Question for PC gamers...

[Midwayman]

Gaming is supposed to be the console's forte but this gen looks bad vs. PC.

I was excited about the next gen consoles until I found out they had aimed for the bargain basement of PC performance. Used to be that a new console would eclipse what a PC could do at that time. This time they were only exciting if you were stuck on 360/ps3.

 

[tential]

I'll look into the model you linked. When I tried Powerline it was a fairly new product so I have to imagine things have improved since then.

Thanks for the link.

Ya, it's about 50 times faster since then.

 

[Cerb]

Gaming is supposed to be the console's forte but this gen looks bad vs. PC. If you gave me both next gen consoles right now, I still have a hard time coming up with more than 5 games that I would want to play, 5 being exclusives that aren't on the PC.

Consoles are quick and easy to set up, and relatively easy to use and maintain, like cell phones. That is their main value proposition. In days past, while a PC could always do more, the consoles tended to either be far cheaper (remember, crappy PCs used to be $1k+), and/or have special capabilities, and/or be able to manage a good user experience due to bare metal coding. Today, the difference is that the console is an appliance with software lock-in and fixed hardware.

 

[DistantShadow]

I still dont understand PC games, can someone explain to me the benefits of PC gaming?

 

[Craig234]

Something consoles DO seem to offer is easier development because of the standardized platform, not hundreds of PC varieties.

I'd think that pushes developers to have a bias for consoles, apart from the payment to the console maker - but the titles also seem to hold their value more.

We vote with what we buy - if we buy PC gaming, and games made for the PC, it'll help us get that.

 

[Morbus]

I still dont understand PC games, can someone explain to me the benefits of PC gaming?

Let me put it this way:

Console games are like God of War. Fast, pretty, simple, straightforward and out there.

PC games are like Europa Universalis. Slow, complex, deep, rich and for the true nerds.

It's like Super Mario and Counter Strike. Like Ridge Racer and iRacing. Like Thief 4 and Thief 2. Tomb Raider and Gabriel Knight. Like Oblivion and Daggerfall. Fallout 3 and Fallout 2. Dragon Age and Planescape Torment. PES and FM.

Console games are a pick it up and get on with it kind of experience.

PC games are more about dedication and passion and soul.

Except when they're not, and it's the exact opposite. But this is how I see it. And since I'm a proper nerd, since I love gaming more than I probably should, I'm a PC gamer.

 

[Morbus]

Something consoles DO seem to offer is easier development because of the standardized platform, not hundreds of PC varieties.

As a developer, I can tell you right now that if that issue were nearly as important and some people make it seem, we wouldn't have nearly any PC games at all.

It's really not a big deal. You just code it, as you do on the console, use the API you want, as you do on the console, test it, as you do on a console, patch and sell it.

As you do on the console.

It's really the experience and the talent of the designers and programers of each game that make it more or less buggy on SOME machines. As a general rule, sound cards will all behave the same, video cards will generally behave the same, and CPUs will too. I understand where you're coming from: there is an endless amount of possible PC configurations. But at the end of the day, all CPUs have pretty much the same instruction sets, all graphic cards support the same API (that's directx or opengl, by the way) and all keyboards and mice are the same.

There's really not much room to go wrong.

: DISCLAIMER :
I'm not a professional game dev, I'm a web dev who dabbles in and knows the game business. Take my insight with a pinch of salt, but it's not like I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[TheSlamma]

I still dont understand PC games, can someone explain to me the benefits of PC gaming?

Mayne?

 

[AdamK47]

I still dont understand PC games, can someone explain to me the benefits of PC gaming?

It's wondrous and can only be truly understood by those who have embarked on the enlightened path of PC gaming. Something so exceptionally profound cannot be described in mere words.

 

[Fire&Blood]

I still dont understand PC games, can someone explain to me the benefits of PC gaming?

It's wondrous and can only be truly understood by those who have embarked on the enlightened path of PC gaming. Something so exceptionally profound cannot be described in mere words.

^This man has seen the light but it doesn't shine for everyone. And that's fine for many that sit in the dark.

I mean look at Frodo, his life would have been fine if he hadn't tried the ring.

