I think im done with pc gaming

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
BoberFett, you can't be serious. So a new game won't work on an operating system that's almost seven years old and you're going to switch to consoles? Drank a little too much tonight?

I'm quitting consoles forever because Gears of War won't run on my Gameboy. Bleep this forced console obsolescence, at least an old PC has other uses. People still make shareware games that will run on PCs that are more than 10 years old. Who makes games for consoles that are over a decade old. You're being screwed by the console makers, and it's time to switch to the PC.

FIRST of all, you are on an OS that is barely better and not really much newer than 2K. :p
Microsoft released Windows 2000 in February 2000 .... XP in Oct 2001 ... same NT kernel ... lots more bloat for XP. ... as to "support" ... MS is STILL releasing patches for them both and i use ATI's latest XP drivers for Win2K without ANY penalty whatsoever.


secondly, there are no games [perhaps OTHER that by M$] that run on XP that will not run on 2k.

finally, there is ZERO reason for me to "upgrade" to XP from Win2K .... especially now ... when Vista will make them both obsolete ... at the same time.
:roll:

ridiculous analogy
:thumbsdown:

Dude, please refrain from talking about operating systems when you have absolutely zero technical knowledge of either.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Just to follow up, I found this.

http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=100753

According to some guy at THQ "There are several core pieces of tech that we use that don't support Windows 2000." I smell BS. I'd love to know what "tech" doesn't support 2000. Other companies manage to still run on 2000. What are they doing that's so technologically groundbreaking?
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
BoberFett, you can't be serious. So a new game won't work on an operating system that's almost seven years old and you're going to switch to consoles? Drank a little too much tonight?

I'm quitting consoles forever because Gears of War won't run on my Gameboy. Bleep this forced console obsolescence, at least an old PC has other uses. People still make shareware games that will run on PCs that are more than 10 years old. Who makes games for consoles that are over a decade old. You're being screwed by the console makers, and it's time to switch to the PC.

FIRST of all, you are on an OS that is barely better and not really much newer than 2K. :p
Microsoft released Windows 2000 in February 2000 .... XP in Oct 2001 ... same NT kernel ... lots more bloat for XP. ... as to "support" ... MS is STILL releasing patches for them both and i use ATI's latest XP drivers for Win2K without ANY penalty whatsoever.


secondly, there are no games [perhaps OTHER that by M$] that run on XP that will not run on 2k.

finally, there is ZERO reason for me to "upgrade" to XP from Win2K .... especially now ... when Vista will make them both obsolete ... at the same time.
:roll:

ridiculous analogy
:thumbsdown:

Dude, please refrain from talking about operating systems when you have absolutely zero technical knowledge of either.

Dude, please refrain from posting completely useless comments that contribute absolutely nothing to the thread ... as is your habit.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Dude, please refrain from talking about operating systems when you have absolutely zero technical knowledge of either.

Please, help me understand the compelling difference between 2K and XP. I'm looking through the headers that were installed with the most recent Platform SDK and I'm just not seeing where 2K has some huge technical deficiency.

Here's a list of kernel changes: http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPKernel/

I don't see anything which would prevent a game from running on 2K.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
OP, I'm with ya. My PC gaming is less and less every year. There are still some games the PC is king for, like Civilization. But overall I'm tired of the upgrade churn. I'm still using Windows 2000, I have no plans to move to XP and I guarantee I'll never install Vista. I don't know if the release versions of some new games require XP, but for example I downloaded the Company of Heroes demo and it wouldn't run on 2000 so they can kiss my ass, I'm not going to buy a game before I try it. When games start requiring Vista, it's game over for me. That's a few years off, but it is coming. At that point I switch to Linux completely for my PC for productivity, and I'll do my gaming on a console.

It's funny cause you can't upgrade from 2000 to XP Home, you need to go Pro. It seems pretty obvious that Microsoft sees 2000 as part of their business OS line. For consumers Microsoft was pimping ME around then.

