Atraveller
Banned
You can't count copies sold with MMO and F2P titles.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nvidia: Gamers should not limit their options to PS4/XB1; PC is the way to go
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
alexandros
Banned
Or game titles sold digitally. Charts do not tell the whole truth or even part of it these days.
It's funny really. I only recently bought a smart phone, and it has had me stumped many times. One app has gone into an infinite update loop, I've had trouble finding things etc. It really pisses me off because all I want the damn phone to do is send and receive text messages, take phone calls and occasionally go on the internet.
But no, it came with a zillion pre-installed apps (Twitter, Facebook and other shit I don't want), all of which pester me about wanting to be updated at least once a month. These things are filled to the brim with nonsense, and everybody else seems to love it.
I would actually need to spend time learning how to operate it, apprently everybody around me already knows all the ins and outs of it, and I just can't get into it. It's a frickin PHONE.
Anyway, I guess the point of the rant is: I can see why people who don't use productivity applications and only want a pure gaming machine don't go for PCs. But I *don't* understand why they whine about everything being so complicated. They've got Android figured out, so surely they can get a Windows game to run.
We have Windows 7, and the last time I used Steam couldn't play anything without installing something. So no. And I don't want Windows 8 garbage. Thanks.
Why bother with it, when I can play it on console and be done with it? Right, I wouldn't.
I didn't say PC sucks. I don't want to deal with it. So don't.
Correct myself with what? I wanted to avoid someone butthurt coming in and saying, "YOU CAN USE CONTROLLERZ ON DA PC NEWBZ LOLOL" So much for avoiding butthurt.
I like physical media, but thanks for telling me how to consume media.
You're silly. Don't get so effected by other people's opinions and preferences.
What about the process on Steam just after you buy a game? You have to wait for the data to be downloaded to your machine. Same deal from disc. It takes just about as long as XB1. You can't just start playing immediately after buying a PC game.
and then you have threads like this one: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=717380 where the optimised plug-and-play console experience reveals itself to just as easily become a quagmire of network instability, hard crashes and sub 30FPS framerate drops.
AdventureRacing
Member
This is an embarrassing post. There are no walls of text in this thread. You're seemingly just incapable of reading any post that goes for more than a few sentences. It kinda sucks how a lot of people aren't willing to engage in any conversation that involves more than one line of text.
Because the PC market doesn't revolve around day one sales like the console market does. Most of the PC market has for a long time been dominated by service based games like MMOs and F2P titles. Even in it's declining state WoW has almost 8 million active players, EVE Online has 500K, In total there are over 18m active MMO payed subscription players, League of Legends has 32m+ monthly players (XBLA has ~40m total for comparison), DOTA2 Peaks at over 500K simultaneous players, World of Tanks peaks at 600K+ simultaneous players. Also on PC because the platform has almost perfect backwards compatibility, which leads to very long sales tales on games and means that sales are split up over a huge catalog of titles. But you do still some big AAA sales on PC like Diablo 3's 12m sales for example, or Guild Wars 2's 3.5m, or SimCity 2013's 2m and games like Battlefield do very well on PC.
Sub 30 fps? I assume that's related to the connection problems. Bf4 is pretty buggy everywhere, unfortunately.
Dude are you really serious in this whole thread?
I'm a PC gamer as well, and it's clear fact that when it comes to optimization, developers don't give a shit about PC.
Almost all big releases this year have been total shit ports including exclusive PC games like COH II, Rome II
Metro LL and Crysis 3 ran wonderfully out of the box, but you're right, a lot of new releases had issues.
alexandros
Banned
Again, that's the delivery method. It's the way the game's bits arrive in your house. Including that in the installation time is like including the time Amazon takes to deliver your physical copy. Compare physical to physical or download to download if you really want to compare the two.
That's a strange way of thinking. I can't recall an eight character dos name for "delivery method". I usually used "install.exe" or "setup.exe". Who the hell calls it a "delivery method"? When did you start PC gaming anyways? I can't imagine someone who's been into PCs for a long time trying to argue that installation doesn't include copying data to local storage from another source. When I "install" an OS, am I going through the OS "delivery method" process rather than the installation?
I wasn't trying to draw comparisons, but if you really want to go down that road, then the PS4 is actually faster on both sides.
Why? You can begin playing a game before the data is fully copied to your local storage. That's the difference.
With Steam, you must download the entire game before you can begin. On PS4, you can begin playing when only a fraction of the entire game is downloaded.
Same deal with disc based games. On PS4, you can insert a new disc and begin playing that disc within 30-60 seconds right out of the package. The game installs while you play.
On PC, you have to install it to your system first and that does take 10-20 minutes (sometimes longer). As someone who still buys a lot of PC games at retail I can confirm this to be the case. It simply takes a while to install everything.
There's really nothing else to argue on that front. I'm not even sure what kind of comparison you were trying to make previously. If you want to throw Xbox One into the mix things look worse but it still allows play to begin before the entire game is on the hard disk and it reaches a playable point faster than the PC simply due to that fact. The consoles can begin playing before the "delivery method" is complete. That's the difference.
It has nothing to do with hardware, speed, or whatever else you want to compare. I still think PC is the best place to game, really, but let's not distort the truth with this concept of "15 second" installs. That's just madness.
thewhitehawk
Member
Nvidia = salty responses in almost every announcement these days.
It's ironic though that they suggest you shouldn't buy consoles when they have one in the market.
It's ironic though that they suggest you shouldn't buy consoles when they have one in the market.
alexandros
Banned
I'll try and clear it up. In order to play a game you have to somehow obtain it, have it in your possession, either in the form of a retail disc or a digital download. Then you have to install it, get the game to be playable on your device. In the case of retail you obtain the data by buying a physical disc and inserting it in your machine. In the case of a digital download you obtain the data by downloading it.
Then comes the installation. In retail games the process includes the transfer of files from the disc to a hard drive. With downloaded ga!es the process only includes the few steps required to make the game playable. I don't see why it's so hard to understand. The PS4's ability to play the game during an install is a great feature.
Right, and you can do the same on the new consoles as well. Installation is no longer a real issue as you're not locked into just looking at a loading bar on any platform.
No, it's clear to me, we're just arguing over semantics. To me, when you click "Install" on a Steam title, the entire process is part of the installation. Looks like Valve agrees with me on the terminology as well!
You say, in retail games, the process includes the transfer of files from disc to a hard drive. With digital games, the process includes the transfer of files from a server to your hard drive. The only difference is the source. There's really no difference between the two outside of where the source files lie. In either case, I consider them both part of the installation process. If you want to call it something else, that's fine, but we're talking about the same thing.
Their "console" is more like a personal computing device, imo.
IAmRandom31
Banned
Once I get my Steam Machine it will sit happily next to my PS4 and then my living room gaming setup will be complete.
Right now I have my gigantic Cooler Master HAF case hidden as to play PC on the TV. But PC gaming with mouse/keyboard will never be comfortable on the couch, which is why I hope Steam succeeds with this new type of controller with the trackpads. I see the idea behind it, and hope they get it to function well as it could be that bridge between the precision control of a mouse and the comfort of a controller. If it works well, could be a game changer.
BUT, this is why Nintendo / Sony will always thrive. Unless something drastic happens you will always need to own a Nintendo or Sony device to get a hold of the massive library of exclusives they both will have over the course of a generation. I will want to play God of War, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, Level 5 RPG's, Littlebigplanet, Sly Cooper, Killzone, Res0gun, DriveClub, The Order, etc. etc. etc. etc. the list goes on for awhile so I will have to own a Sony system. With MS, I see most of their exclusives being on the PC as well eventually. Heck MS themselves said this will be happening.
I for one, just can't wait for the steam machines. I will go for the best looking design and then upgrade as necessary. I am waiting for the intel cpu w/ R9 280X box.
Then with Mantle API and Steam OS layered on top. 3 years from now, PC gaming could be very interesting indeed.
Right now I have my gigantic Cooler Master HAF case hidden as to play PC on the TV. But PC gaming with mouse/keyboard will never be comfortable on the couch, which is why I hope Steam succeeds with this new type of controller with the trackpads. I see the idea behind it, and hope they get it to function well as it could be that bridge between the precision control of a mouse and the comfort of a controller. If it works well, could be a game changer.
BUT, this is why Nintendo / Sony will always thrive. Unless something drastic happens you will always need to own a Nintendo or Sony device to get a hold of the massive library of exclusives they both will have over the course of a generation. I will want to play God of War, Uncharted, Gran Turismo, Level 5 RPG's, Littlebigplanet, Sly Cooper, Killzone, Res0gun, DriveClub, The Order, etc. etc. etc. etc. the list goes on for awhile so I will have to own a Sony system. With MS, I see most of their exclusives being on the PC as well eventually. Heck MS themselves said this will be happening.
I for one, just can't wait for the steam machines. I will go for the best looking design and then upgrade as necessary. I am waiting for the intel cpu w/ R9 280X box.
Then with Mantle API and Steam OS layered on top. 3 years from now, PC gaming could be very interesting indeed.
Sentenza
Member
I... think you just pointed that they have every right to promote what they do?
It's incredible how rabid people can be in their brand-loyalism.
You have Sony and Microsoft constantly bullshitting people about how they are offering the ultimate gaming experience, the best hardware in the world and so on, and everyone is fine with it because they have to sell what they do and so on.
Then when you have Nvidia making a similar claim for the very same reason, and with far more legitimate right to it, the console warriors start foaming from their mouths and yelling hysterically "LOL, RIGHT, SO SALTY!!!" etc.
It's embarrassing, really.
Lol, that are only retail sales numbers....
Remember retail is dead on the PC platform. Every PC gamer in his right mind has gone Digital Only a few years ago.
(( Offtopic:
PC gamers always jump on innovations first, then after a few years they get adopted by console gamers. Look at this next-gen generation:
- digital distribution
- game streaming
- indie games
- crowd funding
- alpha funding
- dedicated servers for multiplayer
- social network integration
All those things have been common on the PC platform for years.
))
PC games get shafted in a dusty little corner in every store. Why would go there when you are literally a few keystrokes away of accessing Steam/Origin/Uplay and all those countless online gamekey stores which sell games for prices like these:
(Games listed "free" are actually 14.99 euro)
ScepticMatt
Member
It depends on your definition of 'bigger' to say if console gaming is bigger than PC gaming or not.
PC dwarfs consoles in player base, number or games, hardware sales or time played, and about equals all the consoles in software revenue (including every type of PC game).
It certainly tails boxed physical retail 'AAA' game sales, especially in NA.
PC dwarfs consoles in player base, number or games, hardware sales or time played, and about equals all the consoles in software revenue (including every type of PC game).
It certainly tails boxed physical retail 'AAA' game sales, especially in NA.
PCGA report said:
For what it's worth, I can download+install games faster than it takes to install games on XB1 (or full PS4 install). But then PC gaming setups vary considerably.
alexandros
Banned
I agree we're arguing over semantics and I don't know why. Is there a point to this that is relevant to the discussion? Steam says "x downloading", not "x installing". I'never come across anyone before who believes that downloading is the same as installing, it's completelely bizarre to hear someone make that claim. For the record I've been gaming on PCs since 1991, it's the first time I've heard something like that. Especially on PC and with all software, games included, the procedure has always been a. Download the installer and b. Install. I really don't know what else to say in this matter, except that it's really not an issue worthy of such discussion.
Sentenza
Member
Well, let's settle it in this way: if downloading should be counted as part of the installation, then so it should be driving to the store, buying the game from the shelf and then going back to your home.
Or ordering it on internet and waiting for the shipment.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Why are people comparing disc installs to download installs? I thought the new consoles had day and date downloaded games, why not compare those?
alexandros
Banned
I have no idea, I really don't.
Well yeah, that's why this is so strange to me. Who knew that this would be such a controversial topic
Well yeah, that's why this is so strange to me. Who knew that this would be such a controversial topic
velociraptor
Junior Member
There are plenty of reasons why PCs are a superior platform
- Mods
- Flexibility. Can customize your rig/system for superior graphics or framerate
- Steam prices
- Free online
- PC exclusives
There are also reasons why consoles may be superior
- Unified platform
- Can sell your games
- Console exclusives
- Online gaming is more fun because everyone uses a controller (on a personal note, my family and friends exclusively play consoles)
- No need to worry about upgrading your system
NB: I can't think of any more obvious advantages.
All in all, who gives a shit? Everyone has their own preferences. Whatever keeps you happy, just go with that. Whether that is a 3DS, PC, PS4, Xbox or Wii U... or even dead platforms such as the Vita.
- Mods
- Flexibility. Can customize your rig/system for superior graphics or framerate
- Steam prices
- Free online
- PC exclusives
There are also reasons why consoles may be superior
- Unified platform
- Can sell your games
- Console exclusives
- Online gaming is more fun because everyone uses a controller (on a personal note, my family and friends exclusively play consoles)
- No need to worry about upgrading your system
NB: I can't think of any more obvious advantages.
All in all, who gives a shit? Everyone has their own preferences. Whatever keeps you happy, just go with that. Whether that is a 3DS, PC, PS4, Xbox or Wii U... or even dead platforms such as the Vita.
Finaika
Member
Isn't that a negative?
Karsticles
Member
Every single one of my GOTY-quality titles didnot release on the PC. Certain genres barely exist on the platform. It is too limited to be my primary gaming platform. It would be like only owning an Xbox.
velociraptor
Junior Member
All games will produced for that machine alone, whereas you may get a bad PC port (e.g. Assassins Creed 3/4, GTA 4).
Dat hyberbole. Oh BTW why would anyone want to play with a controller online?
Still superior to the console versions.
McMilhouse
Neo Member
PC, Wii U, Ps4 when Uncharted comes out and Xbox One when there is a re-design/die shrink
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Yeah, I lock it at 20 fps to match the more natural look of the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions.
A bad port is one that runs similarly to the console version in case you were wondering.
alexandros
Banned
This is why using exclusives or personal preferences doesn't work in a tech-oriented thread. This post can be applied to every platform and be no less valid. Observe:
Exactly! The PC is my primary gaming platform for its exclusives and not bcause I can run AAA games better than consoles. I couldn't care less about those games.
thewhitehawk
Member
Because of the operating system it runs yes, but it's physical design is very ill-suited for personal computing and it would be a bit snarky in my opinion to say that they don't market the device as mostly a gaming device.
iceatcs
Junior Member
BS!! Steam first time install and DirectX updating is the worst thing. Dangerous long time with no process bar at all.
TheChocolateWar
Member
Another time period that should be taken into consideration, although seemingly innocuous, is the amount of time one must spend switching discs on a console. It takes me anywhere from 10 seconds to 1 minute depending on the location of the cases and the location of my gaming platform. If a person were to switch what game they were playing on their console maybe once or twice a week, which seems totally reasonable, thats anywhere between 20 seconds to 2 minutes a week, one minute to 8 minutes a month, twelve minutes to 96 minutes a year, and 144 to 576 minutes over the span of a console life time.
And that is just a very conservative number. I know people who switch discs quite often on their consoles of choice, exponentially increasing this seemingly innocuous time that doesn't really exist on the PC for the vast majority of games.
I have a 200mbit fiber connection and multiple SSD drives. It still takes time to download and install a large game. Not a ton of time, but it's not like 2-3 minutes like some were suggesting.
Xb1 is sluggish for sure but I think ps4 handles this stuff brilliantly. I loaded up Assassins Creed 4 for the first time today and was up and running within 60 seconds (patch plus initial install). The time to full install isn't even important in that case as the game plays normally very quickly. I know I couldn't match that with a PC just die to the way installation is designed on the PC. Even PC only people have to admit that the ps4 handles game installs brilliantly.
Wait, what? We were talking about disc vs disc and digital vs digital. I don't think anyone was comparing installing a console game from a disc vs installing a PC game from the internet.
In all cases you can start the game faster on a PS4 than on the PC simply due to the way it was designed (ie - game will start and be playable without downloading or installing the entire game). That's it. It's not a matter of hardware speed, obviously, just an OS design difference.
A lot of folks are getting way too upset over this stuff. There are pros and cons to both platforms.
I wish it were possible to do this on the PC. Seriously.
Exactly, this is the exact same knee jerk reaction of any underage COD player, swearing their ass off close to a heart attack because someone else was just playing the game.
lol
Yeah, normally I agree with ghst but that post doesn't make sense. BF4 is sadly the most broken game on all platforms.
Sentenza
Member
Yeeeah... I have no idea what you are talking about.
Seems to me like you are just continuously trying to draw arbitrary distinctions and define very specific scenarios in the desperate attempt to make a point that just doesn't hold well.
On the console side, is there really nobody else that enjoys seeing what developers can do on a closed platform? I have this weird draw to seeing that which keeps me buying consoles.
I used to feel this way about the PC in the 90s when it was consoles and arcades that were ahead but now that the reverse is true, I'm more impressed to see what developers can do with limited hardware.
As a collector, I own upwards of 80+ consoles and handhelds and still enjoy going back to older machines to see what they achieved with limited resources. I find that really compelling. It's amazing to me to see what developers were still achieving with PS3 and 360 this year. Even with the new consoles, seeing Battlefield 4 look and run as well as it does on PS4 actually impresses me due to its closed nature.
That's it. I wasn't even initially drawing a comparison to consoles.
I used to feel this way about the PC in the 90s when it was consoles and arcades that were ahead but now that the reverse is true, I'm more impressed to see what developers can do with limited hardware.
As a collector, I own upwards of 80+ consoles and handhelds and still enjoy going back to older machines to see what they achieved with limited resources. I find that really compelling. It's amazing to me to see what developers were still achieving with PS3 and 360 this year. Even with the new consoles, seeing Battlefield 4 look and run as well as it does on PS4 actually impresses me due to its closed nature.
No, my original point was that normal size (or greater) PC games cannot be installed in 5-15 seconds.
That's it. I wasn't even initially drawing a comparison to consoles.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
I'm interested in consistent forward progress that I control the pace of with my purchasing decisions.
As expected, but you can accept other opinions I hope without looking down on them.
It's not even a matter of money, really, I just find closed platforms inherently more interesting than a platform without limits. You don't give a shit about that aspect of it and just want more power, which is probably more logical really.
Stallion Free
Cock Encumbered
Getting the most out of a platform usually takes so long that standards move too far past it for me to really care. By the time the PS3 or 360 were "maxed out" I found it hard to care because I was cutting the resolution and framerate in half of what I was getting on the platform that stayed modern by my choosing.
Ultimately I ended up doing the same at the tail end of last gen simply because performance dropped too low on consoles, but I was still fascinated by what was being done even while playing on the PC.
Still, in a lot of cases, I've ended up buying a console copy for collection purposes and a cheap Steam sale copy of the same game for performance reasons.
I lied, though, money is an issue now after moving here (US prices are so damn good in comparison) and throwing a bunch of money at a new car. What do the elite PC gamers here drive, I wonder?
Similar threads
- Locked