titles stand that same test of time. Until they can match such a feat all of their words about power this and capability that are just a lot of horse dump, completely hollow, and no better than a column by Pachter.

subtenko1916d ago

All PC gamers talk about is graphics. I know PlayStation gamers talk about both graphics and games. I mean seriously, do you see Uncharted, GOW, LBP, Last of Us, etc. on PC? No, you dont even see WiiU games on PC either.

The thing is, everyone has a PC (or Mac, w/e) they just have to upgrade the parts to experience games at max level.

SkyGamer1916d ago

Amy i the only one who thinks nexgen will suck? Aside from the 8 GB RAM, kudos MS, the rest really does suck. When they first mentioned the word AMD, I knew right then it is not going to be a powerhouse. Don't get me wrong, I have AMD gaming machines but compared to other offerings, it is weaker. That is a fact. Of course using AMD means cheaper price which is good. Using laptop parts? In a console? Are you kidding? Cmon people and wake up and smell the bs!!!

slayorofgods1914d ago (Edited 1914d ago )


AMD still has the best bang for your buck with their products. From a console perspective they actually are the powerhouse of form factor (low power) gpu's.. Do you really expect to fit a giant modern day gpu in a console?

Why do you think every single console goes with AMD?

slayorofgods1914d ago

I actually think the next generation is above my expectations in comparison with pc's. The PS4 has 8GB of memory (one of the downfalls of the PS3 is finally fixed) and 8 core cpu (this could push a lot of pc gamers to upgrade to stay modern). The only downfall is the gpu, and even this has exceeded my expectations, I don't know a lot of pc games that this card couldn't handle at high or ultra.

Sure, the pc is still ahead.. I think we all knew that for a while going into this generation. I actually, thought the pc would be way ahead.. But after seeing the PS4 specs, I really think Sony (at least) did a nice job staying as competitive as possible and is probably making the best gaming machine possible as far as a console goes.

+ Show (15) more repliesLast reply 1914d ago
1917d ago
bicfitness1917d ago (Edited 1917d ago )

@ decrypt

The price>performance ratio always weighs heavily in favour of consoles. Most consumers will never invest what it takes to get a "high end" PC and a console offers pretty spectacular performance for its $. My custom Sager (which gives SLI desktop level performance) cost about 3 grand. I only invested in it because I write, game and travel quite a bit.

But that sort of cost for the average consumer is absurd. Your argument that console games themselves cost more is somewhat true (though even new releases on Steam are only $10 cheaper and you don't get a physical copy). However you are assuming that consumers are purchasing many games at once, when in reality, people purchase a game and maybe a downloadable title each month. They spend what they can afford.

I game on all platforms, but consoles definitely have their advantages. And we haven't even gotten into the complexities with hardware configurations, editing .ini files or half the hoops that one has to jump through for proper PC gaming.

Edit: And as others have stated, closed-system is ALWAYS an advantage when it comes to performance. PC software is never optimized for the myriad configurations it runs on.

kevnb1917d ago

Consoles use the Razer blade model. Pay less for entry (they even take losses on hardware) but find ways to charge more for games or Xbox live.

OcelotRigz1917d ago (Edited 1917d ago )

I own both, PC & PS3, and love them both.
Each has their own strengths and weaknesses, of course.
One strong point for consoles is the convenience, the comfort of popping in your game and knowing its going to work, that its not going to crash and you don't have tweak certain settings and edit certain files etc.. with that being said, its not like all PC games have this hassle, its just the odd one here and there but still frustrating nonetheless.

Anyway, a recent example of this "convenience" was when i got BF3 on the PC to see what it looks like. Oh it looks great alright but man, trying to get into a game thru Battlelog is some load of crap, its slow as hell, i only got into a game around 1 in every 10 tries, then when you do there seems to be way more lag and such, like emptying a round into a guy only for him to turn around and kill you instantly. It just turned me off the game.

I know not everyone will have such problems with that game as frequent as i did, but when i popped on my PS3 and just got into a game in a matter of seconds, i didn't mind at all about sacrificing player count and graphics for a smoother, or more importantly, consistent experience.

