PC Gaming is ALIVEEEE

[mid_gen]

Yeah, we’re into meteorological autumn now and it’s so much better gaming when the dark nights come. It’s much easier to see the TV so gaming starts around 8pm now instead of 11pm.

It took me years to finally take the plunge and get into PC gaming but something doesn’t feel quite right about it. The consoles still pull me back even though I have the same game on PC and the console version is only 30fps and takes ages to load from the HDD. Is it the trophies? Is it the lack of stats and settings to pore over? I dunno.

I've been a PC gamer since there were PCs, but these days the simplicity, and sofa location of consoles appeals, as I have zero interest in the hardware side.

I've compromised by buying a Steam Link and playing PC games with a controller on the sofa. Better fps, better visuals, near instant loading times, cheaper games...and the hot noisy PC is safely on another room so nice and quiet (unlike the PS4 which sounds like a Hoover).

 

[ic1male]

Ummm steam does all this and loading times are not an issue on ssds

Steam achievements just don't compare to PSN trophies in my eyes. Even though 99% of the time they are exactly the same. But that little pop up box from Steam does nothing for me compared to a pling! of a PSN trophy being unlocked - especially the Platinum ones.

As for the stats and settings, I mean does the lack of them on consoles mean you just concentrate on enjoying the game more? On PC I find myself watching the little FPS counter in the top right and constantly checking to make sure it's a steady 60. (I play on a TV.) I should really turn that off as the 1070 GPU should be able to handle anything at 1080p60 very high settings without dipping that much, so there's no need to keep checking.

 

[TNA]

Steam achievements just don't compare to PSN trophies in my eyes. Even though 99% of the time they are exactly the same. But that little pop up box from Steam does nothing for me compared to a pling! of a PSN trophy being unlocked - especially the Platinum ones.

As for the stats and settings, I mean does the lack of them on consoles mean you just concentrate on enjoying the game more? On PC I find myself watching the little FPS counter in the top right and constantly checking to make sure it's a steady 60. (I play on a TV.) I should really turn that off as the 1070 GPU should be able to handle anything at 1080p60 very high settings without dipping that much, so there's no need to keep checking.

I personally don't care about achievements. I may attempt to try and unlock as many as I can in a game I really like which I play many times over the years. But if I did care I would prefer steam one's as they will be there even in 10-20 years time. But with a console what will happen to those achievements? I remember having points and achievements back when they came out on the xbox 360, but I don't have that system or a new xbox so they are gone. With steam they will always be there

 

[DONOHUE07]

PC Gaming is the worst it’s been in years, sure the indie scene is good, but it’s good on consoles too, the spiralling cost of PC components, the increasing game prices, it’s not great.
HDR10, freesync, preowned games and 4K, I would argue console gaming is stronger than PC gaming right now.

When Sony or Microsoft officially support K/M i would likely jump ship, infact the only reasons why I’m still on PC is the Oculus Rift, and I can’t use a controller in FPS games

 

[WantoN]

I highly doubt people will be on 4K high refresh rate monitors in 2020. Judging by most the comments I have seen here people apparently cannot see the difference between 1440p and 2160p so I doubt they will be in a rush to upgrade.

Plenty of people are gaming on 4K tellys and monitors now, and there’s already 4K 144hz monitors coming from Acer and ASUS, so I don’t see why it’s unreasonable to expect people to be gaming on them in two years. There’s a lot of 4K gamers on these very forums, and the power of PCs in two years will absolutely be able to leverage them, we have high detail 60hz minimum hardware now, as long as the 20 series doesn’t turn out to be an Uber flop.

 

[ic1male]

There's a whopping 7% of Steam users who game at higher than 1080p. That isn't very much at all.

75% are on 1080p or 1366x768 (laptop users).

 

[WantoN]

There's a whopping 7% of Steam users who game at higher than 1080p. That isn't very much at all.

75% are on 1080p or 1366x768 (laptop users).

Steam survey itsnt exactly a reliable indicator of user hardware. I’m sure plenty of people own 1080p TVs, I do. Doesn’t mean that the PS4Pro is useless.

