Why Gameworks is detrimental to Pc Gaming

[The Alias]

Four years ago, I considered myself a hardcore console gamer. I had played Gamebattles Call of Duty since Cod4, I thought Pc gaming was too expensive to even consider. It was only until I saw Pc bfbc2 and cod4 montages that I really looked in to it, to be honest; and I found that it was indeed truly amazing.

See, for years I had been drowned in rhetoric like "You spend more money on parts than you do games." and "You never know when your Pc isn't going to work with certain games." However all I wanted to do was play cod4 on pc just to experience it for myself, so I bought a 2600xt for dirt cheap, installed it, bought cod4, and was subsequently amazed. It took some time, but I realized most of the things I was told was indeed propaganda as I spent ~$400 dollars to get a pc That outdid the consoles in spades and was able to play most of the latest games near max setting at acceptable framerates @1440x900p. The thing is now with Gameworks, my situation is becoming less and less possible.

Now, instead of a 7850 being able to run most games near max settings, you need a 290, or a 780ti. The longevity the 7970 had won't be available for current cards and that's a huge problem. Right now, New, or prospective Pc gamers can look at how games are doing (Like I did years ago) and see that it takes $300+ dollars to get a card that plays most games at near max settings. Versus back in '13-'14 where a several year old Tahiti card killed most pc games with aplomb! Having to upgrade every year takes the value out of pc gaming. Whereas a year ago Pc gaming ate consoles for lunch in every metric (price included once you factored in games and xbl/psn), You now have to spend $300+ dollars a year to avoid abysmal performance in Gameworks games and that's a terrible place for PC gaming to be in. Right now Gameworks is proving the propaganda right.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Gameworks isnt to blame for your ancient slow HD7850 card.

 

[iiiankiii]

As long as I'm able to turn off those features, I can live with it. I really do hate GameWorks, though. The lack of optimization is atrocious. The amount of visual gains is atrocious for the performance hit. It really is a horrible thing. Like I said, I'm can deal with it as long as I have the options that allows me not to deal with it.

 

[Enigmoid]

What they hell does Gameworks have to do with it. 7850 is now low-mid end. You won't max out new games with that card, even non-gameworks games.

I agree that Gameworks needs optimization. If you don't like it however, turn it off. If you think the IQ gains are not worth the performance penalty, turn it off.

There is the attitude on this forum that "hurr derp, MAXED OUT" is the only way to play.

 

[monstercameron]

Bad devs are to blame not the frameworks.

 

[Keysplayr]

What they hell does Gameworks have to do with it. 7850 is now low-mid end. You won't max out new games with that card, even non-gameworks games.

I agree that Gameworks needs optimization. If you don't like it however, turn it off. If you think the IQ gains are not worth the performance penalty, turn it off.

There is the attitude on this forum that "hurr derp, MAXED OUT" is the only way to play.

New and more accurate thread title.
"Why gameworks is detrimental to gamers using 7850s".
And like iiiankiiii and Enigmoid suggested, if you can shut if off, there isn't any reason for threads like this. Is there.

 

[DaveSimmons]

You now have to spend $300+ dollars a year to avoid abysmal performance in Gameworks games

Nope. You have to spend $1300+ a year if you insist on moving every image quality and resolution slider to the far right just because it is there.

I don't, most other people don't, but if you have that "need" then that's what you need to do to make "having the best gaming hardware" your hobby.

Like with most other hobbies if you take them way too seriously then you need to spend a lot of money on the latest fluff and frills.

That has nothing to do with consoles vs. PC or GameWorks though. If you buy a console you are saying that you don't care about having the best graphics quality. You're saying that 720p - 1080p at 30fps with low-medium image quality is "good enough", which is a perfectly valid choice to make.

Me, I'm still gaming happily with my GTX 680, PS3 and 360.

 

[The Alias]

You all missed the point of me saying using the 7850. I say that because back then, it was mid to low tier, but still able to play most games at near max settings. Now you need a 290/390 which is undoubtedly high tier to play games at near max settings. The cost of the same settings has gone up which gameworks played a major part in.

 

[DaveSimmons]

PC requirements were stable for awhile, but that was stagnation. And people were complaining about not having any games that challenged their PC.

New engines, new expectations for image quality, higher resolutions, and a new console generation with a huge jump in RAM all changed that.

"near max settings" doesn't really mean anything by itself if today's "new max" is better than yesterday's "super duper ultramax.". If an engine or game offers a slider choice that cuts fps by 50% to make shadows slightly softer or add more grass blades, does requiring a Fury X for it make GameWorks evil or the "console propaganda" right? The console is probably showing grass and shadows at the lowest slider setting.

 

[The Alias]

PC requirements were stable for awhile, but that was stagnation. And people were complaining about not having any games that challenged their PC.

New engines, new expectations for image quality, higher resolutions, and a new console generation with a huge jump in RAM all changed that.

"near max settings" doesn't really mean anything by itself if today's "new max" is better than yesterday's "super duper ultramax.". If an engine or game offers a slider choice that cuts fps by 50% to make shadows slightly softer or add more grass blades, does requiring a Fury X for it make GameWorks evil or the "console propaganda" right? The console is probably showing grass and shadows at the lowest slider setting.

It makes gameworks bad and as a result console propaganda correct. Think about it. If not for the unoptimized gameworks effects that gave small boosts in I.Q would we still be having this argument? No! PC gaming shouldn't require $500+ hardware to run at or near max settings. Especially when max settings barely look better than high. It's wholly detrimental to console to pc gamer conversion too because benchmarks tend to focus only on the max settings too which amplifies the view that pc gaming is too expensive.

 

[futurefields]

What games are you referring too?

