Brian Chambers talks about the limitations of consoles especially with regards to resolution.
Like comparing airsoft guns and real guns. One costs more but has a lot more power.
Except that analogy leaves little room to explain that PCs can range from less powerful to more powerful. And that's the real reason that comparing consoles and PCs is unfair; PC rigs vary to an extreme degree.
Airsoft Guns and Real guns both differ in power as well. Thats why they make calibers for guns and fps on Airsoft.
I don't know about that, real guns run a large range... like .22 rim fire to .45 Hollow Point, that is a pretty extreme degree.
Hooray, someone with common sense Im playing on pc (laptop) aswell, but only for horrors and some oldschool stuff like Quake, as the ps4 outperforms my laptop easily with new AAA games. But ofcourse if you dont have a $1500 rig you're not a pc player right? /s
@SteamPowered Not what I meant. I meant that they can be less powerful than consoles, too. And I don't think there are really real guns that are less powerful than airsoft guns. Furthermore, consoles don't have as much variety in range as airsoft guns do. If there were only 3 or so options in airsoft guns, the analogy would make more sense.
I love the way people always reference PCs as though they have a fixed specification. How many people actually have a high end gaming rig and can afford to keep upgrading their graphics cards? When Titanfall came out I couldn't quite believe the number of people saying that they would rather get it on PC, because the Xbox One is so expensive and the best combination for gaming is a PS4 and a gaming rig. That is going to be true for a lot of people but is it still true when you factor cost? How many of the people saying that actually own a good gaming rig or could afford one? How could anyone think the Xbox was expensive and not think a rig was? Those arguments are at odds with each other. I don't know, it's all too confusing. What I do know is that it just felt as though those arguments were to spite the Xbox and the people saying it probably had no intention of buying the game anyway. I believe that to get the most rounded experience you should buy all three consoles, if you're a console gamer. It's still cheaper than a top end rig to buy all three and you can enjoy the first party offerings of each. So, the argument that buying all three is too expensive is moot, if you're saying that you can afford a powerful PC. If you're exclusively a PC gamer then that's great. It fits you to do that. If not then look to save up for a rig after buying the consoles. At least you know that you won't have to upgrade your consoles after purchase. Don't get me wrong, being in IT I've built and owned quite a few gaming rigs over the past decade and each time it's been to play just one game that I want, which may seem like madness but I always find that other people do the same thing. I just decided it was too expensive in the end. I totally went off topic there, oh well.
Of course it's not fair. Because people who do, they always assume that the PC is running the highest settings possible. Which is not the case to most PC gamers.
I see no reason why people can't discuss different gaming options available to us. Every one of us can choose one or more gaming platforms and there are no artificial barriers the way some of you make it sound. The PC is one of the main three platforms that multiplatform games are released on. It also has exclusives of its own. There isn't a single good reason why people can't compare the advantages and disadvantages of the PC relative to other platforms. I think some fanboys just get their feelings hurt and want to exclude the PC from the discussion because they want to argue with other console owners and rub every advantage in their faces. The PC is, for these people, an inconvenient truth. This is the real reason these people want the PC excluded. Just look at the posting history of those that push this agenda and it becomes obvious why they have this attitude. When PC versions are analyzed or even compared with console versions the purpose is to show what is available in that version of the game. Those that are already into PC gaming will know what to expect with their hardware, and those that are considering getting a gaming PC can go look up benchmarks to see what kind of hardware they need to buy to get the level of performance and fidelity they want in those games. Moreover, no matter how many people try to claim that the number of gamers with good gaming PCs is extremely small the facts continue to prove otherwise. Nvidia recently said that over 10 million people bought GTX 680 series graphics cards (i.e. GTX 660, 670, 680 and 690). Then you have to consider all the GTX 750 Ti, 760s, 760 Ti, 770s, 780s, 780 Ti, Titans and Titan Zs. And now the GTX 970 and GTX 980. Then add to all that all the equivalent cards from AMD. We can easily see that there are easily tens of millions of people with gaming PCs with better performance than either next gen console. All of the cards I referred to above are more powerful than either console. And I'm not talking about theoretical power, I'm talking about provable performance according to benchmarks of multiplatform games. I'm actually being extremely conservative in terms of the graphics cards I included, since there are actually quite a few graphics cards below that level that I didn't include even though they have outperformed the consoles in benchmarks.