Either way, im getting the best of both worlds here, not loyal to either, thats just stupid, gamers love good games, regardless of platform.

EDIT: Oh and Crytek are shitheads, if they put more time into gameplay and story instead of "melting pcs" with their graphics, they would be much better devs and make much better games.

one2thr1917d ago


Yeah I have had similar problems with BF3 on PC and whats funny is that I can hop on the PS3 version, and jump right into a game within 40 seconds. The Pc version on the other hand, I barely find a game thats worth playing seeing that theres not that many people on at once compared to the PS3 ver. and it takes me a few minutes (2 the most) to scramble through battle log to find one...

And then theres the lag issue, my ping usually registers between 15-50ms depending on what server region Im playing on and then there would be random lag spikes that annoy the h$ll out of me...

But all in all, I do agree with your statement about them having strengths and weaknesses, and in certain games it definitely show for example:

I had a difficult time trying to play Sonic Generations on Steam, until I connected my DS controller then it was all gravy from there on out...

Ripsta7th1917d ago

"And we haven't even gotten into the complexities with hardware configurations, editing .ini files or half the hoops that one has to jump through for proper PC gaming."
THIS right here, i dont want to go through all the trouble of learning this, id rather just pop the disk in, sit, and PLAY :)

_-EDMIX-_1916d ago

@Ocelot- battlelog was Clunky... at launch. Battlelog has done various updates and if your having lag problems that actually might be your end they have a filter for ping....

all my favorites I have on that game all have low ping and all have max games at 64 or 32. to say no ones playing on there is an absolute joke! Lol. I apologize that you don't know how to work out filters from country/ region/ ping. by far Battlefield 3's best version is the PC version.

what you're saying is wrong with the game is actually a user error by your own fault.

( well over 300 hours in battlefield 3 on PC and I actually have well over 500 hours in Battlefield Bad Company 2 on PlayStation 3 in about 200 hours on the PC version, take it from a battlefield fan Battlelog has its flaws, weather it's constant updates, having to reinstall punkbuster etc. I wish to God battlefield 4 doesn't have battle log! that being said the previous users complaints on battlefield 3 are user made error I play the game long enough to know that, that hasn't been an issue for me since the game launched because I know how to use a filter. disregard their complaints and if you don't believe me look up the name and stats

a lot of pcs users issues could be solved by simply having a separate hard drive just for games and no other applications.

OcelotRigz1916d ago


I know how to use filters and have used them, its not rocket science at the end of the day. Also, i only entered games with good pings and still had issues. You can say its my own fault all you want, but thats pure speculation since you dont know anything about my PC, my experience with this stuff or anything like that.

Im not saying Battlefield on the PC is terrible, or that Battlelog doesn't work, i simply stated that my experience wasn't a good one and i prefer the simplicity of the console version. I even stated that not everyone will have such experiences.

I also never said anything about "nobody is playing on it", so i dont who that was pointed at.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1916d ago
nirwanda1917d ago

If you make an optimized game that runs at 30fps at 720p just think how good you could make the graphics.
There isnt a single game on the pc market that is optimized for high end gameing rig.
How many games can you name that are dx11 only for instance built with the lowest spec 7870+

N0S3LFESTEEM1917d ago

It's takes 2-3 years for the industry to catch up with the Tech... If the new consoles do come out with a 7870 it'll antiquate a lot of older cards because I'm sure the minimal specs for gaming on PC will shoot up 2 generations after maybe the first or second year of it them being out.

nirwanda1917d ago

@ NOS3LFESTEEM Dev kits for PS4/720 have been kicking around for a year building games from the ground up for dx11 with no messing about getting it to run on lesser spec machines which is needed to take advantage of dx11 as games need to be programmed different to take advantage of things like tessalation scaling, my arguement is that crysis 3 and all its assets will support older forms of direct x.
So all of a sudden bang there are games out on the pc that will do this with no waiting to catch up.
I think what MS is doin with its gpu is making the footprint for dx12 and sony will combat lack of new hardware trick with raw power and as for the pc it will get a big kick up the ass