 

[The Alias]

What games are you referring too?

On phone, but try the witcher 3 hairworks 64x tessellation for one.

 

[futurefields]

You didn't really think your midrange in 2012 card was going to max out The Witcher 3 did you?

 

[The Alias]

You didn't really think your midrange in 2012 card was going to max out The Witcher 3 did you?

No the point is you have to spend $300 plus every year to do what one $200 purchase did for years.

 

[DaveSimmons]

No the point is you have to spend $300 plus every year to do what one $200 purchase did for years.

Major engine upgrades don't happen every year though. So there's no reason to expect your $300 purchase this year won't play next year's games at the same image quality.

 

[ShintaiDK]

No the point is you have to spend $300 plus every year to do what one $200 purchase did for years.

Its not some automatic entitlement to run everything on max with old hardware.

I mean curse them all for me ever having to upgrade beyond my 256KB Cirrus Logic card. How dare they!

Whats next, the internet is too fast?

Looks like you can get away playing Witcher 3 on high or so with your card, yet you still complain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUhttfPa87g

 

[futurefields]

No the point is you have to spend $300 plus every year to do what one $200 purchase did for years.

We're at the beginning of a new console generation in 2013/2014 so tech advanced pretty fast last couple years.

In 2012 it was the tail end of the 360/PS3 gen and midrange cards could easily max out those ports.

The Witcher 3 is a XB1/PS4/PC game not even available on 360/PS3, and was designed to be very high fidelity and thus system demanding on the max settings, which are higher quality settings than XB1/PS4 uses.

 

[krumme]

The consoles is actually 7850 speed with slower cpu. Yet the pc versions demand way more. Gw is not helping here. It is expensive junk bringing next to nothing. Instead of this meaningless jobproject for programmers only meant to monopolize the market it would be beneficial with some less market oriented approach technologies. Nv can actually do that too. No need to support gw crap when they can do so much better. Take eg. Gsynch, optimus. Demand better tech like that - not over tessellated concrete barriers or funky hair.

 

[The Alias]

Major engine upgrades don't happen every year though. So there's no reason to expect your $300 purchase this year won't play next year's games at the same image quality.

780ti performance says otherwise with it often performing under 290 levels when at launch it was 15% faster than the 290x! This only happens in gameworks titles too so you can't say that's the overall trend when it's just gameworks games where it's happening

 

[The Alias]

We're at the beginning of a new console generation in 2013/2014 so tech advanced pretty fast last couple years.

In 2012 it was the tail end of the 360/PS3 gen and midrange cards could easily max out those ports.

The Witcher 3 is a XB1/PS4/PC game not even available on 360/PS3, and was designed to be very high fidelity and thus system demanding on the max settings, which are higher quality settings than XB1/PS4 uses.

The tech hasn't advanced much at all! What games look better than c3 besides maybe tw3? Why is tw3 so much harder to run than crysis 3 when the I.q upgrade is so little ? Gameworks. You guys say it's because of consoles, but the iq upgrade consoles have brought have been very little. The biggest upgrade I've seen the consoles bring is in nba 2k.

 

[3DVagabond]

Nope. You have to spend $1300+ a year if you insist on moving every image quality and resolution slider to the far right just because it is there

This is what he actually said "Now, instead of a 7850 being able to run most games near max settings, you need a 290, or a 780ti."

Why are people going trying to make it look like he said something he didn't and belittle him over it?

PC requirements were stable for awhile, but that was stagnation. And people were complaining about not having any games that challenged their PC.

New engines, new expectations for image quality, higher resolutions, and a new console generation with a huge jump in RAM all changed that.

"near max settings" doesn't really mean anything by itself if today's "new max" is better than yesterday's "super duper ultramax.". If an engine or game offers a slider choice that cuts fps by 50% to make shadows slightly softer or add more grass blades, does requiring a Fury X for it make GameWorks evil or the "console propaganda" right? The console is probably showing grass and shadows at the lowest slider setting.

Most of these games don't look any better. Many look worse than the best from "pre Gameworks".

The IHV's need to give us a reason to get rid of our old hardware. Poorly optimized games and in particular the latest trend of poorly optimized drivers for previous gen hardware isn't advancement. Don't drink the koolaid, mate.

 

[Sabrewings]

I'm really okay with buying a $650 card every year or every other year if I'm lucky. I don't care about console nugget converts. Once you go PC you never go back.

 

[The Alias]

I'm really okay with buying a $650 card every year or every other year if I'm lucky. I don't care about console nugget converts. Once you go PC you never go back.

And when you end up with even buggier games than batman you'll know why because more people will stay with consoles versus going to pc. One youtuber just sold his 980ti because of subpar pc support.

 

[3DVagabond]

I'm really okay with buying a $650 card every year or every other year if I'm lucky. I don't care about console nugget converts. Once you go PC you never go back.

Every gamer who decides PC gaming isn't worth the effort is a loss. The market is shrinking that's not good for PC gaming.

 

[railven]

I'm really okay with buying a $650 card every year or every other year if I'm lucky. I don't care about console nugget converts. Once you go PC you never go back.

I feel like I'm in the same boat. I've been buying a new GPU once every year for what feels like the last two decades. It was always a $500-600 expense, until AMD graced us with HD 4870, but that only lasted three Generations (HD 5870 another gem and I had to skip HD 6970 do to an agreement) before HD 7970 brought AMD back to that price point (which I accepted with open arms).

As a PC gamer, I'm use to the chicken littles. PC game has been on the ropes and about finish since, shoot the 6th console generation and everyone was positive the 7th would be the lights for PC with the growth of mobile.

I'm sure we'll still be here when Gen 9 roles around