Its fair but while you throw up comparisons you should throw up screenshots of the game on low settings too. It is deceiving to show the game maxed out on ultra settings when most peoples PCs couldn't play the game that way. Be fair and show the range of what it looks like on PC. Don't just go ultra 4k and claim it is the PC version. 1280x720 and low settings is also the PC version.
The majority of Steam users have rigs that are more powerful than consoles. There are statistics that you can easily google. If you can afford a PC that is more powerful than a console then there is no point of being a PC gamer, it would be better to buy a console, unless you like playing on minimal settings and really love Steam sales.
It's like airsoft guns and real guns if airsoft bullets were much more expensive than real bullets and just about every household in first world countries had a small firearm anyway.
LOL_WUT?!?!?! Wish they were here for this...
OK, but if the person had the option to fire REAL guns, instead of Airsoft guns (money not an option), to which one do you think he/she will choose? Heck, I'd go for real.
right..pc has various range of spefications while console maintain the specs for 5 years incoming pc hardware also update very fast...its unfair to compare both things as its actually very obvious the platform called pc had wide range of specs,not necessary when somebody got pc it was surely powerfull than console...still need to look at the specs i doubt all those noisy pc master race had decent rigs too
Don't Crytek usually add fuel to the fire with the "Console hardware vs PC hardware" argument.
From what I have noticed, they do, but they don't seem like they mean to. For instance, they have stated several times how they were limited with x1 for Ryse, and about how with PC they can do all sort of things. I forget the article but at one point a Crytek dev pretty much sounded like he was bashing the console. It's not so much about the message as it is the way they convey it. I mean, sure PC will allow them to do quite a bit more, but if you do not think it is fair to compare the two, then do not make it seem like you are doing exactly that...especially when most of the reader have no clue what you are saying and just use the words as fanboy lube.
Ill never understand why console-centric gamers take offence to that anyways. The console is simply built different. Crytek points out those differences and people go nuts. I always use the ol Honda vs Ferrari analogy: both get you to where youre going, but one is obviously more powerful ride. You pay for performance. The best solution is having a full garage of gaming options.
The only people who go nuts is the "PC Master race" who has to constantly point out the differences to console hardware EVEN WHEN it's a game which isn't coming out for the PC.
@Fox PC gamers, such as myself tend to point out that consoles are inferior to PCs in every aspect, but it doesn't mean consoles are terrible. The hardware is good for the price it comes at, and how developers are always able to squeeze out more power and actually make games look beautiful. Exclusives is the main reason why I own a console. Plus, it isn't bad when someone points out a games lack of AA, or it's jaggies, graphics, etc. We are stating that games nowadays should look "next-gen", and not utter ass
that might be because they trying to attract pc users attention well,they aiming to melt gamers rigs
If Crytek can change anything can change.Finally something came from Crytek realy makes sense.Did you people understand it now????
I'm sure in your native tongue that made sense...but we don't get it because foreign...
I agree. I hate it when a pc guy chimes in with the typical 4k resolution comment when people are discussing the visual fidelity comparisons between consoles... It's like. No s#!t. Some graphics cards alone cost as much as a console. A rig capable of destroying a console also costs 2-5x more than a console. It's like showing up at a Toyota dealership in a jaguar f type and telling all the people buying corollas that the jag can beat it in a race. Completely unnecessary and always a given.
yup exactly. PCs that can do 4K properly at a decent frame rate can cost up to $4000 including the 4K monitor. That's something they gloss over. It's like owning a race car. They have the speed, but maintaining one takes time, money and patience and they aren't for everyone. Meanwhile we Honda/Toyota/Ford "Console" owners are happy with our cars and are tired of being told we need to buy a race car, because it's the future of gaming.
$4000? You can build a monster including GTX 970 SLI or 980's ect, i7 4970k, M&KB, OS with a 4k monitor with plenty to spare. http://ca.pcpartpicker.com/... http://tpucdn.com/reviews/N... http://tpucdn.com/reviews/N...