Irishguy951917d ago (Edited 1917d ago )

Price - performace
Console > PC

Price of games
Pc > Console

Quality of PC
PC > Console

Overall value of Gaming
PC >>> Console
Steam >>> Psn
Steam >>>>> Xbox live
PC >>>>>>> Nintendo

Yeah Templar doesn't mean ****
Looks at Battlefield 3 PC versus Ps3

DA_SHREDDER1917d ago

PC > Nintendo? What cause you pirate all your crap? Nintendo is by far a better software company than most out there.

nintendoland1917d ago

this is fanboyism not facts.
And can ng4 tell me what is this dublicate account? Trolling me?

zeddy1916d ago (Edited 1916d ago )

what is it with these pc elitists trying to ram PC gaming down out throats?

i know the pc is more powerful, im not that stupid, its just that i dont really care. i'm very happy with console gaming at the moment. just look at the ps3 graphics, they are great! of course they arent as good as pc graphics but it really doest matter.

theres only so far you can go with graphics. what happens when graphics are so life like they are indistinguishable from the real thing? what will be the pc's next move?

Muerte24941916d ago

Stick to the PC market and let's see how long your studios stay open. Most games only work under Windows OS which bottlenecks all that raw power. It doesn't allow low-level GPU access, so even though there's all that power there, devs can't fully utilize it. Another thing is piracy. Its is really bad on PC, that's why developer opt out of making a PC version. With some graphics cards costing around 1k, why buy them when most major publishers hardly support it?

clearelite1916d ago (Edited 1916d ago )

I like Steam, but many games I like to own physical copies of.

lol @ crytek though, they keep talking but haven't made a game lately that interests me more than graphically.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1916d ago
chukamachine1917d ago (Edited 1917d ago )

I'm a pc gamer.

But I couldn't careless about 16 - 24aa, it's not needed. As for af. nothing past 16 will ever be needed.

You'll get the same quality of graphics, but with less aa etc. It's no biggie. on PS4/720 and even if it's with mlaa or fxaa, that's fine.

Exclusives that are quality are hard to come by on PC. I'm not talking mods. full games.

Metro is a game that most pc gamers waffle on about, it's fuking awful. drone of the mans voice is enough for people to call a help hotline. The gameplay is boring.

The only games worth playing on PC are the large full scale war types. BF3 etc. But PS4/720 will have no problem running those.

Crysis3 isn't a jump enough.

Crytek are still trying to sell an engine, although it's better, most devs just want unreal next gen again.

nirwanda1917d ago

When the new consoles come pc's will no longer have to make engines that will have to scale back all the way to a PS3/360.
They can make games that only run in dx11 know they can make money from consoles too and then they can let loose with dx11 only stuff like scalable tessalation and will no longer have to waste gpu cycles rendering distant objects with all its polys when its only a hand full of pixels.
Its just a shame for pc players they will have to all upgrade again soon to dx11.x cards and windows 8 to surport all this stuff

Hotel_Moscow1917d ago

nirwanda have you ever put a pc game down to its lowest settings

its way below what any console can output

kevnb1917d ago

I could swear that I was enjoying guild wars 2, planet side 2, world of tanks and dota 2.

nirwanda1917d ago

@hotel moscow it depends on the game engine its running but it just shows how much optimization they are missing out on having to having to support lesser gpu's without the latest dx features

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1917d ago
Sarcasm1917d ago

Although I agree that the next consoles won't be achieving the same level as today and future PCs, you can never underestimate a closed platform. Looking back at some PS3/360 games, it's amazing what they have accomplished despite the 6-7 year old hardware. Developers become extremely creative in extracting every last ounce of those platforms.

Obviously I'm not saying they did 1080p 60fps with mega textures or anything like that, but games like Uncharted and God of War and even Gears of War 3 showed us that the graphics were pretty amazing despite the aging hardware.

We can only imagine what they can accomplish now with the next-gen consoles.

And let's not forget that once these two consoles come out, it WILL help push the PC gaming platform further ahead again because games will finally be multi-threaded and porting to the PC will be easier than ever.

