View Full Version : Next Gen Consoles Will Be Better Than PC Anyway
digital neXus
10-08-2005, 11:22 PM
I think so, because nowadays games on XBOX or Gamecube or PS2 are much playable and more interesting than PC's. Have you ever had Gran Tourismo, Burnout.....Even NFS:HP2 looks better than PC's............Tekken, Soul Calibur,Mortal Kombat......MGS........Final Fantasy....DOA...........etc.....i'm tired, on your PC?
Anyway PC games are mainly based on strategy and FPS' and of course the inevitable FIFA, NHL....series ( console included ). Really as the power and the powerful graphics nowadays are true, just look at the first (real) demo images, we will have a very action packed games on our consoles. If PC want to survive (hoping for Ge7800) wouldn't be kinda wrong if game devlopers turn Tekken, Final Fantasy,DOA,Mortal Kombat.....to our PC's?
Some of them will, maube all, but is it worth paying 500$ for a console?
Yes, because my Windows will not report..........unespected error %@#$@%#$^ whatever...
....the Windows will shutdown
woundingchaney
10-08-2005, 11:27 PM
I think so, because nowadays games on XBOX or Gamecube or PS2 are much playable and more interesting than PC's. Have you ever had Gran Tourismo, Burnout.....Even NFS:HP2 looks better than PC's............Tekken, Soul Calibur,Mortal Kombat......MGS........Final Fantasy....DOA...........etc.....i'm tired, on your PC?
Anyway PC games are mainly based on strategy and FPS' and of course the inevitable FIFA, NHL....series ( console included ). Really as the power and the powerful graphics nowadays are true, just look at the first (real) demo images, we will have a very action packed games on our consoles. If PC want to survive (hoping for Ge7800) wouldn't be kinda wrong if game devlopers turn Tekken, Final Fantasy,DOA,Mortal Kombat.....to our PC's?
Some of them will, maube all, but is it worth paying 500$ for a console?
Yes, because my Windows will not report..........unespected error %@#$@%#$^ whatever...
....the Windows will shutdown
I dont think PC gaming will ever actually die, however, its numbers have diminished. Many PC games are going console so there is less and less need to build a 1500-2000 dollar gaming rig.
PC gamers are usually niche gamers anyways and there is still quite a few titles that I dont think will ever be released on consoles. With the new consoles coming out its going to be awhile and quite expensive to put together a pc with the pwer of the PS3 or 360 and still then pc devs wont be able to tap that power until the hardware becomes mainstream.
I cant see bringing console games to PCs primarily because I dont think the fanbase is there, really I think a large portion of PC gamers also own consoles (at least I do), and I would never consider playing DOA or Tekken on my pc.
venomv
10-08-2005, 11:34 PM
I'm not following you very well, but the way it should be in my opionin and the way it seems is that RTS's, FPS's and Point and Click Adventure/RPG are best on PC simply because Keyboard/Mouse is the best set up for them. Everything else suffers with a keyboard/mouse so that why we probably won't be seeing Tekken, FF,DOA,and MK on PC. Except I think MK comes on PC and FFVII and IIX where on PC.
tazz3
10-08-2005, 11:35 PM
I think the days are numberd for the PC gamer.
who wants to build or spend 1.500 to 2 grand on a gameing rig.
when u cant have the PS3 for 400 dollars
plus a video card is more then 400 dollars these days.
i built a gameing rig last summer for 1 grand it has the bfg 6800 gt card.
1 gig of memory and the amd 3200 64 bit.
its a lot faster then my dell but i really dont play any games on it any more lol.
but i think people will think twice about buying a gameing rig now that the ps3 will be comeing out and the 360
What the hell?
PC gaming has become more and more popular over the years.
And yet the PC gaming industry has faced this every console generation.
Why pay 1 to 2 grand on a PC gaming rig when you can buy a £150 Gamecube or whatever?
But it didn't die that generation, or the one before it, or one before that.
PC gaming won't be dying out anytime soon . . .
Nerve-Damage
10-09-2005, 12:20 AM
Console Advantage:
1. Closed in Technology: Developers can work with the console systems given specs and limitations and push the hardware to the max, without worrying about bugs, drivers, and incompatibility among hardware.
2. The next-generation of consoles will provide much more flexible hardware & software to make PC ports easier, and graphical superior as their big brethren.
3. A whole lot easier to transport from place to place.
4. Price: $300-$500 will always seem more attractive than a High-end PC costing $1,500-upwards producing the same graphics as their little brethren.
5. Far greater selection & generation of games.
Console Disadvantage:
1. Closed in Technology: Yup, it’s also a disadvantage! I expect the next generation of High-end PC components to outpace the Xbox-360 by the mid-2007 and outpace the PS3 by late 2008 - early 2009. However, when that happens I expect neither the Xbox-360 nor PS3 to be surpassed graphically because of the newer hardware. Simple reason being PC’s configurations very to much and not everyone can afford a High-end rig just to play a game. This puts PC game developer at a disadvantage to code for the minimal aspect (norm-computers) to reach all PC gamers.
PC Advantage:
1. PC will always have the advantage of upgrading its hardware to fit today’s and tomorrows needs.
2. Usually the first to receive the hottest FPS and Massive online games, then later ported to the console.
3. So far….the mouse & keyboard are still the greatest allies to help the FPS games feel more at home on the PC rather than consoles.