 

[CuriousMike]

As a developer, I can tell you right now that if that issue were nearly as important and some people make it seem, we wouldn't have nearly any PC games at all.

It's really not a big deal. You just code it, as you do on the console, use the API you want, as you do on the console, test it, as you do on a console, patch and sell it.

Yeah, except you're sorta missing the issue: What is the low end hardware you'll support.
How many ships/characters do you plan on having on screen?
How deep can the AI be?

You have your low end ( graphic ) target and your middle end target that you hope to run well on. All of the geeks on AT that have $350 video cards? Rarely targeted. You can't have your graphics engineers spending all their time doing work for small percentage of users when you need the game to work well on the majority.

Of course, if you're building B quality games, you're not targeting $350 video card owners... so you can code in Unity and everyone has a similar, middle-of-the-road experience.

 

[Morbus]

Yeah, except you're sorta missing the issue: What is the low end hardware you'll support.
How many ships/characters do you plan on having on screen?
How deep can the AI be?

That is secondary, more often than not. Good design, whatever it is (it doesn't need to be games) ask "what do I want to do?" first and "how am I gonna do it?" second. Otherwise you have design made by programmers, and that's usually a terrible idea. There are exceptions, but trust me, designers drive the programmers, not the other way around. I know this because I'm a programmer. If it were up to me, all my sites would be simple and straightforward, full of ready-made animations and geeky sparkles and tweaks. Is that what the client wants? No. Is that what is needed? No. So the client tells the designer what is need, the designer thinks of what it's going to be, and my team programs it. Are there too many elements and slower PCs can't handle it? Tough luck, my team will find a way to deal with it.

Same for games. Do you need advanced AI for thousands of troops at the same time? Programmers to the rescue.

And when all is said and done, if the game needs an i7 to run properly, so be it. That's what minimum requirements are for.

You have your low end ( graphic ) target and your middle end target that you hope to run well on. All of the geeks on AT that have $350 video cards? Rarely targeted. You can't have your graphics engineers spending all their time doing work for small percentage of users when you need the game to work well on the majority.

I agree with you, but many game companies don't, or didn't up until recently. It is not uncommon to see very taxing games released. Far Cry 4 and AC Unity lately, but there are dozens of them each year.

What I'm saying is: the industry is not affected by the disparity of system specs PC gamers have. It is a non-issue 90% of the time, and the other 10%, well, people will just buy a better PC if that's what it takes. It's what PC gamers have been doing for two decades or more. And it's not changing.

Of course, if you're building B quality games, you're not targeting $350 video card owners... so you can code in Unity and everyone has a similar, middle-of-the-road experience.

Exactly. But let me just say that B-rate games aren't necessarily lower quality games. On PC at least. You have plenty of B-rate games that are immensely good and/or popular. Minecraft, for example. Wasteland 2, for example, is my personal game of the year, and its graphics are nothing to write home about. They are 2005-level graphics, by any standard. And the game is absolutely awesome.

There's a neat phenomenon called profit margin. If you spend less money developing, you will be able to actually earn a bigger slice of the game's sales. Spending 100 million on a game that ends up selling 3 million units is a disaster. And 3 million in sales is terrific, by all accounts. On the other end, spending a couple million on a game that ends up selling 200 or 300 thousand, which is a fairly average amount for any game (even terrible ones usually sell more than 50k), will yield a bigger profit.

And then you have companies like Blizzard doing AAA games that are specially optimized for low-end hardware, even if their games aren't B-rate.

 

[mooncancook]

IMO PC gaming provides a richer experience than consoles but requires more dedication. With PC you are constantly bombarded with newer better fancier hardware, and it makes you want to upgrade even though you don't really need to. It becomes more hobby-liked, I think that's why the general perception that PC gaming is a lot more expensive. In reality, you can enjoy PC gaming with a low budget too, it's just that the temptation to upgrade is always great.

 

[tential]

IMO PC gaming provides a richer experience than consoles but requires more dedication. With PC you are constantly bombarded with newer better fancier hardware, and it makes you want to upgrade even though you don't really need to. It becomes more hobby-liked, I think that's why the general perception that PC gaming is a lot more expensive. In reality, you can enjoy PC gaming with a low budget too, it's just that the temptation to upgrade is always great.

