PC Gaming is Dead to me. Let me tell you why.

[Liberator21]

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not hardcore but I do love me some PC gaming. I'm a hardware enthusiast who loves tech, but lately its becoming ridiculous at the advancement and life spans of the tech.

Mainly I'm speaking of GPU's.

I've held out with my SLI'd 8800GT's and was looking forward to the next iteration - completely missing the 260 and 280 and going straight for the 285/295/whatever its called.

Now I read that the life span is approximately 3 MONTHS of those cards. WHAT?

I'm usually no ranter, but this is a little excessive. I knew the adopters of the 9800GX2 or GTX or whatever it was back in March got shafted with the 3 month EOL, but come on. It's so dismaying keeping up with it all, no wonder people are jumping ship in droves to the console market. I mean sure, you don't HAVE to have the latest tech to have an enjoyable experience, but why even bother when you can fork over for the 360 or PS3 and have the next gen experience, with a guarantee that all the games will be compatible! Even the developers let the consoles get the games first, and only port the game back to the PC when sales have died off.

I think if the PC market truly wants to survive, we have to get our act together. As a hardware enthusiast, I'm glad to see tech advance quickly. But that pace brings instability and its beginning to seem like we're not even seeing fully developed products enter the market (9800GX2?).

What's the solution? I don't really see one. It seems like the (actually niche) market of PC gaming is simply caught in the wake, and its fate is uncertain.

--

Going back to my title - I'll still play PC games, but man does being a hardware enthusiast suck sometimes!

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

The reason people upgrade on PC's is to get a better experience. Consoles never uprade. There is no reason to upgrade just to have the best. Buy good parts in the beginning and you won't have to replace any of your components for a couple of years. My X850XT held up for almost 3 years with med-high settings.

 

[PingSpike]

Honestly, while agree PC gaming has developed new problems...the expensive hardware upgrade treadmill is NOT one of them. All hardware has gotten cheaper and cheaper over the last decade. Excellent video cards with great performance can now be had for much better prices then in the late 90s or early 2000s. Budget processors abound that are capable of playing virtually all games out there. And memory is retardedly cheap, you can buy 4 gigs for less then going out to eat. If you want the absolute top of the line best, you'll pay more as always....but if you just want to play the latest games on the high settings it doesn't even cost much more then a console does these days.

 

[Liet]

Huh? I've got a single 8800 GT, a Q6600, and 4GB of 5-4-4-12 800, and everything runs flawlessly. Your alarmist "OH GOD, 3 MONTH UPGRADE CYCLE!" numbers are off.

 

[Udgnim]

Originally posted by: Liberator21Now I read that the life span is approximately 3 MONTHS of those cards. WHAT?

it might be a 3 month lifespan as the top video card, but it's not going to be obsolete in 3 months

 

[Zenoth]

What I WOULD find frustrating if I was in the same boat as a college at work with whom I've had a discussion about PC gaming is indeed that enthusiasts don't seem to get anything worth of the money they put in their machines in return by the game's developers. At first I never realized it simply because I myself never ever bought a "currently top of the line" graphics card nor processor, I've always went in the middle/medium end, but it is true that people spending $600 on a SINGLE component SHOULD expect quality gaming in return AT LEAST visually.

And unfortunately it's not the case on a regular basis. I wonder if any of you around here actually counted the number of games on PC that are in fact Console ports? How many GOOD quality PC exclusives can the enthusiast enjoy? Not many that's for sure, Crysis and Warhead, certainly yes, then which ones? To add insult to injury we get ports within witch NO optimizations whatsoever for the PC was done for various good and/or bad reasons (I can only think of BioWare, the one exception to the "rule", when they optimized the textures and sound quality for the PC version of Mass Effect, but that's a real exception indeed). Just take one famous series as a good example, The Elder Scrolls, where it started with Oblivion I believe (being ported from Console), or maybe it actually started with Morrowind (I'm not sure about that one). Just LOOK... I mean it, just take a quick look at the textures in Fallout 3 and Oblivion, look at the animations, that engine is OLD, a freakin' dinosaur, well yes the game-play is good, is that enough if you pay $600 for a graphics card? I'm not totally sure about that.

It's gaming and market and gamers' philosophies hypocrisy. Many gamers, especially those who grew up with the Atari/NES/SNES/Genesis generation (and I'm one of them) and who ended up on PC gaming exclusively often say that graphics don't matter, or animations don't matter, or particle effects don't matter. Well, if it doesn't matter then why exactly do we HAVE $600 super mega GPU performers and HD Widescreen LCD's? Because people, enthusiasts DEMAND good graphics, it's part of the gaming evolution over time, it can't always remain good 2D side scrollers or top-view beat-'em ups like the "good ol' times". The thing is despite the beasts of GPU's we're getting since the past three years or so (especially) the games we keep getting are UGLY and using old un-optimized engines (for PC's / Windows environment or whatever technicalities you want to think of to excuse the situation) for components that could force one to only drink water and eat sliced bread for a month just to save for ONE of those cards. Even if you have enough money to use it to wipe out your arse with it's not even worth it to buy those cards with the types of games quality we get, and it's often better just getting the Console version.