I'm generally excited for gaming in general either on console or PC.

Nick_5151917d ago

I accidentally hit disagree, but I completely agree with that comment and it's something people don't seem to realize. Here, take a bubble instead. And yes, it will push PC gaming even more because of things developers will be able to accomplish on consoles and it will head back to PC.

Lior1917d ago

I don't see why people are disagreeing, pc will always be the most powerful machine

nirwanda1917d ago

I'm not dissagreeing that pc's will not be more powerful I'm saying that pc's could do a hell of alot more but don't choose to do it for sales reasons.
Pcs games are basicly been draged down by current consoles that could surport dx11 features.
So all pcs can do now is more frames more AA instead of focusing on a great looking game.

Lior1917d ago

That's why we mod our games for better visuals

delboy1917d ago

They disagree because that's what fanboys do.
I mean who the hell is C. Yeril to talk about console power, he has no clue, but fanboys do. LoL

Looks like next generation will be weaker than I expected.
Many will be disappointed.
But fanboys will deny it, and will disagree.

_-EDMIX-_1916d ago

I could not agree anymore something like Skyrim all the mods is absolutely fantastic it's clearly the best version of all the other versions.

the mods in the game allow for no loading in a lot of the major cities add children more features more missions better textures better graphics etc. you can use any controller you want 360 PlayStation 3 etc you can also add a custom UI.

I could never understand the idiocy that comes from somebody stating 1 version is better than the other when the console version will always be limited compared to the PC version. somehow less is more? lol.. don't get me wrong I'm getting a PlayStation 4 day 1 for Sony's published exlu sives and other exclusive games for PC will be primarily the system I use for getting the best I can out of graphics and features. put it this way when fallout 4 and battlefield 4 come out I'm getting them on PC, mods server support graphics....nuff said

brave27heart1916d ago (Edited 1916d ago )

"pc will always be the most powerful"


Now show me a PC exclusive game that utilizes all that power and is more fun to play than Uncharted, has the ease of use and smoothness of a Halo, the variety of a Journey or the ability to create believable characters, worlds and storylines ala Last of Us?

Powerful means nothing. Its all about the games and the greatest depth, variety and overall quality still lies with consoles. Sure Battlefield 3 looks prettier on PC, but does that bother me when playing it on console? The difference in quality isnt game ruining for me.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1916d ago
MariaHelFutura1917d ago

Crytek has something to say about everything.

miyamoto1917d ago (Edited 1916d ago )


Crytek is just crying & sour grapes over the fact that they can't make enough money on PC gaming as opposed to consoles after the big investment they have over their expensive shader graphic engines which the PC gaming platform is not able to support.

Outside_ofthe_Box1916d ago (Edited 1916d ago )

lol @ Crytek and Decrypt

Obviously next gen consoles won't out do the most powerful PC in existence, but so what? How many PC gamers own a PC like that? Very few.

In the end the 720 and PS4 will be HIGH END PCs at bargain price just like the 360 and PS3 were when they launch. And you can't use rumored specs to justify your claim that they will be equivalent to mid range PCs as 1) It's a rumor, and 2) Console specs are heavily modified to begin with so there's more than meets the eye at the surface.

***"I would think paying a bit more for the hardware initially then paying a lot less on the software is economic in the long run, specially for real gamers who want to be buying 2-3 games a month."***

You are forgetting the fact that Console gamers can trade in games toward other games (Used games FTW... lol PC gamers don't have that luxury) so they aren't always paying full price for games. You are also forgetting that technology advances pretty quickly so you PC gamers need to constantly update your constantly outdated tech. And before you say you don't always have to upgrade I ask you this, what is the point of being a PC gamer if you aren't playing on the highest settings? Yeah... Console gaming is cheaper in the short term AND LONG RUN.

Decrypt, please take your PC scriptures elsewhere.

Hydralysk1916d ago

The next gen consoles will not be high end PCs, they will be today's mid range PCs, pretty much every developer we've heard talk about next gen consoles has said this. Plus, you are trying to use the "it's only a rumour" card to discredit their statements after stating as fact that 720/PS4 will be high end PC comparable with no evidence yourself to back it up.