PC Disadvantage:
1. Sky rocketing High-end PC parts prices.
2. Driver/Hardware issues with games, having the developers write or code there games to meet a minimum standard across all types of variations/configurations of PC hardware.
3. Not transportation friendly….yeah, yeah, yeah, I know about the shuttle boxes.
Maya 5.0
10-09-2005, 01:15 AM
Year after year there are those that keep saying the PC gamming is dead or soon to be.They have their opinions but they should really stop smoking crack.
I belive those that say these sort of things are being console fanboys.
PC gamming is here to stay.
rpgamer_2k5
10-09-2005, 01:25 AM
The next-gen PCs will feature 4.5Ghz Cell, coupled with a ATI GPU with a unified pipes. The RAM will be atleast 3-4GB (XDR) for system and 1GB for VRAM. If that isn't enough a GPU based on the Cell, with unified shaders can be used. :|
PCs will once again dominate. Microsoft will end up submitting to the Cell sooner or later and they'll be blessed. Intel will release their Cell-esque CPU by 2008 to provide an alternative. AMD will have to do the same.
IEatFriedPikmin
10-09-2005, 01:25 AM
i always shift between console and pc games. right now i am extremely focused on PC games. Half-life 2 and counter strike have got me glued. HL2 is probably one of the best games i have ever played. Right now, the graphics are better than any console game, but as soon as xbox 360 is released, that will be false.... sooner or later though, PC will catch up and over rule again.
woundingchaney
10-09-2005, 03:09 AM
Yeah PCs will eventually overtake consoles when consoles are entering their waning years of their gens. I usually wait till I see a noticable difference in PC games over console games and then build a gaming pc.
Helios
10-09-2005, 03:18 AM
I dont believe computer gaming will come to a stop because of any sort of hardware issue. But rather the developers themselves will start shifting towards the consoles. Its not just development costs on consoles that rise every generation, they also rise on comps. So a static hardware environment combined with a potential market outreach that far exceeds that of computer gaming (and this reach continues to grow as the industry grows) you are going to see a lot of originally comp dev's jumping to consoles.
So sure the computer game market wont ever completely die because of not so console friendly genre's(like RTS), but it will certainly become a lot smaller with the years to come as publishers push their devs over to the console arena.
PC gaming has become more and more popular over the years.
The rate PC gaming has gained fanbase yes impressive but how many pc games have sold millions in their first few days of release - none - yet its happened a few times in the console sector. Not trying to sound console fanboyish over here just saying, there a huge difference in the user base irrelevant of how popular pc gaming has become. That gap will continue to get ever wider too as long as it still takes $1000+ just to get a half-decent gamng rig and upwards of 2K to get something that plays more than 15 new games. Console gaming has and will contnue to be far more accesible than pc gaming can ever be.
But it didn't die that generation, or the one before it, or one before that.
Different generation - much different hardware gap
Never before have the first games showcased blew away anything current with such magnitude. Doom 3 running at full settings can barely touch some of these games, and thats not going to change for at least 2 years into the consoles lifetimes(PS3 at least).
casualkiss
10-09-2005, 03:22 AM
This time, its different!
We now have HDTV making high-res games possible on consoles. If Sony decides to allow developers create PS3 games that MUST use a wireless keyboard and mouse, than the PC could finally have some competition.
Personally, I would LOVE for Sony to have mouse/keyboard only games!!! I don't play computer games because I can't be bothered with the price, drivers, and all the other crap. I just want to drop in a disc and play.
We should petition Sony to allow mouse/keyboard only games!
Rukawa
10-09-2005, 05:02 AM
I think even after PS3 released , PC games will have much lower polygon than PS3 games
This is because PS3 CPU-GPU bandwith is much more faster and much lower latency(due to direct link chip to chip) than PCI-XPress.
Texture quality, HDR and AA i think PC can easily suprass PS3.
ACE0000
10-09-2005, 06:38 AM
I think that PCs will probably never die out, I kind of consider PC games and console games totally different, I play certain games on PCs and certain games on consoles and I would never rather play the console game on a PC and I usually would never rather play the PC games on a console, which is i part of the reason I didn't get an xbox because a lot of it's better games are watered down PC ports, or PC type games on a console... but I still play both PC and consoles, although I generally like console games more for the most part and spend more time playing them then PC games.
KlawHammer
10-09-2005, 07:16 AM
Only time will tell, when everyone says "oh the PC is dead and gone this time, the PC inevitably surpasses consoles within a given generation, then those same people tend to keep rather silent.
OzzysCross101
10-09-2005, 01:41 PM
How many things are better than the PC thes days, anyway? Yeah, it's true that PCs will in time surpass the performance and such of the console, but it usually takes a while- sometimes most of that particular console's lifespan-which isn't very good for the PC...
what the hell? are you kidding? PC's will easily dominate consoles. Just because consoles are designed for nothing BUT gaming dosnt mean that they're better than PC's. look at Half life 2 for example, thats better than every single PS2 game put together. secondly, first person shooters SUCK on consoles, a keyboard and mouse is essential in my opinion.
kaphwan
10-10-2005, 01:24 PM
I've found it to be heaps better to use a controller for my FPS's.