Except around here it is often the case that those Toyota fans show up at Jaguar conventions claiming their cars are better regardless of power and even claim they can beat or match them in performance, all while jeering that they'll never be able to drive the hot new Toyotas released this year and that the driving experience is jsut easier and better with their Toyota. It reeks of an inferiority complex and is also unnecessary. Trying to blame one group for these kinds of offences when there are clearly the same number of offenders (if not more) on the other side is very telling of one's mindset. @uth: my PC costs around €1000 and is 4k capable, add a 4K monitor and it costs about €1250. That's a far cry from $4000.
Lightof darkness Go read the review on digital foundary for what a titan the best gpu on the market does. It barely makes the grade for 4k at a decent framerate. It doesn't do 4k at 60 fps. Fact. don't act like lesser cards can do better. Steam who is the biiggest distributer of pc games aren't liars when they say only 1.6% of gamers play on a high end machine. You aren't talking to the new guy. Percentage wise most steam gamers are playing on pcs that range from mid to low end. I don't make these facts up. They are there for you google steam users specs. Don't act like you are all 4k when you aren't. Most of steam users aren't even playing at 1080p. But 100% of console users have systems that are capable of 1080p. Edit My mistake this was meant for the comments below.
Well said. I was going to say something similar. These console fanboys make it sound like they are just minding their own business and calmly enjoying their hobby on their preferred console platform. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. What they actually do would be equivalent to Ford Focus owners bashing Toyota Corolla owners over the fact that the Corolla has somewhat less horsepower, then going over to the Nissan Leaf owners and bashing their cars for being even less powerful than the Corollas. But they don't stop there. To make it even worse, they actually have the audacity to go to Jaguar and Ferrari owners and start blathering on about how there really isn't that much difference in the driving experience between their Focuses and those Ferraris and Jags. And they continue on saying irrelevant things like "there aren't as many Jaguar and Ferrari owners anyway"...as if that would make the power difference go away or could somehow minimize those more powerful cars to the point of insignificance. Or to use another analogy, it would be like going into an audio forum and telling them that your walmart MP3 player with $10 headphones isn't much different than a high fidelity setup with quality amps/DAC, source components (DAPs, etc) and head phones or speakers. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a console or an economy car or a cheap MP3 player, but we should never delude ourselves into believing that those things are just as good as higher performance options. And it's insulting to tell those who are more discerning or who do enjoy the higher quality options that they are wasting their money because there really isn't any significant difference. Just because you might not be perceptive enough or inclined to notice or care about the differences doesn't mean that they don't exist or that they are minor. It's incredibly hypocritical to bash and downplay other consoles and gaming PCs while expecting everybody else to just keep quiet, and then complaining when they point out the shortcomings in your favorite console.
This is the only entertainment industry in which community members and fans reinforce pre-conceived opinions on the basis of popularity...and there in creates the biggest issue with it entirely... No one does that with movies...Is everyone's favorite movie from last year Frozen?...No one does that with music...how much facking crap top 40 has anyone in here ever really purchased?...but thats whats popular, so whats the difference? games though?...watch out...'gamers' never shut up about sales...about how well a particular corporation is doing in a specific fiscal quarter...about how they personally purchased what their friends did and therefor is the perfect purchasing decision for every other person with the slightest interest in video games... THAT is the root of anything and everything related to this console vs. that console. vs. this PC, etc...insecurity...no one seems to be able to buy a game, play the game, be happy that they bought it, and move on...and its exponentially worse when it comes to what platform they decided to play said game on...it HAS to be 'cool', it has to be reinforced by others doing the exact same thing on the exact same platform, then pushing that same opinion on others in public...like some sort of religious nutters... lets keep arguing about it...all while fewer and fewer decent games release each year ON ALL PLATFORMS...everyone is so worried about being popular that the entire software side of the industry is being compressed into about 4 or so franchises...and no one is batting an eye...
You are right but according to steam less than 1% run high end pcs. It makes the whole argument childish. If the internet is to be believed everyone has a top of the line computer. Less than 1.6% of pc's can even run shadow of mordor on ultra settings.
