Blizzard games do this on PC. It's a really nice feature for larger games. I'm pretty sure Valve used to have something like this for their games as well, but I guess it was removed for some reason.
-
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
Yeah, I actually DO remember that being a feature of Steam when it first launched. Shame it kind of disappeared as it's really a great idea.
Halo 2, as awful as the port was, actually had this feature as well. You could start playing from disc straight away if you wanted to.
Yep WoW has been like that for like 4 years now.
It's not the game that is superior, it's your machine if you buy something better than consoles, for fucking sake.
A console port won't be superior if you game on a 2005 PC or a low end PC laptop, etc.
VivaciousSoul
Member
Or if you are so far behind that there's no point to buying any game at launch because games from 2 years ago got in line first. Buy them 2 years later when they're 75% off of an already discounted price.
Edit: For example Dishonored, came out about this time last year. I'm just getting around to buying it today for $7.50. By the time I call it's name for it to be played it will probably be this time next year (well okay not that bad, probably more like mid 2014). I only bought it because it's unlikely to get lower than that otherwise I'd stick to the don't buy unless you're going to play now rule. Without this rule I'd never get to anything. At least I never pay $60 for anything.
More mmo's seem to adopt this, atleast i saw SWTOR using it though it was very limited in comparison.
Is it actually an OS design difference? Or is it up to the game developers to implement it? Does the game actually stall when requesting a resource from the disc forced by the OS itself automatically, or does the developer put an arbitrary list of resources that need to be cached in certain points?
I'm just wondering how does their implementation work, because given that Blizzard does it for their own games, I imagine it could probably be integrated into the Steamworks API somehow.
I don't even remember that! Was this only for Source games? Could make sense there given the early archive tree structure for Source games was awful, with all their files extracted individually.
TheChocolateWar
Member
Not so sure about that. Given that the PC version can do more (more coding on the disc and more options) I would call that superior.
Still, the game runs better on my pc than it would on my console (for fucking sake).
I'm not gaming on a machine like that though so not sure why it matters, if the pc version was as good (or as bad lol) as the console version why does it not only run but also look better on a higher end pc? Exactly, cause the pc version is superior, the console version will always be the same shit while the pc version will improve based on how good your hardware is making it the best version of the game, weird that console gamers can't grasp (or accept?) this fact.
Just lowering myself to your level.
Case in point.
It can do less, i would call that inferior, trololo! It's why PC/consoles comparisons are brainless.
It's better to have the possibility to have better if you get the money, though.
Yours but not mine. What an argument!
It doesn't matter because i'm not you...? I really don't know what to make of it, my experience doesn't count i already know that. And then, higher end PC makes your games superior, come back for more news at 11! Open door is open.
If you go personal, we should go PM then. But i really don't understand what level i am. By number of my posts, i would say LVL11 atleast! Maybe i will gain some abilities at LVL12 (pro-tip: i'm not a Pokemon, i think).
I think we all know that higher end means higher end. If this is what will come out of this discussion, i think we should autoban us directly.
Maybe it's more about: are high end PC's benefits enough to justify the price and hypothetical inconveniences?
I don't think that particular discussion is relevant. On PC you have an enormous game library (what about indie gaming f.ex., which is not something Sony invented for the PS4..) continuously accumulating, and the games never expires. This large spread and resulting long tails does not look "hot" in a game chart. You can play virtually anything on a PC - and people tend to do.
LowEndTorque
Member
No, my point is that subjectivity and preference are inherent and inseparable from this particular discussion topic. Your wording was just a reflection of that inevitable reality. Trying to cut subjective preference out of the discussion and deem exclusives as “invalid” to this type of discussion is nonsense. The goalpost moving is manifested in trying to change the rules of the discussion in order to sweep under the rug the one thing that you don’t have a real answer for and that can’t be discredited.
I’ve owned every platform this generation including a gaming PC and to me, the absolute best games of this generation were Demon’s Souls, TLoU, Red Dead Redemption, Uncharted 2, MGS 4 and Valkyria Chronicles. None of these experiences are available on PC. These are my reasons for preferring a certain platform.
Sure, this reason is partly subjective (based on my own taste in games) and partly objective (all of these games were extremely well received by both critics and gamers alike). But it’s a 100% valid reason for any gamer to prefer one platform over the others. The only counterargument anyone can offer in response to this reason is the tired old “well those games are all over-rated garbage, my platform's exclusives are way better.” So it would be just fighting subjectivity with more subjectivity.
