Topic: Chris Taylor and Peter Molyneux join the death of PC gaming chant

[K-man]

I never disputed that PC games *weren't* generally superior to their console counterparts.  I do maintain the notion that a lot of PC ports from console titles are worse.  8-10 years ago it was a much bigger jump from console to PC than it is now.  Despite the fact that for the most part PC titles still look better than their console counterparts, the gap has significantly narrowed in the past 10 years.  For example, the difference between Quake 2 for PC and Quake 2 for N64/psx is significantly greater than the differences between Quake 4 for PC and Quake 4 for 360.

You're also seeing a generation where people would much rather be able to chill out on their couch and game rather than sit in front of a computer.  But that's another discussion entirely.

The dispute isn't whether or not PC games are superior to console games (or vice versa), it's what the public is and isn't buying.  And right now the public isn't buying PC games nearly as much as console games.

[sirean_syan]

Sort of off the topic where the discussion has lead to, but one of the problems with PC vs console that I've always seen is that console developers will actually push a console's hardware towards the end of it's life and thus extend it's usefulness for a few years. It's also during this time that a lot of great gems always come out because people are no longer screwing with the hardware, but focusing on making the actual game portion.

On the PC side of things you have the old moving target problem and instead of trying to get the most out of older hardware, developers just fall back on the knowledge that there's some newer hardware coming out. That probably hurts a little on the game side of things, but also increases the gap between knowing a given piece of hardware and actually using it. I've always felt like the biggest graphic cards were never used to their fullest extent because they're mostly treated as blunt objects used to pound out high end graphics on PC games. I lack the technical knowledge to really back that up, but the fact that all the newest cards simply try to do things faster and with more power than the last card leaves me wondering if developers are really going for elegant code like they would with a console. Somehow console games will look better and better as a system ages, but PC games really require an upgrade to see something better (with obvious exceptions, of course).

[Pugnate]

K-Man,

I don't think you will find anyone disagreeing with you on sales. But to me at least, the performance cycle was similar with the original Xbox. In early cross platform titles, the Xbox game were very comparable to the PC. When Morrowind came out, it looked and performed better on the 360, even when compared to existing higher end PCs.

Sirean,

You are correct. Developers do get lazy with PC games, while since consoles maintain the same config, developers can squeeze the life out of them. To take this further off topic, it is good to see you post.

[Cobra951]

Pug, you're being a fanboy, and you're ignoring the reality of diminishing returns.  Once graphics are are as good as they need to be, a PC with triple the power of the current console generation won't show the majority of people anything they can't see on a console at a much lower price and hassle factor.  Diminishing returns were mentioned early on in the conversation.  They are one of the factors driving the market.

I've seen Oblivion on a PC that can barely run it right, and I've seen it on a console that runs it very well.  Guess which one I'd rather play?  Yes, I could spend 4 figures on equipment to run it even better.  I don't need to.  It's good enough.

[scottws]

While I suppose "good enough" is subjective, I still think there's a way to go before game graphics are truly photorealistic.  I mean Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within was fairly photorealistic, but you could still tell it was fake CGI and even a modern monster PC can't render any of that in real time.

I remember being absolutely floored by Doom's graphics and thought they were way ahead of their time.  It was most certainly "good enough" at the time.  Then Goldeneye came out on the N64 and I thought that was pretty awesome looking, and again, most certainly "good enough."

Anyway, all I'm trying to say is that the current benchmark for graphics will always be "good enough."  Yeah, there are diminishing returns in creating games that are ever better looking, but as tools inevitably improve (as they always do), making better looking games gets easier.

[gpw11]

The whole argument is essentially stupid, yes PC games have the ability to look better than console games, but that comes with a hefty premium.  Sure, Crysis looks better, but unless you spent $250+ on a gpu in the last year it'll look and run just about as well as Farcry did on the original Xbox.  The PC is capable of great things, but a lot of people don't care and there's a very good reason for that. 

Turning this into a pissing contest about which is better is just ridiculous.  Different machines for different people.  As for PC gaming dying, it's all speculation but something probably should be done.  As I said before, interests either need to converge or someone has to step up and make some sort of standards.  Otherwise every player at every level of production is just going to make things more and more inefficient.

[MysterD]

I've read about numerous issues with frame rate drops in Gears of War, Assassin's Creed etc. If you want, I can dig up articles on those too.

About Assassin's Creed, at least the X360 version won't require a PC From Outer Space to actually run the damn thing.

I am not saying performance in the 360 is bad or anything. I just find it a joke to suggest that visuals will improve on the 360.

