Crytek boss Cevat Yerli has claimed that developers' focus on PS3 and 360 is holding back game quality on PC - a format he believes is already "a generation ahead" of modern day consoles.
Crytek is currently beavering away on Crysis 2 for all three platforms - a move away from the PC exclusivity of its predecessor.
"As long as the current console generation exists and as long as we keep pushing the PC as well, the more difficult it will be to really get the benefit of both," Yerli told the latest issue of Edge.
"PC is easily a generation ahead right now. With 360 and PS3, we believe the quality of the games beyond Crysis 2 and other CryEngine developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is. You won't be able to squeeze more juice from these rocks."
Yerli added that multi-format games not reaching their technical potential on PC couldn't be squarely blamed on consoles, however.
"I generally think it's still developers' mentality [that is to blame]," he added. "A lot nowadays don't consider PC a big issue any more; their [sales] expectations are nowhere near what they are for the console versions. Until the PC market creates comparable revenues, companies are not going to spend enough on the PC SKU of a game."
Just as well Crysis 2 is looking stunning across the formats, then. But could the PC version have looked even better? We await its arrival in March next year with baited breath...
Order Edge here and have it delivered straight to your door.
Comments
122 comments so far...
STEVONYMO on 25 Nov '10 said:
Yeh we know lol. Listen you can't compare a PS3 or XBOX to an i7 PC with a 580 Nvidia graphics card and 6 Gig of ram! We know that but then again I haven't got £1200 to throw at that machine either so we have PS3's and XBOX's because they cost less and the results are pretty good!
If you build a game that is so graphics intensive that you need the above PC to run it then you are probably going to go bust because not enough people own that spec. We would all love to but just not going to happen.
So Crytek get over it and just build the best possible for what is out there!
Barca Azul on 25 Nov '10 said:
Problem is, not everyone wants a bleeding edge PC every two years and why consoles are popular.
ricflair on 25 Nov '10 said:
This has always been the case. Make it a PC exclusive then. Oh no, you won't because you want a piece of the console pie!
StonecoldMC on 25 Nov '10 said:
Of course a PC is going to be more technically able than a console, this isnt news to anyone.
If he feels that strongly about it maybe he should have made Kingdoms* a PC exclusive instead of following the money to console.
*Note, im actually quite happy this is coming to the 360
.
puzl on 25 Nov '10 said:
Funny, because the original Crysis was a generation ahead of what most PCs at the time could handle
Anyway, this has always been the case. I do think Crytek are doing good things with their engine, in allowing it to be quite modular for PC based hardware (those "next gen" vids they posted looked absolutely stunning) whilst still having full compatability for the 360/PS3. Lets hope the game is decent too.
Barca Azul on 25 Nov '10 said:
I played the upgrade your PC in the late 1990´s, but when the PS2 and Xbox came out, I stopped playing that game.
ChunkyMonkey on 25 Nov '10 said:
Thing is though, you can build that machine and because Crytek is the only game development corporation who are so much up their arse they are going to push graphics to the max because that's what they think sells but you could easily p**s any other game thrown at that system and have the ability to use the computer for so much more than gaming, I spent around £900 on mine and I have two standard graphic cards in SLi and I could run the first crysis on max with a bit of config tweaking and since the past 3 years, I've had no problems running any game what I've thrown at it and I have an xbox and PS3 for the exclusives but considering that Microsoft has released a statement of attending to the PC market then I suppose depending on the market I will probably invest in a better set of graphic cards or even yet sell my current graphic card setup and just get a right chunky bastard.
Also, People think that getting a computer means having it and purchasing it at a high price and that computers being built by Alienware or other brands similiar means you will get the highest preformance and pay silly money and end up having a quite troublesome experience and it puts people off.
It's also getting to a time where they are cutting content from the PC versions of games to satisfy the consoles, it's not really working for the PC market, I've currently found out that Lionhead delayed the PC version of Fable 3 and is doing quite a good job giving it steriods just for the PC, I'm not complaining if anything I'm cheery that Lionhead is again taking their time to do a good job and it will probably be a good decision. People are ignorant when it comes to realising that Consoles are the weaker form, they lack intelligence and common sense to understand that the fancy effects in computer games is to avoid and throw them off from the real quality. Console games don't use AA so they blur the games whereas if the PC version was designed properly it will have a AA function or even third party mods to enable that.
Anyway, I will end here.
gilly83 on 25 Nov '10 said:
tbh they prob havent pushed the boundaries as much with pc as a lot of pc gamers used crysis as a bench mark for performace, they are prob playin it safe so more of the pc market will be reached, ratehr than a few with top end rigs.
As for spending loadsa money on a top pc, my pc is only average and it runs crysis on high v.smooth and it looked amazing so if they surpass the original the sequel is gonna look sweet
_Marty_ on 25 Nov '10 said:
It won't be long before the tech plateaus anyway. We already have graphics that are jaw dropping, and technical aspects that were unthinkable 10 years back. How much further will the tech get pushed before devs say 'enough is enough'.
Do we really want lifelike looking games, for instance? And do we really want to pay £100+ for said experience...
xxx128 on 25 Nov '10 said:
Upon launch sony claimed the ps3's gpu had twice the horsepower of a geforce 7900 card, which isnt true btw.
Since then, we had the 8000 series, the 9000 series,the gtx100(oem), the gtx200 series, the gtx 400 series, and now the gtx500 series with the gtx580 been released earlier this month. I honestly doubt the PC is just "a generation" ahead.
Mogs on 25 Nov '10 said:
PC gaming is dead!!!!!!
Beetle Bum on 25 Nov '10 said:
with the arrival of Onlive graphics will not be held back,
i got onlive on my pc and its great playing FPS with a mouse and keyboard again.
MdDam on 25 Nov '10 said:
The myth that you need to upgrade your PC every year is just that, a myth. And I'm surprised it still stands today.
My PC was bought for £600 4 years ago and I can play all the latest games maxxed out. The thought that you need to upgrade your PC every year or couple of years is a thought that only children that never used a PC could think of.
ChunkyMonkey on 25 Nov '10 said:
We have to thank Consoles for that. With the development of consoles and game development it's sort of helped PC hardware to settle. Remember PC hardware is generations infront of current game development it always will be.
justforkicks101 on 25 Nov '10 said:
combatevolved on 25 Nov '10 said:
This is a load of crap.
Its not the consoles that are holding the PC gaming market its the prohibitively high cost of the PC's themselves. If I could walk out tomorow and buy a PC or laptop for £300 and know i could play crysis 2 and all the highest end graphical powerhouses of games for the next 2 or 3 years I would do so in a flash.
The reality is if i want to play the high end PC games i would have to splash out £2000 and then spend another £2000 18 months later because my old PC would be obselete. Only the most hardcore gamers or the very rich can afford to do this.
Instead of bithching about it, companies interested in maximising the potential of the PC gaming market should collaborate and discuss how they can solve this problem and produce a PC that can play high end games for a few years and cost less than a half decent car.
