PC vs console question

A place to rant and rave about all the current gaming titles!
stickytape
Legit Enthusiast
Legit Enthusiast
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:14 pm

PC vs console question

Postby stickytape » Fri Jun 01, 2012 6:51 pm

Would we have more advanced games and computer graphics, and with it more powerful hardware today if PC dominated the market?

Or, put another way – has the console-dominated gaming market held back graphics and gaming development?

DragonFury
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:51 am

Re: PC vs console question

Postby DragonFury » Fri Jun 01, 2012 7:36 pm

A little bit of both.
Mini ME
Is in a state of flux....

User avatar
KnightRid
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3641
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:21 am
Location: Dallastown, PA

Re: PC vs console question

Postby KnightRid » Sat Jun 02, 2012 7:15 am

My opinion is the cost has held back the pc industry.

Look at the cost of a PS3 or xbox360 compared with just putting a computer together to run games. Most games want to use the latest and greatest video cards to get the high resolutions, etc. I hated console gaming compared to pc gaming but the ridiculous cost of video cards has killed pc gaming for me.

Wonder what it would cost to build a pc to get the exact same graphics and gameplay as a xbox360 or ps3. I bet it would be more than just buying the console.

Lower pricing on video cards would boost the gaming industry for pc's. I will not pay $500+ for a video card! Heck I don't want to pay $200+ Paying more for a video card than a console and games is just crazy in my eyes. Especially if you upgrade that video card every year or two.

Now for your question, I dont think console's have held back the graphics development at all. Look at what the requirements are for a game like Max Payne 3 - CRAZY for the high end! Consoles have gathered so much steam because of what I said above, price. Tell Nvidia to take it's high end $600+ card and sell it for $100 and watch how many they sell and how quickly gaming would pick up on pc's.
Cigar Blog I review for - http://www.stogiereview.com

Remember, I am opinionated and nothing I say or do reflects on anyone or anything else but me :finga:

DragonFury
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:51 am

Re: PC vs console question

Postby DragonFury » Sat Jun 02, 2012 9:42 am

about 400 USD, it is not as expensive as most think, and the consoles do not use a true 1080i resolution. Consoles instead, use a 720p resolution and upscale it to 1080i. Because if you think about it, do you really think a 300 USD console can play at 1920 x 1080 when 200 USD video cards on a 600 USD CPU can barely handle it. Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo are not going to put 200 USD CPU's, 150 USD motherboards, 100 USD memory, 300 USD video cards, 150 USD power supplies, 100 USD SSDs into a 300 USD unit. they are going to use the lowest and cheapest components they can find. The Current consoles right now are over 7+ years out of date. And if the rumors are true about the 720 then it is not going to all that much better then a low end PC. Because the rumor is Microsoft is going to be using AMD's new Trinity APU. While these APUs can play games they are not all that powerful.

Now for your question, I dont think console's have held back the graphics development at all. Look at what the requirements are for a game like Max Payne 3 - CRAZY for the high end! Consoles have gathered so much steam because of what I said above, price. Tell Nvidia to take it's high end $600+ card and sell it for $100 and watch how many they sell and how quickly gaming would pick up on pc's.


actually again you are dead off, consoles currently using direct X 10 at best and even though they are using a low resolution they getting to a point (actually been there) where they can play a game with smoothness. The games are clearly too much for all consoles. Ie. Crysis 2, the folks who built that game had to "Dumb" down Crysis 2 in order for the console to even be able to handle that particular game. Even then it heated up the Console to the point of red rings Varified on 4 Xbox 360's older ones and the Slim (which is still using the same exact CPU/GPU just IBM combined them into one, under Intel's Guidance.). The Xbox 360 uses a tri core CPU 512 megs of memory and a GPU that is based off of AMD's R480.

Now by reducing the cost of PC components will help out loads, but then we start getting cheap parts thrown on those components. What made the console popular, was the fact that they are easy to set up, require no brain power to use, and are cheap, both in cost and build quality (As the Xbox 360 still retains at least 40% return rate, failure rate. Down from the 60% the first Xbox 360 had.) But as far as cost if a Person knows what they are doing, they can build a machine for around 400 USD and still be more powerful then any Console on the market today. The reason why we don't see many people jumping on this band wagon is because it is not exploited. People think gaming computer they think in the 1000 + USD range.
Mini ME
Is in a state of flux....

stickytape
Legit Enthusiast
Legit Enthusiast
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:14 pm

Re: PC vs console question

Postby stickytape » Sun Jun 03, 2012 2:26 am

Tell Nvidia to take it's high end $600+ card and sell it for $100 and watch how many they sell and how quickly gaming would pick up on pc's


I would argue that If consumers demanded quality in gaming, they would buy into computers, and this would accelerate development in card generations, depreciate yesterdays graphics cards more quickly, and of course produce greater competition for more advance gaming. It would even encourage companies to join the GPU market and break the monopoly between ATI and Nvidia, AMD and Intel. It would encourage alternative controller systems and other peripherals such as wider monitors to create a more immersive experience and on and on it goes.

