Why the PC won E3

[Phobic9]

No platform ever "wins" E3. The consumers that care about choices (which I assume is damn near all of them) do win though.

 

[quadomatic]

Look at what's been happening for the last two years in terms of hardware. The PC I bought two years ago is still able to max practically any game at 1680x1050, something which would have been unheard of some four years back. Only small studios such as GSC or the guys behind Metro 2033 have been pushing performance somewhat. It's simply a farce, after three years Crysis is still being used as the most hardware intensive benchmark, that didn't exactly happen with Doom 3 now did it?

That is pretty true. The good ol' Athlon 2400+ with a 9800 Pro that maxed out Half-Life 2 and ran Doom 3 on high settings stopped being very gaming capable by 2006...maybe 2 years after it was built. I upgraded it to an A64 3300+ and an X850 Pro, and within 2 years it was useless because of Shader Model 3 requirements.

Of course, the parts I was buying were outdated when I bought them, so maybe this isn't the best example.

I like to think that buying a Phenom II in January doesn't count as buying outdated parts...although maybe it does since Deneb Phenom II's dropped in January 09.

 

[Lonbjerg]

We had the best looking games
There’s no question about how far Crytek have come in their art design for Crysis 2. The precision and detail in their recreation of New York under attack is startling. ... We’ve seen the game running on multiple platforms now – and, yeah, it looks great on Xbox and PS3. But it looks stunning on PC.

I lol'ed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k

 

[smackababy]

They cost 10x as much? Really? So your PC cost $2000?

The upgrades I made to my 3 year old PC cost about the same as a PS3, and I can play most games on my 24" monitor (which I bought in addition to the other parts, but as an optional upgrade from my 20" 1680x1050, mainly for more viewing space for watching TV shows and films... just like the TV you would need for a console).

I spent more on my laptop (which I use for doing uni work) than I did on making my desktop game-able.

Yep, pretty close to it. But I upgrade around every 6 months and water cool everything. Not to mention I like to be on the bleeding edge of things.

 

[digiram]

Come starcraft 2's release date pc gaming will win everything :thumbsup:

I know a lot of people looking to upgrade or get a new desktop for sc2. This game alone might change the gaming landscape a bit.

 

[TehMac]

Our systems also cost 10x as much.



Our systems also cost 10x as much.

Xbox 360 costs what? 250 bucks at this point? You're telling me I can't get a good computer until I spend 2500?

Well, I hate to burst your bubble but I just dropped 900 bucks total last year on a 4GB Ram System with a GTX 260, AMD Quad Core and I'm running my games max'd out.

Sorry, they cost 3.6x as much. Not 10x.

 

[MJinZ]

Xbox 360 costs what? 250 bucks at this point? You're telling me I can't get a good computer until I spend 2500?

Well, I hate to burst your bubble but I just dropped 900 bucks total last year on a 4GB Ram System with a GTX 260, AMD Quad Core and I'm running my games max'd out.

Sorry, they cost 3.6x as much. Not 10x.

You tried running Crysis maxed out? That is LMFAO hilarious.

 

[mmntech]

The truth is that PC gaming isn't going to die, it's just incredibly stagnant.

This. Developers don't favour the platform because of piracy fears and difficulty (imo) to program for. Too many variables to take into account. Hardware costs for consumers also factor in big time.

What you'll see with PC in the next decade will be more free-to-play ad backed games from the likes of Zynga, more MMOs, and cloud based gaming. The PC will become more of a gaming portal than a gaming system. That's assuming OnLive takes off, which I believe it will.

 

[Lonbjerg]

This. Developers don't favour the platform because of piracy fears and difficulty (imo) to program for. Too many variables to take into account. Hardware costs for consumers also factor in big time.

What you'll see with PC in the next decade will be more free-to-play ad backed games from the likes of Zynga, more MMOs, and cloud based gaming. The PC will become more of a gaming portal than a gaming system. That's assuming OnLive takes off, which I believe it will.

