bit-tech.net

Ultra high-end graphics are "a terrible mistake"

Ultra high-end graphics are "a terrible mistake"

Tim Sweeney has blasted the industry by saying that ultra high-end solutions like 3-way SLI are "a terrible mistake" while Intel integrated graphics "will never work".

Epic Games founder and CEO Tim Sweeney has spoken out about the state of PC gaming and how the hardware industry is sending out the wrong message to gamers. He believes that a lot of things need to change in order to improve the PC's potential as a gaming platform.

When asked about ultra high-end solutions for "gamers" with unlimited budgets—including 3-way SLI and CrossFireX—Sweeney admitted that it was a bad move for the industry.

"That was a terrible mistake," he said. "Marketing people believe that there are a small number of people who are gamers and who can afford to spend a good amount of money on buying high-end hardware."

He claimed that the push towards extravagant high-end products was leaving the masses behind. "The biggest problem in this space right now is that you cannot go and design a game for a high-end PC and downscale it to mainstream PCs," said Sweeney. "The performance difference between high-end and low-end PCs is something like 100x."

He went onto explain that this difference was too big. "If we go back 10 years ago, the difference between the high-end and the lowest-end may have been a factor of 10. We could have scaled games between those two."

In what is undoubtedly going to be a setback for PC gaming, the Unreal Engine creator said that "PCs are good for anything, just not games."

Ouch.

"PC gaming is in a weird position right now," said Sweeney when asked about the future of the platform. "60 percent of PCs on the market don't have a workable graphics processor at all. All the Intel integrated graphics are still incapable of running any modern games. So you really have to buy a PC knowing that you're going to play games in order to avoid being stuck with integrated graphics. This in unfortunate, and this is one of the main reasons behind the decline of the PC as a gaming platform. . . . In the past, if you bought a game, it would at least work. It might not have been a great experience, but it would always work."

And if that wasn't enough, he rubbed even more salt into Intel's wounds by saying that "I don't think [Intel's integrated graphics] will ever work."

You can see the rest of the interview here – it's full of juicy quotes and is definitely worth a read. It's an interesting perspective, and I don't think he's too far from the truth because, in many respects, we feel same way about the hardware industry's direction. Something has to change, guys, and it has to change for the better.

Share your thoughts with us in the forums.

228 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Fod 11th March 2008, 10:18 Quote
100% agreement.
PC gaming is pointless, overpriced, and overrated. I own a quad core system with an 8800 ultra, and it's not given me nearly as much fun as my 360 or even DS. There's just too much emphasis on OMG GET THE LATEST PHYSICS ACCELERATED QUAD GPU 12 CPU BEAST TO PLAY THIS GAME.

I can hand on heart say this will be my last gaming oriented PC. it's kinda sad.
lewchenko 11th March 2008, 10:27 Quote
Give the PS3 a KB, mouse, and a connector to plug into a monitor and the PC gaming scene will die off. It easily has the power to cope with RTS, MMO, Shooter etc, and it gives people a choice then of replacing a gaming PC with KB/M console upstairs in the study or downstairs in the lounge for non KB/M action.

Sure.. there will always be a high end PC gaming scene, but it will be a bloody small one. For £300, the PS3 is a bargain (try buying a PC off the self for that much that can play UT3 and COD4 etc.. remember your average Joe does not have a clue about building a PC)

I would have used the 360 as an example as well, but we all know how Microsoft hates the thought of its customers using a Kb/mouse.

This interview speaks the truth. I have the best of both worlds.. high end PC and a PS3, but I agree with his comments.
kenco_uk 11th March 2008, 10:31 Quote
Aye, when you look at it, the sheer range of graphics cards from just one side of the fence spans a huge range of performance.

The argument of 'you get what you pay for' stands true though. Obviously on a low end gfx solution, you are going to end up playing at 800x600 with low details. Spend a load of money and yes, you can now play at 1680x1050 with ultra details. It makes sense in a way.

Tri-SLi jism-powered cards would give you insane resolutions, far above the reach of consoles.

Buy a 14" Black and White Portable telly and it's not going to set your world on fire. Be the proud owner of a 40" Plasma and your eyeballs will thank you for evermore.
Glider 11th March 2008, 10:35 Quote
At last someone that has some common sense...

If your PC uses as much power as the rest of the street, you overdid it (just a bit)...
Paradigm Shifter 11th March 2008, 10:36 Quote
Give me a console that can have good keyboard/mouse control and fan-made mods at the quality and volume that are available in a lot of PC games, and I'll say that my days as a PC gamer are drawing to a close.

However, I have this little cynical part of me wondering if this is another thing that Epic are going to take back in another statement at some time in the not-too-distant future...
BlackMage23 11th March 2008, 10:38 Quote
Agree.
It would not be that hard enable keyboard and mouse surpport on the 360 and PS3 (you can already plug a USB keybaord into a 360 to type with). I don't know why they don't do it cus it make sence to me.
steveo_mcg 11th March 2008, 10:42 Quote
Another thing is that for a modern console your going to need a HD TV or more liklely two one for you to game on and one for the living room for the gf to watch tv on. I game exclusively on the pc simply because i'd loose the battle of gaming vs tv and would rather drop £600 on a good pc and monitor than a second decent tv.
TBH though the most i've ever spent on a gfx card was £150 and given my 6600gt lasted me till the 8800gts came out i think i'll get another few years out of my current card. Which in my rambling way of speaking means i agree that stupid expensive kit is a waste of money but mid end stuff is still worth having.
Woodstock 11th March 2008, 10:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMage23
Agree.
It would not be that hard enable keyboard and mouse surpport on the 360 and PS3 (you can already plug a USB keybaord into a 360 to type with). I don't know why they don't do it cus it make sence to me.

cause then they cant make you buy their controllers
Tim S 11th March 2008, 10:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
Another thing is that for a modern console your going to need a HD TV or more liklely two one for you to game on and one for the living room for the gf to watch tv on. I game exclusively on the pc simply because i'd loose the battle of gaming vs tv and would rather drop £600 on a good pc and monitor than a second decent tv.
TBH though the most i've ever spent on a gfx card was £150 and given my 6600gt lasted me till the 8800gts came out i think i'll get another few years out of my current card. Which in my rambling way of speaking means i agree that stupid expensive kit is a waste of money but mid end stuff is still worth having.

Yep, that's where I sit at the moment too - once you get above a certain point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in. Think 3-way SLI, CrossFireX and even CrossFire/SLI to an extent.
Tim S 11th March 2008, 10:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodstock
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackMage23
Agree.
It would not be that hard enable keyboard and mouse surpport on the 360 and PS3 (you can already plug a USB keybaord into a 360 to type with). I don't know why they don't do it cus it make sence to me.

cause then they cant make you buy their controllers

And I'm pretty sure Microsoft wouldn't want to kill its second revenue source from the gaming market. :)
DXR_13KE 11th March 2008, 10:48 Quote
i agree...... i would love to see great cheap mid range GC more often..... that can play about anything under the sun and does not consume more power than your entire house....
Tim S 11th March 2008, 11:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DXR_13KE
i agree...... i would love to see great cheap mid range GC more often..... that can play about anything under the sun and does not consume more power than your entire house....

It's not as if there aren't enough in the market at the moment? :?
Xir 11th March 2008, 11:22 Quote
Quote:"...60 percent of PCs on the market don't have a workable graphics processor at all. ..."

Yeah..and they're in offices, the people who bought them dont want the people who work on them to game!

Sheesh. Talk about ignorance
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 11:29 Quote
FOD, your an idiot, for one, there is more innovation happening on Pc then any console, more independant devs on PC has consoles is run by the big corps, and too expensive to get into developing for. Stalker sold near 2 million, Crysis is at 1.4 in 3 months, I could go on. Your loss, as looking at 07, PC had the best lineup by far compared to any console. Pc rules. Tim does have a point about Intel, they suck, but other then that Pc gaming id fine, and the real sales figures show this.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 11:34 Quote
What games did the consoles have in 07? The 360 had what exactly that the Pc never had? FOD, if your console is giving u more enjoyment, then u must only play sports games. The lack of mods, customization, graphics that are already falling behind the best PC can do, I would never buy a game console that restricts me the way consoles do. Pc is always a smaller market, as people need to know how to upgrade, need PC knowledge, and a bit rroe cash (Not much more though). People need to realise Pc sales ARE NOT dropping, consoles have just gotten bigger, look at the real sales numbers PC gaming is actually growing, but it was never as popular as console, so what? It will always be there.
Fod 11th March 2008, 11:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
FOD, your an idiot, for one, there is more innovation happening on Pc then any console, more independant devs on PC has consoles is run by the big corps, and too expensive to get into developing for. Stalker sold near 2 million, Crysis is at 1.4 in 3 months, I could go on. Your loss, as looking at 07, PC had the best lineup by far compared to any console. Pc rules. Tim does have a point about Intel, they suck, but other then that Pc gaming id fine, and the real sales figures show this.
All about the denial train! woo woo! next stop, fanboy village!

learn some respect along with some grammar, douchebag. there's no need to attack me like that.
i KNOW what the PC market for development is like - probably more so than you; as i have a first class masters ****ing degree in 3d graphics. the PC is for sure the cutting edge platform that sees innovation in technology first - I don't dispute this. What i take issue with is the huge investment required to just play some games, which for the average consumer, is prohibitive. THIS IS WHAT IS KILLING PC GAMING.
As for sales, it appears you may be living in a dream world.

and the games i play? cute, but fail. no sports games for me :)
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 11:35 Quote
Consoles are overrated, not PC, everyone thinks consoles are still "NEXT GEN", lol, consoles get all the hype and attention, yet the PC has already surpassed all of them, yet FOD says PC gaming is overrated? lol. Ignorance FTW, I highly doubt u have the PC u said either, I smell a console fanboy.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 11:37 Quote
FOD, once again, your blatant ignorant, it does not cost a lot to play any games on high settings, unless your dumb enough to buy an alianware. U can build a PC now for 6-700 that can play about anything on high. 900 will eve play crysis on high. Upgrade are cheap if yuor smart, If u look at the price of games, accessories, live, HDTV, the console are not that much cheaper. Educate yourself, PC hardware is very cheap.
steveo_mcg 11th March 2008, 11:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fod
All about the denial train! woo woo! next stop, fanboy village!

learn some respect along with some grammar, douchebag. there's no need to attack me like that.
i KNOW what the PC market for development is like - probably more so than you; as i have a first class masters ****ing degree in 3d graphics. the PC is for sure the cutting edge platform that sees innovation in technology first - I don't dispute this. What i take issue with is the huge investment required to just play some games, which for the average consumer, is prohibitive. THIS IS WHAT IS KILLING PC GAMING.
As for sales, it appears you may be living in a dream world.

and the games i play? cute, but fail. no sports games for me :)

I know what your saying but, the huge investment you mention is more closer to urban myth than reality, £150 gets you a 8800gt which will easily cope with all games out there, even crysis you may have to drop the settings a little but honestly it still looks good.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 11:40 Quote
Sales? Once again, your an ignorant baffoon:

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/02/21/gdc_will_steam_add_movies_music/

Orange box sold more on Pc then ALL CONSOLES COMBINED.
http://wrapper.ign.com/s?from=http%3A%2F%2Fve3d.ign.com%2Farticles%2Fnews%2F36980%2FS-T-A-L-K-E-R-1-65-Million-Copies-Sold&siteId=62&size=entryinterstitial&cKey=33052463219892675071205235525005&docTitle=S.T.A.L.K.E.R.%3A%201.65%20Million%20Copies%20Sold%20-%20Voodoo%20Extreme

Staker - 1.65 million.

Crysis already at 1.4 million.

Stardock games continue to make games that sell very well.

U need to educate yourself, NDP sales are not accurate, Valve does not have an issue with PC gaming and its sales, neither does GSC gameworld, or CDproject.

People at epic prefer consoles so they can sell their engine on them for 5 years, on PC it has already been surpassed. It is nothing more then greed and console bias in the media.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/02/20/gdc_long_live_pc_gaming/

PC gaming grew a lot last year, prejected more this year.

Ignorant much?
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 11:44 Quote
Steve_MCG, thank you, this incorrect myth that u need to spend a fortune for a good PC is a lack of education or understanding about hardware. PC hardware is so cheap now, i can build a PC more powerful then the 360 for 6-700 bucks. That is why i think he is lying about his PC, because anyone with a PC like that would know the diffference.

PC is about to do things no console can dream of, it is now 2008, hardware is cheaper and more powerful then ever. Epic does make a good point about intel, they have hurt the casual market on PC, but the part about tri-sli is BS, it is aimed at the very hard core enthusiast, it isn't like they don't make other cards for much cheaper that are still able to play games on high settings.
Fod 11th March 2008, 11:47 Quote
yeah but look at it objectively. you say £150 for a graphics card. thats in addition to your base system which really shouldn't be a slouch for, say, crysis. all in you're looking at minimum about £700 for a decent system, box only, which is good for, max, 2 years of medium-high quality gaming.

my xbox cost me £200 with 2 games and two controllers. my HDTV cost me £200. Live subscription £20 off ebay, and games £20 a pop second hand. This is good for 4 years at the least, and you are guaranteed a consistent visual quality, no faffing with detail settings or drivers, no e-peen envy as your system slowly ages (i've been there...). hell, it even doubles as an HTPC and plays my DVDs.

"BUT!", you say, "the PC can be used for productivity!" well, yeah, but what does the average user use a PC for? internet and email? maybe word proc? get a dell for £200 and you're still under.

don't get me wrong - i LIKE PC gaming - i frequently play TF2 and it's in my top 5 games of all times. it's just, not economically viable FOR MOST PEOPLE. which is why it's so overshadowed by consoles.

oh look, i haven't even mentioned the plug and play simplicity of consoles either. no, i'm not stupid, i can set my PC up (again, i'm a software engineer people, back off), but most people, to put it bluntly, are.

and please don't call me a fanboy, ever.

bootnote: we are not the average user. our perspective is skewed.
Tim S 11th March 2008, 11:50 Quote
The problem as I see it is that because Nvidia/AMD have innovated and created super-high-end solutions (which may, or may not be bad, depending on your opinion)... Intel's integrated graphics are still as bad as they have ever been. This means that the gap between the highest of the high end and the lowest of the low end has increased - that's undoubtedly the case.

I think that Sweeney is right in many respects, but what he's wrong on is that PC gaming is dead. I don't agree with that at all, but I do agree that the ultra high-end solutions are a problem for developers because the low-end has not moved.

HOWEVER, what I do know is that Nvidia (and AMD to an extent too) are trying to get developers to not develop with Intel Integrated in mind. And that's for casual gaming as well - not just the next Crysis, Stalker, etc.

Sweeney seems to think that Intel integrated needs to still be developed for, but I frankly believe things need to move on - even Intel realises that if you want to game, you need a discrete GPU from ATI (they don't like to refer to ATI as AMD) or Nvidia.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 11:53 Quote
good for 4 years, graphics suck for the last 2. Consoles are good for 5 years, but the graphics look dated after a couple and your stuck with it. Also, the days of consoles games not having bugs are long gone, see MLB 2K7 or 2K8, Mass effect and its frame rate issues, Bully and its load of bugs. So much for guaranted performance on consoles. Dark Messiah elements runs like crap on consoles.

Don't know why your arguing popularity or being overshadowed, PC gaming was never a popular or main stream platform, welcome to 1999.

Pc is more expensive, whats your point? it does more and has better hardware, and sales are fine. Consoles being mroe popular means what? Consoles have been more popular since the early 90's. Popularity just means cheaper, mass produced, dumbed down for the masses, hardly means better now does it. So what is your point? PC has never been nor will be as popularm it is a smaller market. The games cost 20 bucks more on console, if u buy 20-30 games, that is an extra 2-300 bucks for a console, if u a smart when it comes to buying your hardware, PC is not much more expensive, and can do more.