 

[TNA]

Plenty of people are gaming on 4K tellys and monitors now, and there’s already 4K 144hz monitors coming from Acer and ASUS, so I don’t see why it’s unreasonable to expect people to be gaming on them in two years. There’s a lot of 4K gamers on these very forums, and the power of PCs in two years will absolutely be able to leverage them, we have high detail 60hz minimum hardware now, as long as the 20 series doesn’t turn out to be an Uber flop.

I understand what you mean and yes plenty people are. But in terms of percentage 4K users are still in single digits. I have had a 4K monitor for around 4 years now and think it is great due to the high PPI and the extra sharpness it brings. But if as I said, most people here are saying they can’t see the difference between 1440p and 2160p so I just cannot see them upgrading in 2 years time if they mean what they say.

 

[WantoN]

I understand what you mean and yes plenty people are. But in terms of percentage 4K users are still in single digits. I have had a 4K monitor for around 4 years now and think it is great due to the high PPI and the extra sharpness it brings. But if as I said, most people here are saying they can’t see the difference between 1440p and 2160p so I just cannot see them upgrading in 2 years time if they mean what they say.

I was more making the point that as other platforms evolve and improve, so does PC. The intimation seemed to be that PC performance / technology was somehow going to be obsolete.

Next monitor for me will be UW, or 4K. Power of whatever ti or AMD equivalent is what will dictate that choice. I certainly can see the difference.

 

[DampCat]

It's alive if you're happy to pay £25 for a demo early access.

Otherwise all the major releases are either full of microtransactions or tedious cutscenes and Press X To prompts.

It's definitely not what it used to be!

 

[willhub]

I mostly plug my laptop into the 4k tv and just sit on sofa with the xbox remote. Some games like cities skylines I'll play with mouse and keyboard

 

[Gerard]

I miss the days of great mods like Day of Defeat, i remember playing the very early versions of it right through to source and it was a great experience, though valve in their infinite wisdom basically killed off the forum community by closing the site and opening a section for it on their forums. You don't really get mods like that anymore due to companies rarely allowing modding of their games citing cost and complexity as supposed reasons. When the real reason is the community can come up with mods that would just eat into their dlc profits.

I would also argue that pc games these days are released in a far worse state than they used to be. You used to get day 1 patches but they were tiny, these days a day 1 patch being in excess of a few gigs isn't uncommon. Back in the late 90's and early 2000's a multi gig patch was practically unheard of, people would have been up in arms due to their internet speeds, and trying to find a place to download it, queueing in fileplanet for an hour or more brings back some painful memories.


It's all about meeting certain release timetables to keep the shareholders happy, and the general "ship it now finish it later" attitude that is very prevalent with games these days.

 

[adidan]

I would also argue that pc games these days are released in a far worse state than they used to be.

I agree although, to be fair, games today are a far more complicated beast.

Still, your point is correct, I not only wait to buy a game because i'm cheap but primarily till the major bugs have been ironed out.

 

[TNA]

It's alive if you're happy to pay £25 for a demo early access.

Otherwise all the major releases are either full of microtransactions or tedious cutscenes and Press X To prompts.

It's definitely not what it used to be!

I have Soulcalibur and Resident Evil 2 Remake on pre-order. At the very least the latter will not be like that at all. But I do wish microtranactions in full priced games would go away.

 

[Mark A]

I didn't even realise you could get 4k monitors, is that not a bit over kill for a small monitor, or can you actually see a difference?

It's alive if you're happy to pay £25 for a demo early access.

Otherwise all the major releases are either full of microtransactions or tedious cutscenes and Press X To prompts.

It's definitely not what it used to be!

These complaints could also be used for console as well. Even consoles have early access games now, but they are nowhere near as good as Steam as the updates have to go through a load of red tape before they can be applied to the game.

Which early access games have you played that you'd liken to a demo? I actually think early access is one of the better things to happen to PC in a long time. Sure there are some lemons, but there have also been some amazing games come from it that might not have ever come about without early access. Not all my cup of tea, but a few off the top of my head that are decent: Subnautica, 7 days to die, space engineers, the long dark, don't starve, prison architect, kerbal space program, Rimworld and loads more.

Back in the late 90's and early 2000's a multi gig patch was practically unheard of, people would have been up in arms due to their internet speeds, and trying to find a place to download it, queueing in fileplanet for an hour or more brings back some painful memories.