I think what you might see is designers find ways to pump all kinds of greatness out of what they got for the X360 power -- like what Square has been able to do w/ the FF games on aging PlayStation hardware -- but I also doubt they can compete w/ the newest bleeding technology the PC always puts out b/c it's so upgradeable and always changing.

I don't think you will find anyone disagreeing with you on sales. But to me at least, the performance cycle was similar with the original Xbox. In early cross platform titles, the Xbox game were very comparable to the PC. When Morrowind came out, it looked and performed better on the 360, even when compared to existing higher end PCs.

Morrowind on 360? What?
Wait...Did you mean Morrowind on the XBox Original?
Or did you mean Oblivion on the 360?

I've seen Oblivion on a PC that can barely run it right, and I've seen it on a console that runs it very well.  Guess which one I'd rather play?  Yes, I could spend 4 figures on equipment to run it even better.  I don't need to.  It's good enough.

I'll take the PC version w/ the mods.
Plus, down-the-line, when better PC's are out, Oblivion should run even better on those powerful PC's.

Whereas on your X360, you're stuck w/ Oblivion as is, since the console hardware ain't upgradeable.

The whole argument is essentially stupid, yes PC games have the ability to look better than console games, but that comes with a hefty premium.  Sure, Crysis looks better, but unless you spent $250+ on a gpu in the last year it'll look and run just about as well as Farcry did on the original Xbox.  The PC is capable of great things, but a lot of people don't care and there's a very good reason for that.

Hmmm...shouldn't the GF 7800 and 8600 be able to handle Crysis and still look good, which are both less than $250?

[Pugnate]

Pug, you're being a fanboy, and you're ignoring the reality of diminishing returns.  Once graphics are are as good as they need to be, a PC with triple the power of the current console generation won't show the majority of people anything they can't see on a console at a much lower price and hassle factor.  Diminishing returns were mentioned early on in the conversation.  They are one of the factors driving the market.

 Guess which one I'd rather play?  Yes, I could spend 4 figures on equipment to run it even better.  I don't need to.  It's good enough.

Wow that's pretty fucking absurd. What the fuck does "as good as they need to be" mean anyway? Have you ever experienced Oblivion on an 8800 card? If they are as good as they need to be be, then please don't tell us in the future how impressed you will be when Elder Scrolls 5 comes.

I've seen Oblivion on a PC that can barely run it right, and I've seen it on a console that runs it very well. 

You'd rather play Oblivion on a console than a low end PC? No shit. No fucking way!

K-Man pointed out that Oblivion is a better experience on a console, and I find that to be absolutely untrue. How the hell does that make me a fanboy?  I like the fact that it looks a lot better on the PC with all the mods.

I like having the choice. Again, how does this make me a fanboy?

Yes, I could spend 4 figures on equipment to run it even better.  I don't need to.  It's good enough.

That's bullshit. An Xbox 360 is what, $400? You can build a PC that can give you a lot better of an Oblivion experience with a $220 8800GT.

Turning this into a pissing contest about which is better is just ridiculous.  Different machines for different people.

Wow, where am I turning this into some pissing contest?

I am responding to:

You're still able to get a graphically superior experience on PC, but that gap has closed to the point to where its almost nonexistant. 

That's all I am responding to.

I am also responding to K-Man's false statement that Oblivion is better experienced on the 360.

And I did acknowledge the "horses for courses" thing. I did point out that the 360 was an incredible deal when the average PC was playing catch up.

Morrowind on 360? What?
Wait...Did you mean Morrowind on the XBox Original?
Or did you mean Oblivion on the 360?

Yeah. Morrowind came to the Xbox and looked and played a lot better than it did on the PC, but then the PC caught up. It is a cycle.

I'll take the PC version w/ the mods.
Plus, down-the-line, when better PC's are out, Oblivion should run even better on those powerful PC's.

Whereas on your X360, you're stuck w/ Oblivion as is, since the console hardware ain't upgradeable.

Don't point that out. That makes you a fanboy.

[Cobra951]

It boggles my mind.  Why do you have this need to put down the console users?  Feeling threatened?  Good enough means exactly that: good enough.  There is nothing absurd about that.  I've seen PC graphics since the 8088 days and I've seen console graphics since the 6502 days.  I've seen them evolve, and they are converging.

I'm not alone in perceiving animosity from you in this area.  I don't think I'm being paranoid.  You didn't simply reply to K-Man.  You ridiculed K-Man.  I happen to agree with his point of view.  No one is denying that uber-PC graphics are better.  OK?  No one.  If you don't get the point by now, you're not going to.  So I'm done.

[idolminds]

Though isn't it funny whenever these arguments come up it always degenerates into graphics? When looking at the highest selling PC games, most of them will run on any old POS computer. Look at the stranglehold the original Counter Strike still has on online FPS players.

While I don't think anyone would scoff at playing a nice looking game, maybe PC games should reign it in a little. Make games that run on a wider variety of systems. When you make your game for PC, you're already taking the hard road to sales. Why limit yourself further by requiring the top end machines?

It'll be interesting to see how Battlefield Heroes and Quake Arcade (new name for Quake Zero) do. Not just because they will be free to play, but because they are being designed to run on low spec systems.

I do have a rant about how devs should put effort into creating lower end assets for their games instead of letting the engines handle polygon and texture reductions. Especially texture. Ever notice how textures for older games that had lower res textures look so much better than modern day games with the texture detail slider turned down? Maybe doing something about that would help. I'd be more inclined to play a game with settings turned down if everything didnt turn into a blurry, muddy mess.

[Pugnate]

It boggles my mind.  Why do you have this need to put down the console users?  Feeling threatened?  Good enough means exactly that: good enough.  There is nothing absurd about that.  I've seen PC graphics since the 8088 days and I've seen console graphics since the 6502 days.  I've seen them evolve, and they are converging.

I'm not alone in perceiving animosity from you in this area.  I don't think I'm being paranoid.  You didn't simply reply to K-Man.  You ridiculed K-Man.  I happen to agree with his point of view.  No one is denying that uber-PC graphics are better.  OK?  No one.  If you don't get the point by now, you're not going to.  So I'm done.

According to K-Man, Oblivion is better experienced on the 360. He also pointed out that 360 games look the same, which I don't find to be true at all. I am not sure how I can point this out, without it becoming a pissing contest.

Also I pointed out a number of areas where it is better on the PC. Graphically I see a massive difference. That's actually one of the selling points of PC gaming. I am sorry, but that's just how it is. I like how none of the other points I brought up about Oblivion being a better experience weren't talked about, but the visual quality difference was. Why is that such a hot issue, and the others aren't? Why does that seem to strike a nerve?

No one is denying that uber-PC graphics are better.  OK?  No one.  If you don't get the point by now, you're not going to.  So I'm done.

That's pretty spiteful.

You say they are better, but then you insert "uber" to make this something about only expensive PCs able to give you a better Oblivion experience. I know you haven't gamed on the PC in years, but it doesn't take a great PC.

http://kotaku.com/345278/crytek-specs-out-an-affordable-crysis-pc

CPU - Intel Core2Duo E6750
GPU - GeForce 8800GT 512MB
Motherboard - NVIDIA nForce 650i Socket 775
PSU - 600W ATX12V
RAM - 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit
HDD - SATA 250GB 7200RPM
DVD - 20x DVD±R Burner
Case - ATX Midi Tower Computer Case
OS - Microsoft Windows XP Home with SP2

A very quick price out of the above components totaled $875 at reasonable online retailer NewEgg, give or take a few choices, but I typically went for the cheapest option across the board and didn't include shipping or tax. I'm sure that more frugal, more experience component shoppers could do better.

You can get that for about $800 now. Not an uber PC either.

Also Corba, check your pm box.

[idolminds]

I'm posting this just so pugs head will explode:

1996----->2000 the n64 had kept up with PC graphics. It had some serious limitations, but the last few games truly squeezed every ounce out of the hardware, to the point where it could still compete with the ever changing pc hardware 4 years later.

For 1996 it truly was years beyond it's time. Up until 1998 what pc games could (aside from resolution-wise) really pull ahead of the n64? It had the first programmable gpu, allowing for effects in hardware the video cards of the pc's couldn't even do until the geforce 256 showed up. I remember the vertex shader metal effect in mario 64 back in 1996, that was something to behold.

Now the dreamcast also saw release in 1999 (only in japan in that year) however it was graphically obliterated very quickly. The n64's hardware stayed relevant right up until the first truly programmable pc video cards years later, because up until then only the n64 could do some of the exclusive special effects.

[Quemaqua]

Again, this is why I think these threads are stupid.  Without concrete numbers on online sales for PC stuff, which seem to at this point be all but taking over retail entirely, sales can't even be discussed beyond pure conjecture.  Yeah, what K-Man said could totally be true.  Or it might not be true at all.  And all this graphics stuff is just getting stupid.  Why the hell would you even try to say that Oblivion and Morrowind ever looked better on consoles?  It never happened.  Performed better?  Sure, but only for some.  My PCs performed quite fine and looked much better with both games right from the launch date.  Besides, it literally wasn't even a single full day before somebody provided replacements for Oblivion's fucked-up distance textures which to my knowledge have never been improved on the 360 to date, much less the zillions of beauty mods that have become indispensable now.

And as everyone else asked already, does it matter?  No, of course not.  Nobody's saying you can't be happy with a console.  I like my 360 just fine.  And yes, eventually I think Cobra's right and things are truly going to plateau, but then even consoles are going to have to change.  Why are you going to need to buy another in 5 years when the graphics barely see improvement as things go forward?  You'll probably be paying just to update ports to plug into whatever new extra-crisp displays are on sale.  Until some new kind of tech gets developed and the playing field completely changes yet again.  Who knows what the future holds, especially with news items like Microsoft trying to form hardware alliances, which are the kinds of things we'll probably see a lot more of going forward.  Sitting around trying to say that one thing or another is dying because of some half-envisioned future that's likely going to change both playing fields no matter what happens seems even more useless.

It isn't to say that it isn't an interesting topic, but all it ever does is devolve into fighting.  Let's face it, we don't know what's going to happen, we don't know where the American economy is going to be at the end of the year, let alone two years from now... blah blah.  I don't know if anyone actually agrees with me, but there's my two cents in any case.  Pug's annoyance is at least relatively understandable.  This topic comes up all the time and has for years, and it always seems to come from the same kinds of people.  K-Man is decidedly pro-console despite having also gamed on PCs for a long time, and that's cool, I've got no beef with him and I'd never try to tell him his preferences are bogus.  I know why some prefer consoles and there are valid reasons.  But then he starts doomsaying the end of somebody else's hobby, and you don't expect that person to be annoyed?  Especially when there isn't much concrete evidence?  Or any speculation on how things might evolve, just speculation on why it's going to croak?  Or any talk about the changes that will likely need to be made within the "opposing" side of the hobby due to many of the same issues?  It's easy for people to get offended about stuff where they put in so much time, effort, and money.  It just is.  And I'm not trying to rag on him, he didn't even start this topic.  Pug did.  I'm just saying it's easy to get pissed.  We like our hobby and want to see it revitalized, but plenty of people couldn't give a fuck if it does or doesn't, and those people aren't exactly of our mindset.

[Ghandi]

/popcorn

[Pugnate]

Thanks for that well written and highly objective post Que. I do disagree that these threads are stupid, purely because *I* personally haven't been involved in one here. Well not until now.

I also sense this elitist attitude whenever someone mentions enjoying cutting edge visuals. I am probably wrong here, but it is like OMG!? YOU DUMB SHALLOW GRAPHICS WHORE! WHO KARES? ALL ABOUT THE GAMEPLAY FTW!

To me, visuals are a large part of my enjoying a game, even though they are not the most important part. 

I apologize to K-Man if I sounded mocking in my tone, but I don't understand why some of the console fans among us were insulted by my saying that PC games look better. I think it is safe to admit that a lot of us haven't been in touch with PC gaming in years. Top of the line computer hardware is extremely cheap at the moment.

Again I apologize to K-Man if he felt insulted -- which I don't think he did. He probably told Pyro,"Man this Pugnate guy is a real dick." 

I wish that Xero -- who was the poster who thought we agreed too much? -- was here to see this thread. 

edit:

which I don't think he did

To clarify, I mean he seems like an easy going person who doesn't take offense from random n00bs online.

[Pugnate]

Let's find some common ground. I think we can all agree that Melissa Theuriau is the hottest reporter in the world.

[MysterD]

And it is always the same cycle. When the original Xbox launched, most cross platform games looked nearly the same. But then the gap widened.

That always happens when a new console drops -- especially these days, since they are putting much higher-end vid cards and other hardware inside them upon the new console's release. When a new console drops, everyone goes "OMG! Amazing graphics competing w/ the PC." Then, you'll get some jump on the "PC gaming is gonna die soon" bandwagon, once they see what the new console can do.

Then, as time goes along since this new console been on the market for a bit, more new vid cards get pumped out on the PC. By the time year 3-5 of a console comes around, since then don't allow for upgrading, a new console is already planned to be coming -- basically, to compete and keep up w/ the power and graphical quality the PC's are bringing forth. Especially since many of the big hit console and PC games -- you got it, will appear on BOTH platforms to try and hit both markets to make as much money as they possibly can off the game. Also, keeping the PC's and consoles closer to each other, that makes life a lot easier for the game dev's, basically -- I mean, really -- who'd wanna port something like Crysis over to a PS2 or original XBox? And I'm sure companies who hit the console market and make a ton of cash would love to hit the PC market, if the console's specs are quite under most current PC's or very close to them -- why not port it over and make more money??

I mean, look at Oblivion PC and X360 -- yes, both version look great and turned out well for their respective systems, regardless of what looks better and performs better (PC or X360). And right out the box, you can get a ton of time out of the game, either version of the game.

Do you really need to buy the PC version?? Well, if you want a shitload of more mods and got the PC to boot -- which ain't too heavy, especially when compared to today's standards. If you want PC KB/mouse support, PC version should be what you're eyeballing. Me, I like the mod-scene, the chance to way later on play Oblivion on a better PC (b/c you knew I will buy one, in a few years), playing alone on a high-res monitor, and the option to choose b/t PC-X360 gamepad or PC KB/mouse. That's me, though.

If you don't give a rat's ass about modding, look at the X360. If you don't care that you don't have KB/mouse support and you happen to own a 360, you should go for the 360 version. And if you love the couch and would like to play it on a regular TV or HDTV (if you got one), sit down and play there.

[scottws]

Let's find some common ground. I think we can all agree that Melissa Theuriau is the hottest reporter in the world.

Yes, that is for damn certain!

[K-man]

1.  I don't think that I'm pro-console at all.  I just see the market shift and what it will bring (and already is bringing).  Sure, I own consoles, and I play more games on consoles, but if a game comes out on PC that I want to play I'm certainly not going to ignore it.  Take Orange Box for example.  I purchased it for 360, played through Portal, and decided that the rest of the experience is something I'd rather have on PC.  So I traded the game in and will pick up Orange Box for PC.  My preference of Oblivion for 360 is decidedly a subjective thing, I realize.  I concur that the PC version has an innate advantage due to the creation of player modifications and such.  In fact I purchased Oblivion for PC a few months ago from Pyro for this very reason.

2.  I don't think i'm championing the death of PC gaming in any way.  I think it's horrible that PC gaming has gone downhill.  The more console gaming proliferates and PC games decline in sales, the more likely we are to see games like Civilization go to consoles.  I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THIS HAPPEN.  I know a console-based Civ is being developed, but it's sort of an offshoot of the series.  A much more simple version of the main game. 

I admittedly don't purchase as many PC games as I used to.  It's not that I pirate games (I don't), it's just the sheer fact that less and less is coming out on PC that I want to play, period.  And when a game like CoD4 comes out, I'm more inclined to buy the 360 version for the sheer fact that I'll see 10-15 of my friends on my friends list at any given day playing it. 

My only assertions were that PC gaming was becoming more and more of a niche market, that gaming in general has shifted to become more console-centric, and that PC sales are in a steady decline in-part for that very fact.  People are seeing the gap lessened between PC/console games and are opting for the 400 dollar console rather than the "800" dollar PC.  And I make an assumption that will continue as more and more developers "jump ship" to console games for more sales.  I mean, guys, that's just good business decision making.  You go where the money is.

I'm going to be away for most of the weekend, but I'm sure by the time I see this thread again there will have been many responses.

[idolminds]

Let's find some common ground. I think we can all agree that Melissa Theuriau is the hottest reporter in the world.

This thread just got a whole lot better.

[Pugnate]

I hope Jenny doesn't catch Scott googling hot+french+reporter.

But honey, Pug tricked me!

K-Man, to take this in a slightly different direction, I feel one of the problems here is that some hardcore PC gamers want to have their cake and eat it too. We want everything to be open, we want it all to continue to be free, yet at the same time we want the same service that our gaming cousins across the border pay for. That's just not possible.

Why would Microsoft take the time to make GFW as complete a system as Xbox Live, when no one is willing to pay for it?

I've played on my friend's Xbox Live, and it is a fantastic service. But I just don't see Microsoft investing the time and money in that for Windows, when there is no money in it. It was the same thing with DX10. When it was announced that DX10 would be Vista only, a lot of PC gamers were upset. I saw no problem with that, as long as it didn't affect games that came out on XP.

On the other hand we have STEAM that is offering some of what Xbox LIVE offers, except it is for free in terms of money. The only issue there is that Valve eventually will go public, and that's when companies go to hell, having to make bullshit decisions to satisfy shareholders.

The more console gaming proliferates and PC games decline in sales, the more likely we are to see games like Civilization go to consoles.  I DO NOT WANT TO SEE THIS HAPPEN.  I know a console-based Civ is being developed, but it's sort of an offshoot of the series.  A much more simple version of the main game.

When it comes to strategy games and RPGs, I think the PC is still fairly safe. In my view, the console market is still more action oriented. It is why Bioware RPGs seem to come to PC within months of their console releases. The KOTOR games came to PC, in what I remember being three months after the Xbox releases. I think Mass Effect is coming to PC five months after the Xbox release?

KOTOR sold about 2 million on the Xbox while it sold about 2.5 million on the PC. Games like Baldur’s Gate and BG2 sold 2 million each on the PC. Diablo 2 sold about 4.5 million. Neverwinter Nights sold 2 million, while NWN2 sold 1.6 million and is expected to hit 2 million as well. As Idol mentioned, The Witcher sold 600,000, which isn’t a bad start. Though for some reason it hasn’t sold well in America. I suspect that’s because everyone was busy importing copies.

Mass Effect has sold 1.6 million and is expected to cap on the 360 with about 2.5 million. That’s pretty good, but not enough to guarantee a 360 exclusive.

Strategy games still sell better on the PC:

http://www.thesimexchange.com/search.php?string=command+and+conquer

Not counting online sales, command & Conquer 3 sold 1.17 million on the PC, while the 360 version is expected to cap at 470,00

Battle for Middle Earth sold about 2 million on both PC and the 360. Supreme Commander is projected to cap at 900,000 on the PC, while on the 360 projects are abysmal at less than a 100,000. Then again, that’s because it is a more hardcore RTS.

Halo Wars is projected to sell 1.8 million on the 360, which isn’t bad, but doesn’t realize a Halo title’s full potential. While it was always supposed to be an exclusive, they are now talking a cross platform launch.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=180966

[Cobra951]

Let's find some common ground. I think we can all agree that Melissa Theuriau is the hottest reporter in the world.

That's one bit of graphics I won't be seeing on a console.  Very nice.   

OK, in a less contentious tone.  You mentioned Oblivion, and I gave you a short little retort.  Let me elaborate, because Oblivion happens to be one of the reasons I feel about this as I do.  I played a couple of hundred hours on Oblivion on my PC.  It played OK most of the time, but chugged horribly in some circumstances.  So I played extensively with the settings, and ended up reducing them a great deal.  The main goal was to get combat to move at a pace I could call animated with a straight face.  I was able to alleviate the problem further by patching the game (unofficially) to remove all effects which needed Shader 2.0.  That affected only the interiors.  It kept them from being a slide show, and allowed me for the first time to visit a couple of rooms which crashed the program before. 

What I ended up with, at 800x600 resolution on the PC, was certainly passable.  But then I saw how much better it all looked and moved at 1280x720.  So ironically, the 360 was my step up for me, in terms of graphics and playability.  The platform does the game justice, a game which a couple of years before would stress out your only acceptable platform.

If the goal is to be on top of the heap at all times, a console won't cut it.  If you liked what you saw last year, and you still think it rocks this year, you might feel differently.  That's the mass market, not the elite one.  The mass market sells a lot more.

[Quemaqua]

This is sort of only loosely related here because my rant went on and on, but I typed it up so I'm posting it anyway.  Don't feel you need to take my arguments to heart, as this isn't really directed specifically at anybody despite my sort of using Cobra as an example, nor is this an attempt to say that PC gaming is the best thing evar omg I hate consoles.  I just started typing something, this came out, and I'd rather indulge myself and defend PC gaming for a minute for a change.

-----------------------

I still think that's totally looking at the the wrong way.  I'm not elitist about graphics even a little bit, nor do I have the latest and greatest rig ever (I almost never do), nor do I care about being top of the heap, yet there are obvious graphical advantages to being on a decent-not-even-high-end PC (and I'm not a graphics whore, so I don't even know why this is bugging me).  I mean, your system was current like... what, 6 years ago?  Sure, much easier to just buy the 360 version.  But even less-hardcore PC gamers who are at least willing to spend a little bit of money here or there on their systems can enjoy big increases for not that much extra cash.  If you hadn't bought the Wii, you could have invested that money into a decent video card, and PC games are so much cheaper in the long run, if you're buying new cross-platform releases you can often save 10 to even 20 bucks per purchase!  Overlord debuted on 360 for $60.  It debuted on PC for $40.  I think the difference between Condemned on 360 and its PC debut was even $5 more than that (though that wasn't a simultaneous release... but so what?).  A couple game purchases with that price difference and you'd have made up whatever extra money you spent.  This is skewing my Wii metaphor, but you see what I'm saying, right?  Obviously it isn't purely as simple as that, and nobody's claiming that it is since there are other system options to consider too for such an old rig, but I think price difference is touted time and time again and it's honestly not that convincing an argument unless you're talking about building a new machine purely from scratch.  And who the fuck does that every 5 years?

Sure if you're Average Joe Dipshit who can't even program his VCR, PC gaming isn't for you, but... have this 8800GTS and it's only $40 more than a Wii right now.  Do you mean to tell me that a nice shiny new video card for your PC which has a jillion awesome games both cross-platform and exclusive across the board isn't worth that, but your Wii, which at this point is still all but a one-trick pony with only a couple of must-have games that you've already finished giving you nothing to do but wait around for more is?  Obviously that's a different deal than a 360 which has a much more robust library, but even now it's $350 for one of those, almost a hundred bucks over that 8800GTS.  Sure, you might use up more of that cost if you have to get a lot of new RAM or a new mobo, and that price difference wasn't the case when the 8800s first came out, but again, I don't even have one of those.  I'm on a 7800 and I have very few complaints with my system here.  The only games I've had trouble running are a few PC exclusives, and most of them scale just fine.  Right now if I bought a lower-end 8800, all I'd have to do is drop the thing in my machine and that would be the end of it.  Huge performance increase that will likely last me at least to the end of the console cycle for the most part (barring another game like Crysis 4 years from now, maybe, and even then scaling usually means it's all good).

Eh.  I don't know.   I still find PC gaming to be infinitely more attractive than console gaming without being all that difficult, time-consuming, or money-consuming.  I guess I'm really just thinking out loud here, and again, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on anything or say that there aren't obvious reasons the mass market is moving more toward consoles... I'm just trying to say I don't think I'll ever understand it on a personal level and I'll always think it's stupid.  And I love consoles and all kinds of exclusive games and even genres that never make it to PC.  It isn't elitism, nor that I think it would make some huge difference to me if one thing dominated more than the other, I just won't ever understand why you'd prefer a console for anything.  It's like people who like to drive automatic cars.  Okay fine, I won't tell you not to, but what the fuck?  More power, more reliability, better control, more options... you'd have to be an idiot not to prefer that.

Okay, rant over.  Forgive me.  I'm just lamenting now and not attempting to go over this for the sake of objectivity.  I do want a Wii, and I'll likely end up even getting a PS3 at some point when I've got extra cash, but I guess I still have my priorities.

[scottws]

I actually disagree with what you said about the 360's library Que.  Almost all the 360's major selling points already are or will be on the PC.

I honestly think the 360's library is a huge let down.  I own one and am constantly browsing the shelves at Best Buy, but I never get anything.  Everything good (IMO) is also on the PC.

Edit:  "Queue" lol.  Sorry.  We're always talking about queues here at work.

[Cobra951]

Funny you should mention Overlord.  The expansion for the 360 version finally came out.  I'll be getting that soon.

My system is cutting edge, for 2005.     The problem is that it can go no further with upgrades.  That shiny 8800 sucks too much power, so I'd need a new power supply.  That's assuming I can get one that works on AGP 4X, which I doubt I can.  Then I'm stuck with RDRAM, fully populated at 768 MB, which means oodles of cash to *discard* and start over with scarce, overpriced larger replacements, so I can get closer to the multi-gigs everyone assumes now.  The HDD tech is passe as well, so loading speeds will not be up to snuff.  The CPU is stuck at the Northwood P4 level.  Max clock is around 2.6 GHz, and it's of course a single core.  The one I got runs at 2.4 GHz.

Obviously, I need an entirely new system, yes, from scratch.  I could salvage the audio card, but I wouldn't want to.  I'm done with Creative Labs.  I could have gone that route at one point, but now it's out of the question.  Comparing the cost of new PC hardware to the cost of a Wii doesn't follow.  The Wii is its own thing, with its own reason for being.  Either you want and buy one or you don't.  It changes nothing on the PC side.  It doesn't even fit squarely on the traditional console side.  It's a unique product.  OK, I digress.

I'm not sure what else to say.  In an ideal world, I'd own everything in this field that I care about.  In the real world, I made choices.  But the worst part of having to do all this explaining is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this thread.  The issue is whether PC gaming is going down or not, and what are the driving forces behind the market.  Somehow it's gotten twisted around by partisan emotion, and everyone in here has been on the receiving end of that stick at one point or another.  It's my turn.  Fine.

[Quemaqua]

My point was only that it isn't always as expensive for everybody to upgrade as is sometimes indicated.  My initial investment in this rig is going to last me 2 console cycles.  It's a bit more expensive compared to what I've paid console-wise, especially with the added cost of a new video card soon, but not by an extreme margin.  And the other point was that it didn't take me being some guy who needs to be on top of the pile to make that happen.  You can be average and still reap many benefits graphically and otherwise.  PC gaming isn't just for some elite few, and I guess maybe that's what I was trying to get at.  I think perceiving it that way or trying to perpetuate the viewpoint is wrong.  It's more niche now than console gaming, sure, but that doesn't mean it's this weird little elitist cult.

[MysterD]

My system is cutting edge, for 2005.     The problem is that it can go no further with upgrades.  That shiny 8800 sucks too much power, so I'd need a new power supply.  That's assuming I can get one that works on AGP 4X, which I doubt I can.  Then I'm stuck with RDRAM, fully populated at 768 MB, which means oodles of cash to *discard* and start over with scarce, overpriced larger replacements, so I can get closer to the multi-gigs everyone assumes now.  The HDD tech is passe as well, so loading speeds will not be up to snuff.  The CPU is stuck at the Northwood P4 level.  Max clock is around 2.6 GHz, and it's of course a single core.  The one I got runs at 2.4 GHz.

...

Obviously, I need an entirely new system, yes, from scratch.  I could salvage the audio card, but I wouldn't want to.  I'm done with Creative Labs.  I could have gone that route at one point, but now it's out of the question.

I've always found it best to get a brand-new rig every say 4-6 years, if you're going to buy a new PC.

As many games as I've got laying around here untouched due to buying as soon as I can get them very cheap (those crazy CC blowout sales, Gogamer sales, cheap Big Lots clearance racks, etc etc), I might be able to stretch that to 7 years.

Some of my favorite years of gaming is when I hit that "I can't ran many just released new games, but I can go play catch-up with my ever-growing collection of games that I ain't touched yet" stack that I've got laying around.

[Cobra951]

Yes, that's exactly how old my system is--7 years.  It got overhauled substantially, twice.  It's given all it's got to give.

[MysterD]

Yes, that's exactly how old my system is--7 years.  It got overhauled substantially, twice.  It's given all it's got to give.

Cobra, sounds like when you find the right price w/ the right equipment, a new rig should be yours.
Sounds like since it's 7 years old, you're way overdue for a nice new bad-ass rig.

Funny you should mention Overlord.  The expansion for the 360 version finally came out.  I'll be getting that soon.

Unfortunately, Raising Hell PC has not been released in a box.....well, not yet, at least.

[Pugnate]

The reality is that we all want a high end PC and all three consoles with a really sweet HDTV. It just doesn't work out that way when you have responsibilities.

[gpw11]

Hmmm...shouldn't the GF 7800 and 8600 be able to handle Crysis and still look good, which are both less than $250?

Hypothetically, yes.  In practice, no not at all.

[MysterD]

Hypothetically, yes.  In practice, no not at all.

Not even on 1024x768 w/ all Medium settings???

[gpw11]

you're assuming medium settings in Crysis look better than Farcry. They don't.

[MysterD]

you're assuming medium settings in Crysis look better than Farcry. They don't.

Hmmm....
What about Crysis looking on Medium say as good as Far Cry on its Highest?

[Quemaqua]

What in the name of bloody fuck does that have to do with anything?

[Ghandi]

What in the name of bloody fuck does that have to do with anything?

Polar bears.

[Pugnate]

What in the name of bloody fuck does that have to do with anything?

hahahahaha.... oh god.

[gpw11]

Hmmm....
What about Crysis looking on Medium say as good as Far Cry on its Highest?

Probably pretty close, although Crysis might run slower.

[poomcgoo]

Gears looks like trash on 360 after playing it on my new rig.  I thought the graphics were amazing before, but playing it on this thing is like playing a different game.  It almost feels that way -- I never realized how choppy/blurry the 360 version is.

[scottws]

I have it for 360 and PC as well, though I have trouble with it on the PC.  It gets jumpy.  Not like a low framerate... just I don't know... jumpy.  A lot of other users were reporting the same problem.  I haven't played in awhile though.  Maybe they patched it.