Now, for all purposes I am a big PC gamer, anything a console can do a PC would shit on its parade all day but what I do not like hearing/seeing is people in the industry or hardcore fanboys screaming about how “amazing” these next Gen consoles will be.
I listened to the radio the other night with the presenter going on about the PS4. “the games wil be AAAMAAAZING!, they’ll be much bigger with huge budgets and better quality gaming”.
Then I see on websites the same thing. Hype around that vigilante game included.
Why are people falling for this a third time round?
People are saying titles such as COD will be so much more awesome, Bf4 as well but they fail to see the true picture here. Games will not get better on consoles, they’ll just get prettier.
Now you may be extremely biased for consoles and say I talk a lot of crap but if you step back in time to when consoles were the Ps1 and N64, the likes of Golden Eye and Perfect Dark were in territory that many new games dont even touch on.
When I first played a game designed solely for the PC I was amazed by the freedom and detail put in. I never went back to consoles after this.
Now I hear the PS4 architecture is going to be based around the PC because it is easier to code for. WHAT?
I am pretty sure whatever game, be it Halo, Gears of War or another successful title, the numbers that would consistently play the game online with a PC would dwarf that of the console over time.
Played Bf3 on the PC after the console version? Huge difference.
Games will not get better on consoles, they will stay the same. As long as EA is around, the console market will be the same old, same old.
The only hope in gaming should come from Steambox. That console will actually circumvent EA entirely with Steam. All the advantages of the PC and console, none of its downfalls.[/quote]
The Cell processor was almost impossible to code for. That’s why PS2 games don’t work on PS3 and PS3 games won’t work on PS4.
Of course PCs are better, but who would be willing to pay 1200 dollars for a console? Cheap hardware which you then optimize the shit out of is the solution.
The GPU should be equivalent to a 6970 or so which is still a good card capable of good graphics in 1920x1080. That’s enough for a few years.
Just look at how laughably weak the PS3 and 360 are and how “good” games still look on them.
The best part is PC games ported from consoles will look a lot better. And eventually be able to use more cores than today. And it will be a lot easier to release multi-platform titles.
8 gigs of DDR5 is no joke either.[/quote]
I see the same argument again AND again, it gets boring.
“PCs are waaay to overpriced and you need to upgrade them -FACT!”
Wrong on so many levels I dont know where to begin.
Go on any tech forum, you’ll see threads dedicated to building cheap PCs that can play COD, Bf3, Skyrim and any other top dollar game.
GPU processors are way ahead of what they used to be but the majority of their power is used for flashy effects. Notice how Bf3 uses these effects? Now if they turned that shit of, which some skilled modders have done, the game is actually better and the processor/GPU power usage goes down a heck of a lot.
Flashy effects and processor intensive games are what drives the PC price up.
Strategy games are notorious for this and so are the likes of Grand Theft Auto. When you have games that have high demands placed on the three main PC components, (GPU, processor, RAM) your price will go up.
You need a Mobo that fits them, a case that fits the mobo and lets not forget the fancy assed SSD drives, which YOU DO NOT NEED.
Another popular myth is that you need a top of the line GPU for games at high frame rates.
DayZ is the only game that will push the biggest PCs out there, but that is because its game code is piss poor.
The GPU market is geared towards the low-mid range users, not the top of the range line. They dont sell near enough units to bring their profits into line for that to work.