Id follows Crytek, Lucas Arts

[MTDEW]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Where do you think the pirates will go anyways if there aren't any games for the PC anymore? The consoles. Besides, North America has one of the lowest pirating rate of all continents. Developing countries have been pirating for years. Have you ever seen counterfeit Nintendo's? They even sell pirated copies of console games in stores.

I kinda have to agree with it.
Also, anyone who pays attention will tell you if a game is released on pc and console simutaniousley the console versions "leak" first most of the time with pc versions usually trailing by several weeks due to needing to be "cracked".
And those first few weeks a game is available from what ive read are when most sales occur.

Anyway, im not gonna say i blame developers for going with what makes them the most profit.
I mean thats what business is and we'd all do the same if it was us trying to make a living developing/selling games.

It doesnt make it suck any less for us who prefer pc gaming though.

It sucks, but thats the way it is, theve gotta sell games to make a profit and the most profit is currently on the consoles.

 

[shiranai]

Downloading a torrent is more difficult than flashing your X360 drive? I don't find that argument credible. And that's just one console; most other consoles require hardware mods that most people are either unaware of or unwilling to perform. You're further ignoring the real risks of: future updates that brick/disable modded hardware, banning of modded hardware from online services, and loss of warranty.

I fail to see the relevance of the remainder of your post.

 

[MTDEW]

Originally posted by: shiranai
Downloading a torrent is more difficult than flashing your X360 drive? I don't find that argument credible. And that's just one console; most other consoles require hardware mods that most people are either unaware of or unwilling to perform. You're further ignoring the real risks of: future updates that brick/disable modded hardware, banning of modded hardware from online services, and loss of warranty.

I fail to see the relevance of the remainder of your post.

From what ive seen, most who arent comfortable flashing a firmware just buy a console already flashed, then buy a second unmodded one for online gaming so they dont need to constantly have it reflashed.

Anyway, i still think is basically comes down to where the most profit is.
Pc games are pirated.
Console games are pirated.
But consoles sell more copies due to a larger base of gamers who "just wanna play games" and dont care to waste time learning to mod or burn games, so they just buy them.

Consoles = more profits
Now which would you choose?
1: make less $$$ making pc games
2: make more $$$ making console games

I Dont blame the developers at all for trying to make $$$

And it does benefit ALL gamers because it keeps the companies profitable and funds future games being developed.

 

[ivan2]

I doubt privacy is their first concern to move away from PC, the bigger driving force it seems to be Microsoft's shifting it's focus on gaming to the 360 instead of on PC. Economically speaking, the 360 only cost as much as a mid-range video card, and graphically it rivals a PC that cost at least 3 times more, it's a no-brainer.

also, their latest approachs seems to have singleplayer/storyline in mind (Doom 3, Carmack's POC cell phone RPG, Quake 4 to some degree), with Valve taking the cake for Multiplayer FPS right now, it is logical to chose a platform with more audience to the kind of games they want to develop.

It is obvious that they have the ambition for the Test 5 engine to become the ONE engine so they can sell it to any kind of game developer. They are putting FPS, race, RPG all together in Rage, looks like a tall order, but I am anxious to see how they can pull this one out.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: shiranai
Downloading a torrent is more difficult than flashing your X360 drive? I don't find that argument credible. And that's just one console; most other consoles require hardware mods that most people are either unaware of or unwilling to perform. You're further ignoring the real risks of: future updates that brick/disable modded hardware, banning of modded hardware from online services, and loss of warranty.

I fail to see the relevance of the remainder of your post.

Like pirates are gonna care. They already know the risks to begin with. Plus if their system gets disabled they'll bypass that as well. Most people don't play cracked games online on the PC anyways so they probably won't play online either.The PS3 has the advantage of Blu-Ray which def. slows piracy but once Blu-Ray media drops in price I'm sure it will receive its attention.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: ivan2
Economically speaking, the 360 only cost as much as a mid-range video card, and graphically it rivals a PC that cost at least 3 times more, it's a no-brainer.

Yeah, right. Have you seen a PC's graphics? They demolish anything consoles can put out. You forgot to add the cost of an HDTV. And no, not everyone has one, I don't.

 

[Red Storm]

Originally posted by: ivan2
. Economically speaking, the 360 only cost as much as a mid-range video card, and graphically it rivals a PC that cost at least 3 times more, it's a no-brainer.