OnLive will be a bigger threath to consoles than PC's.
Low I.Q 720p video isn't "PC turf"...that is "console turf"

Why buy a console when your old laptop give same "quality"?

 

[damage424]

I don't buy the piracy thing on making developers scared of the PC. My friend has a DS and he pirated about 30 games on it and is very simple to do so....

*NOTE* I don't own a DS and I DONT pirate

People are really arguing about pricing? How much does a PS3 cost again? 3DTV? and add on the pointless motion control gimmick/marketing campaign? Id much rather spend that dough on a PC.

And BTW, not everyone on a PC plays on 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 res. I've got a 4850 and a q9550 and I can pretty much max out any game I want.

 

[Tom]

My gaming pc cost about $425, $300 for a Dell quad core system and $125 for an ATI video card.

It IS much much much more powerful than any current console.

 

[Dumac]

I lol'ed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k

Crysis is so beautiful.

Its a decent game, as well. Not excellent or even good, but decent.

 

[Lonyo]

You tried running Crysis maxed out? That is LMFAO hilarious.

You tried running Crysis at max on a console?
At 1280x720 he could probably do it. I'd like to see a console do it at any res.

Also, he never even mentioned Crysis.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

My gaming pc cost about $425, $300 for a Dell quad core system and $125 for an ATI video card.

How did you get a Dell quad core for $300? Was it the bottom of the barrel quad core?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I think PC gaming is dead in the sense that games in a number of genres have been consolized. Unreal Touranment 3 is an excellent example of a game that could have and should have revived a once great franchise but completely failed because of heavy consolization.

I just hope that that a first-rate PC-based online multiplayer arena-style FPS is produced and released someday. The last worthy entrants were Quake III (1999), Unreal Tournament (1999), and UT 2004.

 

[Lonbjerg]

You tried running Crysis at max on a console?
At 1280x720 he could probably do it. I'd like to see a console do it at any res.

Also, he never even mentioned Crysis.

There is a reason I posted this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WJG14uLA3k

The consoles are way outdated today...

 

[quadomatic]

You tried running Crysis at max on a console?
At 1280x720 he could probably do it. I'd like to see a console do it at any res.

Also, he never even mentioned Crysis.

Yeah, I feel like Crysis is pretty much excluded from the "maxed out" statement by default. To say that one can run Crysis at max settings, one must actually say it.

 

[JoshGuru7]

Borderlands (which I've never been able to enjoy on-line with strangers because if only one of them changes the map everyone else is forced to follow and loads that map at any time).

Borderlands multiplayer isn't like Diablo, it's a strict co-op affair. You are supposed to be on the same missions as your friends and supposed to be in the same place as a result. What you complain about is actually a really great co-op implementation as only one person has to get the quests/turn in quests/travel and the entire group moves together. I really don't see how this can be a problem for you if you are working with your teammates at all since it won't travel if somebody is in a menu.

 

[minmaster]

civ5 'nuff said.

 

[aigomorla]

Our systems also cost 10x as much.
[/B]
Our systems also cost 10x as much.

There are 100x as many PCs as consoles.
[/B]

*sigh*

The only arguement that u can dish out on a PC minus titles.

Sorry, but PC's look better, even tho the coding maybe the same.. WHY?
Cuz we have full 60fps+ and resolution greater then 1080p regardless of it being upscaled... and it looks DAYAM GOOD because we can ramp up AA.

Also we got stereoscopic 3D on Nvidia, and Eyefinity on ATI.
Something Consoles will NEVER GET, because u wont ever run 3 HD tv's side by side.

You cant even argue anymore about controllers vs keyboards, because the Xbox360 WORKS on PC, and all you need to do is automatically update the drivers though automatic update.

So yeah our systems may cost 10x as much... actually id wager only 3x because you can get away with a full loaded AMD platform for around that much.. yet you will have a much happier gaming experience vs. console.

Its funny how the console fanatics are leaving stuff out like EYEFINITY when making a bulk comparision.

