I wanted to get a few different opinions on this topic from some pc enthusiasts. The next generation consoles could kick major a$$.
mrfixit thread
mrfixit thread
Could consoles pwn pc gaming in the next couple years?
- Thread starter JJN
- Start date
Jeff7181
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2002
- 18,368
- 11
- 81
I'll never switch over completely. The resolution of consoles just isn't up to par with that of a PC. I played a few PS2 games while I was visiting my brother and couldn't help thinking, "my god this looks like crap... it's so blocky it's barely a step up from Mario Brothers."
This is just hypothetical, but what if a Playstation 3 came out in 2005 that had better graphics than what was acheivable on a R9800XT?
P.S. I'm Nexu there and I just posted so you can see I how really feel there.
P.S. I'm Nexu there and I just posted so you can see I how really feel there.
Since the XBoxNext (or whatever it's called) is suposed to be based on an R500 part, I think they since ATi will then develop a R600 part which will be out for the PC and supersede the R500 part, the PC will have the capacity to outgun consoles at the high end. Also, PC's have higher resolutions, less blur and AA/AF options.
The XBox at the moment has something like an NV2x part (derivative of) and we're on the NV40 soon, 2 generations later (2 full generations), so quite clearly even though consoles when released may be about on par with PC's, PC's will soon be provided with more advanced parts, and re-take the crown, although a top end PC's capabilities can never be taken full advantage of
.
The XBox at the moment has something like an NV2x part (derivative of) and we're on the NV40 soon, 2 generations later (2 full generations), so quite clearly even though consoles when released may be about on par with PC's, PC's will soon be provided with more advanced parts, and re-take the crown, although a top end PC's capabilities can never be taken full advantage of
.Game Consoles are always generations old PC hardware. The only reason I have a GameCube is because it's cheap multiplayer (compared to building four gaming computers with networking and the like.)
That's EXACTLY why I don't play FPS games consoles...BTW, like nick said, it's not even funny. Computers own and will alway's own consoles.
Well, they have since the beginning so I guess it wouldn't be surprising if they continued that trend. That's talking about number of gamers, games sold, revenue and profit generated of course. Console dominate PCs in those areas.
You were playing on a PS2, what did you expect? It's like comparing a XBox to a PC packing a Voodoo3.
The XBox does 1920x1080i in at least one game that I can think of off the top of my head, of course you need a HDTV and the proper AV hookup to be able to run it at that. Most people will see then game playing @640x480i as they have it hooked up to a standard TV or only use the standard AV or S-Vid hookups. The next gen consoles will likely support 1080i as the standard resolution for all games. Resolution issues are pretty much off the table. Sure, my monitor does handle 20480x1536, but a good chunk of PC "gamers" are moving to LCDs with lower resolution limits then what the next gen consoles will have when hooked up to a semi decent display.
And there lies the rub and the biggest edge consoles have. They can take advantage of their hardware from day one, and by PC standards they regularly 'exceed' the limits of the hardware(as they can code to the metal without an API in the way they can squeeze considerably more out of identical hardware). Look at the situation now and the two most complex games we have on the PC are ports of console games, and this is three years in to this generation of consoles. Right now in terms of visuals the big edge PCs have is resolution, with HDTV and next gen consoles that one is gone. The next gen consoles will offer power levels that will show limitations of artists moreso then the technology for quite some time. Art asset complexity is going to increase considerably and that will be the limiting factor for some time. In the PC space we should be hoping that ports of these titles will happen quickly more then anything. Dev costs for the miniscule portion of gamers that have high end PC hardware is too prohibitive, but a port of a console title is much more doable.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't saying PCs won't have a huge theoretical edge in terms of hardware, and it will still b!tch slap consoles for games that need a mouse/keyboard setup(complex strategy games or top tier shooters) and we will see games on the PC side that couldn't be replicated accurately on the consoles(Mafia this gen as an example, the game utilizes advantages the PC has over consoles- namely amount of RAM in this case), but consoles are going to have an advanatge in real games because developers only have to worry about 'DXNext' level hardware. It's the same as it always was.
You were playing on a PS2, what did you expect? It's like comparing a XBox to a PC packing a Voodoo3.