Yup.
This is why the APU didn't really work well with PC Gamers IMO. Yes, I could get one for a great console like experience (Put one in a gigabyte brix like enclosure and it's a great tiny gaming device), but when you're a PC gamer and you see someone's game with GTX 980 SLI 4K downsampled to 1080p, it's hard to compare that to a lower res limited APU.
PC gaming is more of a hobby like and even though the processor is perfectly capable of playing games, PC Gamers won't accept that level of performance.

My C2Duo/9800M GTS I still was using in 2013 and just playing games on low graphics/res and still enjoyable. But well, I'm back to my old ways with a new gaming rig. Now I'm looking at the 390x (when it debuts) for downsampling 4K. Thus the hobby gets you!

 

[CuriousMike]

What I'm saying is: the industry is not affected by the disparity of system specs PC gamers have. It is a non-issue 90% of the time, and the other 10%, well, people will just buy a better PC if that's what it takes. It's what PC gamers have been doing for two decades or more. And it's not changing.

This is flatly wrong.
I understand you're a developer.
But until you've worked in the game industry (both console and AAA PC), you might want to just hold off on this type of speak.

 

[calyco]

Nope, usually never as long as its a game I want to play eg. Borderlands. Although I dont do it as much anymore, I also like to mess around and tweak hardware/software. Consoles OTOH, I had to debate for awhile. Really only play exclusives on it or third person. Plus PC I use daily and its multipurpose.

 

[Morbus]

This is flatly wrong.
I understand you're a developer.
But until you've worked in the game industry (both console and AAA PC), you might want to just hold off on this type of speak.

I can respect that.

Have you, however, worked in the game industry?

 

[CuriousMike]

I can respect that.

Have you, however, worked in the game industry?

Yes, I've shipped 15+ games over the last 22 years as a software engineer.

 

[escrow4]

There is inherently more value in PC. Up until a few years ago, if you wanted to hate on PC's on the internet, you had to use one. Console vs. PC is a perception problem.

Now if one insists on stripping the PC of countless other utilization and compare only gaming ability, initially a console may look better on paper but over time that advantage dissipates greatly.

My budget PC in the sig is nearing it's 3rd year, I just upgraded my video card from a 7950.

I'll happily go for the biannual $330 GPU upgrade over the console alternative. Can't put a price on 1440p (4K soon) and PC versatility and customization options.

Gaming is supposed to be the console's forte but this gen looks bad vs. PC. If you gave me both next gen consoles right now, I still have a hard time coming up with more than 5 games that I would want to play, 5 being exclusives that aren't on the PC.

Affordable 4K monitors, DX12, mainstream DDR4, new CPU's, die shrink GPU's, G Sync/Freesync wider adaptation, these are all things happening already or coming soon.

All of this will be PC mainstream while this gen of consoles is in it's 3rd year.
They can slash the prices down to $99 for all I care, PC gaming will be on another level at that point. Even if the cost of ownership doesn't curb the console value proposition enough to justify the higher entry fee on the PC side, the appeal of PC specific features should do the job.

Devs don't care. Consoles will have none of that and if it will be on PC it will be a sloppy bolted on mess. You'll get a port and you'll be lucky if it isn't capped at 30FPS. Fancy pants new CPUs and new DX and games are still made for a slow old Atom equivalent CPU in "next-gen" consoles. DDR4 is irrelevant either way. The way Gsync is going it may as well be as important as 3D. What games need now are originality not annual copy paste sequels that barely run (if at all) on PC. We need more Planescape and less Ass Creed.

EDIT: That disparity is full there. If the Witcher 3 was PC only and developed around 780Ti's/980s and 16GB RAM we'd have a truly next gen game. Instead (and predictably) consoles hold everything back. Again.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Yup.
This is why the APU didn't really work well with PC Gamers IMO. Yes, I could get one for a great console like experience (Put one in a gigabyte brix like enclosure and it's a great tiny gaming device), but when you're a PC gamer and you see someone's game with GTX 980 SLI 4K downsampled to 1080p, it's hard to compare that to a lower res limited APU.
PC gaming is more of a hobby like and even though the processor is perfectly capable of playing games, PC Gamers won't accept that level of performance.

My C2Duo/9800M GTS I still was using in 2013 and just playing games on low graphics/res and still enjoyable. But well, I'm back to my old ways with a new gaming rig. Now I'm looking at the 390x (when it debuts) for downsampling 4K. Thus the hobby gets you!

It is more than that. Except for a SFF box like you mention, an APU is a poor value proposition as well. A decent cpu like an athlon 860k or i3 plus a discrete card like a HD7750 or 7770 will give 50 to 100 percent better performance for only a small increase in cost, plus you have a better upgrade path if you want a more powerful discrete gpu in the future.

I dont really see an APU as a viable alternative except in very, very rare circumstances until they solve the bandwidth problem and get performance comparable to a similar discrete gpu with GDDR5.

 

[CuriousMike]

Devs don't care. Consoles will have none of that and if it will be on PC it will be a sloppy bolted on mess. You'll get a port and you'll be lucky if it isn't capped at 30FPS. Fancy pants new CPUs and new DX and games are still made for a slow old Atom equivalent CPU in "next-gen" consoles. DDR4 is irrelevant either way.
*snip*
EDIT: That disparity is full there. If the Witcher 3 was PC only and developed around 780Ti's/980s and 16GB RAM we'd have a truly next gen game. Instead (and predictably) consoles hold everything back. Again.

Truth.

 

[tential]

It is more than that. Except for a SFF box like you mention, an APU is a poor value proposition as well. A decent cpu like an athlon 860k or i3 plus a discrete card like a HD7750 or 7770 will give 50 to 100 percent better performance for only a small increase in cost, plus you have a better upgrade path if you want a more powerful discrete gpu in the future.

I dont really see an APU as a viable alternative except in very, very rare circumstances until they solve the bandwidth problem and get performance comparable to a similar discrete gpu with GDDR5.

That's also true but wasn't really the point of my post. The APU was a great idea in theory, but failed in practice. The idea was ahead of the technology.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

high-end graphics cards have indeed gone up in price SIGNIFICANTLY compared to...say, ten years ago.

I remember back then I bought the top-of-the line Radeon cards but they were NOT €550 (FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY) like, say a GTX 980 today. If you buy a GTX 970 for "only" €300 you're already making a compromise since a 970 is obviously not "top of the line". Those prices ARE insane, in particular since a GPU is never a worthy investment. Nothing becomes obsolete faster than GPUs.

Not really.

I've had a high end video card from the start of every generation starting with the Voodoo range and ending with the 580, with a gap only recently between 2 580's and my 980.

The UK the prices have always been between £400-500 for high end, we recently saw a surge in prices for high end cards like the Titan, but ignoring them fringe cases the price of top end cards is about the same, I paid 450 for my 980 which I'm pretty sure is about what I paid for most of my cards over the years. Accounting for inflation over that time the prices have remained pretty good, inflation over 10 years is something like 25-30% total.

 

[Fire&Blood]

Devs don't care. Consoles will have none of that and if it will be on PC it will be a sloppy bolted on mess. You'll get a port and you'll be lucky if it isn't capped at 30FPS. Fancy pants new CPUs and new DX and games are still made for a slow old Atom equivalent CPU in "next-gen" consoles. DDR4 is irrelevant either way. The way Gsync is going it may as well be as important as 3D. What games need now are originality not annual copy paste sequels that barely run (if at all) on PC. We need more Planescape and less Ass Creed.

Near Dankk's post quality, almost sig worthy quote.
First, you need to start using toyota's avatar, it matches the tone of your posts perfectly. :biggrin:

Disagree. There have been many decent ports in 2014. Alien Isolation and Shadow of Mordor were well done while The Vanishing of Ethan Carter is a straight up PC 1st type of game. I find a lot of interesting indies filling the gaps left by AAA studios.

I'm impressed, you shut down every major upcoming PC event in the next 18 months in just one sentence. Couldn't disagree more, why you would even assume that all devs will go with "sloppy bolted on mess" and ignore all PC specific progress is beyond me.

 

[ice.sergio24]

IMO I think the PC is better cause of the exclusives and mostly because I am a hardware snoob (780 water cooled sli and water cooled i7 4790k and 750d case) also I am COMPLETELY USELESS with a console controller. I can't stand controllers