In other words, exclusives and subjective preference is a 100% valid reason (if not the single most important reason) for why any gamer would prefer or choose a certain platform over another (which is the topic of this thread, isn't it?). And it’s an argument that can’t be reasonably and validly discredited. And because it can’t be validly discredited, you are proposing that it be swept under the rug and cut out of the conversation altogether.
I don't understand why you think your personal preference is interesting in this particular thread considering the topic, because it isn't. Your personal opinion about more objective-oriented facts however could be contributing to a more interesting discussion.
jim-jam bongs
Member
So if a bunch of people share a subjective opinion it becomes objective?
Justin Bieber really is the king of pop =0
Justin Bieber really is the king of pop =0
blitzcloud
Banned
and the first guild wars did it too. It downloaded areas and updates from areas when you first entered them.
You've convinced me, Nvidia. I think I'll start a new build today. Hmm, should I go with a 290 or a 280X, what do you think?
The true Nvidia nightmare scenario: AMD has all 3 consoles, and you buy a Radeon for your PC. It makes me feel so villainous just thinking about it (I have an Nvidia GPU right now).
The true Nvidia nightmare scenario: AMD has all 3 consoles, and you buy a Radeon for your PC. It makes me feel so villainous just thinking about it (I have an Nvidia GPU right now).
Haha this is so true..
LowEndTorque
Member
That post isn’t about my personal preference. It’s about the fact that generally, exclusives and subjective things like a gamer’s personal preference are inseparable from the topic of how and why gamers choose their platforms. And also that it’s nonsense to try and cut that element out of the conversation. Just like Alexandros, it looks like you’re trying to steer the conversation in another direction because you don’t have a real answer to this fact.
jim-jam bongs
Member
And then you buy PC games, then more publishers release their games on the platform, then more gamers play on the platform, then GPU sales continue to increase and Nvidia's potential market keeps growing. I'm sure they're terrified!
alexandros
Banned
No. Read my previous post and you'll understand. The exclusives argument is so highly subjective that it can be applied to every single platform out there, with no exceptions. Precisely because it's subjective, it can't be disputed and for that reason it's pointless to argue about it. How are you not seeing this? No one has an answer to such a subjective claim, not you, not me, not anyone.
What you are proposing is for me to come to this thread and say "PC is the best platform of all because it has Euro Truck Simulator 2". How does one respond to that? You can't say that I'm wrong, so you'll say "Resogun is where it's at", we will both increase our post counts and we will have said nothing of value. What is the point?
By avoiding this little dance we have a chance to talk about really interesting stuff like the console-PC convergence and the future of the industry. Or I can indulge you, say something provocative like "oh yeah, how can one resist a console when he gets to play such gems as Knack and Ryse", you'll respond by saying something about bugs or boring games and this thread will become another pissing contest for fanboys on all sides.
LowEndTorque
Member
I do get what you're arguing, but I don't think you get what I'm arguing.
I'm not proposing to turn this into an argument about exclusives. I'm proposing that exclusives be acknowledged as a valid reason for any gamer to choose his/her platform. Sure, they can't be disputed and there's no point arguing over them, but that doesn't mean they can be ignored and swept under the rug either.
Exclusives are an inherent part of almost any platform x versus platform y discussion (except the ones that deal strictly with tech/specs, etc., which this thread isn't). If someone cites exclusives are the reason for preferring a platform it's best to just acknowledge that as a valid reason and move on rather than crying foul. My problem is with people crying foul every time exclusives are brought up in a misguided attempt to arbitrarily decide what the rules of the discussion should be.
alexandros
Banned
They are a valid reason and they're not ignored, that is not the intention. I'm trying to keep this discussion from being turned into another "my exclusives are better than your exclusives" thread. That's all I'm saying.
LowEndTorque
Member
Fair enough.
Moving on from the exclusives topic, Ill throw in another one of my reasons for preferring consoles and let you decide if its objective or "valid" enough to be a part of this conversation.
A big part of my gaming is playing multiplayer first person shooters online. I absolutely hate gaming with a kb/m and cant stand it. But I love gaming with a pad. Sure I could hook up my 360 pad to my PC. But if I go online with my pad against kb/m players Ill be at a severely unfair disadvantage and wont be able to enjoy the experience. That completely eliminates PC from my consideration for a huge part of my regular gaming (online fps).
Valid or invalid to this discussion in your opinion?
alexandros
Banned
I will allow it :-D In my opinion and in my personal experience, using a controller in online multiplayer on PC is not as big a disadvantage as it may seem at first. Obviously I wouldn't recommend playing something like DOTA 2 or Counterstrike with a controller, but most multiplatform games are fine and you can be competitive against m&k players to a good degree. I routinely play multiplayer action games on PC with a 360 controller and I'm doing fine. So while I agree that you would be at a disadvantage by using a controller, you would still be able to enjoy yourself just fine. The Steam Controller should also help with this issue as it's significantly more accurate than a standard controller.
Ok just gonna throw in my two cents. This is the first gen where consoles with the exception of the WiiU and handhelds (ie the PS4 and Xbox One) are completely out of my range of choice for machines.
The only reason for this is the value of the system over its life time. I regret this as there are some great exclusives I'll miss as I did this gen, but that is a sacrifice worth taking for me.
Intial investments from pervious years include monitor, speakers etc. The very same is true for consoles, hdtv, speakers etc
I go and build a mid-level PC for between (£400 -£500) thanks to the bonus of my case and psu, drives etc carrying over from the previous gens build. If this wasn't the case I could also start from scratch and build an entry level PC for (£450 to £500). Both of these machines would already be as capable or (more likely) more capable than the PS4 or Xbox One, something that hasn't been possible at this price in previous gens. But this isn't the only reason.
As time goes on, every two years I will upgrade. This cost is justified by the savings from what would have been spent on xbox live/ps+ and the fact that every game I buy throughout this period being below £10 with the exception of games that I consider must haves, numbering between 2 - 5 each 2 year period on average (80% of the time these are priced £20 or £30). So guaranteed saving is 2 years live/ps+ is £39.99 x 2 = £79.99 (I know that these subs can be bought cheaper but considering the price difference of games I will leave it as is for a guaranteed figure.
During the two years, I will find that more recent games no longer run at 1080p avg 60fps. On the PC I have the freedom to choose the temporary sacrifice to make in order to maintain what I feel is optimal for now (1080p avg 60fps). I like aliasing and 1080p and AA, so those stay. I maybe choose to reduce the resolution of shadows or the physics complexity, whatever I feel provides the biggest gains and least loss of quality. Never in the previous gen was this loss of quality worse than those on the consoles.
The two year mark is reached and I get to choose what to upgrade. Typically, I'm an nvidia guy who uses the gtx ?60 series of cards when they are priced between £150 and £200. An example from the previous gen, I sold my gtx 260 for £90 and bought the new one for £170 therefore a cost of £80, I still fell like I have saved here due to no subscription fees and this exceeded by my way of purchasing games.
As above what happens in the following 2 year periods is what decides what I upgrade, selling the old components and buying the new ones, maintaining that margin of cost.
Now what blows me away and will always keep me on the PC is that the upgrade I have made, not only allows me to play games at a quality that is now even more significantly ahead of the console. I get to experience the PC exclusive titles at a higher fidelity and the performance gains are further increased in all my previous games. In some games it feels like its a whole new experience with the increases in frame rate and graphic features. In the previous gen, the jump from gtx 260 to gtx 460 for example, brought in tessellation increases, that looked and performed incredibly. Going from fairly ok ocean and water simulations to out right epic ones was stunning.
Moreover, what really matters is that I think VR will be a big deal this gen. My upgrades, in theory will allow me to experience VR in the 90<120fps range at >1080P, an experience that will not be possible elsewhere at this fidelity.
Now obviously, this is just my case and it just so happens that how I purchase my games (through sales, bundles etc and probably now also through family sharing), allows me to do all these upgrades and experience better quality while still saving a ton of money. If your habits are different and you have no interest in playing your old titles or VR or RTS or whatever, then console are a good solution.
But all this combined with the freedom to also work and create, as well as experience the thousands of community enhancements and mods for games old and new, makes PC an even clearer choice than it ever has been in any generation prior
The only reason for this is the value of the system over its life time. I regret this as there are some great exclusives I'll miss as I did this gen, but that is a sacrifice worth taking for me.
Intial investments from pervious years include monitor, speakers etc. The very same is true for consoles, hdtv, speakers etc
I go and build a mid-level PC for between (£400 -£500) thanks to the bonus of my case and psu, drives etc carrying over from the previous gens build. If this wasn't the case I could also start from scratch and build an entry level PC for (£450 to £500). Both of these machines would already be as capable or (more likely) more capable than the PS4 or Xbox One, something that hasn't been possible at this price in previous gens. But this isn't the only reason.
As time goes on, every two years I will upgrade. This cost is justified by the savings from what would have been spent on xbox live/ps+ and the fact that every game I buy throughout this period being below £10 with the exception of games that I consider must haves, numbering between 2 - 5 each 2 year period on average (80% of the time these are priced £20 or £30). So guaranteed saving is 2 years live/ps+ is £39.99 x 2 = £79.99 (I know that these subs can be bought cheaper but considering the price difference of games I will leave it as is for a guaranteed figure.
During the two years, I will find that more recent games no longer run at 1080p avg 60fps. On the PC I have the freedom to choose the temporary sacrifice to make in order to maintain what I feel is optimal for now (1080p avg 60fps). I like aliasing and 1080p and AA, so those stay. I maybe choose to reduce the resolution of shadows or the physics complexity, whatever I feel provides the biggest gains and least loss of quality. Never in the previous gen was this loss of quality worse than those on the consoles.
The two year mark is reached and I get to choose what to upgrade. Typically, I'm an nvidia guy who uses the gtx ?60 series of cards when they are priced between £150 and £200. An example from the previous gen, I sold my gtx 260 for £90 and bought the new one for £170 therefore a cost of £80, I still fell like I have saved here due to no subscription fees and this exceeded by my way of purchasing games.
As above what happens in the following 2 year periods is what decides what I upgrade, selling the old components and buying the new ones, maintaining that margin of cost.
Now what blows me away and will always keep me on the PC is that the upgrade I have made, not only allows me to play games at a quality that is now even more significantly ahead of the console. I get to experience the PC exclusive titles at a higher fidelity and the performance gains are further increased in all my previous games. In some games it feels like its a whole new experience with the increases in frame rate and graphic features. In the previous gen, the jump from gtx 260 to gtx 460 for example, brought in tessellation increases, that looked and performed incredibly. Going from fairly ok ocean and water simulations to out right epic ones was stunning.
Moreover, what really matters is that I think VR will be a big deal this gen. My upgrades, in theory will allow me to experience VR in the 90<120fps range at >1080P, an experience that will not be possible elsewhere at this fidelity.
Now obviously, this is just my case and it just so happens that how I purchase my games (through sales, bundles etc and probably now also through family sharing), allows me to do all these upgrades and experience better quality while still saving a ton of money. If your habits are different and you have no interest in playing your old titles or VR or RTS or whatever, then console are a good solution.
But all this combined with the freedom to also work and create, as well as experience the thousands of community enhancements and mods for games old and new, makes PC an even clearer choice than it ever has been in any generation prior
alexandros
Banned
Well said, bloody well said.
Gaming would be so much better off if everyone picked up PC it wouldn't even be funny. Not only could ambitious ideas like VR take hold with the mass market accessibility going up, but companies like Nintendo may actually be able to jump into a third-party position now that they're not forced to rest the fate of their entire company developing for someone elses closed box. It's also cheap as hell now. Games are actually competitively priced. Home PCs are very functional devices overall. Would be incredibly sad if it doesn't take off over the next few years.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Ah this thread if finally going somewhere
Now to also get you to admit that even an equally and lower specced pc has cheaper games, doesn't require online fees, has more user control and more features and more control options and we'll be done here as we reach the conclusion in the OP title.
Sword Of Doom
Member
Would love to own a PC for gaming nvidia if only your cards were a little cheaper. Seriously though PC gaming is expensive. That's the only negative for me
TyphoonStruggle
Member
GTX 760 was on sale for $200.00 this past black friday. That's a kickass card with 2.3 teraflops for half the price of 1 PS4.
I upgraded my whole system for the cost of 1 XBONE and 2 XBONE games, and what did I get? top of the line intel CPU and MOBO, RAM, and ~2.8 teraflop GPU (which blows away the 7850 in consoles), and 2 free games (AssCreed4 and Splintercell).
It's only expensive during the initial investment, after that upgrade at your own leisure. (wait for deals, wait for good boosts)
My post about 7 posts back, illustrates that purchase and maintenance (upgrades every 2 years) of a PC is comfortably cheaper than the PS4 or Xbox One.
PC gaming is officially not expensive by the token that PS4 and Xbox One are affordable
It's cheap for a comparable experience to consoles. You just lose a lot of money when you transition into an enthusiast. If you have some self control, you could save tons of cash all around on both hardware and games.
PeregrinSe7en
Member
sorry nvidia, im limiting my options to ps4 only and im happy with that option
Also G-sync next year has me more excited to buy a new monitor for a reason in recent years and in my memory a good one.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Shitty animations.
I've been struggling deciding between picking up a PS4 or upgrading my PC, but your post was like a shining beacon of clarity. Thank you.
Completely agree with you... with just one slight addition. How many people have gone a whole console generation and not had an out of warranty hardware failure? Just this current one I've gone through 2 PS3s and 3 360s (and previously more PS Ones than I care to mention) but my PC I built in 2007 is still going strong.
Sure it's had a few upgrades since then (plus I've just retired it as a media box now) but overall in the same lifespan if you factor in cost of software and subscription costs it's been way cheap to run, maintain and use.
If I'm going to make a £350-£500 investment that meant to see out 5-7 years worth of gaming I sure want to see a warranty longer than 12 months. Most PC components carry a minimum of 3 years (some OEM stuff 12 months) with 5 and 7 years for higher end components and most memory carry lifetime support.
It's called an example. You can literally insert any good first party game in it's place, and the point is exactly the same. It isn't 'PC gaming sucks because you can't play The Last of Us on it' it's 'PC gaming lacks first party games (or console exclusives etc), which really sucks and makes me not open to EVER going PC only with the current state of the gaming industry'.
I was taking about first party games in general- Halo (which hasn't been on PC since 2, so don't even start), Pokemon, Zelda, etc.
Well, if you can somehow change the whole videogame industry overnight by buying a PC then I guess this is a good response, but it really isn't. As long as Sony makes consoles and they make a profit, they'll keep their games on their consoles only. Also, I never toted it as a positive, I was just saying it was something consoles have on PCs, which will prevent me from ever gaming exclusively on PC.
I can't understand that argument. You have to buy that game. Retail console game doesn't appear in your house magically. So you can download a steam game or drive to an store or wait amazon delivery. And in this point, console retail game needs some install but steam game is already installed.
I can preload every steam game few hours before release, so delivery time is nothing. I suppose there is a similar delivery "before relesase day" method for retail and maybe a preload system for console digital games.
MutonCommander
Banned
The consumer has a lot of ways to steer the industry towards a specific direction. I love fighting games and the Mortal Kombat series specifically and I was disappointed when some of those games didn't get PC versions. I didn't buy a console, I stayed on PC and apparently so did a lot of people, which eventually forced these companies to bring the games to us.
Those, selling your consoles to buy a PC with nVidia GPU in it, don't hurry just yet.
nVidia made a new discovery:
The Future of Gaming is Android, Says Nvidia
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-amazon-android-fiscal-third-quarter,25026.html
PC version of DAO had used such a tiny font that I couldn't read it. (PS3 version was fine, although graphics was ugly). Most PC gamers sit next to the monitors and it is understandable that stuff in games is optimized accordingly. The same goes for consoles, played from a distance, so bigger fonts etc.
I don't know how to play SC2 with a controller, or how to sit with them comfortable in sofa.
But, all in all, good for you, glad you've figured how to bring your PC to living room.
nVidia made a new discovery:
The Future of Gaming is Android, Says Nvidia
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/nvidia-amazon-android-fiscal-third-quarter,25026.html
PC version of DAO had used such a tiny font that I couldn't read it. (PS3 version was fine, although graphics was ugly). Most PC gamers sit next to the monitors and it is understandable that stuff in games is optimized accordingly. The same goes for consoles, played from a distance, so bigger fonts etc.
I don't know how to play SC2 with a controller, or how to sit with them comfortable in sofa.
But, all in all, good for you, glad you've figured how to bring your PC to living room.
MutonCommander
Banned
This argument is silly. A platform that has all Nintendo's, Sony's and Microsoft's games on it doesn't exist. In order to play Halo, TLOU and Mario you either need to spend a lot of money on hardware or constantly buying and reselling consoles which isn't too practical.
That's ignoring the fact that you have to become mysteriously oblivious to multiple genres to claim that PC doesn't have an exclusive library that matches any of the competing platforms...
fizzelopeguss
Banned
It's a non issue anyway, these consoles need a preload/fast play option because they can't multitask for shit. You need to have the most painful, crippling OCD to watch an install bar fill up on PC.
ScepticMatt
Member
Well, I have Gigabit Fibre and RAM cache
. Anyway I agree that more PC games should use the instant-play feature. And I actually needed 30 min to install AC4 because of shit uPlay servers crubling after like 2 seconds at 60MB/s.TheChocolateWar
Member
Most games have a UI scaling option in the graphics settings. If they don't, you just change a number in the INI file. Isn't it great that you can do that on the PC and not be screwed on the consoles when they don't make the UI big enough for one's eye sight?
Similar threads
- Locked