Im sorry LONG LIVE ATI... they changed FPS gaming as we know it with EYEFINITY.

 

[0roo0roo]

I don't buy the piracy thing on making developers scared of the PC. My friend has a DS and he pirated about 30 games on it and is very simple to do so....

*NOTE* I don't own a DS and I DONT pirate

People are really arguing about pricing? How much does a PS3 cost again? 3DTV? and add on the pointless motion control gimmick/marketing campaign? Id much rather spend that dough on a PC.

And BTW, not everyone on a PC plays on 1920x1200 or 2560x1600 res. I've got a 4850 and a q9550 and I can pretty much max out any game I want.

the sales numbers speak for themselves
its why devs go console.

 

[Zenoth]

Borderlands multiplayer isn't like Diablo, it's a strict co-op affair. You are supposed to be on the same missions as your friends and supposed to be in the same place as a result. What you complain about is actually a really great co-op implementation as only one person has to get the quests/turn in quests/travel and the entire group moves together. I really don't see how this can be a problem for you if you are working with your teammates at all since it won't travel if somebody is in a menu.

Obviously, yes, if it was intended by the four players to "go there" and do "x mission" in unity, then it's not a problem... but that's obvious isn't it. I was referring to players like me who have no friends who also own Borderlands to play with who is obliged to play with strangers when he (of course, talking about me here) wants to play on-line. When I actually join an on-line game I sometimes, very rarely join a game in which two players are in it playing the same missions, maybe they are friends, but I wouldn't know... but the problem is that most of the time, let's say... oh... 9 times out of 10 I join a game with players who keep doing their own things without a single word between ourselves, independently roaming about, sometimes without doing missions, just grinding on the available foes on their paths.

Normally I would not actually stay in such games, but those types of games on-line especially for me who I repeat has no friends to play Borderlands with simply because none of my friends own it are the majority of available games to play in. So I play in them, sometimes I try to communicate with the players, suggesting them to do 'x' and 'y' together, rarely it works, sometimes I get answers in Russian or in various other languages I don't understand, and sometimes it lags, too. Anyway, if the strangers play independently and going about on their own business and grinding they will chaotically move about sometimes playing in one area for five minutes, clearing just a small portion of it and then suddenly they decide it's a good idea to switch to a new area while I and perhaps another player in the same area where in a firefight, and that makes the game unplayable at best.

The very concept itself of "forcing" players to be together by actually forcing a new area load and location spawn is both a very good idea and a very bad one. It needs to be configurable, but it isn't, so the best I can do as a player is to cross my finger and hope to find a game in which all two, three or four players will at least clear an entire area and do all the available missions there before moving to another, which happens perhaps in 1 game out of 10, and I don't bother with that anymore. So instead of losing my time, patience and sanity on-line I stick off-line and play with a third-party software that tricks the game into thinking that I am playing on-line with three other players, in turn augmenting the difficulty, giving me better loot, more experience, more challenge, more fun, no lag, no complaints... and, well, I'm just having a great time.

I honestly have no problems with Borderlands off-line, it's great fun, and I would have fun on-line only if that concept of "forced area loading" would either be removed or become configurable, amongst other things as well such as filters to determine or limit the ping of the games I want to play in, and the location of the host and the in-game settings, etc., but as of right now Borderlands on-line is extremely limited, static, and can barely be configured, filtered, controlled by the host.

 

[evident]

starcraft 2 will rape and pillage all consoles. everyone knows this

 

[Mr. Bluntman]

starcraft 2 will rape and pillage all consoles. everyone knows this

And Korean Starcraft players will rape and pillage you when playing them online.

I just don't get how so many Blizzard fanboys continually prop up Diablo/WoW/Starcraft being the lone savior of PC gaming. Not everyone likes these kind of games, you know.

Sooo....

Your argument = fail.

 

[aigomorla]

And Korean Starcraft players will rape and pillage you when playing them online.


Your argument = fail.

allyourbasesbelongtous.

<--- being korean.