But, yeah, other than that it's alright.

 

[Lonyo]

Being an enthusiast doesn't have to mean having no brain.
Just because something new comes out doesn't mean you are compelled to buy it, especially if it doesn't offer much over previous products.

 

[theblackbox]

i have an hd3870 and it still does fine for all the games on the market.

 

[CKent]

Consoles a guarantee? RROD?

Better yet, think of how awful games looked on the PS2 in the few years preceding the ps3, compared to what even a modest and aged PC could do.

 

[zerocool84]

I had a 7800gs for almost 3 years. I just upgraded late last month to a 9800GTX+
You don't have to upgrade every 3 months. It's actually great that new cards come out every couple months cus it means that the previous cards should drop in price. I can't remember the last time video cards/memory were this cheap. This is the best time to a pc gamer.

 

[Maximilian]

Well OP thats one hell of an overreaction lol...

Just because the 9800's or 8800's arent new dosent mean they suck. I game on a frickin 8600 GT, and a 7900 GTO and have no plans to upgrade any time soon. PC gaming is being killed by a combination of EA, crap games, piracy, EA. Coupled with the longstanding fact that consoles "just work" whereas that cant be said for PC games, sometimes they dont work because X piece of hardware has old drivers or just sucks etc etc. Advances in graphics technology arent killing PC gaming, its just killing your sense of being on the bleeding edge.

 

[videogames101]

Memory is so damn dirt cheap atm, 4 GB is cheaper than a new PC game! - and with the 4850 offering very high settings for under $200, and highly oc'able c2d's for under $150, PC gaming right now is in heaven. (as long as you pick the right games, of course.)

 

[ZzZGuy]

Hahahahaha, you have never been to the console forums I see.

3 months you say? I'm calling BS on that. There also happens to be ATI if you are unhappy with Nvidia.

Unhappy with the costs? Go for the lower end, you can even plan your future upgrades based on what is out right now, then wait till various parts become cheap. It's up to you if you want to run the 5 bleeding edge games at high settings.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

You're too caught up in the e-penis aspect of the hardware. If you're wary of buying new cards because new ones will be coming out then you have a problem because you're more concerned about having the newer cards than you are of playing the games....

 

[Comdrpopnfresh]

The hardware is the only thing keeping PC gaming alive OP. When has a console been released and could say 'the graphics processing on this console is faster than every single graphics processing model previously made... combined'?
The graphics processing on consoles becomes outdated quicker than a card for a PC. For a PC gfx card release, you only need to design and make a reference design, and then send out to manufacturers. Consoles have to have production run for months to keep up with demand... and usually the graphics hardware is beaten numerous times over before it gets in the hands of consumers. Console makers have stopped making "add-ons", yet you can plop a new gfx card in your computer and get a boost without throwing away the old one (in some cases).
The damned games that run so crappy, but look so good are the problem- and they're usually ports... Fallout 3 has horrible bug problems- none of which are mentioned in the nearly unending list of review links on beth's website.... and lost planet could hardly be played without connecting an xbox controller to a pc- the developers didn't even take the time to remap the menu navigation- it was still in xbox controller buttons!!
If you want to know what the savior or pc gaming software is- look at STEAM. You buy a game, and no material is wasted- no disc to lose, no key to misplace, etc... Games are updated automatically...
This new "Games for windows" is microsoft's shitty bid to further saturate the market with their presence by 'owning' another platform they kinda forgot they had in the first place. The Wii is cheaper and more fun, and the PS3 is technologically superior... neither get's rrod... and the xbox360 is soo old.... so they decided to milk and run pc gamin through the mud by turning it into a forth, console-like platform... 'games for windows'. The proof is on the cover- how many games before this year had the same 'console-designating' band along the top of the package that xbox, ps3, and wii have? Sure they might have the pc-game insignia to let people know what it is compatible with.... but ms has gone too far in thinking having 2 of the 4 'consoles' will do anything but cheapen gaming on a pc.

 

[ultra laser]

Do hardware companies pay game designers to make games to perform poorly on current generation hardware?

 

[Infohawk]

My main issue is not that a card will be obsolete in three months (it won't) but that it won't be able to play a game decently in a year. And it's hard to judge because "decent" constantly evolves. MS had the right motivation with their vista benchmarkign system and games for windows, but it was poorly implemented. I also think they've seen that 360s are more lucrative. What PC gaming needs is some sort of quasi-standard benchmarks, like your system is compliant with the BLA09 standard. THen games would be optomized for the BLA09 and then BLA10 standard.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
Do hardware companies pay game designers to make games to perform poorly on current generation hardware?

Wouldn't it make more sense to pay them to make the game run better with their hardware?

 

[Sam25]

Originally posted by: Lonyo
Being an enthusiast doesn't have to mean having no brain.
Just because something new comes out doesn't mean you are compelled to buy it, especially if it doesn't offer much over previous products.