You can be a stubborn baby and refuse to shell out $30 for XP Home upgrade and dig up an old Windows 98 CD or something, but don't be surprised when a few cutting edge games start giving you trouble. You also won't be able to run some 4+ year older games on 2000. You think developers are going to test for Vista support AND XP support And 2000 support next year? With XP Home being literally almost free recently as they move out inventory, there's no excuse, in the developers minds I'm sure, for somebody to not be on a more modern OS.
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: BoberFett
OP, I'm with ya. My PC gaming is less and less every year. There are still some games the PC is king for, like Civilization. But overall I'm tired of the upgrade churn. I'm still using Windows 2000, I have no plans to move to XP and I guarantee I'll never install Vista. I don't know if the release versions of some new games require XP, but for example I downloaded the Company of Heroes demo and it wouldn't run on 2000 so they can kiss my ass, I'm not going to buy a game before I try it. When games start requiring Vista, it's game over for me. That's a few years off, but it is coming. At that point I switch to Linux completely for my PC for productivity, and I'll do my gaming on a console.

It's funny cause you can't upgrade from 2000 to XP Home, you need to go Pro. It seems pretty obvious that Microsoft sees 2000 as part of their business OS line. For consumers Microsoft was pimping ME around then.

You can be a stubborn baby and refuse to shell out $30 for XP Home upgrade and dig up an old Windows 98 CD or something, but don't be surprised when a few cutting edge games start giving you trouble. You also won't be able to run some 4+ year older games on 2000. You think developers are going to test for Vista support AND XP support And 2000 support next year? With XP Home being literally almost free recently as they move out inventory, there's no excuse, in the developers minds I'm sure, for somebody to not be on a more modern OS.

it's "funny" that you are completely clueless about the very subject you accuse me of not being informed.

you are 100% wrong about win2k ... as to "more modern" --:p

:roll:

educate yourself before you accuse someone else
 

corkyg

Elite Member | Peripherals
Super Moderator
Mar 4, 2000
27,370
240
106
"I think im done with pc gaming"

It actually is possible to grow up and become so productive at earning a living that you just don't have time to waste playing games. :)
 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: corkyg
"I think im done with pc gaming"

It actually is possible to grow up and become so productive at earning a living that you just don't have time to waste playing games. :)

yes ... but then no one here would know because if you got "so productive at earning a living" you wouldn't waste time posting here --either. :p

:D

and ... in my [extremely] humble opinion, playing Video games are much less of a "waste" of time [& money] than watching TV or movies.
:roll:

it's entertainment
 

SoundTheSurrender

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2005
3,126
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: corkyg
"I think im done with pc gaming"

It actually is possible to grow up and become so productive at earning a living that you just don't have time to waste playing games. :)

yes ... but then no one here would know because if you got "so productive at earning a living" you wouldn't waste time posting here --either. :p

:D

and ... in my [extremely] humble opinion, playing Video games are much less of a "waste" of time [& money] than watching TV or movies.
:roll:

it's entertainment

Or sitting on a forum and complaining about doing something productive :p
 

Kappo

Platinum Member
Aug 18, 2000
2,381
0
0
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: corkyg
"I think im done with pc gaming"

It actually is possible to grow up and become so productive at earning a living that you just don't have time to waste playing games. :)

yes ... but then no one here would know because if you got "so productive at earning a living" you wouldn't waste time posting here --either. :p

:D

and ... in my [extremely] humble opinion, playing Video games are much less of a "waste" of time [& money] than watching TV or movies.
:roll:

it's entertainment

Im fairly productive at earning a living. In fact, I am in the top 10% of earners here at Anandtech (you can thank the anandtech media department for those stats :D)Thankfully for the people around me, the dollar doesnt rule my life, nor will it ever.

I play video games and will until the day I die. Sometimes I have more time, others I dont. I watch 2 hours of TV per week (House and Heros), and spend a MINIMUM of 8 hours per week playing video games.

It's all about what you choose for your entertainment. I prefer interactive over having info gobbed onto me, so Im with you ;)
 

Slickone

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 1999
6,120
0
0
If you don't have to play the lastest and greatest games, you don't have to worry about not having the fastest PC. I play older games, so my PC is always fast enough. Plus the games cheaper by then. Same thing with me and DVD's. :)

You might say you don't want to spend the $ on a PC, but you're going to anyway, even if you don't play games, just for internet and whatnot. Console games cost so much, once you add up all the cost of the games, there's your PC upgrade money.
Besides, can you download demos for consoles (?)? If not, then you might buy something you don't like. Another way PC might save some $. What about free downloadable mods?

I know I could never play anything but sports games on a gamepad.
 