How can anyone with a straight face compare prices? A console does one thing, a PC does virtually everything, so comparing price without mentioning this is ignorant, of course it is more expensive, u get much more for the money.
Fod 11th March 2008, 11:54 Quote
leper, you're not even reading my posts. i refuse to continue this discussion with you.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 12:00 Quote
I am, you have no valid points so you pull the " I am not discussing this anymore". I thought u said sales were bad? Pc gaming is doing fine. The only real point Sweeney had was integrated graphics, they are garbage, that is a mistake, Intel need to do whats right and drop the integrated crap. MS should never have allowed vista to run on it. Other then that though, I failt to see any real issue, except piracy.

Pc gaming never was for the average user, it has alays been an niche market, what's your point? It still is doing fine, and actually growing.
loler 11th March 2008, 12:02 Quote
Epic Games speak like they were the highest game studio, yet they whine for everything, is not our fault some companies can release optimized games, is not our fault UT3 sucked, some companies have done a great job at games on pc (CoD4, Orange Box etc)
and they don''t do this kind of bullshit on press release, I understand not everyone has money to arm a high-end pc, but some are
passionated for pc and do whatever it cost to have what they always wanted to, ppl always have the choice to get a console instead, as for epic game you guys are tiring the pc gamers community by first saying their a not considering making games for pc or stated pc is dying and now this, if you really not making any games for pcs fine, but do all us a favor shut up and leave...
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 12:04 Quote
I am really sick of epic making the PC look bad to the average console fanboy so they can troll on the froums with a weekly PC is in shambles Speech. Make better games Epic, they will sell well on PC. It seems Epic is no longer a Great developr on PC with devs liek Valve, Crytek, so they can go to the console where they have less competition and sell their AA less engine for 5 years.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 12:12 Quote
http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/02/20/gdc_long_live_pc_gaming/

Epic and others need to stop whining and understand the PC market is not the same as console. Games that sell well on console many pc gamers find boring, or could care less about. We don't want console ports, we want real Pc games. It is refreshing to see some devs really do get it like in the article above.
Zut 11th March 2008, 12:17 Quote
What the hell??

BURN ALL THE PLATFORM TRAITORS!
Glider 11th March 2008, 12:18 Quote
Lepermessiah, plz learn to use the EDIT button!
crayfish 11th March 2008, 12:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fod
100% agreement.
PC gaming is pointless, overpriced, and overrated. I own a quad core system with an 8800 ultra, and it's not given me nearly as much fun as my 360 or even DS. There's just too much emphasis on OMG GET THE LATEST PHYSICS ACCELERATED QUAD GPU 12 CPU BEAST TO PLAY THIS GAME.

I can hand on heart say this will be my last gaming oriented PC. it's kinda sad.

I totally agree with you. I bought a new rig with 2GB, an E6600 and an 8800GTX for Stalker almost a year ago and it's beginning to struggle at my native res of 1360x768 in some games (Colin McRae DiRT especially.)

After I bought Stalker on release day I didn't buy any brand new releases for at least six months. Then I went and got some PC games just for the sake of it to make my outlay feel worthwhile.

Had I decided not to buy that rig, I would've been happy with a £500 office type PC.
Shielder 11th March 2008, 12:21 Quote
Unfortunately Leper, I have to agree with Fod. With a console the developers don't have to think about what the max resolution is going to be, they just design for the 1080i HD TV (for a HD game, ordinary PAL for the non-HD games) and then work on the gameplay (hopefully...). They don't have to optimise for nVidia or ATi, they don't have to work with different sound cards, processor speeds, memory sizes and storage locations. All the developers have to do is say that they are developing for the PS3/Wii/Xbox and they know what the specs are going to be.

Yes, the PC can do lots of things, but it is expensive to get. I've just shelled out a large chunk of money for a computer that is the current high end. In 6 months time, it will be mainstream. I've got a Wii at home that is over a year old. It is still the best thing available for the casual gamer, it costs about £180 (I got mine free, so I don't know how much it cost back then). My sister-in-law has a year old PS3. That is still high-end. It cost about £300-400. My new rig is costing me three times that. I've saved for it and I know the risks and benefits of paying that much. I also know that in less than two years, I won't be able to play the latest games on the max settings any more. A PS3/Xbox/Wii owner will have all the eye candy turned on and won't have to think about upgrading their graphics cards.

When was the last time you heard a PS2/3 gamer complaining that they had to turn down the settings to medium or lower, just to get decent frame rates?

Andy
kenco_uk 11th March 2008, 12:21 Quote
Leper, you touched on the subject of game prices. Consoles make money on the strength of their games. It's said that Sony, in particular, sold consoles at a loss, but the sheer amount of games sold helped them slacken their belts. That's why you'll find, a lot more often than not, console games are dearer than PC games. The cost of PC gaming is upfront, you have to pay a lot more out initially to get a good system, but then pay less per game.
TreeDude 11th March 2008, 12:22 Quote
I have to agree. I just spent $650 upgrading my PC ($400 on a new mobo, RAM, video card and PSU; and $250 on a new monitor). I could have bought a 360 and a bung of games for that. Unfortunately I do not have an HDTV. That is why I have not bothered with the current gen consoles. I wanted a WII for a while, but I have played it quite a bit at a friends house and many of the games have lost their appeal to me. You can only play WII Bowling so many times before your getting a strike 8/10 times, then it is just not fun.

When I finally get a HDTV I was a PS3 simply for it's media capabilities. I would like to find a 60gig, get a new HD and use it as a media center and to play my older PS2 games upscaled.
steveo_mcg 11th March 2008, 12:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fod
yeah but look at it objectively. you say £150 for a graphics card. thats in addition to your base system which really shouldn't be a slouch for, say, crysis. all in you're looking at minimum about £700 for a decent system, box only, which is good for, max, 2 years of medium-high quality gaming.

my xbox cost me £200 with 2 games and two controllers. my HDTV cost me £200. Live subscription £20 off ebay, and games £20 a pop second hand. This is good for 4 years at the least, and you are guaranteed a consistent visual quality, no faffing with detail settings or drivers, no e-peen envy as your system slowly ages (i've been there...). hell, it even doubles as an HTPC and plays my DVDs.

"BUT!", you say, "the PC can be used for productivity!" well, yeah, but what does the average user use a PC for? internet and email? maybe word proc? get a dell for £200 and you're still under.

don't get me wrong - i LIKE PC gaming - i frequently play TF2 and it's in my top 5 games of all times. it's just, not economically viable FOR MOST PEOPLE. which is why it's so overshadowed by consoles.

oh look, i haven't even mentioned the plug and play simplicity of consoles either. no, i'm not stupid, i can set my PC up (again, i'm a software engineer people, back off), but most people, to put it bluntly, are.

and please don't call me a fanboy, ever.

bootnote: we are not the average user. our perspective is skewed.

I suppose it is horses for courses but i wouldn't consider a console great value.
As you've said you can get a productivity pc for £200 so we could deduct that from the value of the machine My pc is a three year old platform with the cpu upgraded with a second hand dual core 939 athlon x2 whole thing inc graphics card wouldn't have cost me £400. When you consider the parts i have sold on after upgrades and deduct the £200 for the cheap pc section its cheaper or as cheap as a new ps3 and much cheaper than a launch console. Its much faster than the cheap dell so photoshop 3d studio etc are actually usable, plus it has the advantage of being more capable for longer.
Thats before a decent TV and rember i can play this when i want and don't have to fight with the tv watchers.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 12:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shielder
Unfortunately Leper, I have to agree with Fod. With a console the developers don't have to think about what the max resolution is going to be, they just design for the 1080i HD TV (for a HD game, ordinary PAL for the non-HD games) and then work on the gameplay (hopefully...). They don't have to optimise for nVidia or ATi, they don't have to work with different sound cards, processor speeds, memory sizes and storage locations. All the developers have to do is say that they are developing for the PS3/Wii/Xbox and they know what the specs are going to be.

Yes, the PC can do lots of things, but it is expensive to get. I've just shelled out a large chunk of money for a computer that is the current high end. In 6 months time, it will be mainstream. I've got a Wii at home that is over a year old. It is still the best thing available for the casual gamer, it costs about £180 (I got mine free, so I don't know how much it cost back then). My sister-in-law has a year old PS3. That is still high-end. It cost about £300-400. My new rig is costing me three times that. I've saved for it and I know the risks and benefits of paying that much. I also know that in less than two years, I won't be able to play the latest games on the max settings any more. A PS3/Xbox/Wii owner will have all the eye candy turned on and won't have to think about upgrading their graphics cards.

When was the last time you heard a PS2/3 gamer complaining that they had to turn down the settings to medium or lower, just to get decent frame rates?

Andy


what's your point? Pc is more expensive, we all know that, what does this have to do with anything? For the price of a console and a office PC most people have, u can have a high end PC that does a lot more then gaming. Plus u don't get mods and customization u get on PC, a fine trade off for it being more expensive, u get more. U get what u pay for.

A wii is a Casual gamers system they do not have to think about upgrading tis graphics because they already look 4 years old. The trade off is the graphics pale in comparison, why comapre a wii, a casual gamers sytem to a PC? Apples and oranges. Hell, u a can get more casual games on the web then the wii can even dream of.

What happens when console games have bad performance (See Dark messiah, mass effect, Lost Odyssey, etc.....), u are stuck with it.

No one is debating price, yes Pc is more expenisve, why leep mentioning that? We are saying despite that it si a healthy market, and the sales growth proves that.
genesisofthesith 11th March 2008, 13:03 Quote
When you can get console games for £20 six months after release I don't think the argument that console games are too expensive holds up.

I think the problem is that games used to be developed with the mid range hardware in mind, and scaled up for the high end, and down for the low end - wheras now games seem to be developed for the highest end then scaled down for everyone else. Whilst this means that a game is 'up to date' for a longer period, as the users hardware catches up to the games potential graphics, most gamers play a game when its newly out whether their hardware can really manage it or not, and are unlikely to go back to a game just to see what they should have seen the first time around.

With consoles, if a big game launches you can guarantee that when you talk about it with friends you've all had roughly the same experience, wheras with PCs that can't really be said.

For some people it even seems the latest and most graphically taxing games seem to be a way to validate their purhase of expensive hardware, where the graphics, and the ability to turn everything to max is more important than their experience of the game itself.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 13:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by genesisofthesith
When you can get console games for £20 six months after release I don't think the argument that console games are too expensive holds up.

I think the problem is that games used to be developed with the mid range hardware in mind, and scaled up for the high end, and down for the low end - wheras now games seem to be developed for the highest end then scaled down for everyone else. Whilst this means that a game is 'up to date' for a longer period, as the users hardware catches up to the games potential graphics, most gamers play a game when its newly out whether their hardware can really manage it or not, and are unlikely to go back to a game just to see what they should have seen the first time around.

With consoles, if a big game launches you can guarantee that when you talk about it with friends you've all had roughly the same experience, wheras with PCs that can't really be said.

For some people it even seems the latest and most graphically taxing games seem to be a way to validate their purhase of expensive hardware, where the graphics, and the ability to turn everything to max is more important than their experience of the game itself.

Not one person has said consoles are more expensive, lol, just that the gap between PC and console is not near as big as some make out. also, u Can't get ant Good, A quailty titles on console for $20 in 6 months.

why do people keep going on about PC being more expensive and having to upgrade? Pc has always been like this and is doing fine, has nothing to do with the notion Pc gaming is dying, sales are growing. PC has always been a Niche market for enthusiast, People who like upgrading, know how to use a PC, nothing has changed. Pc is a different market, seperate from consoles, when will people understand this. There is a reason many pc exclusives continue to get made and hundreds of games are in development as we speak for the platform. The notion Pc gaming is somehow dying, or slaes getting lower is a fallacy.
theevilelephant 11th March 2008, 13:11 Quote
id pick a pc any day. I think you need to factor in that many people need a pc anyway, so shelling out an extra £300-£400 ontop of the cost of a pc gets them the pc they need AND a gaming platform.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 13:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theevilelephant
id pick a pc any day. I think you need to factor in that many people need a pc anyway, so shelling out an extra £300-£400 ontop of the cost of a pc gets them the pc they need AND a gaming platform.

Exaclty, almost everyone today has a PC in the home. why not just buy a gaming PC instead of console and PC?
Gunsmith 11th March 2008, 13:19 Quote
Pc gaming is gaming for enthusiasts. its the same the R/C car market, kids go and buy one off the shelf in toys r us and men go and build there own, the final objective is the same but one audience is more mature then the other.

For the record I have a Tri-SLI box at home that sucks more then 3A just switching the thing on. Why do I do it? Because it is UNIQUE, I can do EVERYTHING on it, I BUILT IT and it is MINE. Like many other PC gamers /enthusiasts; am bloody PROUD of what I’ve accomplished.

The worst mistake ever to happen in the industry was in my opinion giving consoles the ability to go online when its actual place is under the TV with some mates around.
Shielder 11th March 2008, 13:21 Quote
But the point is that after a year, your £700-1000 PC will start to struggle with the maxed settings that you are used to, so you'll have to lower settings or suffer reduced frame rates. Whereas a console, which you got for ~£300 will still be able to show everything the games designer wanted you to see, with no reduction in image quality or frame rates.

Remember that a TV only has a refresh rate of 25-30 fps (I can't actually remember)and a fixed resolution, so all they have to do is make sure that the console refreshes at that speed.

How many PC games do you know that allow more than one person to play at once on the same computer? Last time I looked, most of the consoles have 4 controller ports.

How many ordinary consumers care about the "mods and customization u get on PC". All they do is go down to PC world and get a salesman to tell them that the internet will fly on the latest and greatest PC that will fit in their budget.

I think you are losing sight of the problem here. A good games PC can cost upwards of £500 (£1000 if you want the latest and greatest). That's £200 more than a PS3 (I think). That's 4 PS3 games worth right there (or a budget office PC). Those games will be played at max resolution from the start and any future games for the PS3 won't require you to upgrade. Once you have spent your £300 on a PS3, that's it. Once you have spent your £500+ on the PC you can bet that you'll be thinking of upgrading the GPU/CPU/mem/sound when the next "must have" game comes out. So you've got more expense and more complication just to play a game.

We accept that. Joe Public just want to buy a game and play it, without having to upgrade as well. That is why consoles are more popular. Let's face it, how many PC titles does your local supermarket sell? Mine sells the latest PS2/3, Wii and XBox/XBox360 games. It sells 4 budget combo packs of games for the PC (and those are crap!) That alone should tell you that PC gaming is no longer selling the high volumes that supermarkets find profitable.
Quote:
Pc is more expensive, we all know that, what does this have to do with anything? For the price of a console and a office PC most people have, u can have a high end PCm that does a lot more then gaming. Plus u don't get mods and customization u get on PC, a fine trade off for it beibng moee expensive, u get more.

The first part of your post hits the nail on the head. I know an accountant who is going to get his daughter a Wii. He wouldn't even consider getting her a PC because it is too expensive (and he is a partner in the firm). He would argue that you get less with a PC because it is so much harder to use than a console (plug in game and start on the console: plug in game, select resolution, see if it plays well, reselect resolution, DX version or OpenGL, FSAA level, AF level etc etc on a PC). The only area that the PC excels at is non-gaming use. If you want to game, you either need to spend hundreds on a high end pc or get a console for half the price. I know which most people would choose.

Andy

Oh yeah, Some games should never be ported to the console. Flight sims spring to mind. I can't wait to fire up IL2 on my new rig (when I get the bits put together that is...)
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 13:33 Quote
In my opinion it comes down to 3 things enjoyment, cost and ease of use.

Enjoyment: if you enjoy playing a game for its gameplay your not going to care what the gfx look like. Some people only like playing with a keyboard and mouse for fps etc because they have always used one. if you find someone that has had consoles all there life there not going to want a keyboard and mouse there going to want a gamepad. then the question arrises what if you gave the same games to the consoles and allowed people to use a keyboard and mouse. im pretty sure most of the middle market gamers would swap to a console there know would work with anygame they buy off the self and they dont haft to worry about upgrading 2 months down the line to play there next game.