Don't forget that game sizes back then were much smaller as well though. I remember downloading SOF2 and it was like 200mb or something.

 

[D3K]

I didn't even realise you could get 4k monitors, is that not a bit over kill for a small monitor, or can you actually see a difference?

Yes, you sit closer to the monitor. My minimum size for 4k is 32" tho, I personally feel it's wasted on 27"

 

[Mark A]

Funny clip, but i'm not sure how that applies to what i said? I mean going from 720p to 1080p on a 24" monitor is noticeable with less jaggies, but would going to 4k on a 24" monitor be noticeable? Especially for the enormous price and hardware requirements etc. I thought 4k was more for the giant TVs.

 

[StriderX]

Funny clip, but i'm not sure how that applies to what i said? I mean going from 720p to 1080p on a 24" monitor is noticeable with less jaggies, but would going to 4k on a 24" monitor be noticeable? Especially for the enormous price and hardware requirements etc. I thought 4k was more for the giant TVs.

Weird Visiophiles would have you believe the same sort of ******** that Audiophiles believe, gotta feel good about putting down that multi-hundred pound/dollar monitor so you gotta lie to yourself that you can see literal atoms to make the endorphins flow.

Pretty sure you need a 30 inch monitor for it to be mildly appreciated and even then it's starting to get ridiculous for eye-sight depreciation if your whole view is a flat screen... I guess you can sit further away... but then why not just admit a TV screen would be far more useful at that point?

 

[TNA]

I didn't even realise you could get 4k monitors, is that not a bit over kill for a small monitor, or can you actually see a difference?

Not at all. Been using 4K monitors for around 4 years. It is very noticeable imo, which is why I never was able to go back to a lower resolution.

Yes, you sit closer to the monitor. My minimum size for 4k is 32" tho, I personally feel it's wasted on 27"

A common misconception. The only benefit of this is if you want to remain at 100% windows scalling. Otherwise smaller monitor means higher PPI which means better image quality.

Just think about phones. Why was 720p never more than enough on such small screens with huge PPI? Why is it people were able to see and appreciate the extra sharpness and quality by going 1080p then 1440p on such small screen but not on a monitor? The distance I sit from my monitor is not much different than the distance I hold my phone to my face, so it is not even that.

Having higher PPI means seeing less jaggies and a higher overall image quality. Don't believe those youtube videos that say we cannot see the difference, try for yourself. Also do not compare huge TV's to monitors, not the same thing due to how far one sits away from a TV.

Funny clip, but i'm not sure how that applies to what i said? I mean going from 720p to 1080p on a 24" monitor is noticeable with less jaggies, but would going to 4k on a 24" monitor be noticeable? Especially for the enormous price and hardware requirements etc. I thought 4k was more for the giant TVs.

It would indeed be very noticeable if one has a decent eye sight. The only hardware cost is replacing graphics card as 4K means less need to upgrade cpu. My cpu usage from what I recall usually shows a 20-45% range and I have had this cpu for over 5 years now.

 

[D3K]

A common misconception. The only benefit of this is if you want to remain at 100% windows scalling. Otherwise smaller monitor means higher PPI which means better image quality.

Just think about phones. Why was 720p never more than enough on such small screens with huge PPI? Why is it people were able to see and appreciate the extra sharpness and quality by going 1080p then 1440p on such small screen but not on a monitor? The distance I sit from my monitor is not much different than the distance I hold my phone to my face, so it is not even that.

Having higher PPI means seeing less jaggies and a higher overall image quality. Don't believe those youtube videos that say we cannot see the difference, try for yourself. Also do not compare huge TV's to monitors, not the same thing due to how far one sits away from a TV.

A common misconception is assuming that everyone wants more PPI. Leaning in to squint at fine detail is wasted pixels and rendering horsepower. I sent a 27" 4K back for that very reason, distant objects were only clear if you looked very closely at the screen.
The only comparison between TVs and monitors is the ratio of distance sat to discernible detail, I will assume you've seen the charts.

Higher PPI was pushed on phones, it was not market demand. Also, why are you holding a phone 2ft from your face?