You just can't compare Halo 2, TS:FP and (soon) the new Killzone to anything the PC is packing.
And yes, I've played HL-2 and UT 2005 (I think. he said the latest one), we had a 4 player LAN at my friends house the other weekend.
Remember this. Video games are now considered "cool". But the PC gamer is still a cerebral bore, hunched over his computer obsessing over stats and tactics. At least in the sense of a dominant discourse.
PC comes back in cycles, but it's slowly diminishing in it's comebacks each time.
Maya 5.0
10-10-2005, 05:18 PM
Mouse and keyboard are still considered the more natural and best way to any FPS game and i thank god Sony has at least that comming it's way so maybe we can get an option to use it for our PS3.
Lekko
10-10-2005, 06:32 PM
Does anyone else notice that it goes both ways? Consoles are trying to take over the computing world. Just look at how the PS3 is going to have a HD and Linux on it. And the 360 can do pretty much anything your computer can do media-wise (at least to play things.). But you never see a discussion on when consoles will take over the computing market, huh?
Coded-Dude
10-10-2005, 06:35 PM
Three words to define the success of todays PC gaming market:
World Of Warcraft
frosty
10-10-2005, 07:36 PM
any multi platform game that has also come out on PC, such as madden, nfsu2, chronicles of riddick, doom3, etc., the pc version BLOWS AWAY the console versions graphically. not only do you get higher res, but other perks like customized AA and AF levels, higher poly counts, smoother framerates, etc. I can play GTA SA at 1680x1050 res on my geforce 6800 and it isn't even worth trying to compare the ps2 and xbox versions to it. even at 720x480 the consoles can't handle properly anti aliasing the game, and it looks terrible, plus the textures are much lower res. now consider that ati is releasing it's 1000 series gpu's very soon, and the 360 is still using it's 500 series cards. nvidia will follow suit to compete with ati, so we may have better pc gfx cards before the consoles even hit the market. I know that the other components in the consoles may give them a slight edge over pc's for maybe a year max, but it won't take long to catch up. cell will be in pc's soon enough, it's already in ibm servers. so no, pc gaming isn't going anywhere.
woundingchaney
10-10-2005, 07:42 PM
any multi platform game that has also come out on PC, such as madden, nfsu2, chronicles of riddick, doom3, etc., the pc version BLOWS AWAY the console versions graphically. not only do you get higher res, but other perks like customized AA and AF levels, higher poly counts, smoother framerates, etc. I can play GTA SA at 1680x1050 res on my geforce 6800 and it isn't even worth trying to compare the ps2 and xbox versions to it. even at 720x480 the consoles can't handle properly anti aliasing the game, and it looks terrible, plus the textures are much lower res. now consider that ati is releasing it's 1000 series gpu's very soon, and the 360 is still using it's 500 series cards. nvidia will follow suit to compete with ati, so we may have better pc gfx cards before the consoles even hit the market. I know that the other components in the consoles may give them a slight edge over pc's for maybe a year max, but it won't take long to catch up. cell will be in pc's soon enough, it's already in ibm servers. so no, pc gaming isn't going anywhere.
Well, the thing about it is yes you can have the top of the line proc and video card, but devs are going to program for middle range components. Take proc for example games are only running on a 2.4, well you can get 3.? and dual core now. PC devs arent able to program for the high end hardware. With the newer consoles your getting hardware that is about 1 to 2 years away on top of it being standard (not only that but the architecture found in the next consoles). So devs really have the ability to take full use of the system.
I have no doubt that by the end of the gen pc games will surpass their console counterparts, but not till towards the end of next gen. Really with hd televisions coming along there isnt too many reasons to pay 1500 - 2000 for a high end pc anymore (at least not here in the near future).
frosty
10-10-2005, 07:50 PM
i paid $760 for mine, i built it, and the gfx cards that were available 1 year after ps2's release were already making multi platform games look better than the console versions. so i wouldn't expect it to take that long.
frosty
10-10-2005, 07:53 PM
i will give you this much, cheney, when the ps2 and xbox launched, they had 300 and 700 mhz processors when pc's were already well past 1 ghz, this time, consoles are launching with processors way more powerful than what is available in pc's today, so maybe slightly longer than a year, depends on how long it takes to be able to put a souped up cell in a pc
Helios
10-10-2005, 07:58 PM
any multi platform game that has also come out on PC, such as madden, nfsu2, chronicles of riddick, doom3, etc., the pc version BLOWS AWAY the console versions graphically. not only do you get higher res, but other perks like customized AA and AF levels, higher poly counts, smoother framerates, etc. I can play GTA SA at 1680x1050 res on my geforce 6800 and it isn't even worth trying to compare the ps2 and xbox versions to it. even at 720x480 the consoles can't handle properly anti aliasing the game, and it looks terrible, plus the textures are much lower res. now consider that ati is releasing it's 1000 series gpu's very soon, and the 360 is still using it's 500 series cards. nvidia will follow suit to compete with ati, so we may have better pc gfx cards before the consoles even hit the market. I know that the other components in the consoles may give them a slight edge over pc's for maybe a year max, but it won't take long to catch up. cell will be in pc's soon enough, it's already in ibm servers. so no, pc gaming isn't going anywhere.
Besides the graphics issue who would ever want to play Madden on PC instead of the console version. Thats one of those games that are always extremely akward to play without a game pad. Sure it looks better but if it plays worse the game isnt better. Besides you're comparng games at the very end of this generation as the hardware is being pushed to the limit. ...and you forget doom3 is originally a comp game ported to xbox.
As for cell it wont be hitting PC's anytime soon at all. Vector processing is great stuff for a server where its gobbling up large amounts of data but gets really bogged down handling mudane application type tasks. Doesnt matter anyway 64bit processors are the next big thing in line for pc's, but even those are still a year or two away from being utilized by developers.
frosty
10-10-2005, 08:03 PM
i have a $15 gamepad for my pc that is identical to a ps2 controller
woundingchaney
10-10-2005, 08:05 PM
Besides the graphics issue who would ever want to play Madden on PC instead of the console version. Thats one of those games that are always extremely akward to play without a game pad. Sure it looks better but if it plays worse the game isnt better. Besides you're comparng games at the very end of this generation as the hardware is being pushed to the limit. ...and you forget doom3 is originally a comp game ported to xbox.
As for cell it wont be hitting PC's anytime soon at all. Vector processing is great stuff for a server where its gobbling up large amounts of data but gets really bogged down handling mudane application type tasks. Doesnt matter anyway 64bit processors are the next big thing in line for pc's, but even those are still a year or two away from being utilized by developers.
No not the current status of the cell, but I wouldnt doubt that Intel (and cohorts) are seriously investigating the architecture, possibly even use some of its qualitys in their next line of processors. So you probably wont be seeing the cell as we know it today, but more along the lines of the competitions answer to the cell processor (or an updated cell more geared toward general use).
frosty
10-10-2005, 08:05 PM
and doom3 being ported to xbox is a perfect example if it's inferiority to pc's. they had to water down the gfx to make it playable, and ps2 couldn't even dream of it
Helios
10-10-2005, 08:07 PM
I could also go buy a steering wheel to simulate the race games at the arcade, but I dont want to. I think you're missing my point with the gamepad issue. Im comparing the base equitment that being keyboard & mouse, not something else I have to buy.
But thats just it though Doom3 is the most graphically superior pc game to date, you couldnt possibly compare it to its port to a system at the end of its life.
Coded-Dude
10-10-2005, 08:10 PM
but they will have to SUPE IT UP for the next gen consoles......that point is really moot!
and doom3 being ported to xbox is a perfect example if it's inferiority to pc's. they had to water down the gfx to make it playable, and ps2 couldn't even dream of it
woundingchaney
10-10-2005, 08:11 PM
and doom3 being ported to xbox is a perfect example if it's inferiority to pc's. they had to water down the gfx to make it playable, and ps2 couldn't even dream of it
Actually thats the perfect example of the pluss to console programming. The xbox is very old by pc standards, devs are capable of pushing the hardware beyond its simplistic specs. Having set specs allow devs full access to its capabilities. Doom on Xbox was a very graphically impressive game, and even more so if you could have played it in high def. If you tried to run Doom 3 on a pc with spec similar to the xbox I would imagine the program would puke.
IEatFriedPikmin
10-10-2005, 08:25 PM
Mouse and keyboard are still considered the more natural and best way to any FPS game and i thank god Sony has at least that comming it's way so maybe we can get an option to use it for our PS3.
where are you going to put the mouse and keyboard? on a desk in front of your tv? maybe your coffee table? I cant imagine using a mouse and keyboard for console games. Eventually consoles will be computers, i swear.
Maya 5.0
10-10-2005, 08:50 PM
Well whatever it takes to not use a controller that's for sure :).
Using a controller for a FPS game is like using a joystick to drive your car instead of the wheel.It just aint right.
woundingchaney
10-10-2005, 10:22 PM
Well whatever it takes to not use a controller that's for sure :).
Using a controller for a FPS game is like using a joystick to drive your car instead of the wheel.It just aint right.
Actually I prefer the gamepad over the keyboard mouse. I like having everything right there in my hands (I hate having to reposition my hand after crouching, laying down, switching to grenades etc).
HereticPB
10-10-2005, 10:33 PM
Sorry PCs will destroy anything console wise in Graphics, experience, mood, etc. And with ATI's New cards and Nvidia's new cards coming out. LOL
Coded-Dude
10-10-2005, 10:40 PM
thats fine, because semmanticly speaking the PS3 is not going to be a console.
and can you tell me that the CELL+RSX combo is not going to wield optimized performance?
they were built with each other in mind......I would speculate that nothing will be able to top their combined power until it is available for the standard PC.
(obviously server rendering farms are not in this comparison)
SheElf
10-11-2005, 12:15 AM
i have a $15 gamepad for my pc that is identical to a ps2 controller
i have $10 adapter so i can use my ps2 gamepad on my pc.
I think keyboard+mouse is not the most natural way to play fps, ever considered analog gamepad+mouse. that my friends is an awesome setup as long as the game support gamepad.
hl2 for instance i use my ps2 gamepad to move, jump, crouch and other stuff and use my mouse to look (the same way as keyboard+mouse). with analog gamepad u can move more freely, no need to press extra keys for walk or run,
at least the games that im currently playing that work well with analog gamepad are hl2, cs:s, sc:chaos theory, doom3, halo pc. i wish farcry and wow could support analog gamepad.
my $0.02
woundingchaney
10-11-2005, 02:18 AM
Sorry PCs will destroy anything console wise in Graphics, experience, mood, etc. And with ATI's New cards and Nvidia's new cards coming out. LOL
I believe they will "eventually" overcome consoles in capabilitys its just a matter of how long and at what expense.
PC and consoles are too unique for one to eliminate the other. it is like saying handhelds will kill consoles, TVs will kill monitors, etc. there are some experiences unique to PC and some to consoles. by that, both will be around for a while. if consoles eventually be PC (with hardware upgrades and all) then maybe this point can be brought up then. or will consoles by that time be considered PC anyway?
oh, and I am one of those that will choose a gamepad over keyboard/mouse any day. sure the latter is more precise and faster, but you'll be amazed what I can do wit a controller! ;)
Phoenix
10-11-2005, 02:47 AM
How many times have Sony not lied about the specs of their consoles? Zero. Why would they start now? The idea that next generation consoles outpowering nonobsolete computers is ludicrous. If we have the technology, it will without a doubt be used for PCs too. Plus, consoles will never be expensive, not even one made by Sony. What really bugs me is when Sony fanboys go around saying that the PS3 will be more powerful than a computer and yet when someone says it's speculated to be $500 they say that's bullshit.
frosty
10-11-2005, 03:15 AM
well, ps3 will be more powerful than any pc as far as gameplay goes, not in the general purpose realm though, devs will still be making their games so that mid-range pc's can play them, thus not fully taking advantage of the latest pc hardware. plus, it will take a while for the general purpose processors to catch up to cell's multimedia abilities. so I will give the ps3 the top spot graphically for at least a year. as for a $500 price tag, highly unlikley. they know they have to keep it under $400 to compete with 360, even if it means taking a huge loss at first. They know it will pay off when the tech becomes more affordable, which won't be long. and I would like you to point out a specific example of sony lying about the specs of their consoles... and don't throw out that b.s. "toy story graphics" argument, because it was not sony that said that. sony has NEVER said the ps2 would have xxx speed processor or xxx ammount of memory and did not deliver.
I don't know what are you talking about but consoles have alwaysed launched being more powerful 'graphically' than the PC's of their launch time sine what PSOne? it usually takes PCs around 8 months to catch up, and even then it would be a luxury choice. it is one of the advantages of consoles that they have fixed specs. by that, you can get better results with lesser soecs than PCs.
in any case, over powering PCs- again, visually- is a very limited advantage. who ever looks for the best overall graphics or resolution, PC is what they want. put not many compare PC to consoles. that is why you will usually find GPU card comparisons for PCs and console-to-console comparisons for console gamers.
again, PC has too many advantages to be wiped out by cosoles. I don't think the two will ever hurt each other until maybe they emerge closer and closer together in the future. Phantom was, how do I say this, an 'interesting' experiemnt. maybe consoles will be like that in the future or maybe that will be a new thing all together- if it ever makes it through.
oh, and by the way; nobody lies about specs. they are the foundation of a hardware set up. numbers are easily checked. there is absolutely no point in so called 'lying' in terms of specs. if a machines is to have x amount of RAM then it will have so unless an official statement announces other wise later on. devs, partners, investors, shareholders, etc. are all keen on such matters. the average gamer wouldn't know tech details anyway. what is the use lying to him?
Coded-Dude
10-11-2005, 04:37 PM
the difference in price is OBVIOUS! PC's are sold at a profit, which means a high price tag.... Consoles, on the other hand, are sold at a loss, which means a lower price tag. Do you have any reason to believe that a more powerful console, sold at a loss, should cost more than a high priced PC?
That is one of the main advantages of the gaming console:
It is priced in the area of medium class PC's but generally has more graphical perfomrnace power than any PC for about a year.....
These consoles are only matching PC standard graphics because they are basically turning into PCs.
PC gaming isn't being killed off, it's being used in console gaming. Even now with XBox, the hard disk drive, the ability to listen to your MP3s in the games, the ability to download new maps etc. It's PC gaming, but on consoles.
Helios
10-12-2005, 01:42 AM
These consoles are only matching PC standard graphics because they are basically turning into PCs.
Consoles have always matched PC graphics the first year of release. But if nothing else I say is true I gurnantee that "barrier" will be pushed back even longer with the combination of Cell/RSX. You dont spend a little under half a billion developing a chip for it to be topped in a short period of time.
PC gaming isn't being killed off, it's being used in console gaming. Even now with XBox, the hard disk drive, the ability to listen to your MP3s in the games, the ability to download new maps etc. It's PC gaming, but on consoles.
I think thats the point of the whole "killng off" thing. When you take away the advantages that PC gaming has always had and put it on a console and do it just as well or better(XBLive for example), the question comes up - why bother spending the extra money for the gaming rig when you can get a console that it does it too..just cheaper?
when consoles see RTS and MMOs as deep as PC, then I will ask the question if PC gaming is dying.
supporting keyboard/mouse for such titles on consoles should have beem made a long time ago. Iwant my RTS on consoles.
ded5850
10-12-2005, 06:30 AM
I find this topic particularly interesting, because I myself have gotten into numerous debates with my friends over which will be the winner in the end. I bat for Consoles, because they are essentially becoming more and more like PC's anyways, and as Helios has pointed out, why get the $1500+ gaming rig when u can get the $300+ one that can do the same. My friends push for PC's because, well, they don't know any better =P PC's always will have an advantage at the end of a consoles life. But what i always argued was that does that little-to-significant graphical/performance boost really justify the price.
The Doom 3 example was so perfect for what I was trying to say. Even they the Xbox can not make Doom 3 look like how it can look on a PC, it stilll looks damn good, and I'd love to see how you'd get Doom 3 to run on a 4 year old PC. Consoles just seem like a much better invesment to me, and most other consumers.
And THAT is why they shall eventually prevail. I'm not saying it will be immediate, for MMO's, RTS's, and FPS's are seen more desirable on PC. But even with that, FPS's are becoming more wanted on consoles, as many people on this thread have pointed out. I too prefer a game pad. Console gaming is just seen as so much more laid back than PC gaming. Sorry, but it's true. These reasons and the natural evolution consoles undergo each generation to turn more into a PC are reasons why consoles will prevail...eventually
rpgamer_2k5
10-12-2005, 02:16 PM
We always got users with money. Eventually one will purchase a dual-core Cell with a GPU similar to RSX but SLIed. Consoles once again wouldn't be able to compete with the computers. As far as price, it is climbing, hence I withdrewed from that intense market.
I personally don't consider PC as a 'real' gaming system. the trouble of compatibility, installations, hardware requirements, stiff using posissions, etc. all get in the way of the gaming experience.
that is why I don't even like watching DVD on my PC. the TV is much much bigger than the monitor, a remot is much easier and hastle-free to use, you can watch it with a bunch of friends, you can confortably have snaks and what not.
of course, PCs will still have some advantages. the question is how far will those take them?
digital neXus
10-12-2005, 03:35 PM
We always got users with money. Eventually one will purchase a dual-core Cell with a GPU similar to RSX but SLIed. Consoles once again wouldn't be able to compete with the computers. As far as price, it is climbing, hence I withdrewed from that intense market.
Yeah right, Dual Core Cell??????
That would be a 18 core CPU ( 2xCELL and 2x8 SPE's )
But if that time comes, I will have a quadurple CELL on 20 GHz with a RSX generation 4 /100 gigs or Vram, in front of my TV known as Playstation 4.
PC will never be able to compete with consoles, because they are build for gaming and PC is made for bullsh...ing.
Do you know when you buy games and it writes recommended specs: GeForce 6800/Ati Xxxx, CPU on 3.0 GHz to play in full res, etc.?
They need more mony for the PC Industry.
When I bought my first PC, 3 years ago, it was like this:
Gigabyte GA7VA
AMD 1.7 Ghz
256 DDR@266Mhz
GeForce 4 MX 460
When I saw in 3D marks what kind of water effects does it was incredible.....then came disappointment......there were no games with that kind of effects. Even water on Virtua Fighter Evolution PS2 looks better.
Danji
10-12-2005, 10:31 PM
Why does everyone say that consoles are becoming PCs? Seriously, until I see a console that has a twelve ton gorilla called Windows XP sitting on it's RAM I will not believe such a thought.
Sony never lied about their spec's Pheonixfire. They always said what they're specs were and then they stated somethings that were estimates of what it's capable of. The wording of their estimates is crucial in understanding why they'd say it.
Seriously if I hear the sentence "Sony lied to us with their tech demos!" I'm just going to lose it. We have enough threads on here rebuking that, do we not? All the tech demos were topped by The Bouncer (graphically) anyways..
But on the topic, I think that the PS3 with it's openness to the keyboard and mouse interface (which I read UT 2007 will support on the PS3) will allow for more genre's to cross over. I really would like some console RTS's and one on the PS3 would look highly impressive.
Sure, you can add multimedia features to a console but does that make it a PC? No, not at all because the differences between the two make them two completely different things to develop for and buy games/accessories for. I don't think there will ever be a point where you drop a new Blu-ray drive in your PS3 to make it faster but I do believe that the Linux HDD will blur the line greatly.
More importantly gentlemen is the fact that the PC's set of processors will not be able to reach the power of Cell by the time the PS4 comes out. Look at the current day situation with the Emotion Engine and a Pentium 4. Sure, the pentium 4 is more easily programmed for (by far) but the EE has almost twice as many FLOPs as a 3.6 GHz P4.
This processing power and the way it is set up on the Cell chip will allow for the PS3 to have some different features from PC games at that time. That is, of course, if the cell's full potential is properly utilized by that time. I think that we will se much better results from the Cell by this time next gen than we are seeing from the EE considering most games don't utilize the Vector Units last time I checked.
woundingchaney
10-12-2005, 10:41 PM
Why does everyone say that consoles are becoming PCs? Seriously, until I see a console that has a twelve ton gorilla called Windows XP sitting on it's RAM I will not believe such a thought.
Sony never lied about their spec's Pheonixfire. They always said what they're specs were and then they stated somethings that were estimates of what it's capable of. The wording of their estimates is crucial in understanding why they'd say it.
Seriously if I hear the sentence "Sony lied to us with their tech demos!" I'm just going to lose it. We have enough threads on here rebuking that, do we not? All the tech demos were topped by The Bouncer (graphically) anyways..
But on the topic, I think that the PS3 with it's openness to the keyboard and mouse interface (which I read UT 2007 will support on the PS3) will allow for more genre's to cross over. I really would like some console RTS's and one on the PS3 would look highly impressive.
Sure, you can add multimedia features to a console but does that make it a PC? No, not at all because the differences between the two make them two completely different things to develop for and buy games/accessories for. I don't think there will ever be a point where you drop a new Blu-ray drive in your PS3 to make it faster but I do believe that the Linux HDD will blur the line greatly.
More importantly gentlemen is the fact that the PC's set of processors will not be able to reach the power of Cell by the time the PS4 comes out. Look at the current day situation with the Emotion Engine and a Pentium 4. Sure, the pentium 4 is more easily programmed for (by far) but the EE has almost twice as many FLOPs as a 3.6 GHz P4.
This processing power and the way it is set up on the Cell chip will allow for the PS3 to have some different features from PC games at that time. That is, of course, if the cell's full potential is properly utilized by that time. I think that we will se much better results from the Cell by this time next gen than we are seeing from the EE considering most games don't utilize the Vector Units last time I checked.
Hey on now, I agree with much of what you said but, I think processors will definetly outpower the cell by the release of the P4. The cell is a very powerful processor as long as it is used for its key purposes, the cell would not be near as efficient in the situations of modern day usage. As far as the EE being compared to a P4. I could care less about the flops ratings here, the proof is in the proverbial pooding. The EE while good for its day drastically pales in comparison to a P4.
The_One
10-12-2005, 10:51 PM
PC and consoles are too unique for one to eliminate the other. it is like saying handhelds will kill consoles, TVs will kill monitors, etc. there are some experiences unique to PC and some to consoles. by that, both will be around for a while. if consoles eventually be PC (with hardware upgrades and all) then maybe this point can be brought up then. or will consoles by that time be considered PC anyway? Agreed. There are simply different genre of games on each different platform.
In the PC corner, you have FPS, RTS, Sports, etc...
On the console corner, you have beat-em-up (fighting), RPG, adventure games, hack 'n slash, Devil May Cry-esque games, and many other that you would never play on your PC unless you had a game pad (and even if you did, there aren't any console based genre on the PC anyways).
Danji
10-12-2005, 10:51 PM
Hey on now, I agree with much of what you said but, I think processors will definetly outpower the cell by the release of the P4. The cell is a very powerful processor as long as it is used for its key purposes, the cell would not be near as efficient in the situations of modern day usage. As far as the EE being compared to a P4. I could care less about the flops ratings here, the proof is in the proverbial pooding. The EE while good for its day drastically pales in comparison to a P4.
In what way do you think it pales? Really the PS2 would be a much different machine today if it had more RAM or a more fully fleshed-out video card.
I mean, look at the videos for Black for the PS2 and also Killzone. They utilize the EE to do some really killer partical effects.
It's kind of unfair to compare the two really seeing as how the P4 is held back by an OS and the EE does more work on the graphics than a CPU in a PC does (DOF, Bloom, and other effects aren't done by the actual CPU on a PC).
However, in raw (mostly in the SIMD assembly-coded hellhole that is the VU's) power the EE beats out a P4.
digital neXus
10-12-2005, 11:07 PM
But, next gen games like Next-Gen FPS Half Life 3 ( when come out, also for Counter Strike 3 ) that are PC cornered games, even DOOM was ported to XBOX ( with crappier graphics ), will be ported on PS3 and XBOX360, with a help from an USB mouse and keyboard.
So truly NXTGN consoles will become "....a Brand New Entertainment PC."
- PS3 or XBOX360....about 500$
- 21" CRT Monitor for 200$
- Hard Drive ( if not inluded ) about 80 Gigs 30$
- Surr. Speakers......for 80$ ALansing
Aproxx. 800$
High end PC for gaming ( you don't buy GeForce 7xxx 500$ for something else, beside gaming ) ...... 1500$ or even more.
So for gaming it's much cheaper to buy a console and accessories, even in next 4-6 years for PS4 and XBOX3000 release dates, will be again much cheaper to buy a new one than upgrading PC for all those years.
So maybe if I'm wrong, but what do you leave on PC if you don't have any games?
Danji
10-13-2005, 12:45 AM
Those prices are really odd. Surround sound isn't exactly necessary and the price of the HDD is not known for the PS3 and is $100 for the 360.
Well, you leave the ease of windows in favor of the PS3's linux which may yield awesome processing power and an even greater Open Source Software environment. The problem will still be finding applications for it for things like video editing and what not.
All you're leaving on the PC is guarantees. You might get an emulator or chat program for PS-linux but you might not. With the PC (windows here is implied) you know you can play Diablo II without a hitch and you can easily find an emulator or chat program. Also you leave behind the promise that a game is coming out. Some games will remain exclusive to the PC. Like gunbound and Gunz.
woundingchaney
10-13-2005, 02:52 AM
In what way do you think it pales? Really the PS2 would be a much different machine today if it had more RAM or a more fully fleshed-out video card.
I mean, look at the videos for Black for the PS2 and also Killzone. They utilize the EE to do some really killer partical effects.
It's kind of unfair to compare the two really seeing as how the P4 is held back by an OS and the EE does more work on the graphics than a CPU in a PC does (DOF, Bloom, and other effects aren't done by the actual CPU on a PC).
However, in raw (mostly in the SIMD assembly-coded hellhole that is the VU's) power the EE beats out a P4.
Your right my statement wasnt quite fair especially considering they are two totally different beasts and designed around differing concepts (to a point). Really my original statement evolved from the devs inabiltiy to access the power of the EE (at first), but contemplating the issue more that really has alot to do with the architecture surrounding the processor and other components of the PS2 as well. So, thank you for calling me on an unfair statement. :uhh:
Danji
10-13-2005, 05:37 AM
It's alright, I'm glad you came around. Still, with the cell being much more friendly to developers I wonder how many games will utilize it properly.
woundingchaney
10-13-2005, 10:22 AM
It's alright, I'm glad you came around. Still, with the cell being much more friendly to developers I wonder how many games will utilize it properly.
Well once again, for third part games I look for the to only use the PPE and one core on the 360 (that seems to be the middle ground for the machine).
As far as the cell being utitlized properly, I think thats going to take a little bit of time, but I have no doubt that amazing things will be done with it.
As far as the cell being utitlized properly, I think thats going to take a little bit of time
obviously. as is with all nexr gen consoles. look at a console after three years to see what it can really do. Kojima said it would take 3 years to see the true power of PS2 way back before it launched. to be honest, PS2 is still surprising people.
Helios
10-17-2005, 11:46 PM
Well once again, for third part games I look for the to only use the PPE and one core on the 360 (that seems to be the middle ground for the machine).
As far as the cell being utitlized properly, I think thats going to take a little bit of time, but I have no doubt that amazing things will be done with it.
Actually the new Call of Duty game coming out for the 360 uses all three cores, still looks marginally above a COD on todays system, but thats not the point...
I dont think any PS3 titles launching will be utilizing the PPE and all the SPE's however, the whole chip design is just so different from anything availible it may or may not be quite some time before you have every SPE and the PPE blazing along. It really puts you in a moment of awe when you realise all the demos and such up to this point have been using very limited resources from the cell, makes you wonder what a game pushing the cell to its limits would be like.
woundingchaney
10-18-2005, 02:44 AM
Actually the new Call of Duty game coming out for the 360 uses all three cores, still looks marginally above a COD on todays system, but thats not the point...
I dont think any PS3 titles launching will be utilizing the PPE and all the SPE's however, the whole chip design is just so different from anything availible it may or may not be quite some time before you have every SPE and the PPE blazing along. It really puts you in a moment of awe when you realise all the demos and such up to this point have been using very limited resources from the cell, makes you wonder what a game pushing the cell to its limits would be like.
Yes, I am aware of this, but also the game wasnt designed in mind for the 3 cores. Really the code is quite similar to the PC code. I think they simply split the program amongst the 3 cores and not using the cores potentials (Im sure many launch games have done the same). Off course I could be wrong, but Im pretty sure I can dig up the link. :moon:
It really puts you in a moment of awe when you realise all the demos and such up to this point have been using very limited resources from the cell, makes you wonder what a game pushing the cell to its limits would be like.
Killzone?
Helios
10-19-2005, 12:23 AM
Maybe im just being overly optimistic but I dont think the dev team on Killzone could have possibly run the cell at maximum in such a short period of time. The learning curve would have to be phenominal.
Yes, I am aware of this, but also the game wasnt designed in mind for the 3 cores. Really the code is quite similar to the PC code. I think they simply split the program amongst the 3 cores and not using the cores potentials (Im sure many launch games have done the same). Off course I could be wrong, but Im pretty sure I can dig up the link. :moon:
I didnt really mean that the cores were running at any sort of peak :p, just saying that the game does actually use them all.
woundingchaney
10-19-2005, 01:01 AM
Maybe im just being overly optimistic but I dont think the dev team on Killzone could have possibly run the cell at maximum in such a short period of time. The learning curve would have to be phenominal.
I didnt really mean that the cores were running at any sort of peak :p, just saying that the game does actually use them all.
Right but you start off by saying that the programmers are using all 3 cores and then go on to say that it is only a marginal improvement over the PC version. It was kind of misleading. 8-)
that is the problem; X2 is getting current gen ports. they aren't even polished that much if any at all. look at Gun, Tony Hawk, Quake 4, CoD, etc. on current gen along with X2's versions. next-gen graphics shouldn't be this hard to detect. one look should be all it takes to know why a system is really called next gen for.
maybe that is the cost of rushing the market. the next wave of X2 games may suffer the same 'port' problem or they may shine as true- can't get them anywhere else- king of graphics. but by that time, PS3 will be out. if it can deliver even lose to what it showed, MS will be hard pressed to explain a few things. and you think fightinh the 'Playstation' brand isn't hard enough.
digital neXus
10-26-2005, 06:45 PM
Maybe prices are odd, but, beside ps3, everything like I've said costs in my country: Serbia and Montenegro.
Actually, decent 5.1 speakers cost around 80-100 euro, any 21" CRT cost around 150-200 euro. But Hard Drive, if PS3 can accept any HD, Maxtor;WD etc, 80 gigs really costs around 60 euros, sorry for misstyping price 30$.
Next gen Graphic cars are 90% used for gaming and nothing else, if you're not some 3d animator.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.