And you DO realize that we can also buy physical copies of our PC games right? Guess what, we can also trade those in if we want! However if we want to build a library, or the games we're buying will be useless as a trade in ($5 credit woohoo!) we get the best deals by far with Steam.

Finally do you really think PC gamers need to upgrade that often? There are only a handful of PC games that require godly machines to run on max settings. I'm running a single GTX 560ti with an overclocked i5 2550k, hardly top of the line, but I've yet to run into a single game where I need to lower my graphics from max. Hell a ton of the games I've played like FTL, minecraft, hotline miami don't rely on graphics at all, simply fun gameplay. People who think you need to upgrade your CPU/GPU every year or two just to stay current are talking out of their ass, my 9600GT ran for 4 years before it started to show it's age with newer games.

jmc88881916d ago (Edited 1916d ago )

No. They won't be a mid range PC.

The consoles will be good. I'll be buying them. I wish for them to be better, because who wants to buy something weaker for their money? Anyone would want that money to buy the best possible quality.

It's more like a 7850. People haven't grasped that. It's downclocked and stripped. It's not even a full 7870 and it's not clocked the same. It's got the horsepower of a 7850. 1.7-1.8 TFlops for the PS4, the 720 has 1.2 TFlops.

This has been obvious what the PC can do, hell it's EXACTLY what I've been saying, the wattage, price of parts, and ability to SLI/Crossfire. Now let me go a little further.

Even when comparing against midrange parts, the PS4/720 are going to be considerably weaker.

So even a cheap PC built years ago will beat a 'next gen' console.

An i7 920 from the year 2008 will throttle what AMD is going to put in there. That was a MID RANGE 2008 CPU that cost $269. Not the $1000-2000 chips.

On the GPU side

The downgraded 7850-7870 isn't even midrange. Midrange is GTX 670, not the 680, and obviously not the 690. Nor any of these options in sli.

Here is the lower than midrange, sub $300 graphic card that I've seen for as low as $239 compared to a 7850. The GTX 660ti.

There were comparable midrange cards in the the GTX 500 series.

Meanwhile there will be a GTX 700 series out by the time the 720/PS4 hit shelves. So a midrange PC will have the benefits of two graphics cards lines power increases compared to the PS4/720.

The consoles will have basically..
720 = GTX 560ti
PS4 = GTX 580OC

But the midrange (or below midrange) will have the GTX 770 in their PC's before a PS4 or 720 is in anyone's home. 760ti probably right around or after.

So the consoles have the raw power of a below mid range PC.

Now with optimizations, it will bump a bit, so that in a few years it is capable of doing what a 2011-2012 mid range PC is doing, not because of it's power, but because they learn the system and optimize for it. But by then the mid range PC will have a GTX 960ti or 970 or even GTX 1060ti or 1070 (or equivalent) which will far surpass the consoles.

Yes it will increase PC games and thus all console/PC games will be bumped up a few notches, but then it stagnates, and it WILL be worse than this past cycle.

People aren't understanding the last console cycle you basically had the equivalent of a GTX 780 modified to be more elaborate and have more ram then that card will have. That's basically what the 720 SHOULD have just to be comparable to what the 360 WAS against PC's when IT launched.

What the 360 had was very comparable to a high end PC. Not an uber machine, but a high end one. It was comparable to the 2nd best card, except it was altered to have some tricks upwards. Some that weren't introduced until later in PC's.

jmc88881916d ago

So GTX 560ti-580OC is what you get instead of an modified up GTX 780. That's the difference in STARTING points between this generation and last generation. That's a massive step back. Which means, while all games will get their bump up, the consoles will age MUCH faster than they did last time around, as they are already close to two years behind MORE than they were last time.

Thus by year 4, they'll be like 6 years behind a lower mid range PC. So either these consoles have a much shorter life cycle (and they very well may) or they are going to drag down PC games even more this generation (aka next gen) than last generation (aka this gen).

They may approach what midrange PC's are capable of when fully maxed, and thus raise the base from all games, but no they are not in any way a high end PC, even accounting for everything else.

If you mean the consoles will get stuff better then what most midrange PC's usually play, yes, though that's because of what people will be MAKING. But they'll also have higher options available for PC's.

Whatever multiplatform game there is, unless poorly made, they will have a version that is comparable to a PS4/720, then have 2-3 notches higher, of which at least one of them will be able to run smoothly on a mid range PC.

What is the point of being a PC gamer if you aren't playing at the highest settings?

Simple you can play games at higher settings than on consoles and play with different input devices and have different control over games with mods and community patches that some devs on consoles never make.

PC gaming isn't about 'highest settings'. It CAN be, if someone wants it, or it doesn't have to be.

It's a pretty ignorant comment to say that.

Tech isn't 'constantly outdated'. Unless you think every new card outdates the previous one, though that doesn't apply to consoles?

You make no sense.

How is a certain card that may more or less be in both a console or a PC be outdated differently because of what they are placed in?

Because there isn't a 'faster' console it isn't outdated? By that measure you must think the 360/PS3 aren't outdated.

The simple fact is PC gaming you can choose what you have. If you WANT uber high end, and want to constantly upgrade YOU CAN. But you don't need to.

Your card isn't made useless when a new one arrives, it just means there will be a newer high bar and thus the card that might have run ultra, now runs very high settings. But the game itself on 'very high' will look as good as it used to on 'ultra' settings, hell it may even look better than the old 'ultra' settings.

You can make PC's last 6-8 years and in the process buy a total of 2 graphics cards. Is it more expensive? Sort of. Depends on what you buy and how you use it.

If you buy the best bang for your buck parts and buy Steam games only when on sale, then the costs are probably pretty even actually.

joab7771916d ago (Edited 1916d ago )

I am not so sure. Consoles are built with a particular archtexture that creators use. The key thing is that consoles are the standard by which games are made. Few make games for high end pcs because not that many ppl have them. And most prefer console gaming at this point. Though many have moved over. I understand that crytek wants better hardware to work with but they dont have to make money selling it.

Anyway, i thought next gen would see consoles that are upgradeable. Creators can build for lower specs that can be upscaled to those who want to cough up the money. At some point, if sony and microsoft want to stay relevant they will have to take this route. Let go of the reigns and allow gamers to tweek consoles like pcs while still having a controller and a TV to play on with all their friends. Microsoft can even sell memory and cards for absurd prices. I thought for sure valve would do this. Release a pc/console hybrid with the advantages if both. Instead they build a medium setting box and sell the rights for other companies to build better ones. Its just so odd to me because whoever does this will win.

brave27heart1916d ago

Upgradable consoles go against the idea of a console- its a one box does all. You buy a console and its good for a 10 year cycle. Developers know exactly what they've got to work with, theres no extra development for multiple types of hardware. You know that when you buy that console you have instant access to the best that console can offer, no upgrade needed.

PC has always been at the bleeding edge of graphics development and always will be. Thats not the console gameplan and Sony, MS and Nintendo will steer clear of that route.

joab7771916d ago

They will only be able to do that for so long. How many games are designed for console and then released on pc with more options to upscale etc. Why not have a static console that a particular game can be built for. Now, offer similar graphical additions for those who put out the money. It wouldn't be real hard because it's display not gameplay. They wouldn't be designing the game for PC. In 5-8 yrs they won't be able to release standard consoles because they won't be able to keep up. Hell, it's gonna be interesting this time. I just think it's an option. And eventually they will have to merge. Consoles of the past May have been that way but everything is changing very fast. Valve sees this and its why they are willing to create a PC/console hybrid that offers advantages of both. I am a little surprised they are not allowing upgrades and choosing instead to allow others to build better steam boxes, bug they understand that ppl love playing with a controller on their big screen. But it won't be feasible forever to build reasonably priced consoles that last 5-8 yrs because something that may cost $500 to build 5 yrs from now may cost $1500 at launch.

