Top
170°

PC & Console Gap Is ‘Cross Generation’ & Will Repeat Next-Gen

NowGamer: The gap between current-gen consoles like PS3 and Xbox 360 and PC is now equivalent to a different generation of gaming, a major game developer has said.

Read Full Story >>
nowgamer.com
The story is too old to be commented.
linkenski1258d ago

Half-Life 2 was cross-gen back in the time, as well.

FlyingFoxy1258d ago

it was but the console versions had bad framerates, Doom 3 BFG is over 8 years old and can't even run full 60fps on 360, it has slowdowns.

fps are like 100× better on pc anyway, and for the performance.

T21258d ago

The gap between 7 year old hardware and constantly evolving hardware continues ... Wow groundbreaking .

MestreRothN4G1258d ago

That doesn't mean we have already seen what is coming.

PC had the power, but now machines with PC power will have the help of the most talented developers, which, we all know, stay very away from the piracy king.

landog1258d ago

pc has been a full gen ahead of ps3/360 since 2007

pc is already a full gen ahead of ps4/nextbox right now because they waited so damn long

pc gamers are already playing in 2560x1600p

never happening on ps4/nextbox

stragomccloud1258d ago

Why are you getting any disagrees?
You've done nothing except state a fact.

kikoano1258d ago

this side its 90% console fans look the forums its all playstation fans. go on www.pcgamer.com you will see big diffrence on comments.

Axe991258d ago

He's getting disagrees because PC wasn't a full gen ahead in 2007. PC isn't just the people that spend $2500K on their PC - PC is all the mid-range machines that actually form the bulk of the PC market. If you look at the Steam hardware survey, a good proportion of Steam customers have machines that cannot match the current gen of consoles, let alone what we'll see in the next 12 months.

As for PC now, while the _specs_ are clearly well ahead of the next-gen consoles, the actual _results_ are not, and won't be for a year or two, because it's too expensive to make games that match high-end PC specs only - that's why PC gaming tends to follow console gaming (where the development money is) and not the other way around (notice how most PC games started to step up significantly - ie, where the benefit was more than just a higher resolution and faster frame-rates - when next-gen development started).

It will be the same (by and large) this time as well - you'll see faster framerates and higher resolutions on PC, but the gameplay, geometry, physics and AI will be the same - there's simply not a large enough PC userbase (or at least paying PC userbase) to support broad-based AAA development.

Plus, the whole 2560 x 1600 thing is irrelevant if you're looking at the screen from a couch, which most console gamers do. Sure, it's never happening, but it doesn't need to.

N0S3LFESTEEM1258d ago (Edited 1258d ago )

Axe99... a quick look at the actual survey results says something otherwise. Dual cores win the percentage vote with 47.76% saturation but right behind it are the quad cores with 42.75%... Intel reigns supreme on that chart so I'm sure those are all I5's and I7's because hyper threading doesn't count for the core count. If you keep looking 8gbs of ram is the standard and DX11 GPU's are in the lead with 47.97%. Looking at these charts it's pretty obvious that a majority of people using steam are ready for next gen. If not a GPU upgrade would suffice. It will never be accurate though because of all the laptops that skew the results. http://store.steampowered.c...

@Kikoano - That's pretty obvious just from the name itself. XD... I'm sure If I went there though it would be a lot of people saying how much better their computers are compared to everyone elses. I'm rocking a fx-8350 and I'm getting 60fps solid in BF3 with my 680... the first thing I would hear if I wrote that as a comment on that site would be "Intel is better" then he would list his specs which would equate out to $1,800+... I'd look up benchmarks and he's getting 3-6 Fps more than me. Whoopdidoo

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1258d ago
steven83r1258d ago

Full Gen Ahead of PS3 Since 2007....Yet Can't Produce A Better Looking Game.

Consoles are better for gaming because we don't have to buy a new console every time a game gets better...PC you have to change components to run the newest games which means hundreds of $ in just a few years. Also PC isn't made foremost as a gaming machine. So the development isn't there for it.

Zha1tan1258d ago

You should be beaten with the stupid stick so you can at least die intelligent for making such an uninformed biased remark.

Sharingan_no_Kakashi1258d ago

As if it matters. We all know that pc's have the power and can produce some really good looking games. But the downside to that is rampant piracy and the cost. No one cares about your 2560x1600 resolution, you play games on a 25 inch screen.... what's the point?

kikoano1258d ago

Are you retarded you can plug your hdmi to tv.I always play on my HDTV when gameing wow pc wins in every way.Consoles need to die they are close system its like bird in cage!

Sharingan_no_Kakashi1258d ago

No I'm not retarded. I know you can hook your pc up to your tv but if you do that you'll be limited to the tv's resolution. Again... what's the point?

kikoano1258d ago

Oculus Rift will solve the problem you wont see edges and will be true 3d 360

LessThan2Tflops1258d ago

Current gen console games are at best 720p so 1280x720, unless you only have a 720p tv you're not even using the full resolution of your tv

And I'm playing tomb raider on triple 1920x1200 (eyefinity) screens so actually in 5760x1200 resolution

Sharingan_no_Kakashi1258d ago

Congratulations! Sounds expensive.

Anyway, I'm just glad that alot of pc devs are jumping ship or going multiplat. It would make them alot more money. Just sucks that PC's are gonna be held back by ports... just another downside I guess.

Show all comments (31)
The story is too old to be commented.