Matt2

Diamond Member
Jul 28, 2001
4,762
0
0
Originally posted by: CVSiN
Originally posted by: secretanchitman
"congrats to nvidia for releasing the 8800GTX before the ps3 came out."

see, PCs will always overtake consoles, but yes, they get outdated quickly. thats just how technology is.

um you know that the 360 and PS3 only have the eqivelent of a 6800 gt class chip in them.. the same gen.. last years.. so the 7900 and the 7950 also kick the crap outa the consoles..

as well as whatever is the hot ATI chipset over the last year..
both trump them..

That was the dumbest post I have seen in a while.

I stopped reading just so I could take in the ignorance you just displayed.

The RSX (PS3) is a GeForce 7-Series chip and Xenos (XBOX360) is a 64 shader unified architecture with embedded RAM (eRAM).

The fact is that console games will always look better than PC games on similar hardware. Developers for consoles can max out the hardware and take IQ to the limits because they only have one specific set of hardware to program for.

PC game developers could make breath taking games that would look 10 times better than anything consoles have if they programmed a game to specifically run on the 8800GTX for example. They can't do that of course because there are still people running 6600GTs and 6800GTs and X800s or even lower. PC gamers who own low to midrange cards would cry foul and game developers wouldnt make any money.
 

IEC

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Jun 10, 2004
14,600
6,084
136
Originally posted by: apoppin
Originally posted by: platinumike
Originally posted by: GetMedieval
The way to go is to forget consoles and just lower the in-game graphics settings. It doesnt really look that much worse on most games with medium settings.


ya I would but when you see Fight night round 3 on an a hdtv, man that and look at all the crashes and problems one must undergo with pc games.

there is a win-win situation IF you are patient enough to buy PC games ONLY after they are finally patched and bargain bin. ;)

IGNORE the new releases except for the reviews and visit their forums to see IF the Devs are serious about finishing their games.

i got royally screwed on both NWN2 and Gothic 3. Paid full price for both and waited 6 weeks to be able to play NWN2 [it went on sale for $25 in the meantime] and then played the BETA gothic3 which is STILL buggy as HELL 2-1/2 months after release....

so it's a LESSON ... i can now save money and play only stable final release PC games
:)

live ... and learn

send a 'message' to the Devs. ;)
... and save big bucks.

Sadly, this is all too true with PC games these days. They aren't tested/developed properly and are rushed to market with tons of "bugs" (features? :disgust: ). Waiting is always a good thing if you can afford to do it.

Edit: Emoticons acting stupid.
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
mostly been there done that. i play a game of cs source here and there.. maybe once a month now... probably read more about games than i play now.
 

Aftermath

Golden Member
Sep 2, 2003
1,151
0
0
As I read over this thread, I have one real question. If the consoles fully supported the keyboard+mouse combo, and they had a VGA/DVI output right out of the box, how big of a blow would that make to PC gaming? If I could pull out my computer tower and replace it with a console, keep my monitor, keyboard, and mouse but gain a controller, and still have basic stuff like web surfing, music (CD or audio files, using a hard drive), possibly instant messaging, and of course, playing video games.. it would replace my gaming rig entirely.

Then I could just run Linux on my laptop, and not only would that sidestep the Windows Vista issue, but I would be off the computer upgrade treadmill.

I've been feeling the strain myself. Life has certainly gotten better as a PC gamer since the Windows 9x days, but there are still problems everywhere. This past year I've had several issues with games.

I picked up Serious Sam 2 with the sole purpose of playing it co-op with a few friends of mine. We all really loved the first two Sam games. Turned out to be a crummy console port that caused hours of frustration, then finally went on the shelf to collect dust for several months until a patch was finally released that actually fixed our multiplayer issue. The game was still glitchy and very clearly a console game on PC. Not to mention it just sucked overall compared to the older games.

I grabbed Need For Speed: Most Wanted and never got beyond the second race. My car had a constant issue with the alignment being off and veering hard to one side, or the other. There were no newer patches for it at the time, and the issue wasn't with my controller. I tried reconfiguring it and simply using my keyboard. A complete system overhaul (reinstalling or updating all drivers), a clean re-install of the game, and even a hard drive format later, and the issue remained. It's been collecting dust ever since. I don't even feel like dragging it out to try it again.

I just grabbed Star Trek: Legacy not too long ago, hoping that the reviews were just being harsh. (I'm also a big Trek geek, so I knew I would love the game on some level, even if it sucked.) Sure enough, it's practically garbage. Another console port, sloppily thrown together to the point where it's hardly playable. All of the controls are awkward and glitchy, the AI makes me feel like I'm back playing something like X-Wing or TIE Fighter again. I haven't even bothered to try multiplayer yet. Since so many people are having problems with it, I don't even feel like wasting my time. I also found several mods right off the bat that improved the graphics, musical score, and added a save feature to the game. On top of everything else, 4 - 7fps during "typical" gameplay on a A64 3200+, 2GB, PCI-E Radeon GTO2 256MB, 1280x1024 "high" details with no extras.