TheMailman1916d ago

KZ 4 will walk all over Crysis 3... Im going to love see all these cluless guys freezing in disbelief.. 20th is almost here..

jmc88881916d ago

Which means it's a matter of coding and not power.

So when someone codes something good USING a PC's power......

What will it look compared to KZ4?

Though what we see will it be another Kill Zone CGI bait and switch?

I do love the Kill Zone series. I will be buying a PS4, but what you say is pretty ignorant.

Do you expect that only consoles have games coded correctly? That with the new generation the leap will be made and thus they will have THOSE games, PLUS 2-3 notches higher for PC gamers. Now not on exclusives, but on multiplatform.

Menchi1916d ago


You're right, it is coding. However, that is exactly why consoles, which are dedicated gaming devices, are able to output better graphics than a PC could on a similar hardware range, because a PC isn't -just- for gaming. Alongside that, the fact a PC isn't a single model, but a lot of potential different configurations.

Consoles have only 1 configuration each, so therefore, they are most of the time going to have better optimization that the code used for PC. It is why you see amazing graphics on consoles, that on a PC, at the same level of hardware, just doesn't happen. Possible, yes, does it get done much, no.

Norrison1916d ago

Killzone 2 and 3 look A LOT worse than crysis 1 on PC (a 2007 game), what makes you think 4 will look better than the third one?

brave27heart1916d ago

More to the point I can think of games from the last generation that were more fun to play than Crysis. They hype up the looks of Crysis to mask the fact that the game lacks the fluidity of Cod/Halo or the battlefield feeling and cant create a world thats enjoyable to be in like farcry or skyrim. Crysis is never bad, its just always an 8/10 game. Close but not the success that Crytek want.

Whats ironic is they're sitting on the Timesplitters license- a veritable goldmine if they'd ditch their graphics chasing and focus on gameplay. TS was never the best looking game but as a multiplayer game its still right up there.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1916d ago
Campy da Camper1916d ago

Well, a 2013 Accura will never go as fast as a Ferrari but I have zero problem owning and racing around town in one. Quite frankly, ist a lot cheaper to pay for maintenance on. Not saying if someone gave me a Ferrari I wouldn't accept it albeit to sell to someone else and buy a second Accura and have some cash in the bank for upgrades to my current ride.

MuhammadJA1916d ago

The console peasants disagreed with you.

CDzNutts1916d ago

This term "walk all over" just flat out makes no sense to me. I've played games throughout THIS gen that look as good as CGi movies.

Whatever PC's are doing that are BLOWING anything out the water, I have yet to see.

This claim relates only to processing and tasks.

pixelsword1916d ago

That's sort of a wonky thing to say because by the dynamic nature of PCs, gaming PCs requirements may change many times within a year, plus most people who game on PCs can't get 100% out of games that have high requirements. Very few who game on PCs can get 100% out of Crysis even today, for example; and please, don't anyone say that's not true: you can go right to youtube and see that very few people run any of those games at 100%: that's why you see so many pictures of maxed-out graphics, but so many low-fps examples on the PC as well.

But as far as power, PCs aren't as powerful as most thing even compared to this gen: that's why the half-life and Unreal engines suffered horribly to put even 128 characters playing on the PC with modern graphics when mods tried to up the numbers; because like the PC fans always say "console games are years behind PC games". It took Battlefield 3's modders to do that, which came out after MAG, so console games aren't as behind as PC fans like to think. (and how many people can run either one of those games at 100% on their PC? Not too many.)

Sure Planetside had hundreds of characters before MAG came out but Planetside didn't have modern graphics for one and for two, those graphics were simplified. Even Planetside 2, with modern graphics and thousands of characters, even that game shows limitations; the graphics, while great, ain't winning any awards: it doesn't look better than Killzone 2 or 3... it's about the level of Starhawk (again great, but not winning any graphics awards) The animation for characters and objects are simplified; meaning that you aren't getting the animation range that Killzone 2 or 3 had, and you didn't even get complex character animations that exceeded either PS3 killzone game with Crysis or Crysis 2 (according to what I've seen, Crysis 3 isn't doing it either; but until I get my hands on it, I'll reserve judgment).