Steam hardware surveys cover a very small amount of gamers. I haven't update mine since 2008. They also recently discovered that 60% of steam gamers game at 1080 OR HIGHER (multi-monitor users), about half of them at 1080p. That means there's an awful lot of gamers with rigs capable of pushing 1080p and beyond.
Lightofdarkness I'm just stating what is on the survey. They released an updated one last year. 100% of consoles are capable of 1080p not all pc's are. This whole we are better is stupid when the majority of pc's aren't even mid range. I didn't make the survey but facts are facts. This whole we are better than you holds no weight when the biggest distributer of pc games (steam) tells us you are 98.4% liars when you all claim to have top of the line specs. almost every pc gamer on the internet claims to have a 4k computer capable of 120fps. Then we read on digital foundary, a titan can't run Tomb raider at 4k at more than a constant 35 fps. This whole fairy tale of I'm running 4k and 120fps is bs. The numbers and facts don't support anything the pc community is claiming. Facts are facts. Stop bullying console onwers over their arguments.
I don't think you know what facts are. As Benjamin Disraeli once said: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." Using flimsy numbers to bolster a weak argument, if that was difficult to comprehend. And as Cyndi Lauper once said: "I see your true colours; shining through..." Such unnecessary animosity. If you can't discuss with civility, stay on the sidelines.
Lightof darkness Go read the review on digital foundary for what a titan the best gpu on the market does. It barely makes the grade for 4k at a decent framerate. It doesn't do 4k at 60 fps. Fact. don't act like lesser cards can do better. Steam who is the biiggest distributer of pc games aren't liars when they say only 1.6% of gamers play on a high end machine. You aren't talking to the new guy. Percentage wise most steam gamers are playing on pcs that range from mid to low end. I don't make these facts up. They are there for you google steam users specs. Don't act like you are all 4k when you aren't. Most of steam users aren't even playing at 1080p. But 100% of console users have systems that are capable of 1080p. You talk of civility. Lies are and half truths are what pc gamers have been spewing for years. Get off you high horse. You say in your comment above how much your computer costs, a titan costs that much. You embellish you cost of computer or what it's capable of. I have been reading for years on digital foundary benchmarks on gpu's and you aren't running 4k for less than $2000 rig. Prove me wrong.
Well now your ignorance is truly showing. You think the GTX Titan is best gaming GPU on the market? It was surpassed over a year ago in gaming performance by the GTX 780 ti, and that was then surpassed most recently by the GTX 980 and rivaled by the 970. Next time you want to pull "facts" out of some ungodly orifice you might want to make sure they're, you know, relevant. Your "facts" are from over 1.5 years ago and are no longer relevant. Welcome to PC gaming. We move rather quickly. My current build contains two GTX 970 GPUs in SLI configuration. They cost me about €600 and are absolutely capable of 4k gaming. The rest of the machine adds up to around €400-€450. Don't believe me? Here's some of those "facts" you seem to love so much: http://www.guru3d.com/artic... And I easily pump another 10%-20% more performance out of them too because I overclock them. I don't have a 4k monitor yet because frankly, I don't need one. I'm happy to game at 1080p and 1440p at very high refresh rates. I think it's plainly obvious that you are simply wrong on almost all counts and are just an embittered fanboy with nothing to do but spew jealous vitriol. I have nothing against consoles, I enjoy all gaming systems, why can't you do the same? Plus, PC gamers don't proclaim to have 4k monitors en masse. They simply state that they CAN play at 4k if they want to. Because that's what PC gaming is about: options. Maybe you can find a place along your little fact sheet about PC gaming for that golden nugget.
PC as a platform is only limited the top of the line graphics hardware while consoles are limited to whatever budget hardware is put in them. Almost no ones PC is the same unless you buy them already built while everyones console is the same.
you don't say...
The primary reason I hate the comparison is that PCs are always getting better. Whereas console hardware is locked in for the generation. It is OK to do the comparisons when the generation starts to see how high, mid, or low end they are compared to PCs at the time, but as the generation proceeds, consoles lose ground quickly.
Calling captain obvious!