We may already have had a ‘smell effect’ device readily available on the market; an old idea based on producing odors to reflect an environment: the smell of dungeons, cigarettes, perfumes, the lurking dead etc (insert health concerns and other controversies here).

Lower pricing on video cards would boost the gaming industry for pc's. I will not pay $500+ for a video card! Heck I don't want to pay $200+ Paying more for a video card than a console and games is just crazy in my eyes. Especially if you upgrade that video card every year or two.


I have to agree that computers are really expensive if you want to go the extra mile. The hottest Nvidia graphics card can cost twice that of an Xbox (then you fork out more to exploit 3D and Eyefinity functions). My problem is that the price gap doesn’t really reflect and an enormous difference between console and high end PC graphics (although, I do acknowledge the frame rate and resolution aspect), importantly, I don’t think most people care. If you look at screen shots comparing the two platforms, at first glance, there isn’t a vast difference. There’s “pushing the envelope”, but most people I speak with seem happy to sacrifice HD textures and special effects in order to play the game cheaply, with greater user friendliness, and on demand – as one suggested “most people aren’t paying attention when they’re in the heat of the action, anyway”.

The Current consoles right now are over 7+ years out of date. And if the rumors are true about the 720 then it is not going to all that much better then a low end PC

the folks who built that game had to "Dumb" down Crysis 2 in order for the console to even be able to handle that particular game


Right on - this is my biggest gripe. While gaming companies want to push the envelope in gaming, they also want to reach a wide audience and make profit. Console is obviously where the money is at, but console hardware will always be limited in capacity and behind. Am I right in say that if a developer wants to produce games tailored to both PC and console, they have to downsize, not simply the graphics and the special effects, but the very parameters of the game itself? I don’t know if this would have a knock-on effect on hardware development eg graphics cards, but it at least points out that if you play a game that is disappointingly short – console’s lack of capacity might be to blame.

And the issue of settling for second best creates further concern: the console to me has always been about ‘convenience’ gaming – creating demand for quantity over quality, not just from the consumer, but from Microsoft and Sony of the game developers. We see this typiclaly in FPS games. MW, BF, Crysis -They strive for higher quality graphics and more interactive game play, yet they’re shorter and more linear than ever due to hardware limitations. They become generic as they don’t offer any innovative direction in the environment or the storyline – especially when they’re geared towards multiplayer death matches; higher quality, but smaller maps and limited spontaneity and interaction.

Verdict: Consoles place a ball-and-chain on the progress of the gaming industry?

User avatar
KnightRid
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3641
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 5:21 am
Location: Dallastown, PA

Re: PC vs console question

Postby KnightRid » Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:48 am

DragonFury wrote:about 400 USD, it is not as expensive as most think, and the consoles do not use a true 1080i resolution. Consoles instead, use a 720p resolution and upscale it to 1080i. Because if you think about it, do you really think a 300 USD console can play at 1920 x 1080 when 200 USD video cards on a 600 USD CPU can barely handle it. Sony/Microsoft/Nintendo are not going to put 200 USD CPU's, 150 USD motherboards, 100 USD memory, 300 USD video cards, 150 USD power supplies, 100 USD SSDs into a 300 USD unit. they are going to use the lowest and cheapest components they can find. The Current consoles right now are over 7+ years out of date. And if the rumors are true about the 720 then it is not going to all that much better then a low end PC. Because the rumor is Microsoft is going to be using AMD's new Trinity APU. While these APUs can play games they are not all that powerful.


Wrong - Xbox360 and PS3 both do 1080p natively. Most games are not 1080p but if they have a native 1080 resolution, they are not upscaled and blu-ray on the PS3 will play natively at 1080p as long as you have a 1080p television and use a HDMI cable.

Of course 3D is not 1080p but then again 3d is a waste in my opinion anyway. 3D will play at 720P for each picture, so I guess 1440P natively. I really hope this 3D fad dies as quickly as it has in the past.

I am not saying pc's are not better at gaming because they are. They have better graphics, motion, etc. I am saying that nobody in their right mind should spend the kind of money they want for a high end video card just to play a game on a computer anymore. Quality is great but when it comes down to buying 1 component for a pc that costs more than an entire console setup, the console wins. This is why pc gaming has been falling rapidly and will continue to do so. There are not enough enthusiast users with the kind of money needed to stay on top of the pc market anymore.

I also do not remotely agree that you can build a $400 computer that will be as good or better than my PS3. PS3 is dedicated to basically gaming. Everything is configured that way, all the cores are setup for it and there is no excess stuff (except Home and crap like that). A PC will need an OS (for retail gaming it would have to be Windows), then a blu-ray player, blu-ray software, video card that can play at 1080p natively (some with 2XAA on-yes the PS3 does this), controllers, etc.