The XBox does 1920x1080i in at least one game that I can think of off the top of my head, of course you need a HDTV and the proper AV hookup to be able to run it at that. Most people will see then game playing @640x480i as they have it hooked up to a standard TV or only use the standard AV or S-Vid hookups. The next gen consoles will likely support 1080i as the standard resolution for all games. Resolution issues are pretty much off the table. Sure, my monitor does handle 20480x1536, but a good chunk of PC "gamers" are moving to LCDs with lower resolution limits then what the next gen consoles will have when hooked up to a semi decent display.
And there lies the rub and the biggest edge consoles have. They can take advantage of their hardware from day one, and by PC standards they regularly 'exceed' the limits of the hardware(as they can code to the metal without an API in the way they can squeeze considerably more out of identical hardware). Look at the situation now and the two most complex games we have on the PC are ports of console games, and this is three years in to this generation of consoles. Right now in terms of visuals the big edge PCs have is resolution, with HDTV and next gen consoles that one is gone. The next gen consoles will offer power levels that will show limitations of artists moreso then the technology for quite some time. Art asset complexity is going to increase considerably and that will be the limiting factor for some time. In the PC space we should be hoping that ports of these titles will happen quickly more then anything. Dev costs for the miniscule portion of gamers that have high end PC hardware is too prohibitive, but a port of a console title is much more doable.
Don't get me wrong, this isn't saying PCs won't have a huge theoretical edge in terms of hardware, and it will still b!tch slap consoles for games that need a mouse/keyboard setup(complex strategy games or top tier shooters) and we will see games on the PC side that couldn't be replicated accurately on the consoles(Mafia this gen as an example, the game utilizes advantages the PC has over consoles- namely amount of RAM in this case), but consoles are going to have an advanatge in real games because developers only have to worry about 'DXNext' level hardware. It's the same as it always was.
I think consoles have been better then PCs for pretty much forever, in one area. Thats fighting games. Other then that the PC has always been superior and I don't see that changing. There is just so much more you could do with a PC. While you can make up a lot of the speed difference with optomized code there are lots of other areas that PCs stomp all over consoles. Resolution has already been mentioned and thats a huge one. Another is control. The pads that come with consoles just can't come anywhere near a mouse and keyboard for FPS games. I don't even think you can compare the two. It would be hilarious to have the two versions of Halo (XBox and PC) be compatible in multi. The PC users would in general stomp the XBox users silly.
Memory (mainly storage) is another one.
I can't imagine consoles competing with the PC in some genres anytime soon if ever (simulations and RTS games are a good example).
Memory (mainly storage) is another one.
I can't imagine consoles competing with the PC in some genres anytime soon if ever (simulations and RTS games are a good example).
And a mouse and keyboard are *awful* for platformers and driving games. You tried playing GTA3 on a PC without a gamepad? It's hideous. Driving a car with the mouse is just frustrating, and with the keyboard (no analog control) it's next to impossible.
Consoles are successful because their bang/buck factor is very high, and they do just one thing but do it very well.
My understanding was the xBox has a modified GF3 core that is probably very close to what a GF4 is.
Consoles are great for sports games. But for me everything else is way better on a computer.
Consoles are great for sports games. But for me everything else is way better on a computer.
SneakyStuff
Diamond Member
- Jan 13, 2004
- 4,294
- 0
- 76
XBOX is the best console BECAUSE it's based on a computer. Computers are superior to consoles in almost every way. And if you think about it, you can do a heck of a lot more on a computer, without dishing out $50 per game. Oh yea, and about the driving games, i'll agree with you there, but for $14 bucks, you can get a USB Gravis gamepad, and boom, you've got your own little super console
I find it funny you would ask this on a PC forum, you would most likely get the opposite view from a console forum.
I will point out that console gaming has one major advantage over PC gaming.
The hardware is identical on every system, which allows the programmers to design their games to work better in their environment. Understand that even through the graphic on some games my look bad, imagine what your computer game would look like pipe to a TV.
I prefer pc games too.
I will point out that console gaming has one major advantage over PC gaming.
The hardware is identical on every system, which allows the programmers to design their games to work better in their environment. Understand that even through the graphic on some games my look bad, imagine what your computer game would look like pipe to a TV.
I prefer pc games too.
The Voodoo 3 3000 AGP running Quakeworld offered better looks than the XBox does running Halo. It's all about the resolution.