MdDam on 25 Nov '10 said:
And here's the perfect example of what I meant, only uninformed children still believe buying a gaming PC is costly and you have to upgrade every year.
Again, to repeat myself, my gaming PC cost £600 4 years ago and can play anything I throw at it maxxed out. Not sure where you got the £2000 figure, perhaps your ass?
kimoak on 25 Nov '10 said:
Bingo!
I am building a new PC now because mine is on it's last legs. I last built a PC back on 2006 and only upgraded my GFX card in that time.
I have specced out my PC for £735. Looking at deals right now and I reckon I can save nearly £100 on that. Looking at a pair of 3D glass with the savings
Gotta get in before the VAT rise!
@Combatevolved £2000?!?!?! That's madness! Where the hell you get those fiigues from?!?! See above!
veato on 25 Nov '10 said:
A generation probably sounds about right to me. Consoles are stuck in the DX9 era whilst PCs are about to embrace DX11 (DX10 was a mess so we'll skip that).
Your example of listing the GT100 series etc isn't an indicator of "seires" as most we're low end media cards easily outperformed by previous 88xx and 98xx cards. That goes for low end 200 series cards too.
boskersrevenge on 25 Nov '10 said:
So nice to see everyone playing nice *dodges plant pot* carry on.... *whistles out of thread*
MdDam on 25 Nov '10 said:
To ensure that I'm not talking out of my ass, here's a quick gaming PC configuration I just made on spot made in the pcspecialist site in the UK:
AMD Phenom II x4 955 BE
Asus M4A87TD/USB3
2 GB RAM
1GB nVidia GTX460
500GB HD
DVD/Blu-ray readers and DVD/CD Burner
Internal card reader
19" Monitor
Logitech 2.1 Speakers
Total: £688
This is a PC that will last for at least 5 to 7 years without a major upgrade and a PC that can play anything you throw at it maxxed out. And I was actually gunning for a top rig, if you want to save more money in some parts you can, like choosing a dual-core instead of a quad-core.
badgerpog on 25 Nov '10 said:
It's not true that PC gaming is expensive. My upgrade cycle tends to be 3 - 4 years(ish). But with PC games from online retaillers tending to be upto £15 cheaper than consoles, this adds up if you play alot of games. I tend to get 15 - 20 games a year, that's quite a saving over console gaming.
But then I love the PS3 for LBP and the odd Rockstar game that doesn't make it to PC. And I understand that consoles are easier to use.
gilly83 on 25 Nov '10 said:
well the stats tell another tale...
Pc gaming has been "dead" for what ten yrs now?? lol truth is its still very much alive and kicking
MdDam on 25 Nov '10 said:
Yeap, when Nocht is pulling $100K per day on Minecraft alone, yeap, PC gaming won't be dead anytime soon, then again I've been hearing the PC gaming is dead BS ever since the original PS came out so I guess some peculiar myths won't die, despite the fact that Steam has 30 million unique users and the total installed userbase of PS3s is only 22 millions.
Oh no, console gaming is dying!!!!!
c3dpo on 25 Nov '10 said:
^^^
That's still all 3 consoles combined with change though!!!!!
Also, remember many people can't be arsed with driver updates and what not, couple that with come very weak compat testing and your uber looking game gets buggy due to X driver, meaning you must roll back and mess about.
The majority of console owners love the ease of use, pop in game and play (if ps3 install) then play, ohhh you need an update, auto done if connected!
There are many arguments to this rather than just the cash guys!
And to the dude that just posted about building a rig for 600 quid, thats awesome IF you know how to do it!!!! Many people are put off for one reason or another about messing about with all that! Yes, I know for most of us it's just techy stickebricks but LOADS wont even go there!
ChunkyMonkey on 25 Nov '10 said:
This is a good topic to cover to be honest, Kudos to you CVG. The first article I've read for weeks and I applaud it.
Anarion on 25 Nov '10 said:
I can still play pretty much every game maxed at 1080p without any problems on my 2.5 years old machine. My system is no where near the 1K€. Just ignorant console fan boys try to offer you that crap.
ChunkyMonkey on 25 Nov '10 said:
If I could like this I would, touché sir. Ignorance is bliss for the beholder huh.
lmimmfn on 25 Nov '10 said:
PC's are more than 1 generation ahead of consoles, a PC from 3 years ago would have better gfx than any of the consoles, have AA, higher resolution, higher res textures the list goes on.
Nowadays you cant even compare them, and this bull$hit about how expensive PC's are is nonsense. I keep a top end rig going for approx 200euro hardware spend per year( i but peripherals and stuff on top of that ), i save that on the games being cheaper on PC, so if i buy 10 games in a year then my spend + hardware = total cost of buying the same games on console. Of course theres the issue with not being able to trade PC games in, but i like to keep my games anyway as i love retro gaming and still have a tonne of my PS1 and PS2 games that i still play regularly on my PC.
Had a PS3 for 6 years, spent 2300euro in total on games and extra joypads and what not and its worthless now. Ive had a top end PC since 2005 and my total spend on Pc( from building one from scratch and excluding peripherals, i.e. G25, 2 extra screens etc, ) between 2005 and 2010 is less than 2300euro, and my rig is still easily worth more than 1300euro.
I usually upgrade fully every 2-3 years, never go bleading edge( just the level below that ), i.e. have an i7 920@4Ghz for the past year and a hald and not some insanely priced for idiots Intel Extreme processor.
Its fantastic to be gaming on PC
I was going to buy Gran Truismo yesterday but ill just be disappointed as i cant run it across 3 screens and have great headtracking so ill have to wait until its on cheapo as it cant compare to my PC experience
MdDam on 25 Nov '10 said:
Updating drivers used to be pain, keyword used. Now you just click on the driver icon and it will do all the work for you in a couple of minutes. Nowadays it's very rare for a new driver to totally mess up a game, in the rare occasion you roll back, again click on driver icon and let the PC do the rest.
I agree that many don't bother getting informed about PC configurations but the site I took this from actually automatically configures the PC for you without you having to browse the net for hours to find the best matching components, thankfully more and more sites are becoming like that as they see that many people aren't PC-hardware savvy nor should that be a requirement to get a PC, although it doesn't hurt if you have some hardware knowledge before you get a gaming PC. But building a PC, or at least choosing the components, isn't that hard and nothing a couple of hours browsing hardware sites can't fix.
paul on 25 Nov '10 said:
i agree not every body can afford top of the range pc,s i like pc games but i stick to ps3 for know my pc cost two grand but iam no rush to play pc games yet
infernoxXx on 25 Nov '10 said:
these guys are right, its a myth about paying every year to upgrade your pc. i bought a crappy dell for £200 2 years ago, spent £90 on it in the summer and now it plays all games at 1280x1024. not max settings but they at least match console graphics. MdDam overspent on that machine aswell. x4 955 BE costs £120, m4a87td/usb3.0 costs £70, 2gb ddr3 ram costs £25, gtx 460 1gb costs £150, 500gb hard drive costs £30, blu-ray drive + dvd-rw costs £50, internal card reader costs £7, a 22" monitor (bigger then his) with 1920x1080 resolution costs £110, logitech 2.1 speakers costs £20. overall cost £582 if you build it yourself, its still missing a case and power supply though, cost is also a bit higher than usual because of the blu-ray drive.
MdDam on 25 Nov '10 said:
I just picked a random UK PC hardware store and went with it.
Obviously those who spend some time tracking the best deals will get the best deal but my point was choosing a PC gaming rig from a random store is still waaaaaaay more cheap than many people claim it is.
STEVONYMO on 25 Nov '10 said:
I've been building and tinkering with Pc's since the DOS days and the main reason I have a PS3 is because as someone above said I just want to play, I don't want to arse around setting up configs etc. I know they are a whole lot better now but you really can't beat a huge screen and sat on comfy couch for gaming. Gone are the days of sitting in back room freezin my tits off trying to get a game running!
MdDam on 25 Nov '10 said:
You can do that with a PC as well too, just connect it to the HDTV and get a controller and there you go, couch fun with a PC. And most PC games, at least the good ones, work flawlessly without mixing any config, though there has been quite some exceptions lately, namely CoD:BOs and BC2.
gogo65uk on 25 Nov '10 said:
Only game I am waiting for on PC is guildwars 2 so I wont be considering upgrading my gaming pc until thats out at least. Although my laptop can run anygame out at the moment I dont like gaming with this keyboard. I'm not getting into this consolve vs pc BS again its a boring topic. play your pc/console enjoy it. Let others do what they wish.
badgerpog on 25 Nov '10 said:
You could just get a heater in your back room...
clayf1ghter on 25 Nov '10 said:
Release Battlefield 3 the true battlefield series then I shall update my rig. Until then I'm quite happy sticking with my consoles. I don't pretend to know much about pc's my bro built mine for me back when BF2 was released so for me it's a pain in the ass setting up games configuring stuff and updating drivers etc etc
nolim on 25 Nov '10 said:
The thing is Crytek, you can't argue with market forces and you can't change the market with one game. I have a relatively game capable pc and recently upgraded my graphics card to an nvidia 460gtx only to find absolutely nothing worth the investment. The only game i could find to show it off was Crysis Warhead and while it looked very nice that one game was not worth the cost. You may be leading the pack when it comes to PC development, the problem is that you (and maybe valve) are the only developers left in the pack. Besides it's not just the consoles holding you back, try running Crysis on your average laptop and see how far that gets you!
MdDam on 25 Nov '10 said:
Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad will more than likely put to good use your hardware, as well as the hardware of many.
altitude2k on 25 Nov '10 said:
Improved graphics != "next generation"
TOKEN on 25 Nov '10 said:
Stop making games for console market and let the hardware catch up.
only_777 on 25 Nov '10 said:
That PC would not run FFXIV in anything above medium settings. I have 4gig RAM and a different CPU to what you have written, but apart from that, thats my set-up you have listed there so I know that your wrong.
Trust me, I know FFXIV just look at my sig. If you want full proof, follow the link to the blog>forum>FFXIV board>benchmark scores.
ffcoppolla on 25 Nov '10 said:
Poor optimisation?
boskersrevenge on 25 Nov '10 said:
Yes, yes, yes, that's all very well, but I want to know....
....is a PC gaming rig really expensive? I just can't tell by the information in this thread
runadumb on 25 Nov '10 said:
I have pulled the trigger and ordered a 3 screen setup (collecting the monitors tomorrow) but I am starting to brick it a bit as I realise how demanding it is on GPU's. Holding off til December 13th to see what ATi has in store for us so I can do it from a single card. Thing is though, is one high-end card enough? I set aside a grand to make this happen but now I'm not sure that is enough. I will find out in 3 weeks I guess. Damn those monitors will be taunting me
BenThomasFoster on 25 Nov '10 said:
well actually 2 generations. GPU teccnology advancements with DX11, tessalation shader model 4, physx. is 1 generation. CPU tecnology with hyperthreading and well plane power is also a generation ahead such a shame:(
BenThomasFoster on 25 Nov '10 said:
My system specs of my £800 1 year old laptop:
Processor: Intel Core2 Duo CPU T6600 @ 2.20GHz
Memory: (RAM) 4.00 GB DDR3
Graphics: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4650
Screen:1366x768 all consoles up scale for at most 720p mine is just above that
HardDisk: 360GB
and all the laptop free bee's ect and oh i can play every game maxed out that is on console and ohh i can also play Napoleon Total war maxed out.
and i won't need to upgrade my graphics at all untill maybe the next generation of consoles come out or atleast until developers relise PC's are better. i own and xbox wierdly only for 2 reasons: ME1 and XBL if ME1 originally came out of PC and XBL was intergrated into windows perfectly like it its on xbox then i prob wouldn't have an xbox
nologo on 25 Nov '10 said:
i quit the gaming scene when i bought a house lol.
my mrs would go mental if i spent £1k on a new machine lol
Welsh Jester on 25 Nov '10 said:
More than a generation, i wish crytek would stop spewing out stupid games that are more like tech demo's rather than proper games.
Crysis is a good example, who wants to play a slideshow for 2-3 years until you an get a single video card powerful enough to play it smoothly. My 5870 slows down now and again below 60fps and you notice it when it reaches 30 or so, anyone who says otherwise is a liar.
Give me valve games like Half life and tripwires killing floor any day.
ArcticFox on 25 Nov '10 said:
No offence intended, but reading up on some of the console kiddi-... *ahem: gamers comments I can't help to wonder how lazy and <word meaning the opposite of intelligent> you are. PC Gaming is dead! Nevermind the hundreds of millions of PC's sold every year. Nevermind that there exist 25 million or so steam users (30+ registered but some are double accounts) and they are only a portion of all PC Gamers... nevermind all that.
So I stop to think... if so many can buy a PC on the cheap (in relation to computing and graphical excellence) and install drivers, why can't you?
Nah, for 10+ years I've been waiting for console gamers to prove they made a smart choice in shunning the PC all together. I reckon I'll wait another decade and still play exclusively on PC while you all yap inaccurate statements about PC gaming.
lmimmfn on 25 Nov '10 said:
3 screen setups are bloody amazing
As for the gpu, well it depends entirely on the resolution youre playing at. My 5850( OC'd to 5870 performance ) manages 99% of games maxed out with either no or 2xAA at a resolution of 3840x1024( i did my 3 screen setup for 80euro, had a 22" and a 19" and bought a second 19" second hand ) and with 50+FPS. If you run 3 screens at a resolution of 5760x1080 then 1 gfx card will NOT be enough, you could lower the settings and the resolution and it will be fine. Also running 3 screens means that more vram is used as you have loads more textures. Personally my next card will be a 2Gig card, im also waiting for ATI's new cards but their performance will be slightly behind NVidias 580 but hopefully the price will be good.
Out of the following:
Darksiders, F1 2010, Grid, Dirt 2, CoD BOPS,Mafia 2, Wings Of Prey, Bad Company 2, GTA IV & EFLC, Just Cause 2 i can run all of them at max with 0 or 2xAA. Bad Company however i have to have 1 or 2 settings on medium as i need 60FPS+ in that type of game, i also dont max out view distance in GTAIV( you need a 2Gig card for that even on a 1 screen setup ).
Hope you made sure 1 of those screens has DisplayPort or that you have an adapter for it for eyefinity.
lmimmfn on 25 Nov '10 said:
PCs are for men, consoles are for the kiddies, just because porn movies are more expensive than teletubbies doesnt mean you should spend your life watching teletubbies.
Ominous on 25 Nov '10 said:
Thank you for stating the obvious Mr. Cervat Yerli. Still- good to konw you think that way. Maybe now your studio can go back to making tech instead of half-baked showcase games? You should leave that to people who actually know how to make good titles. No, I'm not a hater- just stating the obvious, too.
For the record the PC is indeed suffering from low quality ports, but that has been the case for years, so I don't see a light, and with statements that can basically be translated as "We hate ourselves but we love money!", I think I'm not going to see the light soon.
End of rant.
*edit* PC gaming is not dead... and whoever said that is a moron.
runadumb on 25 Nov '10 said:
Ah cheers for the reply. I have ordered 3 Dell 2311H (£185 each during sale
) So yeah they have displayports and are 1920x1080p so I need super high-end s**t. Made sure I got displayport as I thought I would be going ATi this time around. The new cayman cards are meant to be 2GB which from reading eyefinity benchmarks is a must. Wish they didn't have to delay the 6990 as that would be idea (although maybe to long for my case). As you say I hope if they can't match the 580GTX for performance they can at least come in at a good price. Lets hope that they don't go above £400 but with 2GB of ram that may be wishful thinking.
Wonder if I won't mind dropping the settings a bit to get smoother 3 screen play. So used to just maxing most things out it will feel weird. Can't wait to try it though as it looks awesome
pRM8 on 25 Nov '10 said:
Oh man im late to the party, I've missed the juicy parts of this argument... I mean discussion
I play games on all platforms, I even have a DSi.... somewhere around here. But lets get one thing straight, you don't need the most expensive cutting-edge components to play current games at (for comparisons sake) console equalling 720p. Those quoting thousands of pounds are way off the mark, just because you can spent £1500 on a new PC doesn't mean you actually need to for the average res.
Its only once you start gaming above 1080p that the cost of the components needed to play at max settings significantly increases. Plus a PC can do more than the consoles so any extra cost over a console isn't wasted.
I feel its more about optimizing for the PC, developers are either finding it harder to scale and optimize or they are just not trying hard enough.
boskersrevenge on 25 Nov '10 said:
It's like some kind of damn nerd sauna in here.
h3r3tic666 on 25 Nov '10 said:
True , way ahead .. what's holding it back are those motherF****** DRMs and the lazy console ports.
PC are for men ... consoles are for pussies
Whoever says PC gaming is dying/dead is a retard.
lonewolf2002 on 25 Nov '10 said:
Exactly my PC(self build) was £480 not going to be playing above 1280x1024 as I have an old LCD monitor but the games can look/run a lot bettor on it plus I prefer KBAM for FPS and RPG's (not JRPG's as they are optimized for the pad/consoles).
9 times out of 10 you are better buying the mid-range PC stuff.
Oh and devs just aren't trying hard enough.
lmimmfn on 25 Nov '10 said:
DRM sux bigtime
bang on, you said it mate
Console gfx look like absolute $hit now, no wonder the advice on the back of games say sit several feet from the tv, so you cant see how s**t it looks lol.
wow, where did you get them for that price? i havnt found them any cheaper than £255. Theyre sweet screens, whenever i get my finances in order ill get 3 Dell 24" non crappy TN panels and a second gfx card.
I dont think youll mind dropping the settings, its a tad annoying as i rarely have to do it except for AA but sure thats more reason to upgrade in the future
. When you think avout 5760x1080 is an insane resolution to be gaming at/ Nearly 6 million pixels and the consoles struggle to get over 1 million lol.
KippDynamite on 25 Nov '10 said:
I say this as someone who grew up on PC's.
This is still more than double the price for a PS3. It's also good to keep in mind that a lot of people prefer to buy a put-together machine with a warranty.
Also, anyone who thinks crysis 1 is a genration ahead of uncharted 2 . . . I would simply disagree.
lmimmfn on 25 Nov '10 said:
Twice the price of a sold at a loss console? wheres your reasoning there? you pay 35euro for a pc game, you pay 55euro for the same game on the PS3? see where the money is going to pay back for that hardware that you got below cost?
You also get warranties with PC's prebuilt, and each and every part has its own warranty if youre building.
lmfao, you have to be joking? hahaha, how you can even put those 2 games in the same sentence in regards gfx quality is laughable.
You compare this where all the plantlife moves as you walk through it and you can shoot trees down and they split based on where you shot them, also its a sandbox and because of that needs far more horsepower as things cant be optimized as you can do with non sandbox games, GTA is a classic example of it ):
http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/3079/2pblu.jpg
with this
With this
http://www.thebuzzmedia.com/wp-content/ ... rted_2.jpg
where most things are static and the textures are low resolution, also the resolution is only 1280x720
Dont get me wrong, Uncharted 2 is a very nice looking game, but its bulls**t to compare it with crysis
pRM8 on 25 Nov '10 said:
Yeah but you keep coming back for more, eh bosker...
KippDynamite on 25 Nov '10 said:
I don't own stock with Sony so I don't really care if PS3s used to be sold at a loss. Warranties come on pre-made PCs which cost much more than self-built ones. Also, I buy used games and pay $20-25 for them.
When I say I simply disagree with someones opinion on graphics then there is no need to show me screenshots. It's okay if we think differently about something. We don't need to convert each other.
runadumb on 25 Nov '10 said:
Right place at the right time
http://www.hotukdeals.com/deals/monitor ... 880?page=9 The extra 10% will come from Quidco which hasn't tracked yet but then I haven't collected them yet. Tomorrow...they will taunt me tomorrow.
infernoxXx on 25 Nov '10 said:
really you could easily build a pc for around £400-500 which would play all games at at least 720p with good settings on all games. plus we have steam sales (and other download services), mod support and upgradability. the truth is, it might cost you more to build a pc at first but the price to upgrade is less than building fresh.
Masterspy on 25 Nov '10 said:
Who care's! We'll actually have the technology to run this one!
koimaster on 25 Nov '10 said:
Hit the nail on the head right there!
Ne0ne on 25 Nov '10 said:
You can buy a high spec PC for £500-£600 pounds that will run most games in the highest setting. Not only that you can buy games for a fraction of the cost that console gamers pay. I have just bought Kane & Lynch 2 for £3.75 and Batman Arkam Asylum for £5 through Steam. The PC may cost more initially but this is balanced over time with cheap games, especially if you use Steam. Also the settings i can run these games at make the console versions look and feel tacky.
ps3killzone3 on 25 Nov '10 said:
probly sat in a corner hunched up over a desk isnt a big turn on for most people and since there is like a new GFX card out every 5months its not pratical at all,people just wanna be set for a few years ,and its this reason why they is no games for high end pc`s bar a few(devs just dont know where they stand,not to mention its expensive and most pc games are pirated ).
All these high end pc`s do is up scale games and add AA which make them look a little better than console games.i wanna see a game made that makes full use of these high end computers(not just looking sharper but massive games with out of this world AI and story line and massive difference in graphics) and be able to buy them same price as a console.
ffcoppolla on 25 Nov '10 said:
Just because there's a new graphics card out every 5 months, doesn't mean you HAVE to buy them. And a PC upscales games? Only if it's emulating.
am_gers2K8 on 25 Nov '10 said:
Have to say that, Pc is a very unstable market, they upgrade so fast and many don't upgrade with it.
this means that developers can't just grab a computer and develop to its limits, it has to develop to the average level, which is almost unknown.
Consoles offer a level playing ground as you know what you can do and can develop to the full potential of that machine, and know that it is playable on all models of that console
veato on 25 Nov '10 said:
2GB RAM? Don't make me laugh!
GTX460? 1920x1200 2xAA 16xAF DX10 Crysis..... 22fps!!
You will NOT get 5-7 years from that spec whilst playing the latest games maxxed out!
MdDam on 25 Nov '10 said:
Wanna bet? Unless you're a graphics whore and want ultra high resolutions if you actually read the post you would notice that the monitor is 19", 1440x900 res, so yes you will be able to use this PC for 5 to 7 years easily and most people would be pretty happy with it.
MdDam on 25 Nov '10 said:
facepalm.jpg
There's no graphics cards coming out each 5 months (This happened 10 years ago), PCs don't upscale games (that's a retarded statement), getting a gaming rig costs as much as £600 for a top-notch one, and Santa doesn't exist.
There, I think I killed most of those pesky myths. Surprised that the graphics card each 5 months myth is still around, this is a myth that lasts for 10 years and yet is so far from the truth that Santa existing would be more likely to become true.
only_777 on 25 Nov '10 said:
You either didn't want to answer my post, or just skipped it becuase you'r so wrong!
MdDam on 26 Nov '10 said:
I didn't comment because FFXIV is not exactly the shining example of a PC game well done, you know? Until the mess it is is fixed I really can't comment on it and like I've said in my OP, there will be examples, mainly badly coded games for the PC where no amount of hardware will save you from a terrible experience.
With this rig you can run Crysis with the specs the guy above mentioned at the monitor's native resolution, 1440x900. You can't get a better benchmark than Crysis and 1440x900 is enough for most gamers out there.
blind_fools on 26 Nov '10 said:
Always loved PC gaming, always will but its far too costly!
i spent the good end of 3K AUD last feb building my PC, if i was to buy it built a similar dell XPS or alinware would of cost me closer to 4K!
17 940, 470GTX,8GB DDR3 ram, SSD, and 2 7200RPM HHDs, alienware gaming monitor.
Was very happy with it, could play anything on max settings till mafia 2 came out.
I could not play it properly, everything maxed out i was lucky to get a average 20FPS!
same with COD BO, actually even worse with everything maxed out im only getting a max of 18FPS!
Even metro 2033 im only getting a average FPS of around 30.
So i reluctantly bought a new 480 to try help things along, justified it at least next year when i upgrade to 3D i wont need a new card.
Now ive got my 480 as graphics and the 470 as the physX card, and everythings running better but still not how it should!
You would think running a 470 AND 480 would give you 60FPS easy, but you would be wrong.
No matter which game i play i cant get a average above 50.
I want to upgrade to 3D next year, as far as i know that effectively cuts your FPS in half so now ill be getting a average of 25 FPS.
Im a massive PC fan, ill defend it to the death, but the day i have to spend over 1 thousand bucks just to get my games ruining smoothly.
well thats just freaking redicelious!
if it takes 1 470 and 1 480 to get 50FPS in metro mafia 2 in 2D, i dont even want to imagine what it will take to get 50FPS in 3D for crysis 2!
I love it when games come out and really push hardware to the limit, but theres a line, 2 of the industries most powerful cards should be more than sufficient to run a game at 60FPS, afteral that is the whole point of playing games on PC over consoles.
If im only going to get 40FPS or lower than i might as well save the thousand bucks and play them on a console!
runadumb on 26 Nov '10 said:
Okay while I agree with some of what you said I want to address some of it from my own personal perspective. Upgrading from a 470 to a 480 makes no sense in terms of cost-performance ratio, that was a waste of money.
You said Mafia 2 was slow maxed out? What resolution is that at? I can max it out (Physix off) and nail 60Fps at 1680x1050 on a GTX260.
Lastly, and this is the most important point,it's only so expensive because you are going after such a high bar. You could run your games at console level 720p with a much much cheaper system. People are quick to run out and buy their 1080p or higher 24 inch monitors and then moan when their run of the mill (not your) PC can't handle it at that res maxed out with 16AA/AF.
It's like crysis, people constantly repeat the same bull "You need a £2000 PC to play it". No you don't and you never did. I played it on medium settings at 1024x768 on a 7950GTO. Then on high with a 8800GT and most recently on max at 1680x1050 on a 260GTX. Sure it got a bit choppy here and there but I could live with it. But people seem to expect it to run at 60fps at 1080p maxed out and they always have. Crytek said when making the game they not only wanted it to be the best looking game today but for the next 3 years and they succeeded in that but boy did it backfire. People got it into their heads that no PC could run it when even a mid range PC could handle it fine at medium and it still looks as good as any console game today at those settings.
I shall be gaming on 3 screens soon and it is going to cost a bomb. Will I bitch I can't max out every game anymore? Yes...lol..but I will be gaming at 5760x1080 so I am paying a premium to get the premium experience. My choice
veato on 26 Nov '10 said:
Which defeats the object for me of gaming on a PC. If I'm putting the effort into building a gaming PC I'm not going to bother with 1440x900, I might as well get a cheaper and 'easier' console. Gaming on the PC excels due to being at the forefront of graphics/gaming tech - high res, physx, 3D, tessalation, DX11, etc etc. I want the game to run in all its glory not reduce the native res of my monitor and claim "well.... it's still better than a console".
I've been gaming on the PC since 1994 and have upgraded through every iteration of technology from my first proper gaming card (Voodoo 2) to putting in a lot of hours fine tuning my latest rig (including 'lapping' the CPU and cooler and overclocking).
One thing I've learnt throughout the years is that despite the claim that PC gaming is as cheap as/hardly more expensive than console gaming is nonsense. When I build a rig I do it proper, to stay at the forefront of graphics and tech, not build something that barely runs a higher res than my console.
I'm under no illusion how much a good, rock solid, quality build costs (my current PSU alone cost £85 for example)
AJDarkstar on 26 Nov '10 said:
All I really want from a PC or Mac is decent video capability for the kinds of projects I do. Consoles are easier to use and far more reliable for gaming. Mac could be a better platform with the right kind of graphics card, as it still has far fewer possible configurations, greatly enhancing the likelihood that a game will run on your system. PCs have too many possible configurations, and creating games that take advantage of all processor types (CPU & GPU) must be a nightmare. Bring on the AMD hybrid chip -- it might pave the way for PC gaming once more, who knows?
kbekl on 26 Nov '10 said:
i have 2 pc's my games rig and the kids rig,
spec of the kids rig
core2duo 1.8ghz
2gb ram
ati 4650 512gb
500gb hdd
win7
this rig can run f1 2010 (altho it shouldnt be able to) on medium setting on 32" lcd tv at 1280x720 using xbox 360 pad and it still looks better than my brothers version on the xbox360 and is alot alla smoother
all my pc's auto update the drivers
and mafia 2 runs fine without any slowdown on medium as well
the rig above cost all of £150 to build
now have you console owners seen them little pc's that sit under the tv yet, about the size of a freeview box cost about £300 how soon will these start to show better hardware inside to run games
the point of the article was to say that the consoles are holding games back, which you console owners have to admit is true, with poor ports to the pc the dev's are just using the consoles as a cash cow, pc has lost a lot of intrest due to the poor ports,
i hear mention of the pirate problem, that makes me laugh every time i hear about pc pirates, right go to any market and what do you find copied games wise erm sure it is console games, their is more pirates on the console that their are on the pc, why is that then oh yer cause their are more games on them and who really wants to pirate a poor port any way.
easiest way to find out how much consoles are hold the games back is to check out the requirements for the games that a series take mass effect for 1 the original pc game was quite resource heavy back in 2008 now tho mass effect 2 is only just wanting more but will run on the same spec
Sleepaphobic on 26 Nov '10 said:
This wouldn't be a problem if the new consoles were out this year or next at the latest but wtf they want another 5 years out of these ancient machines?
stonemonkey on 26 Nov '10 said:
MdDam on 25 Nov '10
That's all very well but that £688 doesn't include a PSU, case or an operating system
PSU 600w - £40
Case - £50
Operating system (seeing as GTX480 is DX11) Windows 7 - £120
£688 + £40 + £50 + £120 = £898 + shipping £20 = £918
infernoxXx on 26 Nov '10 said:
Wanna bet? Unless you're a graphics whore and want ultra high resolutions if you actually read the post you would notice that the monitor is 19", 1440x900 res, so yes you will be able to use this PC for 5 to 7 years easily and most people would be pretty happy with it.
Which defeats the object for me of gaming on a PC. If I'm putting the effort into building a gaming PC I'm not going to bother with 1440x900, I might as well get a cheaper and 'easier' console. Gaming on the PC excels due to being at the forefront of graphics/gaming tech - high res, physx, 3D, tessalation, DX11, etc etc. I want the game to run in all its glory not reduce the native res of my monitor and claim "well.... it's still better than a console".
I've been gaming on the PC since 1994 and have upgraded through every iteration of technology from my first proper gaming card (Voodoo 2) to putting in a lot of hours fine tuning my latest rig (including 'lapping' the CPU and cooler and overclocking).
One thing I've learnt throughout the years is that despite the claim that PC gaming is as cheap as/hardly more expensive than console gaming is nonsense. When I build a rig I do it proper, to stay at the forefront of graphics and tech, not build something that barely runs a higher res than my console.
I'm under no illusion how much a good, rock solid, quality build costs (my current PSU alone cost £85 for example)
thats up to your own personal preference. me in the other hand would go for the best performance for my money, which is usually the mid range systems. if you look at processors at the moment, the i7 950 costs £240, whereas the i7 960 costs £435. there is no reason to pay around £200 more for just 5% more performance. graphics cards and processors are always getting better. ati's HD3850 (top range card) is now matched in performance by a HD5570 (mid range card costing £60) that uses under half of the power (95w vs 42w). crysis is also a badly coded game, crytek themselves have admitted that and thats why crysis 2 will have lower system requirements. 2gb ddr3 ram is cheap atm, £25 from ebuyer. not sure where you got the 22fps from, anandtech review says crysis warhead on gamer quality and enthusiast shaders @1920x1080 with the gtx 460 1gb produces an average of 33.8fps at stock clocks. the £30-40 cheaper gtx 460 768mb produces an average of 29.6fps. the performance is higher now from driver updates. being at the forefront of graphics/gaming tech is only 1 part of pc gaming, others like me are happy with a mid/low range system.
rath789 on 26 Nov '10 said:
The only Pc games that still sell are MMOs like war craft and free realmz
sonic_uk on 26 Nov '10 said:
This article is a flame baiting inferno. Think I'll stick well clear as I like to do my gaming on a wide variety of platforms(including the P.C and current gen consoles)and acknowledge each machine has its own exclusive games, advantages and disadvantages.
lmimmfn on 26 Nov '10 said:
Dont know about the all the games you have issues with but theres something wrong with your setup for Mafia 2, I have everything maxed out, except physx on medium( have an 8800GT for physx ) and i get 40FPS @ 3840x1024.
Metro is a beast, you cant run it in DX11 with the depth of field on unless you have 2 cards in SLI
Black ops i run maxed with 2xAA and i get 50FPS average @ 3840x1024.
Also your system is unnecessarliy imbalanced, youre better off selling that 470 and getting another 480 or selling the 470 + 480 and getting a 580. Anything about an 8800GT dedicated for Physx is a waste.
MdDam on 26 Nov '10 said:
Just because you want to build a top-of-the-line gaming rig doesn't mean everyone else will. Most, yes most, PC gamers out there will go for cost effective solutions than just buying the most expensive things they see. That makes you a bad PC hardware shopper if you want to buy the newest and latest.
I defer to infernoxXx's reply which pretty much sums what I would have said.
In sum, just because you want the best and most expensive components doesn't mean everyone else will want it, or that you will have a much better gaming experience compared to those who buy with cost in consideration just because you have the most expensive components around. Any good PC gamer enthusiast knows how to buy smartly.
Getting a PC with monitor is still less expensive than getting a console with a HDTV, heck it's almost as expensive as getting only a console, you only need to understand that you don't need the best equipment available for you to be able to play games in excellent conditions, that's the mentality of a console gamer who's so out of touch with PC gaming they might as well live in another world.
blind_fools on 26 Nov '10 said:
i run all my games at full settings, IE 1920X1080, 4XAA, physx on high, everything maxed out normally besides AA i have that either on 2 or 4 and motion blur normally off.
thats what i normally do, but obviously if the FPS drop too much i start bumping things down.
Yea, i could do that, i could run my games at 720P but whats the point?
If I'm going to run my games at 720P i might as well play them on my ps3.
I would sell my 470 and 9800 to get a 580 but 2 things stop me from doing that.
1 i cant find anyone who will buy them.
2 i cant find anyone who has the 580 in stock, every shop around me has it for 800 bucks but fully sold out for the next 6 or so weeks.
plus they have back orders, so when there new stock comes in that will go solely on back orders so it will be a while before i can get one.
O,BTW I'm looking at upgrading to a 3D PC soon anyone know a good place to find cheap hardware?
I'm tossing up between getting the Asus VG236H or the alienware AW2310.
They have almost exactly the same specs, but i have heard the alienware has really bad ghosting.
veato on 26 Nov '10 said:
Bollox did it. Win 7 alone (OEM) is £70ish quid. Where's the case, PSU, keyboard, mouse, CD/DVD........
veato on 26 Nov '10 said:
Bit-tech review of the GTX460 1GB
They show minimum and average scores (fps) as it's fairer. No point showing the maximum as you're not always going to get that frame rate.
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphi ... d-review/1
PS3_fannyboy on 26 Nov '10 said:
In fact, I often wonder whether it is the other way around, and if it is actually the PC which is holding back the current range of consoles?
The problem in my eyes is that the PC is seen as the territory of the hardcore geek and it is almost considered de facto that anybody who desires the "full experience" should fork out for a beast of a gaming PC!
Now, personally, I would rather see a little bit of console Communism applied here!
If the PC was delegated to its primary task of being an office tool then perhaps we might see some of the newer tech bleeding into the console market. As is, it seems that the PC fraternity is a ever-shrinking club of elitists who have managed to keep their chubby mitts glued to the best technology...
Now if they put the same amount of effort into further developing the Cell......then we'd be talking!
MdDam on 26 Nov '10 said:
1,680 x 1,050 4xAA 16xAF, DirectX 10, Very High Detail
26fps average. Not that bad at all, considering the game. If we consider all the other games on that review then the 460 has a stellar performance.
Again, unless you're a hardcore PC enthusiast who wants every single piece of expensive hardware out there a 460 will be fine for the majority of PC gamers, so much so it's often an out of stock card.
MdDam on 26 Nov '10 said:
The C2D at 1.8 shows it's an old CPU, so you can find them very cheaply today.
2GB ram are also cheap nowadays, for a rig like that you won't get state-of-the-art RAM.
A 4650 gfx card costs about £35 (http://www.scan.co.uk/products/1gb-xfx- ... dvi-tv-out)
A 500GB isn't expensive either.
Case, PSU, keyboard and mouse will be very cheap for a system like that.
Taking Win7 away the system above is actually pretty much £150 or less.
nb_nmare2 on 26 Nov '10 said:
You shouldn't have even included the cost of a monitor in that - after all you wouldn't include the cost of a TV when you're talking about console prices
.
KippDynamite on 26 Nov '10 said:
The complexity of the comments section should be evidence enough for why many people simply buy a console.
Warrior24_7 on 27 Nov '10 said:
Look, to ALL of those PC b!tche$ who continue to whine about the powerful PC...STFU!! The platform sucks balls and "you're" the reason! I don't get this from b!tching from Crytek. You decided to not be PC exclusive, "you" are the creator of the PC game, so practice what you preach!! Be "that" developer that sets the standard. Who is telling you NOT to create a kicka$$ PC game? Don't blame the console, blame yourself, you're the developer, or did you forget that! Practice what you preach!
veato on 27 Nov '10 said:
1. Console gamer that's out of touch with PC gaming? Really? Give yourself a facepalm chap.
2. Most people dont buy a HDTV to play a console, they've already got one in the lounge/bedrooom. It's called the TV.
3. I never said I buy the most expensive components. If anything I (as I did with the Q6600 and the Opteron 146 before it) I'm happy to buy lesser componetns with overhead for overclocking. I took sandpaper to my Q6600 the day I bought it to help with cooling and overclocking. What I eluded to is PC gaming is on the cutting edge of graphics and gaming tech. So what's the point in forking out on a rig to play at 1440x900.
veato on 27 Nov '10 said:
No it's not. Where's the rest of the system. Where's the motherboard? Where's the rest of the PC. THAT is not a full rig.
veato on 27 Nov '10 said:
Ok... popped over to Overclockers and priced up a system. It came to £655.83.
These were the considerations:-
Budget components where possible
Gaming peripherals as it's a gaming PC
Minimum 1680x1050 monitor resolution
Graphics card capable of playing most games at 1680x1050 in reasonable quality (to be "better" than a console)
GTX460 1GB - OCUK Value card (value item, not branded)
Iiyama 22" monitor
Windows 7 64-bit OEM
OCZ 4GB 1333Mhz (Slowest DDR3 available)
Corsair 600w (Value no frills PSU)
Pentium Dual Core E5400 (Budget CPU)
Gigabyte GA-G31 (Budget motherboard)
500GB Sata II
Asus case (Budget case)
Saitek gaming mouse
Saitek gaming keyboard
Logitech 2.1 speakers (Budget speakers)
Lite-On DVD-RW (Cheapest one)
So that's it. Something capable of playing most PC games at decent settings at 1680x1050 for £655. Everything is scaled back to budget though with a cheap and limited on features motherboard, low end CPU, unbranded graphics card, no EAX audio support, etc.
So that's more than double the cost of a console and still nowhere near the bleeding edge of tech (will struggle at higher res with AA, no SATA 6gbps, no USB 3, dual core only, etc). And it wont last 5-7 years either.
PCs are amazing tools. If you want to significantly improve the graphics over the console counterparts though you need to spend more than double on a new rig and still be left with a 'budget' machine. Try DX11 at 1080p with 4xAA/16xAF, surround sound/EAX, using good peripherals on a good size screen and the cost expands rapidly.
veato on 27 Nov '10 said:
Did you bother to see the rest of the test system? Not exactly a budget machine is it!
•Intel Core i7-965 processor (3.2GHz: 133MHz x 24)
•Asus P6T V2 motherboard (Intel X58 Express with three PCI-Express 2.0 x16 slots)
•3x 2GB Corsair TR3X6G1333C9 memory modules (operating in dual channel at DDR3 1,600MHz 9-9-9-24-1T)
•Corsair X128 120GB SSD running v1 firmware
•Corsair HX1000W PSU
•Windows 7 Home Premium x64
•Antec Twelve Hundred Chassis
runadumb on 27 Nov '10 said:
I just gave a cheap build a whirl (from the same site) and came to £622 featuring the following:
BenQ G2222HDL 21.5" Widescreen LED Monitor - Black
Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit - OEM (GFC-00599)
AMD Athlon II X4 Quad Core 630 2.80GHz (Socket AM3) - Retail
Gigabyte GA-880GM-UD2H AMD 880G (Socket AM3) microATX DDR3 Motherboard
OCZ Gold 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3 PC3-10666C9 1333MHz Low-Voltage Dual Channel
Western Digital RE2 500GB SATA-II 16MB Cache - OEM (WD5000YS)
Logitech Wireless Desktop MK300 (920-001633)
OCUK EZCool NA-705 Case - Black (500w PSU)
Logitech S-220 2.1 Speaker System - OEM (980-000022)
Samsung SH-D163C/BEBE SATA 16x DVD-ROM (Black) - OEM
Just did it for a laugh and I personally wouldn't touch this system. Actually thought I would have saved more going the AMD route, that £20 case even includes a 500W PSU lol, must be of dangerous quality.
I do agree with you that the "only cost £150 to build" guy talking a lot of balls but why are we here building a new budget PC to game on anyway? Don't most of us already have PC's? Why not look at how much it would cost to turn that into a decent rig? Might need a new CPU (go Quad or nothing!), probably a PSU (Corsair do a solid 430Watt one for under £40) and a GPU, which if you just go last gen would only be around £50. I will be selling my 260GTX next month and it won't go for over that (unless people are really stupid) and it can game great at 1680x1050 and i'm currently doing it now at 1920x1080 and it is holding it's own on the games I have tried.
So instead of all this "Build a gaming rig" stuff just add up the cost of upgrading the PC in your home. Hey maybe it's a dead duck and little can be salvaged but maybe, just maybe, a simple GPU upgrade would allow you to rip though the current games, but at a much higher resolution than the consoles allow.
djreplay on 27 Nov '10 said:
Yeah it would be nice to have the best graphics and physics but I wouldn't want to play it on a small monitor and putting it in the living room is a chore. Sorting out a wireless controller is a chore. That's why we have consoles, so we don't have to upgrade and what not. People aren't interested in graphics and physics, there interested in fun and a 3 screen pc gaming rig does not mean I'm going to enjoy the game anymore.
hephaestos on 27 Nov '10 said:
that's why all PC games should be optimized for 3D... it'll eat up some of that extra horsepower that's not used due to HD consoles.
Ne0ne on 29 Nov '10 said:
I hear Star Craft (RTS) sold a few (Million) copies.
Ne0ne on 29 Nov '10 said:
He is referring to the price of the hardware, not the software. If you self build a PC you can save a good few £££, plus its your RIG something you built and modded yourself.
only_777 on 29 Nov '10 said:
No, he is including Win7 in with the cost. But you can get it for about £20 if you just buy the key and then download the iso from a torrent. But that price is still way off, what about the motherboard and like Veato said, what about the PSU?
Ne0ne on 29 Nov '10 said:
True they should have been included in the price. He might have used spare parts from an old rig and forgot about them when looking at his bill.
I sold my old PC to friend of mine, Althon 64 3800, 8800 GTS, 2 Gig ram. This system is over 4 years old and he can still play all the games I do, only at slightly lower settings(still looking better than console). You can have a reasonable priced PC for 5-600 hundred pounds that will be ' A generation ahead of PS3 and 360'. If you have to run games at '32AA 16AF & max Tessalation' you will need to spend £1000+ on a top end rig but that to me is not needed.
veato on 30 Nov '10 said:
Which is conveinient when gamers talk about how cheap gaming rigs are
Chateau on 1 Dec '10 said:
I think allot of people are missing the point....All platforms, pc, ps3, x360 etc are all successful on one simple merit….Software availability….
Look at every gaming platform since day one…..The success of every console/platform to date has been down to software and games…Dreamcast, GameCube, Sega Saturn, all failed examples.
I’ve been a pc gamer since the early nineties (I’m talking 486 SX 25mhz days!!) I’ve also owned pretty much every console under the sun at some point. PC has always been my preferred platform. Better graphics, better online, better mods, better communities. …
Now straight to the point…..Over the last few years I’ve moved to my Xbox rather than pc for gaming, why? The games! Games just aren’t made for the PC anymore…Most developers make games for consoles, then port them to the PC….The problem with this is lazy development, menus ported straight from the console to the PC, poor optimisation. But honestly who can blame developers? PC gamers, in a way, have themselves to blame. Over the years and various Lans I’ve attended it's obvious many gamers choose to “download” games rather than buy them, couple this with the fact there are a lot more people playing consoles compared to pc’s, and you can get away charging £40 on an console rather than £25 on a pc.
I hate to admit it, but PC has had its hay day….unless developers take a real interest in the platform it will never reach its formal glory.
Lets not forget the Xbox is pretty much a PC running direct x 9 anyway.
P.S any news on a new counter strike??
pRM8 on 1 Dec '10 said:
I now declare this the most quoted thread EVER!
Well done folks...
lonewolf2002 on 2 Dec '10 said:
I concur.
solamon77 on 14 Mar '11 said:
True. The 360 and PS3 are both starting to show their age a bit, but I do NOT agree that this is going to some how limit someones "creative expression." So a game won't have bleeding edge graphics, no big deal. If anything, developers get MORE creative the close we get to the golden years of current-gen consoles.
THE SALT on 21 Mar '11 said:
PC gamers might have the best hardware, its a pity their gaming skills dont match.
All this talk of K&B being superior for FPS is rubbish. Im actually quite bad at K&B however I can go into any COD or BF game on the PC and decimate the multitude of scrubs with minimal effort.
Pity you cant upgrade ya skills like ya hardware eh....stick to ya RTS & hacks cos I tell ya what you guys have no idea on how to shoot! LOL!
only_777 on 28 Mar '11 said:
GTFO, never let me see your face again.
kbekl on 30 Apr '11 said:
lets just clarify something here win 7 came with the kids laptop that got smashed so it didnt cost me anything
right the complete setup was
£30 case and 350w psu was the kids so didnt matter too much and due to the graphics card i chose meant it didnt need to be powerful best thing is to check your power consumption be for you buy
i bought the board second hand and was complete with core2duo + the 2gb of ram for £60 ebay
hdd cost me £35 from ebay
the gfx card cost me £30
so ok i was out by a £5
i did have a cheap spare kb&mouse knocking about but hell add £10 to it so total cost was £165
with the hdmi out on the gfx card the pc is able to be attached to any of the tv's in the house and it is capable of running dx11
justforkicks101 on 30 Apr '11 said:
god bless ebay eh, 150 well spent
veato on 30 Apr '11 said:
The Win7 license (OEM with the laptop) is non-transferable
kbekl on 2 May '11 said:
the laptop was my son's and was a student's unit and was part of a msdn program and he can keep the license on the new machine
veato on 2 May '11 said:
Which leads me back to my original point of PC Gamers announcing just how "super-cheap" it is to build a PC yet it's never that straightforward.
kbekl on 3 May '11 said:
well actually not really windows is more of a mainstream platform but linux will play most games for free with a program call wine and it is getting better all the time and whats best is linux and wine are free.
dont get me wrong if you want a decent life out of the pc then it will cost alot more mine did and mine is out of date by some way with todays hard ware but i havnt found a reason to upgrade yet so i will keep to the c2q and the 5770 until they start to take the platform seriously
back to question in hand tho are the consoles holding back development? well yes of cause they are why make upto date physics when people will pay through the nose for the out of date ones, but the consoles have a more dire effect on pc games than this with bad ports and this is what holds the pc back more than anything i just wished the developers gave more to the platform than they do at the mo