I'm sorry but that's utter bullshit.

Most people already have a PC in their house. The difference between a gaming PC and a regular PC is the video card. You can get a very high performing card for under $150. So the real cost of a gaming PC is actually less than a console because people that have PCs already have the other necessary components. Also, factoring in the lower price of PC games compared to their console counterparts and it's a no-brainer that PC gaming, not console gaming, is the cheaper route.

The whole stereotype of needing a $3,000 computer to play games on high settings is ridiculous and needs to stop.

 

[MTDEW]

Originally posted by: Red Storm

Originally posted by: ivan2
. Economically speaking, the 360 only cost as much as a mid-range video card, and graphically it rivals a PC that cost at least 3 times more, it's a no-brainer.

I'm sorry but that's utter bullshit.

Most people already have a PC in their house. The difference between a gaming PC and a regular PC is the video card. You can get a very high performing card for under $150. So the real cost of a gaming PC is actually less than a console because people that have PCs already have the other necessary components. Also, factoring in the lower price of PC games compared to their console counterparts and it's a no-brainer that PC gaming, not console gaming, is the cheaper route.

The whole stereotype of needing a $3,000 computer to play games on high settings is ridiculous and needs to stop.

Yeah, but whats starting to suck is we're buying awesome video cards to play console ports, so all we really get is a higher resolution now.
And with console games now supporting 1080p even thats not as big a deal as it used to be.

Its a shame really, paying for a high end video card just to play mostly console ports.

Anyway as they say "It is what it is" so i try not to think about it too much and just concentrate on if the game is good or not instead of whether its "just a console port".

Plus i get to use my KB/mouse for FPS on the pc.

I doubt privacy is their first concern to move away from PC, the bigger driving force it seems to be Microsoft's shifting it's focus on gaming to the 360 instead of on PC

If thats true then someone needs to tell them to at least release their own branded xbox 360 KB/mouse.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: MTDEW

Originally posted by: Red Storm

Originally posted by: ivan2
. Economically speaking, the 360 only cost as much as a mid-range video card, and graphically it rivals a PC that cost at least 3 times more, it's a no-brainer.

I'm sorry but that's utter bullshit.

Most people already have a PC in their house. The difference between a gaming PC and a regular PC is the video card. You can get a very high performing card for under $150. So the real cost of a gaming PC is actually less than a console because people that have PCs already have the other necessary components. Also, factoring in the lower price of PC games compared to their console counterparts and it's a no-brainer that PC gaming, not console gaming, is the cheaper route.

The whole stereotype of needing a $3,000 computer to play games on high settings is ridiculous and needs to stop.

Yeah, but whats starting to suck is we're buying awesome video cards to play console ports, so all we really get is a higher resolution now.
And with console games now supporting 1080p even thats not as big a deal as it used to be.

Its a shame really, paying for a high end video card just to play mostly console ports.

Anyway as they say "It is what it is" so i try not to think about it too much and just concentrate on if the game is good or not instead of whether its "just a console port".

Plus i get to use my KB/mouse for FPS on the pc.

I doubt privacy is their first concern to move away from PC, the bigger driving force it seems to be Microsoft's shifting it's focus on gaming to the 360 instead of on PC

If thats true then someone needs to tell them to at least release their own branded xbox 360 KB/mouse.

This whole consioles do 1080p also needs to stop. Consoles UPSACLE to 1080p, as in they fit to the amount of pixels on your TV. Computers render at 1080p so the game is running at 1080p. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

 

[ivan2]

Originally posted by: Red Storm

Originally posted by: ivan2
. Economically speaking, the 360 only cost as much as a mid-range video card, and graphically it rivals a PC that cost at least 3 times more, it's a no-brainer.

I'm sorry but that's utter bullshit.

Most people already have a PC in their house. The difference between a gaming PC and a regular PC is the video card. You can get a very high performing card for under $150. So the real cost of a gaming PC is actually less than a console because people that have PCs already have the other necessary components. Also, factoring in the lower price of PC games compared to their console counterparts and it's a no-brainer that PC gaming, not console gaming, is the cheaper route.

The whole stereotype of needing a $3,000 computer to play games on high settings is ridiculous and needs to stop.