And IIRC there were a number of threads in this forum discussing the fact that only a handful of games supported above 640x480i. The vast majority of them are running at half the resolution I run all my games at. I hate the discussion of resolution on PC vs Console, because it defeats the purpose behind what a console is made for.
Speaking in "generic terms" again as you stated at the beginning of your post Ben, the vast majority of homes won't see HDTV for another four years or more. It is still too much of a luxury item.
Umm, why do you think that there is no API? There is almost always an API. Glide was an API that in practice resembled the way consoles were/are done.
Which two complex games would these be? If you mean in terms of giving the lowest performance I would say straight up that is more the result of porting than anything else. If one of the "complex" games you are talking about is Halo, then I refer you to the E3 2000 Halo Trailer. Considering its contemporary cards were the GF2 GTS and the Radeon 64MB DDR, Halo is more of an example of a game that underwent one too many port attempts. Compared to BF1942, Halo is rather pathetic in terms of what it presents to you for the hardware it uses.
If you are not referring to Halo, then I would really like to know which games you have in mind.
That still relies on HDTVs becoming commonplace in homes. Go check your nearest Best Buy or Wal-Mart, and tell me what percentage of their floor products are HDTVs.
John Carmack has already proven that this is the case now with PC hardware, and has been since the GF3 came along. If every development house put as much work into their games as Id and Valve have put into Doom III and HL2, we'd all be playing some pretty amazing games.
The problem is the developers don't make much more use of their platform stability. Why? They are still porting it across the three major consoles in a lot of cases. Consider EA's popular line of sporting games. They are all the same base code with different hardware support codepaths. The same is true of PC games, though the range of hardware needing to be supported is far broader. That is what makes console games so much more lucrative than PC games. Less overall development costs mean the developers just work on the 3 consoles there, and bam, they rake in the cash. They don't put any effort into making the absolute best of the hardware they have access to. If they did, the visuals from Doom III would not be a shocking leap forward into the next level of graphics in gaming, it would be a small step forward among many.
I'm not faulting other game development houses or anything. I understand their point of view, it just doesn't make business (dollar) sense to do more than is needed to sell the game.
Consoles take their components from the PC tech world - they're basically scaled down PCs. Thus, PCs will always be superior - as if the superiority of the games didn't speak for themselves.
Look at Halo - on the Xbox it was OMFG OMG BEST GAME EVAR SPANK SPANK SPANK!
On the PC it's "Meh. Another Shooter. Good, but nothing special."
Consoles are still in the gaming dark ages....no mods, online play barely worthy of the name, no expansion packs, impossible to play certain genres (RTS, Flight Sim).
Consoles make me haha.
Look at Halo - on the Xbox it was OMFG OMG BEST GAME EVAR SPANK SPANK SPANK!
On the PC it's "Meh. Another Shooter. Good, but nothing special."
Consoles are still in the gaming dark ages....no mods, online play barely worthy of the name, no expansion packs, impossible to play certain genres (RTS, Flight Sim).
Consoles make me haha.
I don't even have a console right now so don't think that I'm anti-pc guy but there are several factors that cannot be ignored.
1. Console games outsell pc games 2-3 to 1 (maybe even 10-1 when you add all consoles together, I dunno)
2. Of the millions of computers out there how many have a gpu at the FX5700, R9600 level or higher and why should the vast majority of people upgrade when they don't need to except for some game?
3. Console internet gaming is growing exponentially and is becoming much more user friendly.
4. In two years the console will be more powerful than 90% of pc's (in terms of gaming), will developers make games for the console first and then try to port it for a PC and for how long will they try to make games work on old computer equipment or say screw it and make more games as console only.
5. The bang for the buck arguement and simplicity favors consoles greatly. $200-300 every 3-4 years is it for hardware, while computer modifications take more knowledge and skill to open up cases, replace equipment, install drivers, etc., not to mention prices for ram, video cards, processors, etc.
6. Computers barely need a fraction of the power that they have now for regular tasks (internet, microsoft access, email, etc.) Why should someone with a year 2000 PC upgrade at all over the next 10 years unless specifically for gaming? If the "Jones Household" doesn't upgrade a PC specifically for gaming, their kid will not be able to play any of the latest and greatest games -> further adding to the unbalanced sales of games.
I know its interesting that I posted here - its good to get different perspectives
P.S. Imagine HL3 in 2007/8 being sold as console only because its more trouble than its worth to try to get the game to work on PC's with low system specs (remember the game needs to be able to be sold to the masses).
1. Console games outsell pc games 2-3 to 1 (maybe even 10-1 when you add all consoles together, I dunno)
2. Of the millions of computers out there how many have a gpu at the FX5700, R9600 level or higher and why should the vast majority of people upgrade when they don't need to except for some game?
3. Console internet gaming is growing exponentially and is becoming much more user friendly.
4. In two years the console will be more powerful than 90% of pc's (in terms of gaming), will developers make games for the console first and then try to port it for a PC and for how long will they try to make games work on old computer equipment or say screw it and make more games as console only.
5. The bang for the buck arguement and simplicity favors consoles greatly. $200-300 every 3-4 years is it for hardware, while computer modifications take more knowledge and skill to open up cases, replace equipment, install drivers, etc., not to mention prices for ram, video cards, processors, etc.
6. Computers barely need a fraction of the power that they have now for regular tasks (internet, microsoft access, email, etc.) Why should someone with a year 2000 PC upgrade at all over the next 10 years unless specifically for gaming? If the "Jones Household" doesn't upgrade a PC specifically for gaming, their kid will not be able to play any of the latest and greatest games -> further adding to the unbalanced sales of games.
I know its interesting that I posted here - its good to get different perspectives
P.S. Imagine HL3 in 2007/8 being sold as console only because its more trouble than its worth to try to get the game to work on PC's with low system specs (remember the game needs to be able to be sold to the masses).
As they have stated above console units are just cheap computers. PCs will always have an edge because u can put more money into it and use it for a lot more then just gaming or dvd viewing.
Soulkeeper
Diamond Member
- Nov 23, 2001
- 6,731
- 155
- 106
it'll never happen unless they start costing 1000 bucks
over the last few years consoles have been derived from pc technology
when pc's start being designed from console technology then maybe
over the last few years consoles have been derived from pc technology
when pc's start being designed from console technology then maybe
Originally posted by: JJN
I don't even have a console right now so don't think that I'm anti-pc guy but there are several factors that cannot be ignored.
1. Console games outsell pc games 2-3 to 1 (maybe even 10-1 when you add all consoles together, I dunno)
2. Of the millions of computers out there how many have a gpu at the FX5700, R9600 level or higher and why should the vast majority of people upgrade when they don't need to except for some game?
3. Console internet gaming is growing exponentially and is becoming much more user friendly.
4. In two years the console will be more powerful than 90% of pc's (in terms of gaming), will developers make games for the console first and then try to port it for a PC and for how long will they try to make games work on old computer equipment or say screw it and make more games as console only.
5. The bang for the buck arguement and simplicity favors consoles greatly. $200-300 every 3-4 years is it for hardware, while computer modifications take more knowledge and skill to open up cases, replace equipment, install drivers, etc., not to mention prices for ram, video cards, processors, etc.
6. Computers barely need a fraction of the power that they have now for regular tasks (internet, microsoft access, email, etc.) Why should someone with a year 2000 PC upgrade at all over the next 10 years unless specifically for gaming? If the "Jones Household" doesn't upgrade a PC specifically for gaming, their kid will not be able to play any of the latest and greatest games -> further adding to the unbalanced sales of games.
I know its interesting that I posted here - its good to get different perspectives
P.S. Imagine HL3 in 2007/8 being sold as console only because its more trouble than its worth to try to get the game to work on PC's with low system specs (remember the game needs to be able to be sold to the masses).
1)This is because there are millions more console gamers than PC gamers...know why? Consoles are less cost prohibitive. They're much cheaper to buy.
2) Uh, since those are mid range cards, I'd say your average PC has a card of that level at this point.
3) wow. 16 player internet gaming. It's still nowhere near as capable as PC internet gaming. I mean, hell, the PC has had online play for a decade now (remember DWANGO with Doom? Oooooooh yeaaaaaaaaah....).
4)Every time a console gen releases it's more powerful than 90% of PCs. The problem is, it then becomes static for 2 - 4 years while the PC marches ahead. Consoles evolve in punctuated equilibrium - PCs evolve linearly, and are thus always ahead.
5)Yes consoles are cheaper - but they're also far more limited in what they can do.
6)They shouldn't. But that's beside the point - the subject here is PC Gaming v Console Gaming, and PC gaming will never lose that fight.
What you're doing is comparing a general use PC to a console. Compare a gaming PC to a console, and the numbers restack...it's pretty obvious.
Obviously each has advantages and disadvantages, and neither 'pwns' the other.
Who here sits around a PC monitor with four guys to play Madden? Or Soul Calibur? ::crickets::
Who can get by with spending $179 every four years to build their gaming PC? ::crickets::
Who in the hell wants to play a fps or rts with an analog stick? ::crickets::
How many rendering paths do PC games have to develop for? Fixed Function, PS1.3, PS1.4, PS2.0 FP16, PS2.0 FP24, PS2.0 FP16/32, etc, etc. Compared to one for a console. Which is why we can see a game such as Halo released in 2001 on a console while PC games are still using the Q3 engine in 2004!.
Who here sits around a PC monitor with four guys to play Madden? Or Soul Calibur? ::crickets::
Who can get by with spending $179 every four years to build their gaming PC? ::crickets::
Who in the hell wants to play a fps or rts with an analog stick? ::crickets::
How many rendering paths do PC games have to develop for? Fixed Function, PS1.3, PS1.4, PS2.0 FP16, PS2.0 FP24, PS2.0 FP16/32, etc, etc. Compared to one for a console. Which is why we can see a game such as Halo released in 2001 on a console while PC games are still using the Q3 engine in 2004!.
Insomniak, you reiterated many of my points and your almost there, now I just need to get you to think outside the box for a second.
In response to #2 - I disagree. I would say that average computers have much less than that card. I live with 2 friends, we're all in our twenties and to some extend techies/gadget boys and 2 of 3 have signifcantly less gpu than that. I would say that the average computer right now has a geforce2 16-32mb card in it.
#3 - you took the words out of my mouth... now just give consoles another couple years and a hardware upgrade.
This theory is based on an opinion that the average computer users will not keep up with upgrading there computer at the same speed that consoles will upgrade just do to market demand. Sure gaming entusiasts (and pretty much everyone at this forum is an enthusist- keep that into perspective) will have a$$ kicking machines that consoles won't touch for several years (if ever). But, IMO the average computer out there is at about the geforce2 gpu level which is probably comparable to the xbox? no? i dunno, but stay with me here. In 2-3 years there is a realistic chance that the next generation consoles will be at a gpu performance level as a R9800XT. How will that compare to the average PC in two years? Average computers will not be upgraded nearly as fast. The difference between the average PC and the console is what I am talking about here. If the difference between the two (average pc and current console) gets much further out of whack will the game designers/programmers have enough reason to produce games for PC's when the sales are not there? The sales will shift even further towards consoles and less to PC's.
My hope is that the PC stays far enough ahead of the consoles to make gaming on a PC fun and still cost justifiable. It is possible though that it may not always remain that way.
In response to #2 - I disagree. I would say that average computers have much less than that card. I live with 2 friends, we're all in our twenties and to some extend techies/gadget boys and 2 of 3 have signifcantly less gpu than that. I would say that the average computer right now has a geforce2 16-32mb card in it.
#3 - you took the words out of my mouth... now just give consoles another couple years and a hardware upgrade.
This theory is based on an opinion that the average computer users will not keep up with upgrading there computer at the same speed that consoles will upgrade just do to market demand. Sure gaming entusiasts (and pretty much everyone at this forum is an enthusist- keep that into perspective) will have a$$ kicking machines that consoles won't touch for several years (if ever). But, IMO the average computer out there is at about the geforce2 gpu level which is probably comparable to the xbox? no? i dunno, but stay with me here. In 2-3 years there is a realistic chance that the next generation consoles will be at a gpu performance level as a R9800XT. How will that compare to the average PC in two years? Average computers will not be upgraded nearly as fast. The difference between the average PC and the console is what I am talking about here. If the difference between the two (average pc and current console) gets much further out of whack will the game designers/programmers have enough reason to produce games for PC's when the sales are not there? The sales will shift even further towards consoles and less to PC's.
My hope is that the PC stays far enough ahead of the consoles to make gaming on a PC fun and still cost justifiable. It is possible though that it may not always remain that way.
I got a gamecube for the nintendo licensed titles.. Have to have my zelda.. and the RE remake was excellent(as well as ED)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter