Microsoft might be making a song and dance about the advent of DirectX 10 and the new experience it brings to PC gaming, but Epic vice president Mark Rein reckons we won't see it adopted in earnest by developers and publishers for several years.
"To be honest, and I'm going to cast a small pall on the industry here, I don't think you're going to get much higher until the next generation of consoles," Rein told CVG when asked what we can expect from DX 10 beyond what we're seeing in Crysis.
One reason for this, he said, is that the gulf between a high-end PC and a low-end PC is bigger now than it's ever been, and the low-end has been anchored while the high end just gets higher "and it becomes less and less economically viable to do the super high-end stuff".
"And in addition, just now we're just barely coming into the sweet spot of the next-gen consoles... We're at the point where it's viable to ship games on these next-gen consoles and it's going to be a gold mine for a couple of years.
"Publishers are generally putting their money where the highest return is, and in the past that's been on consoles and I think that's still the case. So if you build the game that's a really super amazing high-end game, how do you make all the money you could make from that game, because it'll be too high end eventually to be on PS3 or Xbox 360"
Rein reckons there are developers who will dabble with DirectX 10 and a couple of PC-only games, or games that their big market is PC, will push the envelope a bit, "But I don't see people going way, way over what these consoles can do because then they can't sell the game... they have to dumb the games down for the consoles. Consoles will pretty much define what the next five years of games look like on the PC", Rein added.
However, he said that what we'll also see from PC games in the meantime is the ability to turn everything up a visual notch.
"That's the value to me of the PC, that the source content we have is still really high resolution, much higher than we can show on a 512MB machine. You can use that content on the PC, you can express it in higher resolutions and higher frame rates and turn on more effects. I think that's what you'll see, PC games where we turn it up higher."
Well they look pretty good (current console games) to me, so I would'nt worry too much. Also, this could be a bonus to pc gamers as they may not need to update their graphics cards again for a few years.
Nah, I don't buy into that. Devs will push the graphics envelope for their games and just have a simple 'lower graphics' setting for inferior machines (be it consoles or low spec PCs).
Look at the the current DX10 games, they have a DX9 version also. I can't see the devs waiting around for the next generation of consoles just to fully implement DX10.
I've been thinking something similar for a while now. This gen of consoles is basically Dx9, which introduced pixel shaders and more advanced lighting techniques.
The only changes to Dx10 are the move to Vista drivers and slightly optimised rendering techniques - that's hardly a move worth trading in your 18-month-old (at the most) console.
The very fact that consoles don't need to worry about drivers and a clumsy background OS means their hardware requirements are much lower, so you can spend that extra CPU time to make up for the slightly older system.
But I think consoles and PCs have strengths in different types of games. Generally speaking, RTS and FPS are easier to work on PC, whereas sports games and 3rd person action titles work better on consoles. If they stick to their strengths, there's no saying one has to hold the other back at all - they'll just advance independently.
Well a gaming PC costs over a grand, and a PS3 is less than half that, and a 360 a 5th, and a basic Vista PC starts at just over Ł300, surely the PC gaming market must be shrinking? And now they're trying to get us to upgrade to Vista/DX10 to play the new games? madness !
PC gaming has been moving way too fast lately. Machine specs have spun widely out of control and many I know have just abandoned it for the simpler plug and play system of consoles.
I still see Game Developers pushing the visuals to the limits on PC mainly because you have those titles with the Nvidia or ATI logo at the start and I'm sure they are giving the developers access to their latest and greatet hardware so they can begin on the next one
As for Vista no thanks, my laptop came with it and it was taken right off. Maybe I will have Vista on my next build sometime next year but for now I'll stick to XP.
And now they're trying to get us to upgrade to Vista/DX10 to play the new games? madness !
You mean like you had to upgrade to PS3/360 to play the new games?
PC gaming may be more expensive but you get generally better games(the PC only ones anyway), alot cheaper games and a machine that a damn sight more multimedia that the consoles.
Not to mention that pricey HDTV that you need to get the most from a console
Nah, I don't buy into that. Devs will push the graphics envelope for their games and just have a simple 'lower graphics' setting for inferior machines (be it consoles or low spec PCs).
Look at the the current DX10 games, they have a DX9 version also. I can't see the devs waiting around for the next generation of consoles just to fully implement DX10.
But then what do I know
You've pretty much agreed with what he said, but phrased it as though you disagree. Games will be designed around the lower end machines, but you can boost up the resolutions similar settings.
What he said is true & it's been the case with the last generation of consoles too.
It's a good thing because it means less expensive upgrades are required every few months as was the case in the past.
As he said though, there will be games which are made primarily for PC (such as Crysis) that will be designed to take proper advantage of PC technologies, such as DX10.
5 years is stretching it a bit I think - the 360 has already been out almost 2 years - I'd suggest another 3 years or round about, and in two or so years devs will be working on launch titles for the next gen of consoles.
Nah, I don't buy into that. Devs will push the graphics envelope for their games and just have a simple 'lower graphics' setting for inferior machines (be it consoles or low spec PCs).
Look at the the current DX10 games, they have a DX9 version also. I can't see the devs waiting around for the next generation of consoles just to fully implement DX10.
But then what do I know
You've pretty much agreed with what he said, but phrased it as though you disagree. Games will be designed around the lower end machines, but you can boost up the resolutions similar settings.
I was mainly referring to his comment about devs dabbling with DX10. Sorry, shoulda made it clearer. However, I feel entirley vindicated due to my final comment
Isn't Direct X 10 another technology designed to get people locked into the Microsoft world. Or am I wrong. Have they developed it to make the video games better regardless of what operating system you choose?
I agree with the person who said PC gaming is moving way too fast. I upgraded my PC last year to an 2GB Athlon64 X2 4200+ with a 512MB GeForce 7900 GT and already it's out of date and struggling with the latest games at high-resolutions, e.g. Colin McRae DiRT. That means I'll be forced to upgrade again.
It would be nice if PC developers made more of an effort to support mid-range systems and optimise their games better rather than relying on the user having the latest graphics cards, etc. The fact that the biggest selling games on the PC are titles that have low system requirements, like World of Warcraft and The Sims, just shows how silly it is to keep pushing new graphics cards and technology every three months or whatever it is.
Vista and DirectX 10 are overrated in my opinion. The former is weak for games, requiring more memory than the equivalent XP system and generally has poor driver support. The latter is a system killer that brings even the latest systems to their knees according to CustomPC which I read every month. Games like Company of Heroes have had DX10 support added but even cards like the GeForce 8800 GTX struggle to run it at decent framerates unless you drop the resolution. Stupid really.
PC tech isn't moving that fast. Dx9 cards have been out for a couple of years and we're seeing a lot of Dx10 cards getting churned out because that's where it's all going to be soon.
But the fact is that you can get a top end Dx10 card for less than a PS3, and assuming the rest of your PC has been bought in the last couple of years you'll have a respectable machine. I upgraded my CPU (2.4GHz), RAM (2Gb) and vid card (7900GSE) a few months back and it didn't cost me anywhere near Ł400. All it takes is a bit of searching and not just buying a pre-made PC from Dell or Alienware (shudder).
But that's the point - you can upgrade bits of a PC individually to keep it up to date; you need to buy a completely new console every couple of years to bring that up to spec. Nothing is future-proof, no matter how much they might claim it.
If devs want to make money they will focus their efforts on consoles as thats where the cash is at. You will then most likely end up with console ports on PC... Also, how many people have actually got DX10 cards? Very few. That means only the 'big' PC games, of which you will have 1 a year will only truely take advantage of DX10.
Not this again. The argument about PC gaming costing too much if fundamentally flawed. Any sensible PC gamer doesn't go out and spend 2 grand every 2 years. For example- All I'm doing to upgrade my rig is go pick up an X2 4400+ for Ł60 to replace my 3800+ (single core) and get an 8800GTS for Ł200. That's Ł260 spent in the last 2 years and it'll last me probably until 2009 at least.
Now say I buy 10 games in 2 years (probably more, but that sounds a reasonable average.) Take every Ł15 I save for each PC version of a game over the 360 one, and that's Ł150 of that saved back instantly. So over the course of 2 years my PC has cost me Ł60 to have the same experience I could get from my Xbox.
Personally I spend a lot more on games than that example, but I think that's pretty illustrative of what I'm getting at here.
As far as DX10 goes, some people have correctly pointed out scalable graphics, but some DX aspects go further than that to actual gameplay features that wouldn't be possible like destructible assets. Also the thing about having high end features is do you want to spend X million developing something that currently 2% of your audience can appreciate? It is difficult but I don't think it's as drastic as Mark predicts. Absorbtion of Vista and DX10 hardware isn't going all that badly, and it'll speed up further as prices go down again.
To sensibly upgrade your PC you must have a bit of tech knowledge, and most gamers just don't want to do this let alone open their PC case, I've had to help family and friends upgrade their PCs, so to expect your average Joe to perform upgardes themselves - it just doesn't happen.
This is why I decided to buy a 360 instead of constantly upgrading my PC, it was just getting annoying, and as much as I am excited about Crysis, I'm not going to spend any money on upgrading my PC to play it in DX10.
Wot the fcuk is he talking about!?!?!?... it takes games developers long enough now to get this generation of games out!!!, i think they need to get their heads fully around one set of tools b4 they start looking at the next!... come on two years to develop most games now, it's getting fcuking stupid!, Resident evil 5...2009!... fcuking hell, anything could happen by then. This is wot i've always hated about PC gaming, u constantly have to keep up with the jones's & ur forced to upgrade just so they can show u a more realistic leaf!!?, fcuk that...
For a console games fan my opinion is that the PC tech moves too fast to keep up, although consoles are leaning more to building a mulitmedia console instead of a pure gaming exp.
Games like Crysis which if i'm right run on DX10 totally blew me away and i've not seen anything like it on any console or PC and i assumed it was due to the new DX10 powering it that made it look so good.
This months RAFTAS (Rein Award For Talking Absolute s**te) goes once more to Mark Rein, who writes...
the gulf between a high-end PC and a low-end PC is bigger now than it's ever been, and the low-end has been anchored while the high end just gets higher "and it becomes less and less economically viable to do the super high-end stuff".
Yet only several months ago was saying that they weren't going to develop for lower end PC's. Admittedly, he was mostly ranting about integrated GFX, which to be honest are improving and will continue to do so.
However, this time, he's almost got a point. Unless a game is developed primarily for the PC and DX10, any DX10 components in the code are going to be in addition to the DX9 code, and therefor, far from optimised. Not only that, but it's no longer a matter of just a DX10 GFX card (for those simply upgrading, a new PC is a different matter) being needed, but an upgrade to Vista as well.
There's also the fact that a GFX card has a shorter lifespan than ever, particulary the Ł200+ cards, and Mark Rein could have a good point (for a change).
I'm not anti DX10, or bitter because I can't afford a DX10 card (especially as my x1950Pro still does the business), but it's about time the penny dropped that devs are better aiming for a wider, but less capable cross section of PC's, than the small percentage of top end technology.
No, for a PC game to be built around DX10, it's got to be something that's going to sell, and sell well and for a long time. PC gaming has lost its way recently, there's very little unique content amongst the big players.
Cross platform development won't go away and those games will be DX9 first and foremost. The PC's strengths lie elsewhere away from DX10 and expensive GFX cards. Even without a mouse & Keyboard, RTS & FPS work just fine on a console.
As for the myth that you have to spend Ł1000 on a HDTV - utter bobbins. For a start, you can use the xbox360 with your PC monitor to play at HDTV resolutions, and if you don't have a monitor (and therefore a PC), then a reasonable HDTV can be had for a few hundred quid.
Console gaming is cheaper than PC gaming. Yes the games might cost a bit more, but not much - 20 - 35 quid at your local supermarket for a new title? Hardly much more expensive is it, and in the long run you'll have to upgrade all the major PC components at least once in a consoles lifetime.
Also, PC components aren't as easy to upgrade any more. Well, physically they are, but even though there's a wide choice of components available, they actually limit your options.
Intel or AMD? Which socket for your CPU and how long will that socket be supported? DDR2 or DDR3? Fast bus and high RAM latency, or slow bus and low RAM latency? Nvidia or Ati? SLI or Crossfire? Power supply, case size and airflow for those huge GFX cards. Once you make a decision and buy a motherboard, you're locked into that upgrade path.
For example, my mobo is a socket 939 SLI. Initially I had an AMD64 4000+, but when I wanted to upgrade to dual core, the only option I had was an Opteron180 as socket AM2 CPU's were the only ones being produced. Because of this, an AMDx2 4800+ was twice the price of the AM2 version and the Opteron180 (which is basically the 4800+ with more reliability). It also means that I can only use DDR RAM and because the x1950Pro was the best card for the right price when I upgraded my GFX card, I bought it, despite having an SLI mobo.
Sure, I could upgrade my mobo, but that means new RAM and a new CPU all in one go. Upgrading is far more risky than it used to be as new technology is being introduced at a faster rate. Futureproofing was always a myth, but now you need a crystal ball to make sure you take the right upgrade path.
There's just two (and a half) things holding back consoles at the moment. Keyboard, mouse and a larger HDD.
My PC has been upgraded to the point that I would need to buy a whole new machine to go play DX10 games, and that would cost me about a grand. But it's just not worth it, when you consider that my current machine can do everything else perfectly, and it's set up just how I like it. And I would much rather invest Ł300 in a games console that will keep me playing on the cutting edge for the next 3-5 years.
PS, will we soon get to the point that the graphical harware is as good as it can get, and we won't need to upgrade any more?
My PC has been upgraded to the point that I would need to buy a whole new machine to go play DX10 games, and that would cost me about a grand. But it's just not worth it, when you consider that my current machine can do everything else perfectly, and it's set up just how I like it. And I would much rather invest Ł300 in a games console that will keep me playing on the cutting edge for the next 3-5 years.
PS, will we soon get to the point that the graphical harware is as good as it can get, and we won't need to upgrade any more?
lol, that's what I was trying to say, but much shorter and to the point
Well a gaming PC costs over a grand, and a PS3 is less than half that, and a 360 a 5th, and a basic Vista PC starts at just over Ł300, surely the PC gaming market must be shrinking? And now they're trying to get us to upgrade to Vista/DX10 to play the new games? madness !
Now if the console manufacturers stopped making their money on games and decided to do it on the consoles. I would imagine that the cost would be greater; and i think if you tried you could get the cost of the pc down a bit and quite a bit too. I would suggest around Ł600 or maybe even Ł500!
With Crysis for Vista only, Halo 3 not looking too hot, and Bioshock and Fallout 3 unknown quantities in terms of hardware requirements the next 6 - 12 months are going to be the most
crysis isint vista only, its dx9 & 10 and i take it you mean halo 2
As to the article, i had a think about it and started to agree, but then thought "Is he nuts?", he's basically saying that gaming wont evolve between console launches and will remain stagnent once most of the potential of each console has been reached. This will not happen,if ti does the quality of gfx in the next bunch of consoles released in a few years will be the same as the current ones so who would bother getting a new console? The pc has always been used to advance gfx beyond whats possible on consoles a few years after release, its not gonna change
It's all very well and good arguing about cost/performance but I know I definately prefer playing games on a console, with a control pad, on a sofa, a reasonably distance away from the screen.
I've recently been suffering from sore back, neck and; what I'm now calling mouse wrist whilst playing WOW on my PC.
The reason that the fate of PC gaming is becoming more and more governed by the consoles is 1. The comfort issue 2. The inability or lack of inclination to tinker/upgrade and 3. PCs tend to be unstable and frustrating by their very nature.
For the same reason less kit cars are sold than factory built more gamers play on a console, hence the pc will always be the afterthought in this industry.
Of all my friends and co-workers Im the only High end PC gamer. They all have X-box 360 and some game together online and are constantly loaning each other games, which they can trade in. This has all happened over the last year. So I think his comments are spot on.
Im sticking with my PC and superior graphics, but I am the minority.
Well a gaming PC costs over a grand, and a PS3 is less than half that, and a 360 a 5th, and a basic Vista PC starts at just over Ł300, surely the PC gaming market must be shrinking? And now they're trying to get us to upgrade to Vista/DX10 to play the new games? madness !
Now if the console manufacturers stopped making their money on games and decided to do it on the consoles. I would imagine that the cost would be greater; and i think if you tried you could get the cost of the pc down a bit and quite a bit too. I would suggest around Ł600 or maybe even Ł500!
Thats a VERY good point.
Console prices are falsely low because sony and MS can claw back money from software and publishing. How many times have we read "Sony are losing money on every console they sell"....same for 360 to begin with. I reckon 500 or 600 is what the consoles would cost if they were sold as a one off profit making item, initialy at least. (I disregard Wii in this)
No such luxury for PC component manufacturers. maybe ATI and Nvidia should make games too...ha ha.
Its long been a fact of life that PC gaming is the most expensive, but generally pulls away from consoles in performance. Consoles these days are edging towards being a PC anyway in my opinion. DX.10 looks like it will be incredible...think we should wait and see the impact before we write it off as a MS ploy to sell Vista.
Not this again. The argument about PC gaming costing too much if fundamentally flawed. Any sensible PC gamer doesn't go out and spend 2 grand every 2 years. For example- All I'm doing to upgrade my rig is go pick up an X2 4400+ for Ł60 to replace my 3800+ (single core) and get an 8800GTS for Ł200. That's Ł260 spent in the last 2 years and it'll last me probably until 2009 at least.
I bet it doesn't...
... but, you know, when I buy a PC game I want to run it as the developers intended not have to drop the resolution below 1680x1050 or sacrifice anti-aliasing or even, godforbid, lower the detail settings to medium or less.
Usually I only upgrade when I start finding that I have to drop settings down to medium to get the game playable but I find that I'm struggling to get 18 months out of my PCs and I always go for a high-end graphics card (at Ł250-Ł300) and a decent CPU. I tend to buy a brand new PC (at Ł1,000-Ł1,500) every three years and upgrade it after 18 months, spending around Ł500-Ł700 in the process. That's not cheap.
Nintendo don't sell consoles at a loss (and the DS is the best console around)
You don't need a f**king expensive TV to enjoy the great GFX on the 360 and PS3 (my mothers Ł200, 22" Widescreen LCDTV bought a few years ago is brilliant, it only supports 720, but that's good enough for the size of the TV - and yes, it was Ł200 direct from LG).
I prefer playing on my PC, as I sit at my desk most of the day anyway (apart from my daily afternoon snooze), which is fortunate as my 360 is plugged into my monitor - yes fact fans, you can get a decent monitor running HDTV resolutions dirt cheap so there is really no need for a HDTV, you just need to use a few brain cells).
80's indie music p**ses all over modern 'indie' music, emo's aren't goths and should be shot for thinking they are. There's no TR testing today so I'll be mostly playing Pokemon Diamond with the occasional pause to think of GTA:IV, Bioshock, ET:QW, that WH40K game for the DS and guitar hero 3 for the PS2.
Not this again. The argument about PC gaming costing too much if fundamentally flawed. Any sensible PC gamer doesn't go out and spend 2 grand every 2 years. For example- All I'm doing to upgrade my rig is go pick up an X2 4400+ for �60 to replace my 3800+ (single core) and get an 8800GTS for �200. That's �260 spent in the last 2 years and it'll last me probably until 2009 at least.
I bet it doesn't...
... but, you know, when I buy a PC game I want to run it as the developers intended not have to drop the resolution below 1680x1050 or sacrifice anti-aliasing or even, godforbid, lower the detail settings to medium or less.
Usually I only upgrade when I start finding that I have to drop settings down to medium to get the game playable but I find that I'm struggling to get 18 months out of my PCs and I always go for a high-end graphics card (at �250-�300) and a decent CPU. I tend to buy a brand new PC (at �1,000-�1,500) every three years and upgrade it after 18 months, spending around �500-�700 in the process. That's not cheap.
You should build your own, also you get resale value with PC's, my recent build cost me 400euro extra on top of selling my old rig and that included an upgrade to a 22" widescreen
Not this again. The argument about PC gaming costing too much if fundamentally flawed. Any sensible PC gamer doesn't go out and spend 2 grand every 2 years. For example- All I'm doing to upgrade my rig is go pick up an X2 4400+ for Ł60 to replace my 3800+ (single core) and get an 8800GTS for Ł200. That's Ł260 spent in the last 2 years and it'll last me probably until 2009 at least.
I bet it doesn't...
... but, you know, when I buy a PC game I want to run it as the developers intended not have to drop the resolution below 1680x1050 or sacrifice anti-aliasing or even, godforbid, lower the detail settings to medium or less.
Usually I only upgrade when I start finding that I have to drop settings down to medium to get the game playable but I find that I'm struggling to get 18 months out of my PCs and I always go for a high-end graphics card (at Ł250-Ł300) and a decent CPU. I tend to buy a brand new PC (at Ł1,000-Ł1,500) every three years and upgrade it after 18 months, spending around Ł500-Ł700 in the process. That's not cheap.
If I write you a nice begging letter will you buy me a second 8600 card so I can go SLi ?
People are often complaining how "expensive" PCs are to consoles, when they often forget how much more value PCs have over dedicated machines. Whereas your $ 600 machine could play games, surf the web, play videos and run Linux, an IBM PC-compatible can do all that and a lot more:
- Play, add new content, plan, design, program, and publish _your own_ games; - Surf, contribute materialistic content (site creation), and even _host_ the Web; - Play, record, edit, redistribute videos over site, server or removable media (including optical media); - Run all flavors of Linux, some significantly faster thanks to per platform recompilation, and do all of the above on this OS.
Console gaming more practical than PC gaming? Analyze this: if someone paid $ 2,000 for a top gaming rig, he/she can even turn it into a workstation and earn money back to upgrade it further. When has a console offered that to you?
Practicality schmality. Geeks got it all under control, including component prices. Ever heard of NewEgg? Where have you been these past years?
And if console folk keep thinking that this doesn't worry PC folk, it does. The death of PC gaming is only a scenario in the West. To the third world, expensive PCs with more utility are cheaper than consoles with lower price tags. Guess which one arrives on a local junkyard earlier...
Sony always remained firm that technology should always advance, and now the cheap fanbase says we should throttle PCs because they advanced too fast?
Heck, just stick to your five-year (or ten-year) stagnant machine when Westmere blows CELL out of the water. Then we'll see who's machine is more powerful.
Consoles? Short-term wannabes in a world where computers make right.
Any one else see this as a deflection tactic? Remember, a good offense is the best defense
Epic's UE3 engine uses brute force and ignorance combined with a lowest common denominator content philosophy. This was fine 10 years ago but is giving developers serious issues if they want to take full advantage of next gen hardware. Ask any engine licensee or look at the number of times that the UE3 graphics engine is rewritten significantly by developers who license it.
I can understand why Epic are worried. The content in Crysis is visibly better and Crytek are starting to pimp their engine. (Google for cryengine 2 2007 - on10 has a good video).
This is either Rein trash-talking the competition or justifying Gears of War on the PC. I couldn't find any videos to see if there was any d3d10 content, so maybe they haven't spent any time taking advantage of d3d10 and have done a least best effort with a straight port from the 360/d3d9. That would look dated compared to Crysis.
If only they spent as much effort helping their licensed clients as they do on PR spin then maybe they wouldn't be in litigation with Silicon Knights currently?
Epic desperately needed some headlines to pull their name out of the mire and CVG seemed all too eager to give that opportunity with a mediocre content piece. Take a moment and google "ue3 sued" if you don't believe me.
You have to give Rein his due though. He knows how to manipulate the press to do his bidding .
People are often complaining how "expensive" PCs are to consoles, when they often forget how much more value PCs have over dedicated machines. Whereas your $ 600 machine could play games, surf the web, play videos and run Linux, an IBM PC-compatible can do all that and a lot more:
- Play, add new content, plan, design, program, and publish _your own_ games; - Surf, contribute materialistic content (site creation), and even _host_ the Web; - Play, record, edit, redistribute videos over site, server or removable media (including optical media); - Run all flavors of Linux, some significantly faster thanks to per platform recompilation, and do all of the above on this OS.
Console gaming more practical than PC gaming? Analyze this: if someone paid $ 2,000 for a top gaming rig, he/she can even turn it into a workstation and earn money back to upgrade it further. When has a console offered that to you?
Practicality schmality. Geeks got it all under control, including component prices. Ever heard of NewEgg? Where have you been these past years?
And if console folk keep thinking that this doesn't worry PC folk, it does. The death of PC gaming is only a scenario in the West. To the third world, expensive PCs with more utility are cheaper than consoles with lower price tags. Guess which one arrives on a local junkyard earlier...
Sony always remained firm that technology should always advance, and now the cheap fanbase says we should throttle PCs because they advanced too fast?
Heck, just stick to your five-year (or ten-year) stagnant machine when Westmere blows CELL out of the water. Then we'll see who's machine is more powerful.
Consoles? Short-term wannabes in a world where computers make right.
heh, you may as well say, why not buy a Mac for gaming as well then. Although for some reason, not many people do.
But the fact is, you can buy a budget PC with decent monitor that does all those things, plus a 360 hooked up to your monitor for less than a decent gaming PC that doesn't include a monitor....
That's how expensive PC gaming is becoming. To upgrade the vital parts of a PC to 'not even cutting edge' components, you're looking at about Ł600 for mobo, cpu, RAM and GFX card. For a new PC (minus monitor) you're closer to Ł1000. Forget overclocking as well as it's not that cheap considering the extra cooling needed and it's not reliable. A lot of games throw a wobbler if parts are overclocked and there's no guarantee that your component will overclock my much (my gfx card will safely overclock by a massive 2Mhz - WOW).
Go down to your local Penis World and pick up a budget PC with monitor for Ł400 - Core 2 duo and 2Gb RAM, just wait for the offers, then grab a 360 plus 2 games for Ł280 (soon to drop in price anyway).
The PC is my gaming platform of choice, but it's got to distance itself from the console market as it cannot compete.
As for competition between the new cryengine and U3 engine. What does it matter (to me and others) when whatever games use it will run better and look better on a 360 compared to my PC?
1)Go to ebay. 2)Search for your ideal rig. If the desktop pc finder on the left is out of date, use the search bar. Here I searched for "8800". 3)Find good PC 4)Ensure seller feedback is over 97% positive and over 500 sales (or alter to your liking) 5)Bid 6)(optional) Go and pick it up yourself on the same day
Well a gaming PC costs over a grand, and a PS3 is less than half that, and a 360 a 5th, and a basic Vista PC starts at just over Ł300, surely the PC gaming market must be shrinking? And now they're trying to get us to upgrade to Vista/DX10 to play the new games? madness !
That is a load of s**t, if you are building your own pc you can get an amazing pc for (wait while i goto check how much the parts would cost)
Total for a Core 2 Duo system with vista,DX10 and an X-Fi soundcard comes to
Ł630 including a 19" samsung monitor!
so kindly suck it because a gaming pc would never cost more than Ł1000 unless you bought it ready made or you were wasting your money!!!!
The only reason that their are Dx9 and 10 versions of games is because few people have vista and selling a vista only game without console support is corpate suicide. In about a years time it will become more economic just to code in Dx 10 and 9 will be forgotten. The massive increase in specs may be annoying but it is nessesary, if none of the big discovers happened we the pc would suffer a huge blow as the ps3 and 360 would be just as good but cheaper. You evolve or die.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