I've had terrible luck with PC games this past year, and each time I buy an "unfinished" game that never seems to have even been through a beta testing phase, I grow a little more weary. It's not coming home and putting a brand new, $50 game away because it simply doesn't work. It's not just the problems from the games themselves, it's the hours of scouring the internet. It's sitting here trying this and that, re-installing this, updating that, tweaking here, modifying there. Hours of frustration and tedium because of a game that shouldn't have even have passed the testing phase, much less be on store shelves.

Like someone else mentioned, I'm not just some kid wasting away my free time. I pick up a game because it looks enjoyable, I just want to play it and have fun. I don't want to sit here and pull my hair out trying to get a game to work on a computer or a console.

But I'm not ranting on against computers. That's more of a rant on the current state of video games as a whole. Amazingly enough, I do remember a time when patches were just sort of superfluous and fixed a few small bugs or updated the game a little to add some support or content or something, and most of the time were completely unnecessary to enjoy the game.


 

IdaGno

Senior member
Sep 2, 2004
452
0
0
Originally posted by: clamum
Originally posted by: IdaGno
Further food for thought - from consoles to PC's to MAC hybrids & back to consoles.

Vista = a huge hunk o' change for well-over-the-horizon DX10 gaming. In the future, game development will be very much console-centric anyway. May as well get on the console-platform-of-your-choice bus & get off the perpetual-PC-upgrade bus, unless money is no object.

Can you explain?

Don't take my word for it.

Soren Johnson: PC game development has suffered because most publishers are putting their energy and money into console development. This means that the industry's best studios are primarily focusing on consoles, which means that the quality of console games will go up while the quantity of good PC games will go down.

 

Elderly Newt

Senior member
May 23, 2005
430
0
0
I really don't understand where people are getting the idea that they must continually upgrade from. I'm playing games on my 9700pro and athlonXP 2700+ with 1gb RAM. Even NWN2 is completely playable, although obviously not with everything maxed out. The 9700 pro is something like 4 or 5 years old. You CAN upgrade every other month to the latest $600 card and you can even get 2 of them now, but do you need to? No.

All that was probably already said in this thread, but I thought I'd say it again.
 

BladeVenom

Lifer
Jun 2, 2005
13,365
16
0
Originally posted by: Elderly Newt
I really don't understand where people are getting the idea that they must continually upgrade from. I'm playing games on my 9700pro and athlonXP 2700+ with 1gb RAM. Even NWN2 is completely playable, although obviously not with everything maxed out. The 9700 pro is something like 4 or 5 years old. You CAN upgrade every other month to the latest $600 card and you can even get 2 of them now, but do you need to? No.

All that was probably already said in this thread, but I thought I'd say it again.

QFT. But some people just want to whine and complain, and won't let the facts get in the way.

9700 Pro is four years old, and was plenty of video card until games like Oblivion, and Fear started coming out, even then they could still be played. It's still more powerful than what's in the Wii.

On the processor side, the Pentium 4 3.0ghz is four years old, coming out in December 2002. It's still good enough for gaming. Since few games are multithreaded, and none have been developed for the cell processor, the Pentium 4 offers more real processing power than any of the new consoles.

I guess it's a case of the grass is always greener...

 

apoppin

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
34,890
1
0
alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: BladeVenom
Originally posted by: Elderly Newt
I really don't understand where people are getting the idea that they must continually upgrade from. I'm playing games on my 9700pro and athlonXP 2700+ with 1gb RAM. Even NWN2 is completely playable, although obviously not with everything maxed out. The 9700 pro is something like 4 or 5 years old. You CAN upgrade every other month to the latest $600 card and you can even get 2 of them now, but do you need to? No.

All that was probably already said in this thread, but I thought I'd say it again.

QFT. But some people just want to whine and complain, and won't let the facts get in the way.

9700 Pro is four years old, and was plenty of video card until games like Oblivion, and Fear started coming out, even then they could still be played. It's still more powerful than what's in the Wii.

