Next gen Consoles Vs PC?
- Thread starter ThatAsianGuy
- Start date
They are all different. you could say a consoles and a pc is bad cos i could get a £1,000,000 simulator that has massive hydraulic arms and a 180 degree wrap round screen with triple hd graphics and that would be much better but everyone is different and wants to spend different amounts of money.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 May 2004
- Posts
- 13,186
- Location
- Sunny Stafford
Although I'm not a console person, I do have a soft spot for Mario and Sonic games and will be watching the release of the Wii U closely. I think that Nintendo made a brave move there with having smartphone-esque controllers so that gamers can play with those while on the move. This is a direct response to the casual gaming market eroding away at console and PC games sales.
Thread will probably get moved to the PC games or console games section.
Thread will probably get moved to the PC games or console games section.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 6,703
- Location
- Pembrokeshire
Oh, and as a point of note to the OP the PS3 does support 1080p, most of its games do not though.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Firstly, rumours, secondly, hope you enjoy the 3d framerate when non 3d will only be capable of the 60fps mark(if said rumour is true, we'll see).
The point being you could do 60fps on the current consoles... the question is what settings does a game use to get 60fps.
What will you be able to get on a PC at 60fps minimums, in game xyz, at 1080p, every single thing maxed out, every option, high res textures, no slow down, what about consoles, textures made smaller, AA way way down, frequent slow down, etc, etc.
60fps, 1080p mean NOTHING so making a dicussion based off them means nothing. Saying BF3 pc level details maxed out completely, 4xaa and 60fps minimum does mean something, its tangible, its a known quantity. Saying BF3 with unknown detail levels, only that it hits 60fps, means something completely different, it could have every graphical effect turned off to reach 60fps and look half as good.
Anyway, lets assume for a second it could run BF3 pc level maxed out graphics at 60fps..... well, I need a PC anyway, e-mail, net, coding, work, learning, tv/film, encoding, and dozens of other things, so I have a pc, its cheaper to buy a new graphics card than buy a console....
So the question is as always, if I have a PC why would I buy a console, if I had a console, I'd still need a PC. Ultimately I prefer to game on a pc, at a desk, in a comfy chair. So many situations I play a game with something open on the second screen, which is just completely impracticle on the console.
The point being you could do 60fps on the current consoles... the question is what settings does a game use to get 60fps.
What will you be able to get on a PC at 60fps minimums, in game xyz, at 1080p, every single thing maxed out, every option, high res textures, no slow down, what about consoles, textures made smaller, AA way way down, frequent slow down, etc, etc.
60fps, 1080p mean NOTHING so making a dicussion based off them means nothing. Saying BF3 pc level details maxed out completely, 4xaa and 60fps minimum does mean something, its tangible, its a known quantity. Saying BF3 with unknown detail levels, only that it hits 60fps, means something completely different, it could have every graphical effect turned off to reach 60fps and look half as good.
Anyway, lets assume for a second it could run BF3 pc level maxed out graphics at 60fps..... well, I need a PC anyway, e-mail, net, coding, work, learning, tv/film, encoding, and dozens of other things, so I have a pc, its cheaper to buy a new graphics card than buy a console....
So the question is as always, if I have a PC why would I buy a console, if I had a console, I'd still need a PC. Ultimately I prefer to game on a pc, at a desk, in a comfy chair. So many situations I play a game with something open on the second screen, which is just completely impracticle on the console.
Well I've been asking myself the opposite question lately; I don't own a console, I'm a PC man but my mates have Xbox, PS3 etc and they seem to be getting less and less straightforward. You want a game console to be easy, game in, system on, play. Now you gotta sign up to some service that may or not cost you something, sign license agreements, patch, update, install... It's all the negative aspects of PC gaming without the ability to alt+tab to something else in the meantime.
The PC however has power in it's favour, absolute flexibility to patch, update whenever you want and install mods! The keyboard and mouse is the finest way to control shooter and RTS games and there's no shortage of controllers for the others. Most people probably only need to upgrade their graphics card to play the latest titles at their best and they can be had for less than a console and the transition is far less dramatic (don't lose any game saves or installed games, no interface changes etc).
Only reason I can see people favouring consoles is ignorance; less tech savvy folk that want something pick up and play, and with that aspect of consoles getting eroded of late I see no reason why the PC isn't considered superior. After all we've been watching movies, listening to music and playing games on them for years. You can even bring a PC into your living room, hook it to your 50 inch plasma with surround sound. Browse the net, send an email, make an excel document, play Popcap games, draw a penis in Paint.
PC > Console.
The PC however has power in it's favour, absolute flexibility to patch, update whenever you want and install mods! The keyboard and mouse is the finest way to control shooter and RTS games and there's no shortage of controllers for the others. Most people probably only need to upgrade their graphics card to play the latest titles at their best and they can be had for less than a console and the transition is far less dramatic (don't lose any game saves or installed games, no interface changes etc).
Only reason I can see people favouring consoles is ignorance; less tech savvy folk that want something pick up and play, and with that aspect of consoles getting eroded of late I see no reason why the PC isn't considered superior. After all we've been watching movies, listening to music and playing games on them for years. You can even bring a PC into your living room, hook it to your 50 inch plasma with surround sound. Browse the net, send an email, make an excel document, play Popcap games, draw a penis in Paint.
PC > Console.
The problem with comparing it to PC is that the way the PC market has gone is that it is extremely scalable.
The new consoles even at their launch will not be more powerful than the best GFX card out at the time in crossfire/sli x4 with multi cpu, multicore and 64gb of ram. However, it will be considerable cheaper than the above mentioned gear.
Historically consoles have always had an edge visually because they run in lower resolution, going back from the N64 days to current. If we're bringing 1080p to the table there is really not going to be much in it at the next gen launch.
As always, what matters is software, the games there are to play. I probably wouldn't have my XBOX if it wasn't for Halo 4 coming out. And if the intel is correct MS are going to have a lot more exclusive titles this time around.
The new consoles even at their launch will not be more powerful than the best GFX card out at the time in crossfire/sli x4 with multi cpu, multicore and 64gb of ram. However, it will be considerable cheaper than the above mentioned gear.
Historically consoles have always had an edge visually because they run in lower resolution, going back from the N64 days to current. If we're bringing 1080p to the table there is really not going to be much in it at the next gen launch.
As always, what matters is software, the games there are to play. I probably wouldn't have my XBOX if it wasn't for Halo 4 coming out. And if the intel is correct MS are going to have a lot more exclusive titles this time around.
They're just shooting themselves in the foot with console exclusives in my opinion (more players more money right?).
But ultimately game developers have an easier time developing on a console, it's easier and cheaper. Consoles only really exist in their current format because of economic pressure, they simply make more cash out of it.
What boggles my mind is why Microsoft hasn't made any effort to make Windows a better gaming platform, with a standardised API and several banded specification ranges to develop for they could make the PC a very simple platform. I remember they were going to grade PCs and you could match games to your system (pretty sure this is what became the Windows Experience Index) I think it was when Vista was in development.
Just because you can make a graphical beast of a game doesn't mean you should, consoles have taught developers how to tease pleasing visuals out of little power and all games should be made this way. Half Life 2 was a good example of this, it's a very flexible engine that while doesn't look amazing isn't at all awful. Especially if you look at a game like Team Fortress 2 which looks fantastic because of it's style and not because of the fancy rendering techniques that bogs down games like Crysis (which is a terrible game FYI, looks good but lasts an hour or two and it totally forgettable).
But ultimately game developers have an easier time developing on a console, it's easier and cheaper. Consoles only really exist in their current format because of economic pressure, they simply make more cash out of it.
What boggles my mind is why Microsoft hasn't made any effort to make Windows a better gaming platform, with a standardised API and several banded specification ranges to develop for they could make the PC a very simple platform. I remember they were going to grade PCs and you could match games to your system (pretty sure this is what became the Windows Experience Index) I think it was when Vista was in development.
Just because you can make a graphical beast of a game doesn't mean you should, consoles have taught developers how to tease pleasing visuals out of little power and all games should be made this way. Half Life 2 was a good example of this, it's a very flexible engine that while doesn't look amazing isn't at all awful. Especially if you look at a game like Team Fortress 2 which looks fantastic because of it's style and not because of the fancy rendering techniques that bogs down games like Crysis (which is a terrible game FYI, looks good but lasts an hour or two and it totally forgettable).
They're not going to be nearly as powerful as an average computer costing around £700, let alone the multi thousand pound beast you describe
No they won't because it would screw the balance up on mp so much that it would cost them sales.
Also 3d = 120 fps....
Nothing changes, consoles will be released some misinformed people will run around for about a year proclaiming the death of the PC before being surprised later at PC's supposed re-emergence...
The consoles will be behind the PC in terms of hardware technology on release, and after a couple of years they will be just as massively behind as they are now.
In all honesty if the rumoured specs of the consoles are true it wouldn't even be that expensive to build the equivalent PC around the time of release, probably marginally more expensive.
The consoles will be behind the PC in terms of hardware technology on release, and after a couple of years they will be just as massively behind as they are now.
In all honesty if the rumoured specs of the consoles are true it wouldn't even be that expensive to build the equivalent PC around the time of release, probably marginally more expensive.
Well the PS2 had a keyboard and mouse and I thought the Xbox supports them natively. Whether the games do is a different matter.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 42,028
- Location
- Cornwall
This sentence sums up why these threads don't work
Probably cheaper once you factor in the cost of say 10-20 games.
I love all the arguing from the PC crowd, most games look better on console anyway and that's a fact you can't get away from!
Give me a sofa, controller and my big 42" plasma, you hunched over PC neanderthals who're still living in the middle ages can keep your overpriced hardware, clunky keyboards, mice and tiny 24" monitors.
Give me a sofa, controller and my big 42" plasma, you hunched over PC neanderthals who're still living in the middle ages can keep your overpriced hardware, clunky keyboards, mice and tiny 24" monitors.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 6,575
- Location
- UK
I agree. I'd rather pay £500 every 4 or 5 years, instead of paying £2000 every few months to play the latest games to only get a slight graphical advantage. I don't play FPS so mouse/keyboard support doesn't bother me.