I am sorry but the bold part is a strawman. and the rest are corner cases.

my argument was based on the $150 360 model that pops up weekly in deals vs the cheapest dell that you can find, + a decent midrange video card.

also, most people have a PC, but how many are comfortable to open it up and install the right video card? Many who I know are still running PCIs btw.

furthermore, if you ever venture to Bestbuy, the laptop section is at least twice as big as the desktop. There's 1 aisle for desktop but there are several aisles plus a center den thing in my local store.

Yeah, right. Have you seen a PC's graphics? They demolish anything consoles can put out. You forgot to add the cost of an HDTV. And no, not everyone has one, I don't.

your assumptions against mine. you chose to invest in computers instead of TV, many will have the incentive to get new high def come digital switch. It is not economical for you, but not necessary not economical for the others. Adding the extra cost for installation of video cards on PC and the knowledge needs to run the games, it adds up.

There is another factor that console has the edge on PC, and that used games are widely available, and you don't have to worry about getting some screw up keys that you can't play online. The last time I bought a used PC game was Half-life, and that's only because it was so cheap(8 bucks then).

I too had my doubts, I had the 360 since 07. But wasn't into console until last year when the used games start to show up for less than 10 bucks, it turns out that the games has been matured, the content is rich, the controller feedback is wonderful. Though I still play TF2 and L4D on PC, it really is a viable alternative.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: ivan2

Originally posted by: Red Storm

Originally posted by: ivan2
. Economically speaking, the 360 only cost as much as a mid-range video card, and graphically it rivals a PC that cost at least 3 times more, it's a no-brainer.

I'm sorry but that's utter bullshit.

Most people already have a PC in their house. The difference between a gaming PC and a regular PC is the video card. You can get a very high performing card for under $150. So the real cost of a gaming PC is actually less than a console because people that have PCs already have the other necessary components. Also, factoring in the lower price of PC games compared to their console counterparts and it's a no-brainer that PC gaming, not console gaming, is the cheaper route.

The whole stereotype of needing a $3,000 computer to play games on high settings is ridiculous and needs to stop.

I am sorry but the bold part is a strawman. and the rest are corner cases.

my argument was based on the $150 360 model that pops up weekly in deals vs the cheapest dell that you can find, + a decent midrange video card.

also, most people have a PC, but how many are comfortable to open it up and install the right video card? Many who I know are still running PCIs btw.

furthermore, if you ever venture to Bestbuy, the laptop section is at least twice as big as the desktop. There's 1 aisle for desktop but there are several aisles plus a center den thing in my local store.

Yeah, right. Have you seen a PC's graphics? They demolish anything consoles can put out. You forgot to add the cost of an HDTV. And no, not everyone has one, I don't.

your assumptions against mine. you chose to invest in computers instead of TV, many will have the incentive to get new high def come digital switch. It is not economical for you, but not necessary not economical for the others. Adding the extra cost for installation of video cards on PC and the knowledge needs to run the games, it adds up.

There is another factor that console has the edge on PC, and that used games are widely available, and you don't have to worry about getting some screw up keys that you can't play online. The last time I bought a used PC game was Half-life, and that's only because it was so cheap(8 bucks then).

I too had my doubts, I had the 360 since 07. But wasn't into console until last year when the used games start to show up for less than 10 bucks, it turns out that the games has been matured, the content is rich, the controller feedback is wonderful. Though I still play TF2 and L4D on PC, it really is a viable alternative.

If you want to stay on a proprietary xbox that gives you no choice and charges you for everything then go right ahead. This thread is for PC GAMERS. Go ahead and pay to get demos sooner, pay for online play every year, pay for map packs, pay $60 for games that are years old. It's YOUR choice.

 

[Red Storm]

Originally posted by: ivan2
I am sorry but the bold part is a strawman. and the rest are corner cases.

my argument was based on the $150 360 model that pops up weekly in deals vs the cheapest dell that you can find, + a decent midrange video card.

also, most people have a PC, but how many are comfortable to open it up and install the right video card? Many who I know are still running PCIs btw.

furthermore, if you ever venture to Bestbuy, the laptop section is at least twice as big as the desktop. There's 1 aisle for desktop but there are several aisles plus a center den thing in my local store.

If you're going to add in the cost of a complete computer, then you have to be fair and add in the cost of an HDTV since you're talking about going from absolutely nothing to wanting a complete gaming system.

Also, you're telling us that console gaming is cheaper, and then to prove that point you say many PCs are running PCI only? Please take those arguments to people who don't know the difference between a PC and a riding mower. This is a tech site, we all know how to open a computer and install a video card. Stop trying to factor stupidity into the cost of a gaming PC, especially here.

The PC I'm typing this on is a perfect example. I already had it up and running for work and school, and then at some point I decided I wanted to play games on it. So I went and got a 4870 for around $150. Now my PC is a gaming PC. I can get games that cost less up front (you can get PC games for cheap too, you just wait a bit until after they've been released), plus there's free online multiplayer. Not to mention additional things you can get with PC games (developer tools, mods, etc).

The day consoles completely replace PCs as the best gaming systems is the day that consoles become PCs.

 

[ivan2]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

If you want to stay on a proprietary xbox that gives you no choice and charges you for everything then go right ahead. This thread is for PC GAMERS. Go ahead and pay to get demos sooner, pay for online play every year, pay for map packs, pay $60 for games that are years old. It's YOUR choice.

what is that suppose to mean, PC gamers who acknowledge the viability of an alternative platform is not welcome in your thread?

you have the same choice on a console as you have on PC, which basically is pay for those who deserves your money.

most of the games i play are used games that's at most 20 bucks a pop(except SF4), and I don't know what games are $60 bucks years old. not getting demo early, or not having certain map packs doesn't burn my e-peen, so I simply not get them.

Also PC games have no re-sell value, that is a cost that you don't recognize.

 

[ivan2]

Originally posted by: Red Storm


If you're going to add in the cost of a complete computer, then you have to be fair and add in the cost of an HDTV since you're talking about going from absolutely nothing to wanting a complete gaming system.

Also, you're telling us that console gaming is cheaper, and then to prove that point you say most PCs are running PCI only? Please take those arguments to people who don't know the difference between a PC and a riding mower. This is a tech site, we all know how to open a computer and install a video card. Stop trying to factor stupidity into the cost of a gaming PC, especially here.

The PC I'm typing this on is a perfect example. I already had it up and running for work and school, and then at some point I decided I wanted to play games on it. So I went and got a 4870 for around $150. Now my PC is a gaming PC. I can get games that cost less up front (you can get PC games for cheap too, you just wait a bit until after they've been released), plus there's free online multiplayer. Not to mention additional things you can get with PC games (developer tools, mods, etc).

The day consoles completely replace PCs as the best gaming systems is the day that consoles become PCs.

again, you are putting words in my mouth, and going after corner cases. what I was trying is to go for is the realistic cost for average people IMO. since you mentioned that everyone has a PC, i added that many aren't PC enthusiastic. if I have to go into corner cases, I am going to argue that you don't need a HDTV to get the full benefit of a powerful console, because resolution isn't everything. To me, it is as enjoyable to play TF2 in 1280x768 when it came out as it is now in 1600x1050.

also, many people don't get to control what work PC they have, and their home PC is actually a luxury.

by the way, I am not trying to justify the console for you (Red Storm), don't be self important. All my focus was that, for Id soft, these are the valid reasons.

 

[Red Storm]

Originally posted by: ivan2

Originally posted by: Red Storm


If you're going to add in the cost of a complete computer, then you have to be fair and add in the cost of an HDTV since you're talking about going from absolutely nothing to wanting a complete gaming system.

Also, you're telling us that console gaming is cheaper, and then to prove that point you say most PCs are running PCI only? Please take those arguments to people who don't know the difference between a PC and a riding mower. This is a tech site, we all know how to open a computer and install a video card. Stop trying to factor stupidity into the cost of a gaming PC, especially here.

The PC I'm typing this on is a perfect example. I already had it up and running for work and school, and then at some point I decided I wanted to play games on it. So I went and got a 4870 for around $150. Now my PC is a gaming PC. I can get games that cost less up front (you can get PC games for cheap too, you just wait a bit until after they've been released), plus there's free online multiplayer. Not to mention additional things you can get with PC games (developer tools, mods, etc).

The day consoles completely replace PCs as the best gaming systems is the day that consoles become PCs.

again, you are putting words in my mouth, and going after corner cases. what I was trying is to go for is the realistic cost for average people IMO. since you mentioned that everyone has a PC, i added that many aren't PC enthusiastic. if I have to go into corner cases, I am going to argue that you don't need a HDTV to get the full benefit of a powerful console, because resolution isn't everything. To me, it is as enjoyable to play TF2 in 1280x768 when it came out as it is now in 1600x1050.

also, many people don't get to control what work PC they have, and their home PC is actually a luxury.

by the way, I am not trying to justify the console for you (Red Storm), don't be self important. All my focus was that, for Id soft, these are the valid reasons.

Referring to the original topic, yes we are in agreement that Id is developing for consoles because it is easier to make money that way. That's an easy call.

However, in regards to comparing the cost of PC gaming compared to console gaming, I stand by my argument that PC gaming is cheaper, especially in the long run when you look at the lower cost of games. PCs bought within the past several years (going back to the 360's release) can easily be made into gaming computers, what they need is a capable video card which can be had for less than $150.

My whole point here is that PC gaming is no where near as costly as people say/believe it is (you said 3x more expensive for example), and the stereotype of needing a multi-thousand dollar computer just to play games really irks me.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: Red Storm

Originally posted by: ivan2

Originally posted by: Red Storm


If you're going to add in the cost of a complete computer, then you have to be fair and add in the cost of an HDTV since you're talking about going from absolutely nothing to wanting a complete gaming system.

Also, you're telling us that console gaming is cheaper, and then to prove that point you say most PCs are running PCI only? Please take those arguments to people who don't know the difference between a PC and a riding mower. This is a tech site, we all know how to open a computer and install a video card. Stop trying to factor stupidity into the cost of a gaming PC, especially here.

The PC I'm typing this on is a perfect example. I already had it up and running for work and school, and then at some point I decided I wanted to play games on it. So I went and got a 4870 for around $150. Now my PC is a gaming PC. I can get games that cost less up front (you can get PC games for cheap too, you just wait a bit until after they've been released), plus there's free online multiplayer. Not to mention additional things you can get with PC games (developer tools, mods, etc).

The day consoles completely replace PCs as the best gaming systems is the day that consoles become PCs.

again, you are putting words in my mouth, and going after corner cases. what I was trying is to go for is the realistic cost for average people IMO. since you mentioned that everyone has a PC, i added that many aren't PC enthusiastic. if I have to go into corner cases, I am going to argue that you don't need a HDTV to get the full benefit of a powerful console, because resolution isn't everything. To me, it is as enjoyable to play TF2 in 1280x768 when it came out as it is now in 1600x1050.

also, many people don't get to control what work PC they have, and their home PC is actually a luxury.

by the way, I am not trying to justify the console for you (Red Storm), don't be self important. All my focus was that, for Id soft, these are the valid reasons.

Referring to the original topic, yes we are in agreement that Id is developing for consoles because it is easier to make money that way. That's an easy call.

However, in regards to comparing the cost of PC gaming compared to console gaming, I stand by my argument that PC gaming is cheaper, especially in the long run when you look at the lower cost of games. PCs bought within the past several years (going back to the 360's release) can easily be made into gaming computers, what they need is a capable video card which can be had for less than $150.

My whole point here is that PC gaming is no where near as costly as people say/believe it is (you said 3x more expensive for example), and the stereotype of needing a multi-thousand dollar computer just to play games really irks me.

Agreed

 

[AnthroAndStargate]

I wont lie.. if multiplatform means developing for Mac OS X too then I am REALLY excited. As a hardcore gamer who became a Mac convert this year that would be great news for me. But as a hardcore PC gamer who loathes consoles if this means that we will get shoddy ports then that sucks.

 

[BenSkywalker]

This whole consioles do 1080p also needs to stop. Consoles UPSACLE to 1080p, as in they fit to the amount of pixels on your TV. Computers render at 1080p so the game is running at 1080p. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Better to leave your mouth closed and be thought a fool...

Depends on the game, developers can choose to run at several different resolutions, RR7 off the top of my head runs at a native 1080p, most console games that run at 720p do not scale the resolution, they just run at 720p. There are a few exceptions that scale resolution(WOHD, KZ2) but they are the exception. Rarely do console games scale resolution- little need to, HDTVs don't tend to suck horribly running non native resolutions as PC monitors do.

PCs bought within the past several years (going back to the 360's release) can easily be made into gaming computers, what they need is a capable video card which can be had for less than $150.

Could you please point me to any card released at any point in time that would run a game that comes out five years after you bought it for $150 that will run any new game flawlessly? That is precisely what you need to be comparable on that end.

What it is going to come down to for developers- when they view potential lost sales due to a title being available on the PC as a negative versus just releasing it on the consoles exclusively(when PC sales<potential lost sales to consoles from PC piracy). Speaking for myself, I'd still rather have my shooters and RTSs on the PC thanks, so I really don't want to see this happening. Sadly, if piracy doesn't stop its' current trend it is somewhat of an eventuallity simply looking at it from a business perspective. Honestly one of the best ways developers could stop this is push up the amount of raw space a game takes, get them averaging over 50GBs- bandwidth isn't going up all that quickly and BRD is readily available.

 

[BladeVenom]

Don't blame Id.

The other thing is, is that retailers are more focused on consoles than they are on the PC platform, primarily, I think, because Microsoft is campaigning for the 360,

Microsoft is the root cause of all this. Blame them for all the games going console.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker


Could you please point me to any card released at any point in time that would run a game that comes out five years after you bought it for $150 that will run any new game flawlessly? That is precisely what you need to be comparable on that end.

Not really sure I'm understanding what you're saying, so sorry in advance if I'm missing something... But the reason a video card bought now for $150 might not run games that are released five years from now is because the PC is constantly evolving as a platform. Five years from now, PS3/XB360 won't be close to what the PC is (raw processing power, they're already behind). If you wanted to, you could continue playing games at around the technical quality of console games of a given generation - i.e. lower detail levels for newer releases, or just play older releases (which isn't so bad, these Steam $5 sales have been awesome, I've gone back and hit a lot of games I had been looking at when they were released). With the console, you're stuck at that level; with the PC, you have the option to advance beyond it (although at that point it ceases to be less expensive depending on exactly what you buy).

 

[BenSkywalker]

But the reason a video card bought now for $150 might not run games that are released five years from now is because the PC is constantly evolving as a platform.

My comment was directed at the very dishonest notion that PCs are somehow cost competitive with consoles. That is, at best, a flat out lie. It could be for many different reasons, but the one thing it isn't is honest.

Five years from now, PS3/XB360 won't be close to what the PC is (raw processing power, they're already behind).

GPU and RAM wise by a hefty margin. Processor wise, well, PCs are quaint.

If you wanted to, you could continue playing games at around the technical quality of console games of a given generation - i.e. lower detail levels for newer releases, or just play older releases (which isn't so bad, these Steam $5 sales have been awesome, I've gone back and hit a lot of games I had been looking at when they were released).

The selection of PC games is weak enough as it is, forcing people to go back and try and find something worth while that they missed the first time is asking quite a bit. True, a great deal of new PC games are worth $5, but PC gaming doesn't exist in a vacum outside some platform bigots.

With the console, you're stuck at that level; with the PC, you have the option to advance beyond it (although at that point it ceases to be less expensive depending on exactly what you buy).

Alright, let's try this then- show me cheaper PC hardware that was available launch day for the PS3 that can run any game close to the detail levels in KZ2 or GT5. You are also quite wrong on games not looking better as the console ages, just too used to lousy PC coding(by necessity- 1000s of configurations absolutely demand sloppy horribly optimized code). Entirely different approach between the two platforms- console game advancement comes from game makers writing better code- PC side comes from, well, hard to say. Crysis still smacks any other game around and that came out in '07

PCs have a lot of strengths going for them, cost and selection are very far removed from those though

 

[WraithETC]

There hasn't been a PC only game in a while that I couldn't play on a console.

Even obscure Adventure games like Dreamfall and Syberia were on Xbox.

There was the Witcher, some MMORPGs and true Battlefield games over the past 2-3 years.

All of the games I play on PC as of now are available on console and have been since launch.

I don't buy a new console for one game and I surely don't for a PC/upgrades. However since consoles are cheaper it doesn't take as much incentive for me to get one.

BTW factoring in an HDTV is bullshit when comparing PCs and consoles. If you buy a PC you need a monitor; when you buy a console you could also buy the same monitor so adding a constant cost to either doesn't do anything for the difference between them. I can also buy an HDTV for both my PC and console.

There is no difference between HDTV/Monitor and both consoles/PCs need them.

 

[thilanliyan]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Alright, let's try this then- show me cheaper PC hardware that was available launch day for the PS3 that can run any game close to the detail levels in KZ2 or GT5.

I'm not sure if it's the same with the full version but the KZ2 demo did NOT look great. Low res textures just kill it for me and correct me if I'm wrong but the game itself runs at a fairly low resolution and is just upscaled like some other PS3 games. I think you've mentioned Crysis before when it came to graphical quality and that is WAY better than KZ2.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

This whole consioles do 1080p also needs to stop. Consoles UPSACLE to 1080p, as in they fit to the amount of pixels on your TV. Computers render at 1080p so the game is running at 1080p. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Better to leave your mouth closed and be thought a fool...

Depends on the game, developers can choose to run at several different resolutions, RR7 off the top of my head runs at a native 1080p, most console games that run at 720p do not scale the resolution, they just run at 720p. There are a few exceptions that scale resolution(WOHD, KZ2) but they are the exception. Rarely do console games scale resolution- little need to, HDTVs don't tend to suck horribly running non native resolutions as PC monitors do.

PCs bought within the past several years (going back to the 360's release) can easily be made into gaming computers, what they need is a capable video card which can be had for less than $150.

Could you please point me to any card released at any point in time that would run a game that comes out five years after you bought it for $150 that will run any new game flawlessly? That is precisely what you need to be comparable on that end.

What it is going to come down to for developers- when they view potential lost sales due to a title being available on the PC as a negative versus just releasing it on the consoles exclusively(when PC sales<potential lost sales to consoles from PC piracy). Speaking for myself, I'd still rather have my shooters and RTSs on the PC thanks, so I really don't want to see this happening. Sadly, if piracy doesn't stop its' current trend it is somewhat of an eventuallity simply looking at it from a business perspective. Honestly one of the best ways developers could stop this is push up the amount of raw space a game takes, get them averaging over 50GBs- bandwidth isn't going up all that quickly and BRD is readily available.

First of all, there is no need for comments like that. No one here is 100% correct so telling them to keep their mouth shut is rediculous. BTW, no one is talking either so that comment doesn't even make sense. You must be misinformed because the consoles not the games upscale to the resolution you set them to. I'm also not sure where you got HDTV scaling was better than a monitor. They're both fixed pixel displays and rely on algorithms. Let's see, my X850XT is almost 5 years old and it can run almost any game today .

 

[BenSkywalker]

I'm not sure if it's the same with the full version but the KZ2 demo did NOT look great. Low res textures just kill it for me and correct me if I'm wrong but the game itself runs at a fairly low resolution and is just upscaled like some other PS3 games.

I'd say check the full version out, but even in the demo certain elements smoke Crysis(particle effects in particular). Also, KZ2 only scales if your display doesn't support 720p.

No one here is 100% correct so telling them to keep their mouth shut is rediculous.

I was talking about foolish assertions such as-

You must be misinformed because the consoles not the games upscale to the resolution you set them to.

Have you ever used a console before? You don't set the resolution for your games in 99% of them at least. The only time scaling is ever a considerable element is if by some chance you have a HDTV that supports 1080i but not 720p. Most console games released today run at 720p, neither the game nor the console scales anything. It seems you are rather misinformed if you have been told anything differently.

I'm also not sure where you got HDTV scaling was better than a monitor.

I'm not blind. I don't think you'll find any honest person that would say differently, given it is a requirement that TVs be able to scale to several different resolutions so they by necessity require better internal scaling hardware then monitors have. That is simply a factor due to the reality of the market they are in. I know that I wouldn't want to pay extra money for a monitor with better scaling, would be a waste of money.

Let's see, my X850XT is almost 5 years old and it can run almost any game today .

Almost 4.5 years, and the price on that- $500. And as far as performance, well- 1280x1024 with no AA or AF? Under 10FPS for the generation beyond x1800xt. The 1800xt also fails to hit 30FPS in a couple other benchmarks at those same settings. The bad part of this for your end of the discussion is that the 1800xt is significantly faster then the x850xt- benches. So, you can pay $500 for a video card that doesn't come close to running the latest games 5 years later as well as a console. I could have agreed to that easily right from the start. My issue was with the absurd notion that you could buy a vid card for $150 that can do even better.