On the processor side, the Pentium 4 3.0ghz is four years old, coming out in December 2002. It's still good enough for gaming. Since few games are multithreaded, and none have been developed for the cell processor, the Pentium 4 offers more real processing power than any of the new consoles.

I guess it's a case of the grass is always greener...
you mean you're playing the MINIMUM system that NWN2 supports.
:Q


BOTH the 9700p [especially] and the P4 3Ghz are barely "hanging on" for PC gaming ... with the next gen of games they will be mostly unplayable. :p

What's in the Wii is suited for the Wii ... and will play all Wii games perfectly -- for years.

Try playing SC DA or some of the other "latest games" on your system .... impossible at even 6x4. :(
 

SoundTheSurrender

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2005
3,126
0
0
You can obviously see how game devs. are focusing on Consoles more. People pirate games like crazy on the PC, there is no market if it isn't profitable. Oblivion WAS MADE FOR THE 360. Many other games are made for the 360 then ported to the PC. The 360 is practically for PC gamers that don't want to spend 1500+ dollars for a gaming rig.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
33,286
12,849
136
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
You can obviously see how game devs. are focusing on Consoles more. People pirate games like crazy on the PC, there is no market if it isn't profitable. Oblivion WAS MADE FOR THE 360. Many other games are made for the 360 then ported to the PC. The 360 is practically for PC gamers that don't want to spend 1500+ dollars for a gaming rig.

see my post here... $500-ish gaming rig

granted, monitor is not included. but for $500, that's a pretty bada$$ system capable of playing every game, though obviously not cranked up. you don't need an uber gamer rig. i'm running NWN2 with all details up, minus shadows, at 1024x768 on an X850XT and Sempron 2800+
 

SoundTheSurrender

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2005
3,126
0
0
Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
Originally posted by: SoundTheSurrender
You can obviously see how game devs. are focusing on Consoles more. People pirate games like crazy on the PC, there is no market if it isn't profitable. Oblivion WAS MADE FOR THE 360. Many other games are made for the 360 then ported to the PC. The 360 is practically for PC gamers that don't want to spend 1500+ dollars for a gaming rig.

see my post here... $500-ish gaming rig

granted, monitor is not included. but for $500, that's a pretty bada$$ system capable of playing every game, though obviously not cranked up. you don't need an uber gamer rig. i'm running NWN2 with all details up, minus shadows, at 1024x768 on an X850XT and Sempron 2800+


Sorry, that not impressive enough for gaming :-/ I could never return to a gig of ram. The 939 is out of date as well. I have a 2500+ with 1.5 gigs of ram and a Geforce 6600 and I'm doing fine anyways. My point isn't really about price for a gaming rig. My point is that game developers are focusing on the console market.
 

drag

Elite Member
Jul 4, 2002
8,708
0
0
They are focusing on teh console market because that is were most people are going to be buying games.

You guys may not think it's a big deal to drop 4-500 dollars on computer upgrades every year to be able to play newer games, but realy most people don't give a ****** about the graphics. Seriously, they don't. I know I like to see pretty things, but it's realy quite pointless.

This was different back in the day when you went from 4 bit to 8bit to 16bit graphics. This was a serious change in capabilities.. it allowed much more depth and much more complex games. Going from 2-d side scrollers to 3d graphics and having animation was terrific change and added a lot to the game play.

But you know what? I couldn't give a crap about the difference between 16bit and 32bit graphics in video games. It is nice, but it doesn't realy add anything to the game play. Then anti-aliasing, 'HD' effects? Who cares? It's a pointless waste of money, unless you have money laying around just to blow on stuff like that.

FPS shooter? MMORPG? This is another indication on how worthless it's getting. They have all these catagories that games fit in. There is no innovation going on, just people throwing money at good graphics. Good graphics are nice, but to concentrate on them totally misses the whole point of gaming. What is the big innovation in game play that happenned in the last year? In the last two? Halflife2 got a gravity gun? Halo got vehicles you can ride around in?

Probably the biggest innovation that has happenned lately would be from MMORPG like Everquest and then World of Warcraft. And that 'lately' realy isn't recent at all. It's like we have these super powerfull computers and all they are doing is trying to get a better rendered version of Tomb Raider or the Shotgun Guy from Doom II when they could probably do a hell of a lot more. PC gaming could be very cool if they actually tried to use the power of these machines to be innovative.

As it stands right now all they would have to do to pretty much kill off mainstream gaming for PCs is to add a keyboard and mouse to Xbox 360 or PS3.