Cost: Lets face it most of the people here on bit are pc enthusiasts and have built at least one pc sometime in there life and yes you can buy a mid-high spec pc for about 600-700 notes, but a average joe will walk into pc world buy a pc for there amazing deals only 299, then pick up a game off the shelf go home and find its either a slideshow or wont run at all. so then they go and invest in a console for 200quid that works first time and they dont need to fiddle with drivers etc.

Ease of use: Iv been going to lan partys and lan events for the last 5-6 years and iv had pcs or all diffrent sizes etc. But its still a hastle and i get that feeling everytime i go of "ow i realy cba to unpack this all cuase i no i got to plug it all in again!" . The other point is pcs realy wernt ment for lugging about in the back of cars especialy when they are full of water and have silly sized heasinks. The other option is somthing like a laptop but they cost in the region of 2k for a high end spec one and they cant be upgraded easily. were as for some fun with ya mates take your games and controlers round there house crack open a beer and play somthing on a console for me will win everytime.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 13:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shielder
But the point is that after a year, your £700-1000 PC will start to struggle with the maxed settings that you are used to, so you'll have to lower settings or suffer reduced frame rates. Whereas a console, which you got for ~£300 will still be able to show everything the games designer wanted you to see, with no reduction in image quality or frame rates.

Remember that a TV only has a refresh rate of 25-30 fps (I can't actually remember)and a fixed resolution, so all they have to do is make sure that the console refreshes at that speed.

How many PC games do you know that allow more than one person to play at once on the same computer? Last time I looked, most of the consoles have 4 controller ports.

How many ordinary consumers care about the "mods and customization u get on PC". All they do is go down to PC world and get a salesman to tell them that the internet will fly on the latest and greatest PC that will fit in their budget.

What part of Pc is not for casual gamers don't u understand. Casual gamers do not care about mods, but PC gamers do, and it is well worth the upgrading and hassle as PC gaming offers the deepest gaming experience for those who game on PC.

I think you are losing sight of the problem here. A good games PC can cost upwards of £500 (£1000 if you want the latest and greatest). That's £200 more than a PS3 (I think). That's 4 PS3 games worth right there (or a budget office PC). Those games will be played at max resolution from the start and any future games for the PS3 won't require you to upgrade. Once you have spent your £300 on a PS3, that's it. Once you have spent your £500+ on the PC you can bet that you'll be thinking of upgrading the GPU/CPU/mem/sound when the next "must have" game comes out. So you've got more expense and more complication just to play a game.

We accept that. Joe Public just want to buy a game and play it, without having to upgrade as well. That is why consoles are more popular. Let's face it, how many PC titles does your local supermarket sell? Mine sells the latest PS2/3, Wii and XBox/XBox360 games. It sells 4 budget combo packs of games for the PC (and those are crap!) That alone should tell you that PC gaming is no longer selling the high volumes that supermarkets find profitable.



The first part of your post hits the nail on the head. I know an accountant who is going to get his daughter a Wii. He wouldn't even consider getting her a PC because it is too expensive (and he is a partner in the firm). He would argue that you get less with a PC because it is so much harder to use than a console (plug in game and start on the console: plug in game, select resolution, see if it plays well, reselect resolution, DX version or OpenGL, FSAA level, AF level etc etc on a PC). The only area that the PC excels at is non-gaming use. If you want to game, you either need to spend hundreds on a high end pc or get a console for half the price. I know which most people would choose.

Andy

Oh yeah, Some games should never be ported to the console. Flight sims spring to mind. I can't wait to fire up IL2 on my new rig (when I get the bits put together that is...)


And? we all know Pc is not a casual market? No one is debating that. Pc is a niche market, a big one at that for gaming, no one is arguing consoles ae more mass market. for all your wrote, not one thing had anything to do with the discussion. Yes, we all know consoles ae more popular, what is your point? They always have? PC gaming is not dying however, it is growing, if u read the links I posted u would see that.

I think u have lost sight of the entire discussion. Pc is a different market, and not going anywhere, no one said PC is going to try and compete with the wii audience, doesn't want to. What part of Pc is not for casual gamers don't u understand. No one is even arguing what u are saying.

Casual gamers do not care about mods, but PC gamers do, and it is well worth the upgrading and hassle as PC gaming offers the deepest gaming experience for those who game on PC.casual cheaper market of the consoles, it doesn't need to.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 13:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunsmith
Pc gaming is gaming for enthusiasts. its the same the R/C car market, kids go and buy one off the shelf in toys r us and men go and build there own, the final objective is the same but one audience is more mature then the other.

For the record I have a Tri-SLI box at home that sucks more then 3A just switching the thing on. Why do I do it? Because it is UNIQUE, I can do EVERYTHING on it, I BUILT IT and it is MINE. Like many other PC gamers /enthusiasts; am bloody PROUD of what I’ve accomplished.

The worst mistake ever to happen in the industry was in my opinion giving consoles the ability to go online when its actual place is under the TV with some mates around.

Someone actually has some comprehension to realise this, good post. Pc gaming is totally seperate from console gaming, it aims at a different market, not the 5 year olds asking daddies for Wii's. The Pc market is large, amd growing, has nothing to do with consoles being more popular, they always have been. PC gaming s for people who have PC know how.
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 13:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc4mpi
In my opinion it comes down to 3 things enjoyment, cost and ease of use.

Enjoyment: if you enjoy playing a game for its gameplay your not going to care what the gfx look like. Some people only like playing with a keyboard and mouse for fps etc because they have always used one. if you find someone that has had consoles all there life there not going to want a keyboard and mouse there going to want a gamepad. then the question arrises what if you gave the same games to the consoles and allowed people to use a keyboard and mouse. im pretty sure most of the middle market gamers would swap to a console there know would work with anygame they buy off the self and they dont haft to worry about upgrading 2 months down the line to play there next game.

Cost: Lets face it most of the people here on bit are pc enthusiasts and have built at least one pc sometime in there life and yes you can buy a mid-high spec pc for about 600-700 notes, but a average joe will walk into pc world buy a pc for there amazing deals only 299, then pick up a game off the shelf go home and find its either a slideshow or wont run at all. so then they go and invest in a console for 200quid that works first time and they dont need to fiddle with drivers etc and they can let there kids play about with it all day long.

Ease of use: Iv been going to lan partys and lan events for the last 5-6 years and iv had pcs or all diffrent sizes etc. But its still a hastle and i get that feeling everytime i go of "ow i realy cba to unpack this all cuase i no i got to plug it all in again!" . The other point is pcs realy wernt ment for lugging about in the back of cars especialy when they are full of water and have silly sized heasinks. The other option is somthing like a laptop but they cost in the region of 2k for a high end spec one and they cant be upgraded easily. were as for some fun with ya mates take your games and controlers round there house crack open a beer and play somthing on a console for me will win everytime.
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 13:38 Quote
oops double post :P
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 13:43 Quote


Not everyone has people to sit around and play games with, i am 30, have 2 kids, I know zero people who would even come over and play games, for me, many friends are a longs way away, so it is better to hook up online on Pc and play. everyone is different, some enjoy the alone time and play a good PC game. either way, once again, no one is even debating why or if consoles are more popular, Pc is a different market, get it, different, totally seperarte.
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 13:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Not everyone has people to sit around and play games with, i am 30, have 2 kids, I know zero people who would even come over and play games, for me, many friends are a longs way away, so it is better to hook up online on Pc and play. everyone is different, some enjoy the alone time and play a good PC game. either way, once again, no one is even debating why or if consoles are more popular, Pc is a different market, get it, different, totally seperarte.

I Dont think people are dening its a diffrent market, but its capturing the middle class gamers from pcs over to consoles ,there ones that dont have 500 quid every 3 months to upgrade just to play the next hyped game which in all honesty wasnt worth the cash cause it only takes a day to comeplete most of the new games my have swanky gfx but they realy dont have the gameplay and overall grip that kept you playing like the old ones did.
Shielder 11th March 2008, 13:52 Quote
Leper, the pc market is declining. Sorry, but it is.

I wish it were otherwise cos I love my PC games. It is the constant upgrade path that is the problem. If PC gaming was such a big market as you suggest, then the PC games section of GAME etc would fill more than 2 shelf sections out of 20. The rest are split between Wii, PS3 and Xbox. My supermarket would sell the latest PC games as well as the latest console games. You get my drift? Yes, there may well be PC games in development, but what hardware will I have to buy, on top of what I've already bought, to get the desired experience? With a console I wouldn't have to buy anything more than another controller or a subscription to online gaming.

My local Gamestation has one shelf unit of PC games. How is that a massive market?

sc4, I agree. it is the middle section of gamers that are moving to the consoles from the pc. Mainly because of ease of use and the cost of playing the latest and greatest games.

PC gaming offers more immersion, yes, but at what cost? My current computer has cost me about £700 over the last 4 years, in hardware alone. My new computer will cost me even more because of the upgradability that I'm building into my new rig. With a console I don't need to worry about that. When a new console comes out, I buy it, and that's that.

Yes the PC and the console are different markets, but with games being written for both formats, and playing very well, where is the benefit of spending (much) more on a PC over a console?

CoD4 (the game I'm looking forward to playing on my new rig the most) being a prime example.

Andy
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 13:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc4mpi
I Dont think people are dening its a diffrent market, but its capturing the middle class gamers from pcs over to consoles ,there ones that dont have 500 quid every 3 months to upgrade just to play the next hyped game which in all honesty wasnt worth the cash cause it only takes a day to comeplete most of the new games my have swanky gfx but they realy dont have the gameplay and overall grip that kept you playing like the old ones did.


It has always been that way, and console games are worse for length, that is where mods come on. It is not capturing anything from PC, as Pc gaming sales are growing, not decreasing. 500 quid every 3 months? Get real man, that is a big load of turd. Do u even know hardware? That is the type of ignorant comment i am talking about, U do not need to spend remotely close to that, not near as often, hell, hardware does not even come out that fast. The 8800 series is 1,.5 years old and still going, with no new GPUs out yet. I spend that much every 2 years, mayeb less by the time I sell my old stuff, and still play all games on high.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 13:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shielder
And declining. Sorry, but it is.

I wish it were otherwise cos I love my PC games.

Andy

Ignorant, read the links i psoted, Pc gaming grew last year by a significant margin, and is slated to do so again this year. Do not believe everything u read, especially from the biased console sites who use uselless US retail NDP sales numbers as a picture of the enitre industry.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/02/20/gdc_long_live_pc_gaming/

u really shoud research before posting such nonsense. 12% growth on 07, 14% in 08. Over 2 billion in revenue. yeah a 2 billion dollar business and growing is declining, explain that one.

http://www.tomsgames.com/us/2008/02/21/gdc_will_steam_add_movies_music/

tell valve it is declining, or GSc gameworld, or CD project, or star dock or blizzard. Get real, it is growing.


a game that requires the latest hardware in crysis can sell 1.4 million in 3 months, u know the NDP numbers are useless.

educate yourself before posting, The us retail market is not good, other then that Pc gaming is growing, the US is not the centre of the universe, and many games are being digitally purchased now.
[USRF]Obiwan 11th March 2008, 13:59 Quote
The fact is....

The PC survived ANY console since the first PC was made.
The best games are on the PC.
The best gamegraphics are on the PC.
Most innovated game technologys are on the PC
I dont have to choose between br and dvd-hd. I can put both in the PC (if i want to)
I can do oozes of other stuff on the PC then games.
I can take my PC apart without breaking so called 'hardware' licences.
I can saw my PC in 2, mod the hell out if it, and it still looks nicer the any console.
I can play any video format based on any codec on the PC, and can view it on any display type available.
If something breaks I can replace it myself.
I can use mice and keyboard or any other exotic device on the PC. (even stupid console gamepads)
I can emulate ANY historic console or arcade machine on my PC.
I can attach a printer to the PC
And do about 5000 other things but have to keep the list short...



So tell me what a console can do?
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 14:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah


It has always been that way, and console games are worse for length, that is where mods come on. It is not capturing anything from PC, as Pc gaming sales are growing, not decreasing. 500 quid every 3 months? Get real man, that is a big load of turd. Do u even know hardware? That is the type of ignorant comment i am talking about, U do not need to spend remotely close to that, not near as often, hell, hardware does not even come out that fast. The 8800 series is 1,.5 years old and still going, with no new GPUs out yet. I spend that much every 2 years, mayeb less by the time I sell my old stuff, and still play all games on high.

last time i checked 500 quid was the price of intels top end cpu and iv seen people upgrade em everytime they come out just to stay at the peak of performance. and people buy em to play these new games to see all the spankly gfx but the honest fact is there dont warrent it. the games arnt good enough and dont last long enough to warrent spending huge amounts just for a single game. and yes pc game sales are increasing cause more and more people have a pc as a household item but how many of them can actuly run it and stay intrested imo. people may buy em but it doesnt mean to say people are still playing em.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 14:09 Quote
one of the main differences that I have not seen brought up yet is that consoles are a closed system, while the PC only requires a decent understanding of programming to create a game.

as obiwan said, you do not have hardware licences that make upgrading impossible, and you also do not have backwards compatibility issues with older games (I play a couple win95 games on vista, but PS1 games don't run on a PS3)

the other part of it is that deployment ultimately costs less as the game understands that all it needs to talk to is the API, and anything beyond is the user's domain, so drivers ultimately have no impact on deployment costs. the medium is also very well known and not under a paid license, unlike the protected X360 or PS3 formats.

finally, the one thing the PC excels at is community-generated content. because of the open nature of the PC, anyone with the right tools can add content to a game and then distribute it relatively easily for others to enjoy (a la oblivion) tell me, what mods are there for oblivion on the 360 besides the official DLCs?
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 14:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [USRF
Obiwan]The fact is....

The PC survived ANY console since the first PC was made.
The best games are on the PC.
The best gamegraphics are on the PC.
Most innovated game technologys are on the PC
I dont have to choose between br and dvd-hd. I can put both in the PC (if i want to)
I can do oozes of other stuff on the PC then games.
I can take my PC apart without breaking so called 'hardware' licences.
I can saw my PC in 2, mod the hell out if it, and it still looks nicer the any console.
I can play any video format based on any codec on the PC, and can view it on any display type available.
If something breaks I can replace it myself.
I can use mice and keyboard or any other exotic device on the PC. (even stupid console gamepads)
I can emulate ANY historic console or arcade machine on my PC.
I can attach a printer to the PC
And do about 5000 other things but have to keep the list short...



So tell me what a console can do?

Tell me what on that list a 200 quid pc cannot do.

The best games are on the PC.
The best gamegraphics are on the PC
^^ there opinions mate.

Pc games also has the largest number of cheats and hackers.
pc games also has the biggest number of piracy (killing the industy)


ask someone that likes consoles what they think. (im a pc man btw although i do own a 360)

i think this thread is more about not what a pc can do but the people that buy a pc and then buy a console to play games over it
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 14:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc4mpi
last time i checked 500 quid was the price of intels top end cpu and iv seen people upgrade em everytime they come out just to stay at the peak of performance. and people buy em to play these new games to see all the spankly gfx but the honest fact is there dont warrent it. the games arnt good enough and dont last long enough to warrent spending huge amounts just for a single game. and yes pc game sales are increasing cause more and more people have a pc as a household item but how many of them can actuly run it and stay intrested imo. people may buy em but it doesnt mean to say people are still playing em.

Bs, for one, they do not get released every 3 months, nor do u need to upgrade everytime something is released, that is baloney. Spend the money for one game? u on crack? there are tonnes of games for PC.

A Core 2 duo can be had for 150, as well as a 9600 gt or 8800GT for $200. U can go 1-2 years before u need to upgrade, yes if u wany u CAN buy every time something new is out, but u don't need to, that is a retarded argument, and shows yuor ignorance when it comes to hardware. Nvidia sold 2 million 8800's in 1 year, plus u have AMD's cards and the X1900's and 7900's, so, it is safe to say m,any people can play those games. get real, if people were buying games and couldn't play them, they would not keep buying Pc games, u have any facts to back that up? didn't think so, mindless dribble from someone who has no idea what he is talking about. just becaue it is possible to spend the money is irrelevant, u don't have to, it can be fairly cheap if u know what u are doing, which u don't.