Also, enthusiasts will always pay the extra money for the high end computer parts to get the best experience available, but will Joe Schmo? No, no he/she wont.

So I say again, it is not that consoles are holding back the market, pricing is holding back the pc market.

Would be a neat test to have a computer built to run the newest games and sell it for the same cost as a console. Can't ever be done without losing millions of dollars but it would be interesting to see how consumers would react.
Cigar Blog I review for - http://www.stogiereview.com

Remember, I am opinionated and nothing I say or do reflects on anyone or anything else but me :finga:

stickytape
Legit Enthusiast
Legit Enthusiast
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:14 pm

Re: PC vs console question

Postby stickytape » Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:47 am

KnightRid wrote: I am saying that nobody in their right mind should spend the kind of money they want for a high end video card just to play a game on a computer anymore. Quality is great but when it comes down to buying 1 component for a pc that costs more than an entire console setup, the console wins


Personally, the clinch in PC gaming for me lies in the controller and peripheral options available. Specifically, that of mouse and joystick. Any one who sides with console controllers have obviously only ever used them.

KnightRid wrote:I also do not remotely agree that you can build a $400 computer that will be as good or better than my PS3


Agreed. Sony has been very generous selling at a loss. But if you can't spend a few extra hundred dollars on a PC gaming system, spend it on a more powerful PC home entertainment system (which happens to be a more powerful gaming system) complete with software that will even outwit the region on a bluray burner... we all know the deal. why is there not a PC authority to market this to everyone else? PC needs a marketing campaign.

DragonFury
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:51 am

Re: PC vs console question

Postby DragonFury » Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:38 am

it is not native, or a true resolution believe me.

ok here is the answer to your PC cannot be built for gaming less then the cost of an console.

Chassis
HDD
Motherboard
PSU
Memory
CPU

all you need to add is a keyboard mouse and a blu/dvd player. all of that is roughly 400 USD and will walk all over a console.

If you gents think that a 300 USD console plays a 1080 resolution native then you guys are smoking something that you shouldn't be. If we were able to benchmark a console then people would truly see how pathetic the console is.

This is based on the fact that you already have a HDTV in your house as you do not need to buy a monitor specifically for the computer.
Mini ME
Is in a state of flux....

g0dslay3r
Legit Little One
Legit Little One
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 12:55 pm

Re: PC vs console question

Postby g0dslay3r » Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:14 pm

seems like it might work

anyone tried out that setup to see how it does on mmo's and fps?

DragonFury
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 605
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:51 am

Re: PC vs console question

Postby DragonFury » Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:23 pm

I built on similar a while ago for a friend, and granted it wont play games at maxed settings and insane resolutions. He still enjoys the hell out of his computer. And it will give him the ability of adding a video card when the time is needed.
Mini ME
Is in a state of flux....

User avatar
DJ Tucker
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 1058
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 11:52 am
Location: I Live In A 2 Bed Tardis
Contact:

Re: PC vs console question

Postby DJ Tucker » Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:39 am

sorry to bring up an old post but i totally agree with what you are all saying. you can easily build a gaming rig for the same price and performance of an xbox/ps3. the trouble is people don't like cheaters and also don't like having to worry about viruses causing you gaming pc to crash and burn. with a console you very rarely if at all get cheaters or viruses, so that appeals to most lazy gamers. plus with consloe gaming the updates are automatic which saves people time. pc gaming really comes down to price for components and people being to lazy to work out a gaming pc and keep it in check :( personally i love pc gaming and it will never die for me but i have an xbox on the side just in case :lol:
Annihilator V3.0
Processor: Intel Core i7 2600k @ 4.6Ghz @ 1.3v With LEPA Exllusion 240 Mod
Memory: 16Gb Corsair Vengeance Pro 1866Mhz 10-10-10-24-1T
Hard Drive: SanDisk X110 128Gb OS Sandisk X210 512Gb Gaming
Video Card: Inno3d GTX 1070 Accelero Hybrid S 2075/9000 @ 1.094v
Monitor: AOC G2460VQ6
Operating System: Windows 10 64 bit Pro
Motherboard: ASRock Extreme 6 Z77
Case: Lian Li DK-Q2X with Corsair HX1000i PSU

User avatar
hark
Legit Extremist
Legit Extremist
Posts: 362
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:02 am

Re: PC vs console question

Postby hark » Thu Apr 04, 2013 4:47 pm

Unfortunately as games get more and more expensive to develop, it's harder for developers to justify developing games for the enthusiast crowd. I'm hoping simplified rendering techniques like raytracing will cut down severely on artist requirements and thus allow cheaper visually stunning games that push hardware, therefore giving developers a reason to support enthusiast hardware. Plus, techniques like raytracing or path tracing allow easy scaling, so weaker hardware can play too.


Return to “All About The Games”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest