The list includes:
4. Atari 2600, 1977
The gaming industry today is worth $30bn (£15bn) and new titles are released to more fanfare (and fervour among legions of gaming nuts) than the biggest Hollywood blockbusters (see Big Game Hunters, p37). Not so in the 1970s, when consoles were hard-wired to play one or two crude games such as Pong. Atari changed that with the 2600, the first console to take an unlimited number of games cartridges. The 1978 release of Space Invaders sent sluggish early sales skywards, heralding the age of the Wii, the PS3 and the Xbox 360.
56. Nintendo Gameboy, 1989
On its release in the late 1980s, the Gameboy was surely the most coveted piece of kit in the playground, but dig one out of the attic today and its two-tone grey face and titchy screen give few clues to its extraordinary success. Many companies would try to better it but none could come close to toppling the Gameboy, and its stable of killer games, including Tetris and Super Mario Land, as the best-selling gaming system of all time (worldwide sales reached well over 100m).
Save a bucket load on this massive curved gaming monitor- with the potential of even more savings in LG's Gaming Week
KnowTechie writes: "The GameScent is a unique way to add immersion to your games. Thanks to its HDMI and 3.5mm jack, the device is versatile, so you can use it across your consoles and PC. However, it would be great to see a new range of scents since there are only six, and many smell similar to each other."
At a time where GPUs are more available than ever, it appears as though PC gamers aren't upgrading as often as they used to.
For me, the primary concern with new software is how it's often exclusive to a new series. This not only frustrates me but also raises questions about the lifespan of the hardware. With GPUs no longer offering significant performance boosts, they rely heavily on software enhancements.
However, this reliance is contingent on developer support. When the new 5000 series hits shelves, it's likely that the 4000 series won't be compatible with Nvidia's new software. This would negate any advantage it had over the 3000 series, leaving one to wonder why they upgraded in the first place. And the same will keep happening as we move through the generations.
AMD is a bit better in that regard as they often use open standards, which offer wider compatibility. However, they have even less developer support, and their software solutions tend to lag behind Nvidia by at least one whole generation. So if you have a 3000 series from Nvidia right now, it doesn't really make that much sense to upgrade to the 7000 series from AMD because feature-wise they are pretty similar level.
The huge thing you are missing is display.
If you have a 1440p/1080p monitor there is 0 reason to leave the 3,000/amd 6,000 series those cards are cheap with many years of driver support left and can push those resolutions for you 0 issues well unless you go below the 60 series range or amd's 6400
Right now computer games are having issues because of garbage drm and or just a garbage port that even is trash on consoles like dragon dogmas 30fps BS all versions.
There is 0 reason to get a 5k/amd 7k series card unless you are doing serious rendering and or 4k gaming or you want more vram as yes games are taking up more thanks to higher native textures.
It would be a huge help if these "gaming" consoles used real hardware not some apu/igpu garbage even a 3 year old gaming laptop has better guts. A real cpu/gpu/ram/mb/psu/storage on a console would help so much on game porting/optimization for the devs.
I don't think that is a huge thing. Hell, I would even argue that is completely not important.
Pc Gamers in general do not care about resolution that much and therefore I don't see 4K gaming becoming a thing on Pc any time soon. It's just not worth it. Even more when right now there are many better ways to improve the visual quality of your experience before going for the resolution.
From QLED, OLED, miniLED-based solutions, Fast IPS, IPS Black, better VA panels, all of them play a much larger role than resolution in improving game visual quality. Not to mention you don't need to sacrifice refresh rate if you stay in the Full/Quad HD bracket. And refresh rate is a thing that PC gamers care about.
And let's be honest, developers are not focusing on native solutions anymore. So why bother going for higher resolution if the game is going to fake it either way? It's a waste of resources that clearly most PC gamers aren't willing to do.
oh my god, these "Here's why" articles are always about the most obvious shit ever, like do people actually read these?
because they last for generations. You don't need to upgrade every 1, 2 or even 3 years. I went from a 1080ti which served me so well to a 3080 with years in between. I won't even consider upgrading until the 5000 series at the earliest, but will most likely wait for the 6000 series.
But you do not need too on a pc if you're non 4k gamer 3 year old hardware will work for you.
I especially like the way 'Fire' only came in at number 31!
Playstation Three is shaping up to be the number one industry changing gadget for this century and the next. With it's vast and numerous features there is no argument that Sony has built a fine machine that shows it's superiority over any and all competition to date.
$niper