We're all gamers and I see no reason to not discuss the advantages that each gaming platform has. Also I find hypocritical when people say that is ok to compare consoles when they all have different specs but it's not ok to compare them with the PC. Why is it fair to compare the X1 with the PS4 knowing that the PS4 has a better GPU than the X1 but it isn't fair to compare the PS4 ot the X1 with a PC that has a better GPU? It all screams of hypocrisy to me.
Because in 99.9% of the cases the PC being mentioned is unique to the owner and their personal experience and not representative of what most are playing or how they are playing. Should console players also go into detail to discuss their TVs and Sound Systems, etc... when comparing to other consoles? My personal experience isn't representative of the majority of console owners. I could brag about having 2 side by side 3d tvs which were over $6000 when new together, multiple consoles, and my Bose sound system and custom 7.1 setup on each tv, ability to use my tv remotes or smart phone to control each, my full hardwired home network soon to have 5ghz wi-fi, the ability to be connected to PSN using my content/account on a dozen devices simultaneously and that I will soon have my tv/games/music etc on 1 service. Should I keep changing my view everytime I get something new or upgrade something? But I would only be a speaking for me and maybe a handful of others in the world. Would seem kinda douchey to use my experience as a benchmark for all console players. 2 consoles competing directly with very similar capabilities and price makes sense. Everything else is trivial BS and e-peen waving. The justification of pushing personal or theoretical experiences on PC to a base Console is flawed beyond belief but I guess some just aren't content experiencing it alone,they must inform everyone else who never cared to begin with. Most PC fanboys act so intelligent but they don't provide anything more then the average fanboy. Flawed logic and narrow views. They only want to hear themselves and not the other side. Debate ends before it ever begins.
So we went from hardware specifications of each gaming platform to TVs and sound systems? Ok... "PC being mentioned is unique to the owner" Indeed and that's the beauty of PC gaming: options and freedom. That's definetely an advantage that PC gaming has over consoles and as a gamer I don't see why it shouldn't be discussed. Is it because it's an advantage that the PC has over consoles? Is that why it bothers some console gamers so much? "2 consoles competing directly with very similar capabilities and price makes sense. Everything else is trivial BS and e-peen waving" Why do you consider some gamers wanting the best: "e-peen waving" and why can't they discuss their experience? Also I find what you wrote amusing because the people that do the most "e-peen waving" (using your term) around here are console fanboys from a certain Sony brand because their console of choice having better specs than both the Wii U and the X1 allows them to do so... in a quite hypocritical fashion might I add. "The justification of pushing personal or theoretical experiences on PC to a base Console is flawed beyond belief" Why is it flawed? Because it's an advantage that PC gaming has over consoles? "everyone else who never cared to begin with." Of course not, people around here only care when its time to act like elitist douchebagas towards Xbox and Wii U fans right? "Most PC fanboys act so intelligent but they don't provide anything more then the average fanboy" I'm "acting intelligent" because I think that there isn't anything wrong about, we as GAMERS, discussing the advantages each GAMING platform has to offer? "they don't provide anything more then the average fanboy. Flawed logic and narrow view" Is that supposed to be irony?
Pcs arent all at the same level consoles are end of story
Always have said this. PCs have nearly unlimited hardware potential (but not everyone is going to take advantage of this), along with lots of video game sales, and, my personal favorite, mods. Both have their own exclusives. Consoles are more experience driven (although this can be emulated on PCs with Steam's Big Picture mode), the base cost is cheaper (although it can definitely be argued that you could save with a PC in the long run) and have locked down hardware, which in its still can provide some benefits.
I agree. Would be nice if it was all (console world) just more uniform. Like have a great efficient set-up similar to PS4 but have more options. Cut back some options and customization of PC to have standardized computing. But have the options of $400, $600, $800, $1000, ect... Almost like smartphones, constantly have upgrades and discounts as new ones release but have the option to go all out or keep with budget. Either way you would get a similar and easy to understand scaleable experience.
Did it with the launch of last gen. Last gen when consoles launched they were better than PC's..Not with this gen tho besides its not PC,s fault that Sony and Microsoft took the Nintendo route this gen.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.