I agree.

 

[ZzZGuy]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
My main issue is not that a card will be obsolete in three months (it won't) but that it won't be able to play a game decently in a year. And it's hard to judge because "decent" constantly evolves. MS had the right motivation with their vista benchmarkign system and games for windows, but it was poorly implemented. I also think they've seen that 360s are more lucrative. What PC gaming needs is some sort of quasi-standard benchmarks, like your system is compliant with the BLA09 standard. THen games would be optomized for the BLA09 and then BLA10 standard.

Get a 4850 on sale. It'll last you for a good two years. Then when its lagging to far behind another (now cheap) 4850 and crossfire it, making sure you update the drivers (it can have a large effect). You just need to plan a little ahead when you build your computer.


It's only those 5 over hyped eye candy games that you need to put he big bucks out for to play at max settings NOW. Also just because the settings can go higher doesn't mean it needs to in order to look good.

 

[Fox5]

I mean sure, you don't HAVE to have the latest tech to have an enjoyable experience, but why even bother when you can fork over for the 360 or PS3 and have the next gen experience, with a guarantee that all the games will be compatible! Even the developers let the consoles get the games first, and only port the game back to the PC when sales have died off.

I see the fast advancement of tech as the exact opposite. It means that even low end hardware can play games well. My friend just got an amd dual core computer with an $80 video card. It plays even recent games on maxed out settings.

The hardware is advancing fast, but the games are still limited to the xbox 360/ps3 level of performance. This basically means that any new game will be playable on even low end hardware. Another one of my friends has a computer and just uses the integrated 790GX. It plays even newer games on medium to low settings. Assassin's Creed and Dead Space look and run just about as good on his computer as they do on the Xbox 360. (which makes sense, a high speed AMD dual core should beat the triple core xbox 360 cpu in most things, and the 790GX cpu has as much processing power as the 360 gpu, just way less memory bandwidth, which isn't that important for low resolutions and antialiasing off)

A lot of games offer "higher quality" settings on the PC versions, but often these add little visually. On top of that, they kill performance, and the console version was only running at the equivalent of the medium or low settings anyway. Crysis is one of the few games I've seen where cranking up the settings really gives a justifiable increase in visual quality, and it isn't even available on the consoles.
GTA4 allows you to pump up the settings very high, killing performance. I cannot see any visual difference however.

PC gaming is cheap at the moment. Video cards with so much excess power most games can't even make use of it are available for under $100. Every dual core available, even the sub $100 ones, are sufficiently fast to play modern games well. Ram is so dirt cheap now you can pick up 8GB for under $50, and watch load times disappear after that.
If you want to game well, the PCs are so far ahead of consoles now. If you want to game better than anyone else, well then you fall into the e-peen competitions where people spend tons of money on things that don't add much to the experience.

Seriously, think about it, when the 360 was launched, it's graphics were only comparable to a midrange graphics card. When the ps3 came out, that had dropped to low end. Now they're at the point where their graphics are comparable to anything that's not Intel. Despite being "HD" systems, most games only achieve full HD res through scaling. Additionally, the lower clarity of a TV allows them to get away with lower detail than a PC. Besides that, PC games tend to have tons of settings that barely effect visual quality but kill performance. If you want to game at the same setting as a console, virtually any new PC can do it.

My main issue is not that a card will be obsolete in three months (it won't) but that it won't be able to play a game decently in a year.

You're wrong, it just won't be able to play a new game at maxed settings that barely impact visual quality.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: zerocool84
I had a 7800gs for almost 3 years. I just upgraded late last month to a 9800GTX+
You don't have to upgrade every 3 months. It's actually great that new cards come out every couple months cus it means that the previous cards should drop in price. I can't remember the last time video cards/memory were this cheap. This is the best time to a pc gamer.

You're not kidding, I've been in it for as long as 3D cards have been around and this last year has just been astonishing. I've still got an old PCI Rendition Verite as a backup/test card

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

I play on a 7900GT and it's damn fine. I run Mass Effect at settings that look better than the XBox 360.

 

[Extelleron]

As others have mentioned in this thread, PC gaming is far from dead from a standpoint of hardware costs..... never have you been able to get performance for such a low price.

You can pick up a $75 X2 7750, $100 790GX board, $80 HD 4830, $30 4GB DDR2, and play any game outside of Crysis maxed out @ 1680x1050.

Your 8800GT SLI setup will be playing games fine for another 1-2 years at least. My GTX 260 SLI setup will last me another 2 years at least.... I'm sure I will upgrade by then, but that will be a choice upgrade and not one of necessity.

 

[LS8]

Originally posted by: Udgnim

Originally posted by: Liberator21Now I read that the life span is approximately 3 MONTHS of those cards. WHAT?

it might be a 3 month lifespan as the top video card, but it's not going to be obsolete in 3 months

Absolutely right. Sounds like the OP just wants to bitch about nothing.