U can get 4 Gb ram now fo $100. Like I saod, anyone sayingu need to spend $500 every 3 months is ignorant and has no clue.

It is worth it for many, thus the sales of hardware and games prove, don't let facts get in the way though. who are u to decide if it is worth it to someone. i bought a 360, worst mistake i ever made, all of its games came on PC, were better on PC, had mods. play oblivion on 360 then PC, u know why it is worth it. If it isn't for u, fine, don't pretend to know what is worth it to many.
Shielder 11th March 2008, 14:17 Quote
Obiwan. I'm not disputing most of what you say, but:
Quote:
The PC survived ANY console since the first PC was made.
My N64 is still going, my AMD K6 would probably still be going if I had a use for it. Both are no longer available, so what is your point?
Quote:
The best games are on the PC.
Agreed. Some of them are also on the consoles. :(
Quote:
The best gamegraphics are on the PC.
Agreed, but only if you keep on spending on new graphics cards every 6 months (8800GTX is the exception)
Quote:
Most innovated game technologys are on the PC
Erm, Wii controller?
Quote:
I dont have to choose between br and dvd-hd. I can put both in the PC (if i want to)
PS3 has BR built in. It will cost me oodles of dosh (?£200?) to put in a BR player on my PC.
As for the rest, I agree. The console really is only designed to play games. The PC has been adapted from a humble office machine for typists and accountants, to being a powerful all purpose system that can calculate quantum interactions in a star.

The point I've been trying to make all along (Leper's insults notwithstanding) is that it costs more to game on the PC than it does on a console and the market is biased against the PC (I didn't think my Gamestation even HAD PC games until I found them stuffed into the darkest corner of the shop).

I disagree with you Leper, in that I do think that the market for PC games is declining (your links to one website only are not conclusive proof, sorry), but my view is based on what I can see in the shops, lots and lots of console games and very few PC games. What is going to sell more, the console games or the PC games?

Andy
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 14:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shielder
Obiwan. I'm not disputing most of what you say, but:


My N64 is still going, my AMD K6 would probably still be going if I had a use for it. Both are no longer available, so what is your point?

Agreed. Some of them are also on the consoles. :(

Agreed, but only if you keep on spending on new graphics cards every 6 months (8800GTX is the exception)

Erm, Wii controller?

PS3 has BR built in. It will cost me oodles of dosh (?£200?) to put in a BR player on my PC.
As for the rest, I agree. The console really is only designed to play games. The PC has been adapted from a humble office machine for typists and accountants, to being a powerful all purpose system that can calculate quantum interactions in a star.

The point I've been trying to make all along (Leper's insults notwithstanding) is that it costs more to game on the PC than it does on a console and the market is biased against the PC (I didn't think my Gamestation even HAD PC games until I found them stuffed into the darkest corner of the shop).

I disagree with you Leper, in that I do think that the market for PC games is declining (your links to one website only are not conclusive proof, sorry), but my view is based on what I can see in the shops, lots and lots of console games and very few PC games. What is going to sell more, the console games or the PC games?

Andy


My links weren't proof? They show a direct growth in the Pc game market, what the hell do u need? Pc games are selling more and more via digital distribution and in other conntries, saying it is decling just because of what u see in american stores is your logic? LOL. consoles selling better does not equal Pc selling lower, Pc gaming is a seperate market with vastly different demographics.

No, u do not need a new GPu every 6 months, soon, a mid to lower range PC will have equal graphics to the consoles, imagine what it will be like in 09?

Wii controller innovative? BWHAHA

That tech has been around for ages on Pc and other areas, Nintendo gets no credit there, there games are still more basic then any other platform. The only credit they get is bringing it to the masses, but game innovation, nintendo are as propretary and basic as they come.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 14:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc4mpi

Pc games have the largest number of mods because people arnt happy with the main content of the game

I will dispute this with logic rather than a rapidly typed, ungrammatical, inflexible reflex answer.

say you went out and bought a game, for $30-40 and were not happy with it.

would you spend what could be several hundred hours digging through code and figuring out the engine in order to make improved content? I do not think you would, instead you might play it once and then resell it.
Most mods have arisen out of a persons love for a game and simply want to make it even better, not fix a broken game because they feel they must.

as proof of that concept, look at all the games that started as half-life mods, or the Thirdwire flight simulation games, or any of the microsoft flight sims, or oblivion, or , <insert heavily modded game with multiple dedicated community sites here>
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 14:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc4mpi

Pc games have the largest number of mods because people arnt happy with the main content of the game

I will dispute this with logic rather than a rapidly typed, ungrammatical, inflexible reflex answer.

say you went out and bought a game, for $30-40 and were not happy with it.

would you spend what could be several hundred hours digging through code and figuring out the engine in order to make improved content? I do not think you would, instead you might play it once and then resell it.
Most mods have arisen out of a persons love for a game and simply want to make it even better, not fix a broken game because they feel they must.

as proof of that concept, look at all the games that started as half-life mods, or the Thirdwire flight simulation games, or any of the microsoft flight sims, or oblivion, or , <insert heavily modded game with multiple dedicated community sites here>

Your right ill remove that comment. just got slightly heated :)
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 14:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Bs, for one, they do not get released every 3 months, nor do u need to upgrade everytime something is released, that is baloney. Spend the money for one game? u on crack? there are tonnes of games for PC.

A Core 2 duo can be had for 150, as well as a 9600 gt or 8800GT for $200. U can go 1-2 years before u need to upgrade, yes if u wany u CAN buy every time something new is out, but u don't need to, that is a retarded argument, and shows yuor ignorance when it comes to hardware. Nvidia sold 2 million 8800's in 1 year, plus u have AMD's cards and the X1900's and 7900's, so, it is safe to say m,any people can play those games. get real, if people were buying games and couldn't play them, they would not keep buying Pc games, u have any facts to back that up? didn't think so, mindless dribble from someone who has no idea what he is talking about. just becaue it is possible to spend the money is irrelevant, u don't have to, it can be fairly cheap if u know what u are doing, which u don't.

U can get 4 Gb ram now fo $100. Like I saod, anyone sayingu need to spend $500 every 3 months is ignorant and has no clue.

It is worth it for many, thus the sales of hardware and games prove, don't let facts get in the way though. who are u to decide if it is worth it to someone. i bought a 360, worst mistake i ever made, all of its games came on PC, were better on PC, had mods. play oblivion on 360 then PC, u know why it is worth it. If it isn't for u, fine, don't pretend to know what is worth it to many.

Your right man iv never built my own pc or worked out how much i spent on it. your right my 360 was the worst thing iv ever bought. how could i have ever doubted you p.s new hardware comes out almost monthly
Shielder 11th March 2008, 14:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
My links weren't proof? They show a direct growth in the Pc game market, what the hell do u need? Pc games are selling more and more via digital distribution and in other conntries, saying it is decling just because of what u see in american stores is your logic? LOL. consoles selling better does not equal Pc selling lower, Pc gaming is a seperate market with vastly different demographics.

No, u do not need a new GPu every 6 months, soon, a mid to lower range PC will have equal graphics to the consoles, imagine what it will be like in 09?

Wii controller innovative? BWHAHA

That tech has been around for ages on Pc and other areas, Nintendo gets no credit there, there games are still more basic then any other platform. The only credit they get is bringing it to the masses, but game innovation, nintendo are as propretary and basic as they come.

American stores? The last time I was in America was 1997.

Anyway, I still disagree with you, but, you are right, I don't think your links are proof. Here in Britain I think console gaming is more popular. I agree that PC gaming has a different demographic and I agree that you don't need a new GPU every 6 months (just look at mine, I've had it since 2004 ;)). But, I still say that to get the best experience out of a PC game, you will need to upgrade your system, which you don't need to do with a console. Which is why I think console games are outselling PC games.

oh yes, Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that you can insult me.

Andy
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 14:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc4mpi
Your right man iv never built my own pc or worked out how much i spent on it. your right my 360 was the worst thing iv ever bought. how could i have ever doubted you p.s new hardware comes out almost monthly

Monthly? Bull crap. New GPU's only come out once a year, and u can go a long time without needing to upgrade a CPU. It is obvious your full of it.
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 14:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Bs, for one, they do not get released every 3 months, nor do u need to upgrade everytime something is released, that is baloney. Spend the money for one game? u on crack? there are tonnes of games for PC.

A Core 2 duo can be had for 150, as well as a 9600 gt or 8800GT for $200. U can go 1-2 years before u need to upgrade, yes if u wany u CAN buy every time something new is out, but u don't need to, that is a retarded argument, and shows yuor ignorance when it comes to hardware. Nvidia sold 2 million 8800's in 1 year, plus u have AMD's cards and the X1900's and 7900's, so, it is safe to say m,any people can play those games. get real, if people were buying games and couldn't play them, they would not keep buying Pc games, u have any facts to back that up? didn't think so, mindless dribble from someone who has no idea what he is talking about. just becaue it is possible to spend the money is irrelevant, u don't have to, it can be fairly cheap if u know what u are doing, which u don't.

U can get 4 Gb ram now fo $100. Like I saod, anyone sayingu need to spend $500 every 3 months is ignorant and has no clue.

It is worth it for many, thus the sales of hardware and games prove, don't let facts get in the way though. who are u to decide if it is worth it to someone. i bought a 360, worst mistake i ever made, all of its games came on PC, were better on PC, had mods. play oblivion on 360 then PC, u know why it is worth it. If it isn't for u, fine, don't pretend to know what is worth it to many.

Your right man iv never built my own pc or worked out how much iv spent on keeping it moden . your right my 360 was the worst thing iv ever bought. your not a fanboy are you how could i have ever doubted you p.s please link me forza 2 for pc i cant seem to find it, silly me
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 14:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shielder
American stores? The last time I was in America was 1997.

Anyway, I still disagree with you, but, you are right, I don't think your links are proof. Here in Britain I think console gaming is more popular. I agree that PC gaming has a different demographic and I agree that you don't need a new GPU every 6 months (just look at mine, I've had it since 2004 ;)). But, I still say that to get the best experience out of a PC game, you will need to upgrade your system, which you don't need to do with a console. Which is why I think console games are outselling PC games.

oh yes, Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that you can insult me.

Andy

Yes, u need to upgrade? DUH, no one has said otherwise, can u read?

No, the sales figures show the game sales are growing (They are actual sales figures), if that is not good enough for u then wallow in ignorance. I showed dirst proof, u just say because shelf space is smaller, yeah, consoles are more popular always have been, has no bearing on Pc sales which are growing, and digital distribution is rapidly growing.
crozon 11th March 2008, 14:38 Quote
PC gaming has more casual gamers than consoles. WOW 10 miilion active subscribers, sims sold close to 100million units and maple story earns something like 100million usd a year.

Yep but agreed the bitch is that integrated graphics card. once they can create some bog standard card that comes with every pc and can play most games, then the high end market of PC games will be a bit of a niche in comparrison to the console market.
Shielder 11th March 2008, 14:42 Quote
To get the best out of the latest PC games then yes, you need to upgrade, especially if you are wanting to run a DX10 game.

Year on year, I agree, PC sales are going up, but so are console sales. 14% of all games sold are PC games. That is quite a small figure, especially when you consider that the console games generally cost slightly more than the equivalent PC game so will generate more profit for the manufacturer.

Oh, I can read, but I don't think you can write clearly. Parsing some of your posts is a bit difficult, so I apologise if I've misread anything.

Andy
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 14:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc4mpi
Your right man iv never built my own pc or worked out how much i spent on it. your right my 360 was the worst thing iv ever bought. how could i have ever doubted you p.s new hardware comes out almost monthly

Monthly? Bull crap. New GPU's only come out once a year, and u can go a long time without needing to upgrade a CPU. It is obvious your full of it.


err lets see ther was the 9800pro 9800pro 256 9800 xt

8800gts and gtx then the ultra came about then the gt game along

3850 pro then the 3870 xt then just recently i recall a 3870x2

i do recall that was within just a few months of the first being released
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 14:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
It is obvious your full of it.

and you appear to be full of yourself.

we try to keep discussion civilized here, if you want to yell and fight, find a more suitable venue.

inflexible rapid answers that degrade others do not win them over to an idea, instead they will only entrench them in that idea more. the best way to conduct a discussion (not an argument) is to listen first, think about what you heard, and then clearly and concisely explain your point of view with multiple pieces of supporting evidence.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 14:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc4mpi
err lets see ther was the 9800pro 9800pro 256 9800 xt

8800gts and gtx then the ultra came about then the gt game along

3850 pro then the 3870 xt then just recently i recall a 3870x2

i do recall that was within just a few months of the first being released

Yes, u proved my point, u don't need to go from the 3850 pro to the 3870, as the 3850 can play all games on high. The only people who would go for the 3870, are people with the x1900XT or lower, they are over a year old. U cannot understand the difference between having the option to upgrade and needing to. I can upgrade my car any time I want to as well, but I don't need to.

That is the dunbest argument i have ever heard. If someone just buys a 8800GT, they are set for awhile, they are not going to turn around and buy a 8800GTX, they can, but it is not needed, which is the crux of the argument.

I am talking when they NEdd to upgrade, u don't need to upgrade in the same generation of cards, get real.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 14:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shielder
To get the best out of the latest PC games then yes, you need to upgrade, especially if you are wanting to run a DX10 game.

Year on year, I agree, PC sales are going up, but so are console sales. 14% of all games sold are PC games. That is quite a small figure, especially when you consider that the console games generally cost slightly more than the equivalent PC game so will generate more profit for the manufacturer.

Oh, I can read, but I don't think you can write clearly. Parsing some of your posts is a bit difficult, so I apologise if I've misread anything.

Andy


14% was only RETAIL, not digital distribution, and that was compared to:

PS2, PS3, Xbox, Xbox 360, Wii, DS, PSp.

How is it fairt to compare the PC to 7 other platforms combined?

So, that is a large chunk which is actually closer to 20%, an article on bit-tech alone dispelled many of these false reports.
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 14:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc4mpi
err lets see ther was the 9800pro 9800pro 256 9800 xt

8800gts and gtx then the ultra came about then the gt game along

3850 pro then the 3870 xt then just recently i recall a 3870x2

i do recall that was within just a few months of the first being released

Yes, u proved my point, u don't need to go from the 3850 pro to the 3870, as the 3850 can play all games on high. The only people who would go for the 3870, are people with the x1900XT or lower, they are over a year old. U cannot understand the difference between having the option to upgrade and needing to. I can upgrade my car any time I want to as well, but I don't need to.

That is the dunbest argument i have ever heard. If someone just buys a 8800GT, they are set for awhile, they are not going to turn around and buy a 8800GTX, they can, but it is not needed, which is the crux of the argument.

I am talking when they NEdd to upgrade, u don't need to upgrade in the same generation of cards, get real.

i was only pointing out that they do come out more than once a year.... but again your right im wrong. and yes you can buy a 8800gts, then you get say a larger screen and ow wait your fps have failed you. so you can either slug on with your gts or you can sell and get a gtx again either way costs money, with a console you get a bigger tv you dont need to get a new console. to play the same games.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 14:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shielder
To get the best out of the latest PC games then yes, you need to upgrade, especially if you are wanting to run a DX10 game.

Year on year, I agree, PC sales are going up, but so are console sales. 14% of all games sold are PC games. That is quite a small figure, especially when you consider that the console games generally cost slightly more than the equivalent PC game so will generate more profit for the manufacturer.

Oh, I can read, but I don't think you can write clearly. Parsing some of your posts is a bit difficult, so I apologise if I've misread anything.

Andy

yeah, u need to upgrade, welcome to page one of the thread, we all know that captain obvious. Just not as often as some ignorant people think.
Shielder 11th March 2008, 14:57 Quote
Oh, so people running an 8600 wouldn't find any benefit going to an 8800?

In your words, get real! Listen to Bluephoenix and try and be more civilized when discussing something. Or do you hold the view that whoever shouts loudest wins?

Andy
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 14:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc4mpi
i was only pointing out that they do come out more than once a year.... but again your right im wrong. and yes you can buy a 8800gts, then you get say a larger screen and ow wait your fps have failed you. so you can either slug on with your gts or you can sell and get a gtx again either way costs money, with a console you get a bigger tv you dont need to get a new console. to play the same games.


A Bigger TV comes with console, didn't know that, lol, last i checked they are not cheap. I hook up my Pc to my HDTV all the time, one little cable. U need a new console when the new one comes out. U don't need to buy a bigger screen, it is a choice, something to consoles don't give u.
frodo 11th March 2008, 14:59 Quote
Dear Lepermessiah

YOU FAIL!
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 15:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shielder
Oh, so people running an 8600 wouldn't find any benefit going to an 8800?

In your words, get real! Listen to Bluephoenix and try and be more civilized when discussing something. Or do you hold the view that whoever shouts loudest wins?

Andy

Can u read? Did I say that? I said people coming from a 3850 - 3870. U don't have to, and if someone is buying a 8600, why wouldn't they just buy the 880 and be set for aehile, especially considering the 8800 was released before. Most people don't, nor need to buy every new card that is released.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 15:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by frodo
Dear Lepermessiah

YOU FAIL!

Oh look, a post showing if someone has nothing of substance and no valid points they post U fail with no substance behind it, good job.
frodo 11th March 2008, 15:02 Quote
Well its completely true leper, You state that new cards ARENT released every month, which sc4mpi then proved, you then say oww but no they dont count because you dont HAVE to upgrade.

The matter of the fact is that they DO release cards roughly once a month, just because they are the same generation does not mean they are not new cards, hence why, you fail.

P.s. I didnt post "u fail" because I dont use text speak, I said "you fail" in size 7 red letters.
Tim S 11th March 2008, 15:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shielder
To get the best out of the latest PC games then yes, you need to upgrade, especially if you are wanting to run a DX10 game.

Year on year, I agree, PC sales are going up, but so are console sales. 14% of all games sold are PC games. That is quite a small figure, especially when you consider that the console games generally cost slightly more than the equivalent PC game so will generate more profit for the manufacturer.

Oh, I can read, but I don't think you can write clearly. Parsing some of your posts is a bit difficult, so I apologise if I've misread anything.

Andy

14 percent in the US, fwiw. Europe has a much bigger market for PC games, with Germany being the biggest market on its own I believe.
whisperwolf 11th March 2008, 15:05 Quote
oh look a thread that’s starting to resemble the forum of gamespot, all we need now is several people shouting first!!!11!!!one!!!!11!! and the conversion will be complete
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 15:05 Quote
nor did i say you haft to buy every new one that is released. !!11!!!one!!!!11!! :D
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 15:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by frodo
Well its completely true leper, You state that new cards ARENT released every month, which sc4mpi then proved, you then say oww but no they dont count because you dont HAVE to upgrade.

The matter of the fact is that they DO release cards roughly once a month, just because they are the same generation does not mean they are not new cards, hence why, you fail.

P.s. I didnt post "u fail" because I dont use text speak, I said "you fail" in size 7 red letters.

Once a month? No, every 3 months, which is irrelevant for someone who got the same generation, they are only a minor speed bump. The point is, u don't have to buy them everytime something new is out, which was what the entire discussionw as about, learn some comprehension. U saying if someone bought a 8800GTS, then a GTX gets released next month they HAVE to buy it? No, the 8800GTs has been out for 1.5 years, still plays any game on high settings.
frodo 11th March 2008, 15:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by whisperwolf
oh look a thread that’s starting to resemble the forum of gamespot, all we need now is several people shouting first!!!11!!!one!!!!11!! and the conversion will be complete

OMG!!!11111!!111onetwo2332""""£!!!!! OVER EXAGERATION!!!!!1111!"222two
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 15:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc4mpi
nor did i say you haft to buy every new one that is released. !!11!!!one!!!!11!! :D

u said in an earlier post u need to spend 500 every 3 months, which was a pile of crap. I haven't spent that in 1.5 years, and still play crysis on very high on 1280 X 1024 res.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 15:07 Quote
One point that has not been brought up is that most games are designed in a resolution far beyond the capability of any current home PC, and then those textures and meshes are downscaled to fit the widest possible audience, with a higher resolution set left in for those few that can make use of it.

if you actually look at the games currently on the market, nearly all of them will play on midrange or low-range cards, not at the highest settings, but certainly at playable settings.

I myself have one of the top end machines, but half the time I do not use it as it is doing what it was originally intended for (engineering analysis) and instead use my laptop's 8400m GT I play Crysis and Oblivion and WiC with it, and it does just fine, even though its graphical power is about equivalent to a 7800 series card.

the PC gaming market is not dead, or dying. it may not be doing as well as consoles, but that is because consoles are more accessible to younger users (who do not have other expenses to think about) PC gamers tend to be people in the 17-25 range who have other expenses to worry about and thus do not want to shell out for a console (which is a single-use investment) but instead choose to buy a PC, which they can upgrade to be able to play games while also being useful for many other applications.
Shielder 11th March 2008, 15:07 Quote
Ah, fair enough. Thanks Tim.

See Leper, calm reasoned and well written has made the point in one sentence. How many posts in this thread have you done?

Andy
frodo 11th March 2008, 15:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Once a month? No, every 3 months, which is irrelevant for someone who got the same generation, they are only a minor speed bump. The point is, u don't have to buy them everytime something new is out, which was what the entire discussionw as about, learn some comprehension. U saying if someone bought a 8800GTS, then a GTX gets released next month they HAVE to buy it? No, the 8800GTs has been out for 1.5 years, still plays any game on high settings.

Who said you HAVE to get it?

Minor speed bump?

Im sorry there is quite a difference between playing a game on an 8800gt @ 1920x1200, and a game being played on an 8800ultra @ 1920x1200.

The 8800GTs doesnt exactly play crysis on high settings @ 1920x1200, therefore your logic is flawed.
1ad7 11th March 2008, 15:09 Quote
This is why pc gaming is not going to die. There are too many of us who care too much about it, you don't find people with consoles who buy a new 360 elite after they just bought the regular, there are people who constantly update there computers, spend hours tweaking there settings... I need a life.... why? It becomes an accomplishment, a creation, something that is you. We don't need game developers... we create are own already so many new games are created for free everyday. The reason I love pc is it is controlled mostly by the community, build us a sexy looking base (crysis, HL , GTA:SA) and we will make a mod that makes it what we want how we want, there are no boundaries in the pc. Don't get me wrong I own a PS3 and Its an amazing system and it can look better than my very expensive computer, but I cant talk on vent with it, I cant install a mod easily, I cant watch a movie and play a flash game at the same time... its not customized to me.
Tim S 11th March 2008, 15:09 Quote
Come on guys, keep it civil - I'm not watching it closely enough to dig through every post and I know this is a passionate subject. Just please don't break the forum rules while you're discussing it. ;)
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 15:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
u said in an earlier post u need to spend 500 every 3 months, which was a pile of crap. I haven't spent that in 1.5 years, and still play crysis on very high on 1280 X 1024 res.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sc4mpi
there ones that dont have 500 quid every 3 months to upgrade just to play the next hyped game
please point the need out in that sentence.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 15:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by frodo
Who said you HAVE to get it?

Minor speed bump?

Im sorry there is quite a difference between playing a game on an 8800gt @ 1920x1200, and a game being played on an 8800ultra @ 1920x1200.

The 8800GTs doesnt exactly play crysis on high settings @ 1920x1200, therefore your logic is flawed.


The ultra, GTS and GTX were released the SAME TIME. The ones released 3 months after are minor revisions.
naokaji 11th March 2008, 15:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
Quote:"...60 percent of PCs on the market don't have a workable graphics processor at all. ..."

Yeah..and they're in offices, the people who bought them dont want the people who work on them to game!

Sheesh. Talk about ignorance

they said the same about why they still release games on cd's instead of putting every game that doesnt fit on a cd on dvd... not every pc has a dvde drive, sure, but all of those that belong to someone who does wnat to game has one. besides, the whole thing comes from epic which rather jumps on the console bandwagon than admitting that their game UT3 was a failure.
Tim S 11th March 2008, 15:16 Quote
Nobody that bought a GTX has needed to upgrade since November 8th 2006 - the day that the card came out. It's still as good as anything ATI has, and the only thing better that Nvidia has is an overpricedclocked GTX (otherwise known as the Ultra). The 3850/9600 GT/8800 GT are all great replacements for anyone that previously had an X1950 Pro.

I don't see how anyone needs to upgrade every three months just to keep up? At the moment, the only game that the mid-range cards can't play at a decent resolution with high settings is Crysis. And that's sold 1.4m according to an earlier post in the thread.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 15:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by sc4mpi
I Dont think people are dening its a diffrent market, but its capturing the middle class gamers from pcs over to consoles ,there ones that dont have 500 quid every 3 months to upgrade just to play the next hyped game which in all honesty wasnt worth the cash cause it only takes a day to comeplete most of the new games my have swanky gfx but they realy dont have the gameplay and overall grip that kept you playing like the old ones did.

Middle class gamers don't have 500 quid to every 3 months, which implies u need that to play games on PC. which is baloney.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 15:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
Nobody that bought a GTX has needed to upgrade since November 8th 2006 - the day that the card came out. It's still as good as anything ATI has, and the only thing better that Nvidia has is an overpricedclocked GTX (otherwise known as the Ultra). The 3850/9600 GT/8800 GT are all great replacements for anyone that previously had an X1950 Pro.

I don't see how anyone needs to upgrade every three months just to keep up? At the moment, the only game that the mid-range cards can't play at a decent resolution with high settings is Crysis. And that's sold 1.4m according to an earlier post in the thread.

WOW, common sense in this thread, amazing. Good post, amazes me how many people exaggerate how much money it cosets to upgrade.

Kepp in mind, many people already have PC's in the home, the cost to upgrade can sometimes be lesss then a console, I sold my old GPU and ram on e-bay, by the time I bought my new stuff, it was cheaper then buying a 360.
sc4mpi 11th March 2008, 15:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
The ultra, GTS and GTX were released the SAME TIME. The ones released 3 months after are minor revisions.

The ultra was released after the Gtx and gts if were getting down to details ;)
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 15:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Middle class gamers don't have 500 quid to every 3 months, which implies u need that to play games on PC. which is baloney.

haven't we been over this and decided the argument discussion of this particular fact was moot and should be discontinued?
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 15:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
haven't we been over this and decided the argument discussion of this particular fact was moot and should be discontinued?

Wasn't moot, was totally false and wrong.

Anyway, stupid argument saying PC sales are declining when sales figures show the opposite, and pc exclusives like Crysis have over 20 million dollar budgets, and they make that back and more in one month.
legoman666 11th March 2008, 15:45 Quote
Jesus christ, you all type and spell like over excited 14 year olds on AIM. Chill out.
Vash-HT 11th March 2008, 15:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fod
100% agreement.
PC gaming is pointless, overpriced, and overrated. I own a quad core system with an 8800 ultra, and it's not given me nearly as much fun as my 360 or even DS. There's just too much emphasis on OMG GET THE LATEST PHYSICS ACCELERATED QUAD GPU 12 CPU BEAST TO PLAY THIS GAME.

I can hand on heart say this will be my last gaming oriented PC. it's kinda sad.

All I have to say is you should have used your common sense and never bought an 8800 ultra. The premium you pay for such minimal improvement is absolutely ridiculous, and not a single game out needs a quad core, so your rig is ridiculously overpowered (and overpriced) for gaming in the first place.

That being said, I can throw out some anecdotal evidence too, I have a gaming PC with a E6600 and a 8800gts 512mb, a 360 and a DS and ps3, and my PC sees far more use (for games mind you) than all 3 of those combined.
kenco_uk 11th March 2008, 15:55 Quote
Aye, just because graphics cards are released every month, it doesn't mean the newest is the best. You have to use a bit of common sense, which means you don't have to spend spend spend to achieve playable games on a PC, which appears to be what most of the console fanboys on this thread keep blathering on about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah

u said in an earlier post u need to spend 500 every 3 months, which was a pile of crap. I haven't spent that in 1.5 years, and still play crysis on very high on 1280 X 1024 res.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frodo

Who said you HAVE to get it?

Minor speed bump?

Im sorry there is quite a difference between playing a game on an 8800gt @ 1920x1200, and a game being played on an 8800ultra @ 1920x1200.

The 8800GTs doesnt exactly play crysis on high settings @ 1920x1200, therefore your logic is flawed.

Why are people twisting Leper's posts so much? The example above shows Leper giving one example res, then frodo argues it's unplayable at a higher res. Well, what do you expect frodo? You get what you pay for mate!

Although Leper's a bit blunt, he's just trying to get a reasoned argument across.
Fod 11th March 2008, 15:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vash-HT
All I have to say is you should have used your common sense and never bought an 8800 ultra. The premium you pay for such minimal improvement is absolutely ridiculous, and not a single game out needs a quad core, so your rig is ridiculously overpowered (and overpriced) for gaming in the first place.

That being said, I can throw out some anecdotal evidence too, I have a gaming PC with a E6600 and a 8800gts 512mb, a 360 and a DS and ps3, and my PC sees far more use (for games mind you) than all 3 of those combined.

actually, i got a good deal on it, and it was exactly the same price as a GTX. :)

as for quad core, i disagree - it's the only thing in my system along with my monitor i'm GLAD i bought - i used it all the time in my scientific apps and image processing. plus, it was IMO thebest VFM at the time. q600 g0 btw.
Cobalt 11th March 2008, 16:02 Quote
*types lengthy argument*
*reads back through thread*
*smacks forehead and walks away*

Not worth it at all.
legoman666 11th March 2008, 16:03 Quote
Piracy & PC Gaming
By Draginol Posted March 10, 2008 20:48:46

Recently there has been a lot of talk about how piracy affects PC gaming. And if you listen to game developers, it apparently is a foregone conclusion - if a high quality PC game doesn't sell as many copies as it should, it must be because of piracy.

Now, I don't like piracy at all. It really bugs me when I see my game up on some torrent site just on the principle of the matter. And piracy certainly does cost sales. But arguing that piracy is the primary factor in lower sales of well made games? I don't think so.
Is it about business or glory?

Most people who know of Stardock in the gaming world think of it as a tiny indie shop. And we certainly are tiny in terms of game development. But in the desktop enhancement market, Stardock owns that market and it's a market with many millions of users. According to CNET, 6 of the top 10 most popular desktop enhancements are developed by Stardock. Our most popular desktop enhancement, WindowBlinds, has almost 14 million downloads just on Download.com. We have over a million registered users.

If you want to talk about piracy, talk about desktop enhancements. The piracy on that is huge. But the question isn't about piracy. It's about sales.

So here is the deal: When you develop for a market, you don't go by the user base. You go by the potential customer base. That's what most software companies do. They base what they want to create on the size of the market they're developing for. But not PC game developers.

PC game developers seem to focus more on the "cool" factor. What game can they make that will get them glory with the game magazines and gaming websites and hard core gamers? These days, it seems like game developers want to be like rock stars more than businessmen. I've never considered myself a real game developer. I'm a gamer who happens to know how to code and also happens to be reasonably good at business.

So when I make a game, I focus on making games that I think will be the most profitable. As a gamer, I like most games. I love Bioshock. I think the Orange Box is one of the best gaming deals ever. I love Company of Heroes and Oblivion was captivating. My two favorite games of all time are Civilization (I, II, III, and IV) and Total Annihilation. And I won't even get into the hours lost in WoW. Heck, I even like The Sims.

So when it comes time to make a game, I don't have a hard time thinking of a game I'd like to play. The hard part is coming up with a game that we can actually make that will be profitable. And that means looking at the market as a business not about trying to be "cool".
Making games for customers versus making games for users

So even though Galactic Civilizations II sold 300,000 copies making 8 digits in revenue on a budget of less than $1 million, it's still largely off the radar. I practically have to agree to mow editors lawns to get coverage. And you should see Jeff Green's (Games for Windows) yard. I still can't find my hedge trimmers.

Another game that has been off the radar until recently was Sins of a Solar Empire. With a small budget, it has already sold about 200,000 copies in the first month of release. It's the highest rated PC game of 2008 and probably the best selling 2008 PC title. Neither of these titles have CD copy protection.

And yet we don't get nearly the attention of other PC games. Lack of marketing on our part? We bang on the doors for coverage as next as the next shop. Lack of advertising? Open up your favorite PC game publication for the past few months and take note of all the 2 page spreads for Sins of a Solar Empire. So we certainly try.

But we still don't get the editorial buzz that some of the big name titles do because our genre isn't considered as "cool" as other genres. Imagine what our sales would be if our games had gotten game magazine covers and just massive editorial coverage like some of the big name games get. I don't want to suggest we get treated poorly by game magazine and web sites (not just because I fear them -- which I do), we got good preview coverage on Sins, just not the same level as one of the "mega" titles would get. Hard core gamers have different tastes in games than the mainstream PC gaming market of game buyers. Remember Roller Coaster Tycoon? Heck, how much buzz does The Sims get in terms of editorial when compared to its popularity. Those things just aren't that cool to the hard core gaming crowd that everything seems geared toward despite the fact that they're not the ones buying most of the games.

I won't even mention some of the big name PC titles that GalCiv and Sins have outsold. There's plenty of PC games that have gotten dedicated covers that haven't sold as well. So why is that?

Our games sell well for three reasons. First, they're good games which is a pre-requisite. But there's lots of great games that don't sell well.

The other two reasons are:

* Our games work on a very wide variety of hardware configurations.
* Our games target genres with the largest customer bases per cost to produce for.


We also don't make games targeting the Chinese market

When you make a game for a target market, you have to look at how many people will actually buy your game combined with how much it will cost to make a game for that target market. What good is a large number of users if they're not going to buy your game? And what good is a market where the minimal commitment to make a game for it is $10 million if the target audience isn't likely to pay for the game?

If the target demographic for your game is full of pirates who won't buy your game, then why support them? That's one of the things I have a hard time understanding. It's irrelevant how many people will play your game (if you're in the business of selling games that is). It's only relevant how many people are likely to buy your game.

Stardock doesn't make games targeting the Chinese market. If we spent $10 million on a PC game explicitly for the Chinese market and we lost our shirts, would you really feel that much sympathy for us? Or would you think "Duh."


You need a machine how fast?

Anyone who keeps track of how many PCs the "Gamer PC" vendors sell each year could tell you that it's insane to develop a game explicitly for hard core gamers. Insane. I think people would be shocked to find out how few hard core gamers there really are out there. This data is available. The number of high end graphics cards sold each year isn't a trade secret (in some cases you may have to get an NDA but if you're a partner you can find out). So why are companies making games that require them to sell to 15% of a given market to be profitable? In what other market do companies do that? In other software markets, getting 1% of the target market is considered good. If you need to sell 500,000 of your game to break even and your game requires Pixel Shader 3 to not look like crap or play like crap, do you you really think that there are 50 MILLION PC users with Pixel Shader 3 capable machines who a) play games and b) will actually buy your game if a pirated version is available?

In our case, we make games that target the widest possible audience as long as as we can still deliver the gaming experience we set out to. Anyone who's looked at the graphics in Sins of a Solar Empire would, I think, agree that the graphics are pretty phenomenal (particularly space battles). But could they be even fancier? Sure. But only if we degraded the gaming experience for the largest chunk of people who buy games.


The problem with blaming piracy

I don't want anyone to walk away from this article thinking I am poo-pooing the effect of piracy. I'm not. I definitely feel for game developers who want to make kick ass PC games who see their efforts diminished by a bunch of greedy pirates. I just don't count pirates in the first place. If you're a pirate, you don't get a vote on what gets made -- or you shouldn't if the company in question is trying to make a profit.

The reason why we don't put copy protection on our games isn't because we're nice guys. We do it because the people who actually buy games don't like to mess with it. Our customers make the rules, not the pirates. Pirates don't count. We know our customers could pirate our games if they want but choose to support our efforts. So we return the favor - we make the games they want and deliver them how they want it. This is also known as operating like every other industry outside the PC game industry.

One of the jokes I've seen in the desktop enhancement market is how "ugly" WindowBlinds skins are (though there are plenty of awesome ones too). But the thing is, the people who buy WindowBlinds tend to like a different style of skin than the people who would never buy it in the first place. Natural selection, so to speak, over many years has created a number of styles that seem to be unique to people who actually buy WindowBlinds. That's the problem with piracy. What gets made targets people who buy it, not the people who would never buy it in the first place. When someone complains about "fat borders" on some popular WindowBlinds skin my question is always "Would you buy WindowBlinds even if there was a perfect skin for you?" and the answer is inevitably "Probably not". That's how it works in every market -- the people who buy stuff call the shots. Only in the PC game market are the people who pirate stuff still getting the overwhelming percentage of development resources and editorial support.

When you blame piracy for disappointing sales, you tend to tar the entire market with a broad brush. Piracy isn't evenly distributed in the PC gaming market.

Blaming piracy is easy. But it hides other underlying causes. When Sins popped up as the #1 best selling game at retail a couple weeks ago, a game that has no copy protect whatsoever, that should tell you that piracy is not the primary issue.

In the end, the pirates hurt themselves. PC game developers will either slowly migrate to making games that cater to the people who buy PC games or they'll move to platforms where people are more inclined to buy games.

In the meantime, if you want to make profitable PC games, I'd recommend focusing more effort on satisfying the people willing to spend money on your product and less effort on making what others perceive as hot. But then again, I don't romanticize PC game development. I just want to play cool games and make a profit on games that I work on.



http://forums.sinsofasolarempire.com/post.aspx?postid=303512

You all need to read that. I am glad there is at least one sane PC game dev still out there.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenco_uk
Aye, just because graphics cards are released every month, it doesn't mean the newest is the best. You have to use a bit of common sense, which means you don't have to spend spend spend to achieve playable games on a PC, which appears to be what most of the console fanboys on this thread keep blathering on about.





Why are people twisting Leper's posts so much? The example above shows Leper giving one example res, then frodo argues it's unplayable at a higher res. Well, what do expect Frodo? You get what you pay for mate!

Although Leper's a bit blunt, he's just trying to get a reasoned argument across.
Thanks, finally some common sense. A no FOD, Quad Core is waste for games, as no games other then crysis ebven utilize it, and even the the performance increase is no noticeable. It was the same when Dual core first came out, it took time for games to be released that even used it, quad core is in that stage right now.
steveo_mcg 11th March 2008, 16:12 Quote
Thats and interesting read, makes a change to hear the other side of the argument.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 16:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Thanks, finally some common sense. A no FOD, Quad Core is waste for games, as no games other then crysis ebven utilize it

any multi-threaded game will benefit from more cores, simple fact and logic.

there are many multi-threaded games, though there is no real compiled list of which ones are and aren't, crysis is simply the most famous one that is. (quake 4 is I think)
kenco_uk 11th March 2008, 16:16 Quote
Specifically for games, at the moment, there's not many. But if you're a heavy multitasker, a quad core is ideal. With multicore cpu's on the horizon, it does make one wonder what direction games are going to take. I thought it was obvious that CPU's would take over the task of physics processing, but with gfx cards promising this function, I do wonder what multicore cpu's are going to offer to future games?
Fod 11th March 2008, 16:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
any multi-threaded game will benefit from more cores, simple fact and logic.

there are many multi-threaded games, though there is no real compiled list of which ones are and aren't, crysis is simply the most famous one that is. (quake 4 is I think)

also! i didn't buy it for games. once again, leper doesn't read my posts, ever, notwithstanding the COMPLETE falsehood that is 'no games apart from crysis use multicore'
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 16:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenco_uk
Specifically for games, at the moment, there's not many. But if you're a heavy multitasker, a quad core is ideal. With multicore cpu's on the horizon, it does make one wonder what direction games are going to take. I thought it was obvious that CPU's would take over the task of physics processing, but with gfx cards promising this function, I do wonder what multicore cpu's are going to offer to future games?

Better AI? you can make the enemies/allies actiuons more fluid by processing multiple AI streams at once, or keep the complexity the same but upscale it massively (global scale wars anyone?)
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fod
also! i didn't buy it for games. once again, leper doesn't read my posts, ever, notwithstanding the COMPLETE falsehood that is 'no games apart from crysis use multicore'

I said no games besides crysis utilize QUAD CORE, which is absolutely true. research is something u fail on. Quad Core and Dual core = 2 different things. A game has to be designed to use all 4 cores, and only crysis is right now.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
any multi-threaded game will benefit from more cores, simple fact and logic.

there are many multi-threaded games, though there is no real compiled list of which ones are and aren't, crysis is simply the most famous one that is. (quake 4 is I think)

multi-threaded does not equal quad core. The difference ein performance is not worth the price right now. Eventually quad core will be the deal, right now it isn't.
Fod 11th March 2008, 16:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
I said no games besides crysis utilize QUAD CORE, which is absolutely true. research is something u fail on. Quad Core and Dual core = 2 different things. A game has to be designed to use all 4 cores, and only crysis is right now.

not true. source engine scales to any number of cores for physics. supreme commander supports any number of cores, not limited to four. those are two examples off the top of my head without even researching.

the fact is, once you go multithreaded (which is what supporting any >1 core CPU is about), the OS handles the assignment of threads to cores. the game engine just spawns threads and tells them to execute.

you don't want to go down this route with me, trust me that i know more on this subject.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 16:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
I said no games besides crysis utilize QUAD CORE, which is absolutely true. research is something u fail on. Quad Core and Dual core = 2 different things. A game has to be designed to use all 4 cores, and only crysis is right now.

you obviously have no grasp on how a CPU processes calculations do you?

each stream of calculations makes up a thread, and the Operating system assigns a thread to a core, this is independant of the game, the game just knows it can break its calc stream into an infinite number of threads, and that the OS will tell it how many it needs. if the OS detects 4 cores, it will ask for 4 threads.

thus any multi-threaded game can utilize multiple cores, and unless I'm horribly mistaken, multithreading was a requirement for any game published under the new 'Games for Windows' logo

[edit:] damn you Fod and your ninja typing!!!
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fod
not true. source engine scales to any number of cores for physics. supreme commander supports any number of cores, not limited to four. those are two examples off the top of my head without even researching.

the fact is, once you go multithreaded (which is what supporting any >1 core CPU is about), the OS handles the assignment of threads to cores. the game engine just spawns threads and tells them to execute.

you don't want to go down this route with me, trust me that i know more on this subject.

total false, Crytek THEMSELVS have said this, a game needs to us each core, as the dev needs to allocate resources to each core, you are full of it. Source at the monet does not utilize 4 cores. Not like it matters, a 2 year old PC can max out source with ease.

I suggest u do some research, Crytek have stated in severale interviews the EXACT opposite, they know their hadware and had to design crysis to fullt use 4 cores to get a performance benefit out of it.

Windows recognizes 4 cores is irrelevant, as game assets need to be properly used for any performance gain to be seen.
Spaceraver 11th March 2008, 16:28 Quote
I know ill get flamed for this.. considering a high end PC costs in the range of £700-1000. And you have to change parts somewhere down the line add another few hundred.. But consider that you use it for more than just gaming.. Internet, Email, Photoshop, CAD and so on.. Deduct the price of a machine that can do that from the gaming machine..

Now the console..
Buy a console. Get some games. If the game is not available on your particular console get another one. Oh yes.. You also have to consider the cost of a big HD TV. Now i do not know the prices for such things. I do not have a tv anyway. But what can you do on that console and TV: Game and watch TV/movies. So you say you deduct the price of the TV because you would have gotten one anyway. That still leaves high prices for games and peripheral hardware. And you can still only game on it. Nothing else. So you cannot deduct any of the console + games + peripherals.

Pc gaming will not die. Neither will consoles.. The market is just different depending what kind of gamer you are.
steveo_mcg 11th March 2008, 16:28 Quote
Yes of course crytek would say that, think.
Fod 11th March 2008, 16:29 Quote
marketing talk. translation: we need four physical cores because of the amount of threads we spawn.
any multithreaded game will benefit from an increased number of physical CPU cores: fact.
Source has been updated since HL2. wake up.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
Yes of course crytek would say that, think.

Oh, get real. Alan Wake is another one, they said it had to be DESIGNED, which is common sense. Anyway, I see the same people ehre contineu to be ignorant and try and twist facts. Why would they lie, it has nothing to do with crysis.

A game can't just distribute its assets automatically, it has to be designed to use all 4 cores properly.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 16:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
total false, Crytek THEMSELVS have said this, a game needs to us each core, as the dev needs to allocate resources to each core, you are full of it. Source at the monet does not utilize 4 cores. Not like it matters, a 2 year old PC can max out source with ease.

I suggest u do some research, Crytek have stated in severale interviews the EXACT opposite, they know their hadware and had to design crysis to fullt use 4 cores to get a performance benefit out of it.

Windows recognizes 4 cores is irrelevant, as game assets need to be properly used for any performance gain to be seen.


what crytek said in their press releases is that a game needs to be properly designed to separate the calculations into threads in a way that is efficient not that it specifically had to be made for a specific # of cores
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:31 Quote
Newer games are supporting multicore processors, games such as Crysis are programmed in such a way that it may run an ai thread, a physics thread a gui thread ect. One for each core of your processor. Most current games that claim multithreaded support only actually support 2 threads so you will see no additional performance boost in the quad core over a dual core.

The above is from an article i just read.
Fod 11th March 2008, 16:31 Quote
it's not the game! it's the OS. the OS handles the distribution and scheduling of process threads! the game just tells the OS, "look, i have 12 threads, handle them for me, OK?", and away it goes. AS FAR AS THE GAME IS CONCERNED IT DOESN"T CARE HOW MANY CORES ARE RUNNING. IF IT SPAWNS A LOT OF THREADS IT WILL RUN FASTER. THAT IS IT.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
what crytek said in their press releases is that a game needs to be properly designed to separate the calculations into threads in a way that is efficient not that it specifically had to be made for a specific # of cores

a game has to be desinged to use all 4 cores for any performance benefit to be had. Fact.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fod
it's not the game! it's the OS. the OS handles the distribution and scheduling of process threads! the game just tells the OS, "look, i have 12 threads, handle them for me, OK?", and away it goes. AS FAR AS THE GAME IS CONCERNED IT DOESN"T CARE HOW MANY CORES ARE RUNNING. IF IT SPAWNS A LOT OF THREADS IT WILL RUN FASTER. THAT IS IT.

READ, you idiot, it is the game, the OS WILL SEE THE 4 cores, but a game will see little no no impact in perfiormance unl;ess it is desined with 4 cores in mind. Research before posting and looking like an idiot.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 16:33 Quote
you're using the inquirer as a source? what kind of fool.... wait, nevermind.......
Fod 11th March 2008, 16:34 Quote
christ on a stick, inquirer? are you serious? and not only an inquirer article, one that is from 2 years ago?
that's talking about going from single threaded, monolithic engines to multithreaded ones.
once that is done, there is no difference.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
you're using the inquirer as a source? what kind of fool.... wait, nevermind.......

The inquirer, and Digg, want more? Crytek, anyone else? get real, a game has to be designed to take advantage of the extra cores, the same way Dual core did.
steveo_mcg 11th March 2008, 16:36 Quote
Year and a half old article not much better...
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:36 Quote
http://www.overclockers.com/tips01057/

Read, sorry, but your wrong, and should research before looking like a fool.

and only crysis was designed with 4 cores since that article, so 1 game WOW.

No matter the age, that article PROVES a game nees to be designed with Quad cores in mind in order for any real performance benefit to be had.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 16:36 Quote
now a vague digg reference? give us something respectable, not something pulled up quickly in google.
steveo_mcg 11th March 2008, 16:38 Quote
Quote:


You Gotta Have It? . . . "
Ed Stroligo - 11/4/06

Tech moves so fast that might as well be written in sanskrit
Andune 11th March 2008, 16:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewchenko
Give the PS3 a KB, mouse, and a connector to plug into a monitor and the PC gaming scene will die off. It easily has the power to cope with RTS, MMO, Shooter etc, and it gives people a choice then of replacing a gaming PC with KB/M console upstairs in the study or downstairs in the lounge for non KB/M action.

Sure.. there will always be a high end PC gaming scene, but it will be a bloody small one. For £300, the PS3 is a bargain (try buying a PC off the self for that much that can play UT3 and COD4 etc.. remember your average Joe does not have a clue about building a PC)

I would have used the 360 as an example as well, but we all know how Microsoft hates the thought of its customers using a Kb/mouse.

This interview speaks the truth. I have the best of both worlds.. high end PC and a PS3, but I agree with his comments.

Will the PS3 handle my 23" screen at native resolution?
Didn't think so...
Fod 11th March 2008, 16:38 Quote
**** it. leper, you're right. quad core makes no difference. i wasted my money. PC gaming is the best sort of gaming, and i am mistaken. I'm sorry.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
Tech moves so fast that might as well be written in sanskrit

The article proved my poit, games need to be designed to use all 4 cores. Where is your proof? U don't have any.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 16:39 Quote
there is no prize for being the most stubborn ass on the forums

that said, I will not be convinced your argument is valid until I am presented with enough respectable, believable, evidence contributing to that point.
steveo_mcg 11th March 2008, 16:39 Quote
Your article would have if it was early 2006, it isn't.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fod
**** it. leper, you're right. quad core makes no difference. i wasted my money. PC gaming is the best sort of gaming, and i am mistaken. I'm sorry.

It makes a difference in day to day useage, for gaming right now it does not, research it before saying all games use it, only one does.
ssj12 11th March 2008, 16:41 Quote
At this moment the only game that needs quad core is crysis and thats not that good of a game anyways.

OT: Gamers should know that the basic PC wont run anything but the The SIMS, if even that. You need at least a low-end Gaming PC to play games. An 8400GS is perfect for everything but Crysis at this moment. I can run HL2:Ep2 on high, and UT3 on medium/high.

My desktop's specs at this moment:

X2 4600+
8400GS
2GB DDR2 800 Ram
7200RPM 80GB HDD
C-Sniper 11th March 2008, 16:41 Quote
[off topic] wheres the bit-tech fire brigade when you need it?[/off topic]

I do believe that the gap between the graphics is getting bigger by leaps and bounds, but i believe that is because companies do not want to invest in the low range cheap graphics. The PC world to me seems to be more and more separated along the lines of average joe, and gamer/enthusiast. Also regarding PC vs. Consoles... Consoles are good if all you want to do is play games, nothing else (well what else can they do, [yes i know they can do other things but 99% of the time it is for games]). PCs are good for Games, and other things like typing projects, checking email, surfing the internet which is why they can also be more expensive. in the end though it really all comes down to personal preference.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
Your article would have if it was early 2006, it isn't.

How does the article being 20006 make the fact that games need to be designed to use 4 cores? explain that? It is the nature of dual core apps, they need to be designed to use each core, if u worked at development , u wouldn't be so ignorant.

Fine I will post a newer article that sayss the same thing for the morons.
Fod 11th March 2008, 16:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
How does the article being 20006 make the fact that games need to be designed to use 4 cores? explain that? It is the nature of dual core apps, they need to be designed to use each core, if u worked at development , u wouldn't be so ignorant.

Fine I will post a newer article that sayss the same thing for the morons.

leper, what do you do for a living?
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:42 Quote
MOST GAMES don't use quad core, and the ones that do only gain a few FPS, a good dual core CPu is all u need right now. eventually Quad core will be the norm, but that is not yet,.
steveo_mcg 11th March 2008, 16:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
It makes a difference in day to day useage, for gaming right now it does not, research it before saying all games use it, only one does.

See and thats where your badly though out arguments fails, i know of another two that defiantly do and there will be others... MS flight sim X and Sup Com will defiantly use every thread you through at them and make a very good use of them.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 16:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
How does the article being 20006 make the fact that games need to be designed to use 4 cores? explain that? It is the nature of dual core apps, they need to be designed to use each core, if u worked at development , u wouldn't be so ignorant.

Fine I will post a newer article that sayss the same thing for the morons.

you work in games development then?

I wrote my own plugin for the COSMOSWorks CAD analysis program so that it would more efficiently allocate its calculations to different threads, so i must know something about which I'm speaking.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:44 Quote
http://it-aid.blogspot.com/2008/03/quad-core-and-dual-core-processors.html

educate yourself, the SOFTWRE needs to be written to take advantage of EACH CORE.
legoman666 11th March 2008, 16:44 Quote
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
you work in games development then?

I wrote my own plugin for the COSMOSWorks CAD analysis program so that it would more efficiently allocate its calculations to different threads, so i must know something about which I'm speaking.

If u read the article i just posted, it is obvious u don't. Sofware has to be written to use each core, Valve complained about this when multi-core processors first came out, they complained all code had to be re-written.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 16:47 Quote
have you stopped to think about what the articles mean when they say written to handle multiple cores? they mean that they need to be written to have a multi-threaded engine.

again, yes the software has to be written correctly, but not for a specific # of cores.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
have you stopped to think about what the articles mean when they say written to handle multiple cores? they mean that they need to be written to have a multi-threaded engine.

again, yes the software has to be written correctly, but not for a specific # of cores.

They specifically say it has to be written to use each core, as has Valve, and Crytek and ID software, u know more the them?
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 16:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
If u read the article i just posted, it is obvious u don't. Sofware has to be written to use each core, Valve complained about this when multi-core processors first came out, they complained all code had to be re-written.

this was because it was written for the hyperthreading architecture in the old pentiums, which were more efficient when the threads were split in different ways.

PS - ID software makes Quake 4 which is clearly a Multithreading, scalable application
Fod 11th March 2008, 16:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
have you stopped to think about what the articles mean when they say written to handle multiple cores? they mean that they need to be written to have a multi-threaded engine.

again, yes the software has to be written correctly, but not for a specific # of cores.

dude, obviously, we with our computing experience, degrees in computer science, and jobs in software development, obviously don't know squat. THIS guy read an article! on the internet! about threads! and multicore!
how can we possibly argue against that?
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:50 Quote
http://www.x64bit.net/site/board/index.php?showtopic=3369

This is what people who know about hardware say about it, very few games take advantage of quad core, most games even in a quad core CPU will only use 2 cores, unless the game is designed to use all 4.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fod
dude, obviously, we with our computing experience, degrees in computer science, and jobs in software development, obviously don't know squat. THIS guy read an article! on the internet! about threads! and multicore!
how can we possibly argue against that?

So u know more then Crytek and valvE? Everyone on the net has a n IT degree, lol. I believe that as much as i believe in Sanat Clause.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 16:51 Quote
umm, x64bit, which sources from the inquirer? fail, utterly and completely
ssj12 11th March 2008, 16:51 Quote
Actually Blue they do. If you look at the consoles for a second, there is a reason why games running on the 360's Xenos processor can't be directly ported to the PS3's CELL. The engine has to be reworked to take advantage of the SPEs.

If a game that was made for duel core processors tries to work on a quad core processor only two cores will do the majority of the work or else the game wont run efficiently due to it not being optimized for quad-core.
kenco_uk 11th March 2008, 16:51 Quote
I don't see any links in this thread proving Leper wrong.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
umm, which sources from the inquirer? fail, utterly and completely

The inquirer? I posted 2 other links, one from Digg, a very reputable site, and Crytek and Valve themselves have stated this.

I can't see how anyone can say right now quad core is a necessity ofr gaming, very few games even utililize the cores. A dual core processor is all u need at the moment. eventually quad core will be the way, but it takes time for the software to catch up to the hardware.
Tim S 11th March 2008, 16:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman666
http://xkcd.com/386/

We were waiting for someone to post that earlier :)
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenco_uk
I don't see any links in this thread proving Leper wrong.

Because they can't find any.
Fod 11th March 2008, 16:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
So u know more then Crytek and valvE? Everyone on the net has a n IT degree, lol. I believe that as much as i believe in Sanat Clause.

no, the problem is i know exactly the same thing as crytek and valve. you have misinterpreted their comments.
i hardly blame you, because it's marketeer's jobs to make everyone think their dualcore CPUs are horribly outdated by spreading misinformation.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:54 Quote
Sup comm, crysis, only 2 games benefit form quad core right now, is that worthy of getting one if u already have a good dual core? nope.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 16:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssj12
Actually Blue they do. If you look at the consoles for a second, there is a reason why games running on the 360's Xenos processor can't be directly ported to the PS3's CELL. The engine has to be reworked to take advantage of the SPEs.

If a game that was made for duel core processors tries to work on a quad core processor only two cores will do the majority of the work or else the game wont run efficiently due to it not being optimized for quad-core.

remember, cell is a different architecture, where the OS doesn't handle the allocation of threads, but the threads must designate which core they are to be executed on.

I had to rewrite the app for the lab computers here at Uni, which is an IBM cell-based system.
steveo_mcg 11th March 2008, 16:55 Quote
Perhaps not but if your upgrading you might as well get it, you can add more speed but you cant add more cores.

From the late will harris..
http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2006/11/02/Multi_core_in_the_Source_Engin/
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fod
no, the problem is i know exactly the same thing as crytek and valve. you have misinterpreted their comments.
i hardly blame you, because it's marketeer's jobs to make everyone think their dualcore CPUs are horribly outdated by spreading misinformation.



LOL, got a link to prove them and me wrong? They are lieing? How the hell does valve ebenfit from an interview 1% of gamers will ever know about saying he doesn't like Quad Core processors as all code had to be redisigned? all u can say is they are lieing, pathetic.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 16:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
LOL, got a link to prove them and me wrong? They are lieing? How the hell does valve ebenfit from an interview 1% of gamers will ever know about saying he doesn't like Quad Core processors as all code had to be redisigned? all u can say is they are lieing, pathetic.

see steve's post and the bit-tech link

what we have been trying to explain to you is fine grained threading, and this comes from one of your sources, valvE. are they wrong or right?
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 16:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
see steve's post and the bit-tech link

Source can be maxed out on 2-3 year old hardware, like I said, very few games utilize Quad Core, 2-3 games do not make it worhtwhile, especially when said games are running fine on dual core. It takes time like it did for dual core for the hardware to be worth the cash.
steveo_mcg 11th March 2008, 17:01 Quote
Hl2 can be, but older systems will have some problems with some of the newer features in hl2:ep2.

And since were infering reason from small chunks of info from one source, if its that hard to make a multi threaded game why bother doing to an old engine?
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 17:02 Quote
did you ever think that maybe it runs maxed out because it is efficient?

just because something requires powerful hardware to run doesn't make it any less/more of an example of the technology.
Amon 11th March 2008, 17:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Source can be maxed out on 2-3 year old hardware, like I said, very few games utilize Quad Core, 2-3 games do not make it worhtwhile, especially when said games are running fine on dual core. It takes time like it did for dual core for the hardware to be worth the cash.
As the article itself has stated, and known by anyone with a sensible logic, four processor cores are useful for a couple other things than playing a computer game... I myself don't even play that many PC games, and most of those I play are from 9 years ago (Quake 3, CS, Homeworld) yet I've reached the operating limit of my dual-core T7100 Merom CPU doing other 'everyday' tasks. This is where quad-core processors come in, validly.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 17:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
Hl2 can be, but older systems will have some problems with some of the newer features in hl2:ep2.

Even Ep2 is far from a demanding game. either way, the point is, very few games really need quad core, only crysis I can see having a waud core, any other game right now can easily be maxed ion a good dual core processor. Very few games take advantage of it, so it is not needed yet.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 17:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
did you ever think that maybe it runs maxed out because it is efficient?

just because something requires powerful hardware to run doesn't make it any less of an example of the technology.

The point is it does not need quad core to run maxed out, amking it a ate of money. Source is looking dated come on, many game have better graphics even with the updated Ep2.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 17:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amon
As the article itself has stated, and known by anyone with a sensible logic, four processor cores are useful for a couple other things than playing a computer game... I myself don't even play that many PC games, and most of those I play are from 1999 (Quake 3, CS, Homeworld) yet I'm reached the operating limit of my dual-core T7100 Merom CPU.

DUH, DUH

No one is arguing that idiot, we are talking about for gaming, read and comprehension is a lost art.
steveo_mcg 11th March 2008, 17:05 Quote
Could you at least pretend to be civil it would be nice.

meh back on the ignore list you go...
lamboman 11th March 2008, 17:06 Quote
Personally, I feel that the PC as a platform is BY FAR the best, a fact that everyone here can not dispute. But, the main problem is that it seems to be all about graphics nowadays, not about the actual experience. Sure, graphics are important, but so what if the gameplay is sub-par?
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 17:06 Quote
wether it is a waste of money or not has absolutely no bearing on the fact that games do not need to be written for a specific # of cores or not.

circular logic and fuddled arguments will get you nowhere with me.
kenco_uk 11th March 2008, 17:07 Quote
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/2007/10/29/intel_core_2_extreme_qx9650/9

HL2:ep2 1920x1200 QX9650 - quad core, pretty top of the range.. 115.4fps.. E6750 - dual core, nearly 4 and a half times cheaper.. 109.5fps.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 17:08 Quote
I wouldn't expect that great a difference dealing with those kinds of margins anyway.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 17:08 Quote
They had to re-write the source engine code to get it to be multi-threaded. Thanks for proving my point. And the performance benefit is not worth it, when any dual core processor today can max anything with ease.

Thats the whole point.

FOD saying it was the OS was the funniest thing I heard all day.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 17:10 Quote
to be multi-threaded yes, but they did not say for a specific # of cores.

only dual core existed then, yet source takes advantage of more than 2 cores without another re-write.


thus your argument that software has to be built for a specific # of cores (2,4,8, etc) goes up in smoke


and as for the OS, heres the stream

application -> API -> Threads -> OS -> OS selects execution paths -> CPU -> Output
Amon 11th March 2008, 17:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
dual core processor today can max anything with ease.
And there's the flaw in your logic. Nobody is going to build a 'gaming machine' to play games from 'today'. Has it occurred to you that games of tomorrow would scale to the number of cores available?
Tim S 11th March 2008, 17:12 Quote
The only game that really benefits from a quad-core at the moment is Supreme Commander and unless you're playing massive battles, you won't notice it. That said, I don't think that dual-core is still the way to go (it depends on your usage model ultimately), but that's because I see a usage model for quad-core outside of gaming.

EDIT: whoops, I forgot about UT3
Fod 11th March 2008, 17:12 Quote
leper, go read a book called 'modern operating systems' by Andrew s. Tanenbaum. Chapter 2.2:Threads.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 17:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
to be multi-threaded yes, but they did not say for a specific # of cores.

only dual core existed then, yet source takes advantage of more than 2 cores without another re-write.


thus your argument that software has to be built for a specific # of cores (2,4,8, etc) goes up in smoke

The FULLY utilize it does need to be written for 4 cores, the way valve did it, only spreads it out over the 4 cores, thus barely any increase in performance from Dual Core, Crytek, made crysis (Alan Wake as well) to use each core for a specific function, that is the proper way to get more out of quad core. It is also the same reason Supp Comm sees much bigger gains then Valve, they designed it with all 4 cires in mind. Valve makes compromises as their engine is older and not demanding anyway.
Delphium 11th March 2008, 17:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
Lepermessiah, plz learn to use the EDIT button!
Seconded!!! (reminds me of a histrorical CK)
May I also suggest that you have some more respect for other forum members, all are entitled to there opinions for sure, however I dont see the need to become aggressive or enforceful of your opinion onto others, with remarks of idiots or morons.
Respect, please!


That being said..
I agree that there is no need to update hardware every month, my GTX still pwns all games I desire to play, however the inital outlay for the entire pc build excells that of a console by far.
Console being for much more casual gaming.
I know that my current build will most likely be my last as ill move to getting a nice console.

Quad core id not say is a waste at all, being fortunate enough to own one, I can say that there are many a games that support at least dual core and many more that support multi cores, any game based on the source engine, unreal 3 engine, quake4 (as stated already), The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, Stranglehold, Suprmeme commander, GRAW2, Flight Sim X, Bioshock (unreal 3 engine), Enemy Territory: Quake Wars, to name a few, with many more on there way.

Even with not all games being able to run multi core, it makes the whole multi tasking experience a LOT more smoother being able to run applications on different cores, better management by ones self can have its improvements.
Im not sure about others, but I know I still tend to run many an application in the background while playing games, for which the multi core is a huge aid.

That being said, it is now getting to the fact that if I desire to play a lot of the latest games with all the prittyness, I will require an uber load of kit, which brings me to my first comment, that the price excels that of consoles now.
Its not completely out of hand at the momment, but it is certainly heading that way.
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 17:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amon
And there's the flaw in your logic. Nobody is going to build a 'gaming machine' to play games from 'today'. Has it occurred to you that games of tomorrow would scale to the number of cores available?

By the time Quad Core is manistream for gaming, that PC u have now will be obsolete, it took 2 years for dual core to take off, get real. A dual core processor is fine for now.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 17:15 Quote
technically it doesn't matter how the threads are allocated to cores, except in the recombination cycle. all it does is enable it to recombine in 1 clock cycle instead of 2. (recombination cycle here meaning the time it takes to send the output of the calculation to the correct path)

however, your first argument clearly stated that a game would not use the cores at all unless specifically designed to, yet this has been proven false.
Tim S 11th March 2008, 17:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delphium
That being said, it is now getting to the fact that if I desire to play a lot fo the latest games with all the prittyness, I will require an uber load of kit, which brings me to my first comment, that the price excels that of consoles now.
Its not completely out of hand at the momment, but it is certainly heading that way.

This is the point that Sweeney is almost trying to make. He's saying that the ULTRA high-end solutions (like 3-way SLI/CrossFireX, etc) are a waste... not the 8800 GTXs of the world. :)

Like I said with 3-way SLI when I looked at it - it's a tech demo and I don't see it as anything else. The tech demo worked pretty well and gave us a glimpse of the future, but I don't recommend anyone rushes out to buy it. There's frankly no need for it for most scenarios.
Hugo 11th March 2008, 17:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
The only game that really benefits from a quad-core at the moment is Supreme Commander and unless you're playing massive battles, you won't notice it.

Although by the time you are starting to use all your cores you've run out of RAM and your game has crashed.

UT3 has pretty good multi-core load balancing, my Q6600 was using about 70% of each core in bot matches when I reviewed the game. (linked to point out I'm not "just some guy")
kenco_uk 11th March 2008, 17:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
I wouldn't expect that great a difference dealing with those kinds of margins anyway.

Okay then, the other figure from that test.. Q6600.. 106.7fps. Slower than the Dual Core. The test was done using an 8800Ultra, so to eliminate as much gfx bottleneck as possible. As far as I'm aware, EP2 was one of the last source games released by valve (alongside TF2 and Portal). Even at 1024x768, the E6750 beats the Q6600.
Bluephoenix 11th March 2008, 17:22 Quote
I never said that multithreading will always be more efficient, on the contrary, badly designed multithreading can be worse by factors of 100 or more.
Tim S 11th March 2008, 17:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenco_uk
Okay then, the other figure from that test.. Q6600.. 106.7fps. Slower than the Dual Core. The test was done using an 8800Ultra, so to eliminate as much gfx bottleneck as possible. As far as I'm aware, EP2 was one of the last source games released (alongside TF2 and Portal). Even at 1024x768, the E6750 beats the Q6600.

The cpu has little to no influence on gaming performance in most titles. Source-based games are a classic example where you will not be able to tell the difference in a game. You're talking about over 100 fps at 1920x1200 - you're simply not going to notice the difference. Once you enable AA/AF, you're going to notice even less of a difference.

Quite simply, the benefits of quad-core are outside of gaming. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the benefits of a fast CPU are outside of gaming... Or at least, that's the case at the moment.
legoman666 11th March 2008, 17:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
Quote:
Originally Posted by legoman666
http://xkcd.com/386/

We were waiting for someone to post that earlier :)

sorry, Im a bit slow today. :P
Lepermessiah 11th March 2008, 18:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
The cpu has little to no influence on gaming performance in most titles. Source-based games are a classic example where you will not be able to tell the difference in a game. You're talking about over 100 fps at 1920x1200 - you're simply not going to notice the difference. Once you enable AA/AF, you're going to notice even less of a difference.

Quite simply, the benefits of quad-core are outside of gaming. And in fact, I would go so far as to say that the benefits of a fast CPU are outside of gaming... Or at least, that's the case at the moment.

Thank you, funny how hard that was for some here to understand.
wuyanxu 11th March 2008, 20:27 Quote
wow, this thread has exploded!
Quote:
"PCs are good for anything, just not games."
totally disagree, it my seem so for the developers, but i think with just a little help from the manufactures, PC gaming can take off big time.

i totally hate those "Home Premium PC" in PCworld, which with super CPU, lots RAM, and a super large hard disk drive, but the graphics card is integrated or 8400GS?? those manufactures need to think about possibilities of gaming market!

so i say we force those manufactures to put out better PC's, eg. at LEAST a 9600GT in every machine so called "Home Entertainment". (only HTPC can have crappy graphics cards)
Glider 11th March 2008, 22:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuyanxu
wow, this thread has exploded got ruined!

Fixed the typo!
Shielder 11th March 2008, 22:32 Quote
Back again. Some well written posts there. Going back to the threaded argument, I have compiled codes on *nix machines that only needed to be told that there was more than one processor available, not how many cores there were.

According to an interview that I read (could have been the ones Leper was referring to) they were looking at aplitting up the threads into discrete physics, AI, sound etc threads, so the code could be more efficient. There wasn't (if I remember correctly) any mention of writing for a specific number of cores tho...

Andy
Jordan Wise 11th March 2008, 23:24 Quote
what the hell? i come on bit tech for the first time today and find thread with more than 200 posts. Slow down guys, i'll be reading these till next week
LordPyrinc 12th March 2008, 00:22 Quote
I've been a PC gamer since the mid 90s. I still have every PC game that I've ever purchased. The advantage of a PC over a console for gaming, imho, is that I have been able to play nearly all of my older games on newer computers. Occassionally, it has taken some creative setup to get them running, but by in large most of my really old games can still run on an XP PC. Caveat: Haven't tried anything older than 4 years on my new Vista rig yet.

Gaming aside, I sometimes watch and record HD TV through my pc, listen to MP3s, create/edit documents, manipulate digital photos from my camera, burn CDs/DVDs, surf the web, and much more. Give me a console that can replace all of the things that I do on my PC now and I would consider the possibility.
morris8809 12th March 2008, 01:35 Quote
ok you think you have to spend a fortune on a pc just to game huh. I built my pc last year with a c2d e6300 120GB hd, 1 gig of ram 6600GT and 500 watt psu for 500 dollars. I got 4 gigs of ram and a 8800GT this year and sold the 6600gt and ram. i have a total of around 670 usd in this pc and i can run everything on high. I say BS to all your crap about pc gaming being to expensive.
sc4mpi 12th March 2008, 02:19 Quote
well putting all the crap asside, if i was going to build a pc now that was only for games and nothing else i would go for a e8400 £140 if i was going to use it for everything else as well i would still grab a q6600 go £135 due to the fact multitasking is a breeze compared to my old dualcore. tbh you can overclock a quad to 3ghz + and that eats up everything i throw at it. so i cant see myself changing bk to a dual core anytime soon.
dslickness 12th March 2008, 04:31 Quote
Wow this is totally the reason I don't play much PC games lately. I still play WC3, SC, Savage because it focuses on gameplay and not graphics.
I'd go and get a better videocard, but i'd have to have a 250-350$ budget to get anything worthwhile.

WHO IS TO BLAME?!?! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm
CardJoe 12th March 2008, 07:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dslickness

WHO IS TO BLAME?!?! Hmmmmmmmmmmmm

StickyKeys? ;)
Cthippo 12th March 2008, 08:15 Quote
I started to reply to this, but it got totally out of hand and I'll give you the summary and the linky to the new thread I put the rest of it in...

The short version is I think the OP is correct, games manufacturers are levering themselves out of the market by continuing to raise the specs required to run their games. We're seeing an evolutionary split between gaming machines, which are required for modern games, and general purpose machines whice are entirely adequate for everything else. When you look at just the chunk of the marker able to play modern games, then as a developer it makes more sense to write for consoles and port to PC.
Jordan Wise 12th March 2008, 09:22 Quote
Stand back people, i will resolve this nasty mess in just 8 words:

Consoles for Casual games, PC's for Proper games
Cthippo 12th March 2008, 09:30 Quote
I think you've got that 180 degrees out of phase
AcidJiles 12th March 2008, 13:08 Quote
Half agree with this. we need to get a balance between pushing new gfx and not making entry requirements too high
Tim S 12th March 2008, 14:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by AcidJiles
Half agree with this. we need to get a balance between pushing new gfx and not making entry requirements too high

Yep, but the problem with keeping the requirements very low (i.e. Intel Integrated Graphics) is that if you implement any new graphical gameplay features, the lowest-end can't render the graphical gameplay features and that breaks the game.

By that, I think the best way to think about it is to think about having a building on fire and you've got to rescue someone trapped in the fire on the top floor of said building. The entry-level graphics (that aren't Intel Integrated) can render the fire, albeit with less detail, and that forms a part of the gameplay when you're trying to get through it to get to the person you've got to rescue. With Intel Integrated, you won't be able to see that fire because the GPU isn't powerful enough (or designed) for gaming and won't render it. Therefore the puzzle/task in the game is broken.

I know this is over-simplified, but it's nothing more than an example to show where "gameplay graphics" can't be used at the moment because they break the game for anyone using a GPU that isn't good enough.

Intel knows this and doesn't really push its IGPs for gaming at all any more. What needs to happen is that retailers (brick and mortars) need to educate the consumer in a way to say that if you want to play games, you need a respectable graphics card/GPU designed with gaming in mind. The problem is, I can't see Intel forcing retailers to push that, because it'd probably eat into some of its IGP marketshare. :)

What's good though is that more and more people are using the Internet now and as a result, they're becoming more educated.
wuyanxu 12th March 2008, 16:15 Quote
agree, computer retailers, we should ban those "super quad core computer for 400 pounds" computer, and start a campaign of trying to get PC gamers to buy graphics cards
Shielder 12th March 2008, 22:40 Quote
Super quad core computer for 400 quid??? Where?:D
wuyanxu 12th March 2008, 23:55 Quote
this expensive piece of junk has 8600GS graphics card, and yet it's in the Gaming section.

and ebay's attemp
Quote:
Graphics
NVIDIA® GeForce 7050 - YES 7 Series 256 Bit Geforce graphics
wtf? is that even a graphics card?
Hugo 13th March 2008, 00:08 Quote
Yup - good old integrated graphics. Okay, not a card as such but still dedicated right? :D

256-bit graphics from a 2-bit seller.
CardJoe 13th March 2008, 07:52 Quote
Ah. I don't know what they're talking about. I do all my gaming in the office and at home on an integrated graphics card. It's the best thing to run Crysis on!

</sarcasm>
Bluephoenix 13th March 2008, 12:55 Quote
Intel is billing its new X3100 IG chipset as DiectX 10 capable. Yes, it is, and could run crysis considering it can render 1080p video in real time, but it would still be at the lowest possible settings and be highly dependant on the amount of RAM in the system.
Tim S 13th March 2008, 13:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
Intel is billing its new X3100 IG chipset as DiectX 10 capable. Yes, it is, and could run crysis considering it can render 1080p video in real time, but it would still be at the lowest possible settings and be highly dependant on the amount of RAM in the system.

It HAS to be DirectX 10 capable in order to meet the requirements for Windows Vista Premium certification (from June 1st 2008). That doesn't mean it can play games (or has to, for that matter).
steveo_mcg 13th March 2008, 13:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
Intel is billing its new X3100 IG chipset as DiectX 10 capable. Yes, it is, and could run crysis considering it can render 1080p video in real time, but it would still be at the lowest possible settings and be highly dependant on the amount of RAM in the system.

I don't see how that's any different from a current chip set that is dx9 capable, they still couldn't play games.
completemadness 13th March 2008, 15:55 Quote
Personally, i think the "massive gap" is due to integrated graphics and the super low end stuff
People go out and get a £700 PC with integrated gfx and then wonder why it wont play some game

I personally think that PC's are far greater then a console for gaming, mainly in controls but also flexibility and graphics
But yes, a PC is more expensive, i wont disagree with that, but I've had far better Value For Money out of my PC then any console I've _ever_ owned
Bluephoenix 13th March 2008, 17:07 Quote
I'd like to point out that its still decent for an IG chipset. the AMD 690 IG CHipset couldn't even passably play 1080p content, so the technology is improving, just not nearly as fast as its discrete counterparts.
Tim S 13th March 2008, 17:13 Quote
Video playback is a completely different kettle of fish compared to gaming performance. It's like comparing a PC to an Xbox 360 for word processing capabilities (the PC wins that argument, btw)... In other words, you wouldn't make the comparison because it's completely wrong.
wuyanxu 13th March 2008, 18:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by completemadness
Personally, i think the "massive gap" is due to integrated graphics and the super low end stuff
People go out and get a £700 PC with integrated gfx and then wonder why it wont play some game

I personally think that PC's are far greater then a console for gaming, mainly in controls but also flexibility and graphics
But yes, a PC is more expensive, i wont disagree with that, but I've had far better Value For Money out of my PC then any console I've _ever_ owned

also, don't forget those relatively cheap "gaming laptops" which can't even render a single Crysis frame. :(
MaximumShow 13th March 2008, 20:21 Quote
For me, console gaming has gone in the totally wrong direction. The last console I was really into was the SNES, and since then I have had no desire at all to get into anything new (except for the wii, which has gone back to the original roots). These days consoles try too hard to be PCs.

Consoles should have completely different games than PCs, like they did years ago. Sidescrollers, puzzle games, adventure etc... Those type of games work perfectly in the console/gamepad format. I absolutely cannot understand someone's desire to play an FPS, such as Halo, on a gamepad. In my opinion the experience completely sucks. I have seen many cases where the clumsy controls force the devs to slightly dumb down the AI. Give me games like Zelda: a Link to the past! The graphics are cartoony and non realistic, but the gameplay is phenomenal, and 100% suited to the console realm.

Developing games that are ported to both consoles and PCs is what's holding both back from their true potential. I will never go back to console gaming until they become consoles again, and not PC imitators.
Bluephoenix 14th March 2008, 01:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim S
Video playback is a completely different kettle of fish compared to gaming performance. It's like comparing a PC to an Xbox 360 for word processing capabilities (the PC wins that argument, btw)... In other words, you wouldn't make the comparison because it's completely wrong.

I'm not saying that it can currently do gaming at all, merely using that to illustrate the point that it is improving and might someday actually be useful for gaming of some sort. (2020 maybe?)
completemadness 14th March 2008, 02:55 Quote
The thing is, sure the IGP's may be getting better, but games get more demanding

I think we may be marginally further ahead with IGP's then we were 10 years ago (in terms of how good they are at games) but even by 2020, i doubt the IGP (if it exists) will be as good as a DGP
Tim S 14th March 2008, 08:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluephoenix
I'm not saying that it can currently do gaming at all, merely using that to illustrate the point that it is improving and might someday actually be useful for gaming of some sort. (2020 maybe?)

Intel has been improving on the video front for a while, but when the company is boasting about their IGP being able to run a couple of games (like it did last year), that gives you an idea of just how much work there is. Driver development just isn't there in the same way that it is for ATI and Nvidia. Look at 780G - it's a fantastic integrated chipset that can play games in this day and age. Why can't Intel's IGPs do the same? It's because they're a long way behind.

Intel tried to enter the discrete graphics card market a while back and failed... they've proposed a 10x performance increase in 3 years on the IGP. But the problem is when you're starting with (essentially) nothing, and multiply that by 10, you've still got (almost) nothing. Call me a sceptic, but that's my job - I'll believe the claims when I see them based on past delivery. This was something that Sweeney mentioned in this part of the interview - Intel has always said "it'll be better next generation" but there hasn't been a significant change on the gaming front for a long time...
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums