Support NeoGAF

[FunkyMunkey]

I build my own PC but its a hobby... I would never expect the masses to build their own PC, which is why I agree with the people saying "Ill take a 400$ PS4 over a 1700$ PC"....

The people who build their own PC dont really have an argument here. You cant say "You should just spend 1300$ on a PC and learn to build it yourself without any prior knowledge". You are being unreasonable in your argument. Those people are better off with a PS4, and the graphics will be on par with current high-end PCs. You dont have to believe me, I dont reall care... but you PC elite will be getting next gen console ports just like you are now. Your games will look exactly the same aside from resolution and MAYBE a few bells and whistles.

You have to understand that (jokes aside) 8GB GDDR5 will allow consoles to have the exact same texture resolution as PC games. If my 670 GTX can run MALDO for Crysis 2, having only 2GB of GDDR5... why in fuck could next gen consoles not run those textures?

I myself will be buying a PS4, an Xbox Durango, and rebuilding my PC after the consoles launch (knowing that Titan was going to be the 780, but Nvidia has no competition so they can charge a grand for a card.. they have no need to push price/performance until next year)

Also, under a grand is bullshit if your buying actual decent parts... If your gonna throw in a shitty motherboard, POS power supply and low lat ram.. then yea, you can for MAYBE 1000. But cmon you cant assume its a better deal if your going to "DELL" your gaming rig.

I really do think most of you will be eating your words once the consoles launch and you see the games running. Im willing to bet that if the crysis 3 game on PS3 were to have its resolution increased to 1080p, include better AA, and max textures (all done with RAM) most of you wouldnt be able to tell the damn difference from that game or the PC counter-part.

You can build a PC with a 1TB 7200 rpm hard drive, Z77 motherboard, gtx 670, i5 2500k CPU(and overclock to 4.2 and even higher with stock cooling), a good quality power-sufficient power supply(500W), and 8GB of ram, for under $1000.

There has never been a better time/year to build a PC and you have no idea what you're talking about regarding that, and some of your other points. Those "bells and whistles" equate to a night and day difference via performance and image quality. Therefore prefacing that sentence with "look exactly the same" makes no sense because, no, they will look far from the same.

PS: No, a lot of people who game on PCs don't automatically expect everyone to build their PCs. But when posters start pulling astronomically high monetary figures from their nether regions to show how expensive PCs are, citing prebuilt units is disingenuous.

 

[ElfArmy177]

Agreed whole heartily. I love PC gaming gaming,but honestly I don't recommend it at all. For most people a console is probably the path with the least amount of headaches.

Exactly! I have had my fair share of
"Update driver to get 12% more performance!!"

"Update driver to get 33% performance"

"Oh, were sorry your game crashes every time you boot it up, we have no solution, go check the forums"

"It seems that the game crashes if you have an xbox controller plugged in, no fix in the works, please remove controller while booting and then plug it in again, or install this community DLL to the game dir."

"Please wait 3 weeks for a patch to improve performance on Nvidia/AMD cards"

"In order to switch to headphones instead of speakers you have to close your game down, go to sound options, set headphones as default, reboot game, fuck yourself in the ass"

"If you want the game to look/run best on YOUR system, please open up the game.cfg, draw a pentagram on the floor, sacrifice your second born (replace with goat if no second born), and add this to like 3432423"

Dont get me wrong, I love PC gaming, and I tweak the hell out of my games.. Im just playing the other side here.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

It's like comparing a Veyron to a Nissan GT-R.

Basically pointless.

 

[Daingurse]

Exactly! I have had my fair share of
"Update driver to get 12% more performance!!"

"Update driver to get 33% performance"

"Oh, were sorry your game crashes every time you boot it up, we have no solution, go check the forums"

"It seems that the game crashes if you have an xbox controller plugged in, no fix in the works, please remove controller while booting and then plug it in again, or install this community DLL to the game dir."

"Please wait 3 weeks for a patch to improve performance on Nvidia/AMD cards"

"In order to switch to headphones instead of speakers you have to close your game down, go to sound options, set headphones as default, reboot game, fuck yourself in the ass"

"If you want the game to look/run best on YOUR system, please open up the game.cfg, draw a pentagram on the floor, sacrifice your second born (replace with goat if no second born), and add this to like 3432423"

Dont get me wrong, I love PC gaming, and I tweak the hell out of my games.. Im just playing the other side here.

Omg yes, yes! so much little bs in pc gaming. Why do I have to delete my config files everytime I want to play Sonic Generations on my tv? Why?

 

[Zinthar]

You have no idea what you are talking about. Nvidia and AMD decided instead of improving and iterating on a form factor and power draw- to increase size, and that is why we are where we are today.

You're a moron, and you just rebutted my argument by making an additional false statement with zero evidence to back it.

Look at the actual power draw measurements that any number of sites have done and you'll see that load consumption has gone pretty much no where despite the massive leaps in performance (most high-end cards are in the 150-200w range under load) and idle power draw has plummeted to the point where the GTX 680 consumes about 12w while in 2D mode.

Your assertion that the graphics companies don't care about power draw is nonsensical -- performance per watt is better now than it ever has been... And by a factor of greater than 10 over the past 7 years.

Additionally, you're conveniently ignoring (or, more likely, never knew to begin with) that increasing general compute performance has been a major push in the development paths at both companies, and eventually may yield GPU's that can take the place of CPU's, or perform their function more efficiently.

http://www.realworldtech.com/compute-efficiency-2012/

 

[ElfArmy177]

You can build a PC with a 1TB 7200 rpm hard drive, Z77 motherboard, gtx 670, i5 2500k CPU(and overclock to 4.2 and even higher with stock cooling), a good quality power-sufficient power supply(500W), and 8GB of ram, for under $1000.

There has never been a better time/year to build a PC and you have no idea what you're talking about regarding that, and most of your other points. Those "bells and whistles" equate to a night and day difference via performance and image quality. Therefore prefacing that sentence with "look exactly the same" makes no sense because, no, they will look far from the same.

Ive built gaming rigs for myself, and just recently (past 5 months) over 7 other buddies/family. I use newegg/tigerdirect as I have a tigerdirect near where I live. I know exactly what Im talking about. Im the type of guy that has to add sweet FX to certain games because I dont like how the colors look (guild wars 2). My Skyrim has over 200 mods with ENB to make it look its absolute best. I downsample all my games to 2560X1440 because I cant fucking stand jaggies.

You sir, are grasping at straws here. You cant possibly assume that most people are going to be able to tell the differences your talking about. My point is that sure, a PC EXCLUSIVE will look better, but you wont be getting many of those Im afraid. You will be getting PS4/Durango Ports, so it will be just like I say, small bells and whistles that 90% (pulled percent out of ass btw) of the gaming community wont be able to see.

When I load up Battlefield 3 on my PC and run it at MAX settings at 1080p with AA after playing over 100 hours on Xbox... Im going to be honest here, the difference is made mostly by the resolution Im playing at. Otherwise it really doesnt look THAT much better. Take your games on your PC and drop the resolution down to 720p and play on a TV from farther away. Keep all your other settings including max. I will promise you the difference is not as huge as you think it is.

Infact Ive tested this theory on my friends who are console only gamers with BF3 for eye candy and Borderlands 2 for basic. Ive put both on max settings and even at 1080p. Both of them said "It looks clearer, but otherwise the same". You also have to remember you are sitting closer with PC games so you see more detail as opposed to sitting a few feet from a TV.

 

[Kaako]

I agree with the notion that for most people it is quite a pain in the ass to build your own PC and keep up with updates/tweaks/etc... But once you do, it is impossible to go back to buying pre-built PCs. Build my first PC 12 years ago and have never looked back.

Most people will be better off with next-gen consoles because of the hassle free nature of consoles as compared to custom build PCs.

 

[FordGTGuy]

it is quite a pain in the ass to build your own PC

Anyone who can put together a puzzle can build a computer nowadays, It isn't hard at all. The hardest part is buying the right parts for the build you want.

It's like people that think changing their own oil is hard to do.

 

[ElfArmy177]

Anyone who can put together a puzzle can build a computer nowadays, It isn't hard at all. The hardest part is buying the right parts for the build you want.

It's like people that think changing their own oil is hard to do.

Jiffy lube sure makes alot of money..

 

[Slavik81]

Ummmm, what?!? Graphics cards are much more power efficient, generate much less heat, and even draw less power than their predecessors from a few years ago.

They're about the same size that they've been for a while, but that's because it's usually much more cost effective to just use a dual-slot heat sink and cooler design, because then you can use a quieter fan. Did I mention that most graphics cards also are much quieter than they were a few years ago?

Seriously, just look at some of the reviews of recent cards vs their equivalents from year's past. Smaller process = less heat, lower power consumption.

Despite the 600 line being more efficient than its immediate predecessors, that's really not true. Just compare a midrange card of today against the midrange cards of when the X360/PS3 generation started.

GTX660:
Max power: 140W
Length: 9.5"
Width: Dual-slot

8800GT:
Max power: 105W
Length: 9"
Width: Single-slot

 

[Backfoggen]

Anyone who can put together a puzzle can build a computer nowadays, It isn't hard at all. The hardest part is buying the right parts for the build you want.

It's like people that think changing their own oil is hard to do.

Piecing the hardware together is the easiest part. The bullshit starts with the software.

 

[omonimo]

You're a moron, and you just rebutted my argument by making an additional false statement with zero evidence to back it.

Look at the actual power draw measurements that any number of sites have done and you'll see that load consumption has gone pretty much no where despite the massive leaps in performance (most high-end cards are in the 150-200w range under load) and idle power draw has plummeted to the point where the GTX 680 consumes about 12w while in 2D mode.

Your assertion that the graphics companies don't care about power draw is nonsensical -- performance per watt is better now than it ever has been... And by a factor of greater than 10 over the past 7 years.

Additionally, you're conveniently ignoring (or, more likely, never knew to begin with) that increasing general compute performance has been a major push in the development paths at both companies, and eventually may yield GPU's that can take the place of CPU's, or perform their function more efficiently.

http://www.realworldtech.com/compute-efficiency-2012/

Jeez, is that necessary?

 

[Dictator93]

Oh god, here we go again.

Let me pre-cap the thread:
- salty
- console optimization
- to the metal
- carmack
- overhead
- $3000 PCs

Did I miss anything?

Hey. Everything you said came true!

ARE YOU A WIZARD?!

 

[Kaako]

Anyone who can put together a puzzle can build a computer nowadays, It isn't hard at all. The hardest part is buying the right parts for the build you want.

It's like people that think changing their own oil is hard to do.

Did I ever say it was hard? No. I said it is a pain in the ass for MOST people aka ain'tnobodygottimeforthat.gif
I personally love building custom rigs and have helped at least 3 of my console only friends/family build their own custom rigs. But for most people, it is just easier to buy a pre-made PC. They don't want to invest their time in it and put the pieces together like a puzzle. They just want to buy, plug it in and have it work right out of the box.

 

[ElfArmy177]

Jeez, is that necessary?

It depends on if you are or no I suppose... but no, its not lol

 

[Triple U]

I really do have to question how some of you come to the conclusions you do with this "console gaming is dead" crap. Almost every tangible method of analysis shows the industry more healthy than its ever been compared to the last console generation, and its wind down.

The notion that the PS4 "needs to save the industry" is so hilariously fallacious.

 

[ShinobiFist]

Anything for 60fps or 120fps on my part. If you're happy with 30fps and under, kudos.

 

[FordGTGuy]

Despite the 600 line being more efficient than its predecessors, that's really not true. Just compare a midrange card of today against the midrange cards of when the X360/PS3 generation started.

GTX660:
Max power: 140W
Length: 9.5"
Width: Dual-slot

8800GT:
Max power: 105W
Length: 9"
Width: Single-slot

Effeciency in this regard would have to do with Watts x Power.

8800 GT 3.2 FLOPS per Watt
GTX 660 Ti 17.4 FLOPS per Watt.

What card nowadays isn't dual slot? Length really doesn't matter anymore.

Did I ever say it was hard? No. I said it is a pain in the ass for MOST people aka ain'tnobodygottimeforthat.gif
I personally love building custom rigs and have helped at least 3 of my console only friends/family build their own custom rigs. But for most people, it is just easier to buy a pre-made PC. They don't want to invest their time in it and put the pieces together like a puzzle. They just want to buy, plug it in and have it work right out of the box.

"pain in the ass" = hard.

For most people they would rather buy prebuilt for the convenience over facing their own ignorance.

 

[omonimo]

I really do have to question how some of you come to the conclusions you do with this "console gaming is dead" crap. Almost every tangible method of analysis shows the industry more healthy than its ever been compared to the last console generation, and its wind down.

The notion that the PS4 "needs to save the industry" is so hilariously fallacious.

Well, surely pc will never save it... & I love my pc.

 

[Majanew]

Now that that's dealt with, we have the appearance of a different argument: "LOL you are comparing a 1000$ GPU to a $400-500 PS4". This argument shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the PC hardware market by applying the console pricing model to it. GPUs drop in price much faster than consoles do. In practical terms it means that by the time the PS4 ships it will be outclassed by mid-range GPUs.

Ok, but you can't just buy a $500 GPU and play games on it. You have to buy the rest of the parts. The initial cost of building a PC is more than just buying a PS4. And most people just don't want to build a gaming PC, so if they get a PC, they most likely pay even more for it pre-built.

 

[ElfArmy177]

"pain in the ass" = hard.

I disagree with that, just because something is a pain in the ass, doesnt mean its hard to do. Putting together a desk from sauder is a pain in the ass, doesnt mean it was difficult to do. Building a PC "If done right" doesnt mean throw a bunch of parts in quickly and then turn it on "poof it works like a charm!"

Its putting parts in correctly including wire management, putting the heatsink compound on correctly and nicely, dropping that tiny god damn screw somewhere in the case, placing all the fans, installing windows, installing drivers, updating windows, installing all your games, reinstalling your favorite programs and pray that your comp doesnt crash because windows decided to install a default driver before you could install the correct one (wireless card if you use that crap). Its a pain in the ass, but I love doing it...

 

[Haunted]

cerny_not_my_problem.jpg?

 

[FordGTGuy]

Ok, but you can't just buy a $500 GPU and play games on it. You have to buy the rest of the parts. The initial cost of building a PC is more than just buying a PS4. And most people just don't want to build a gaming PC, so if they get a PC, they most likely pay even more for it pre-built.

Most enthusiasts already have a built computer and would only need to buy the GPU to upgrade their setup.

I disagree with that, just because something is a pain in the ass, doesnt mean its hard to do. Putting together a desk from sauder is a pain in the ass, doesnt mean it was difficult to do. Building a PC "If done right" doesnt mean throw a bunch of parts in quickly and then turn it on "poof it works like a charm!"

Its putting parts in correctly including wire management, putting the heatsink compound on correctly and nicely, dropping that tiny god damn screw somewhere in the case, placing all the fans, installing windows, installing drivers, updating windows, installing all your games, reinstalling your favorite programs and pray that your comp doesnt crash because windows decided to install a default driver before you could install the correct one (wireless card if you use that crap). Its a pain in the ass, but I love doing it...

I'm sorry but you have a really tame opinion of "pain in the ass", it's more of a inconvenience than a pain in the ass.

It's a logical fallacy to list a bunch of things just to make it sound hard.

 

[ElfArmy177]

Most enthusiasts already have a built computer and would only need to buy the GPU to upgrade their setup.

Not everyone is an enthusiast, which is what this whole thread is arguing about though.

 

[Enlil]

I build my own PC but its a hobby... I would never expect the masses to build their own PC, which is why I agree with the people saying "Ill take a 400$ PS4 over a 1700$ PC"....

The people who build their own PC dont really have an argument here. You cant say "You should just spend 1300$ on a PC and learn to build it yourself without any prior knowledge". You are being unreasonable in your argument. Those people are better off with a PS4, and the graphics will be on par with current high-end PCs. You dont have to believe me, I dont reall care... but you PC elite will be getting next gen console ports just like you are now. Your games will look exactly the same aside from resolution and MAYBE a few bells and whistles.

You have to understand that (jokes aside) 8GB GDDR5 will allow consoles to have the exact same texture resolution as PC games. If my 670 GTX can run MALDO for Crysis 2, having only 2GB of GDDR5... why in fuck could next gen consoles not run those textures?

I myself will be buying a PS4, an Xbox Durango, and rebuilding my PC after the consoles launch (knowing that Titan was going to be the 780, but Nvidia has no competition so they can charge a grand for a card.. they have no need to push price/performance until next year)

Also, under a grand is bullshit if your buying actual decent parts... If your gonna throw in a shitty motherboard, POS power supply and low lat ram.. then yea, you can for MAYBE 1000. But cmon you cant assume its a better deal if your going to "DELL" your gaming rig.

I really do think most of you will be eating your words once the consoles launch and you see the games running. Im willing to bet that if the crysis 3 game on PS3 were to have its resolution increased to 1080p, include better AA, and max textures (all done with RAM) most of you wouldnt be able to tell the damn difference from that game or the PC counter-part.

I build a new pc months ago. it includes a gtx680. I have no idea why I bought it, since I ended up playing the ps3 again which i started to hate aftr 3 ylod's. But any way. If you are saying that BF3 look the same on the PC as on the PS3 then my friend you need to get your eyes checked. those few bells and whistle require power. It's not as if the DDR RAM will fix graphics and processing power. They are 3 completly different things. even I know that and I don't even understand most of the tech stuff the guy's talk about on this forum.

 

[McLovin]

Doesn't Titan cost more then 3 times then the gpu in the PS4?
I'd be really pissed if it was any less powerful then that tbh.

 

[M°°nblade]

There has never been a better time/year to build a PC and you have no idea what you're talking about regarding that, and some of your other points.

You're missing the point that most gamers care about building their own PC as much as:
- baking their own bread,
- breeding and slaughtering their own cattle,
- knitting their own clothes,
- selling their own house,
- even cooking their own meals (see the rise of pre-prepared meals)

You have to accept that we live in the 21st century where people are willing to pay a higher price for outsourcing more and more tasks because of their daily time constrains.

Building a PC is a hobby that has got nothing to do with playing games. Only a few people have a mutual interest in both.

 

[Setsuna]

I build a new pc months ago. it includes a gtx680. I have no idea why I bought it, since I ended up playing the ps3 again which i started to hate aftr 3 ylod's. But any way. If you are saying that BF3 look the same on the PC as on the PS3 then my friend you need to get your eyes checked. those few bells and whistle require power. It's not as if the DDR RAM will fix graphics and processing power. They are 3 completly different things. even I know that and I don't even understand most of the tech stuff the guy's talk about on this forum.

technically crysis 3 on max and low graphics does look pretty much the same

 

[FordGTGuy]

Not everyone is an enthusiast, which is what this whole thread is arguing about though.

People buying $500 GPUs are enthusiasts.

he said battle field 3 from 6 feet away looks cleaner but the same

What on a 32" screen? I'm sorry but at a proper tv size and distance it will never look as good.

You're right, it does require power and Im not saying it looks the SAME. Im saying if you took your PS3 version of battlefield 3, increased the resolution to 1080p, increased the AA, and improved the textures... it really wouldnt look THAT much different. Lets take a look back at the Crysis 3 thread where people were posting pictures from Ultra, to high. The difference was barely even noticable at all, and were talking a HUGE performance hit between the two.

Just becuase your game has max shadows in the foreground and the background as opposed to only the foreground... doesnt mean its going to make a HUGE difference while your're playing it

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[ElfArmy177]

I build a new pc months ago. it includes a gtx680. I have no idea why I bought it, since I ended up playing the ps3 again which i started to hate aftr 3 ylod's. But any way. If you are saying that BF3 look the same on the PC as on the PS3 then my friend you need to get your eyes checked. those few bells and whistle require power. It's not as if the DDR RAM will fix graphics and processing power. They are 3 completly different things. even I know that and I don't even understand most of the tech stuff the guy's talk about on this forum.

You're right, it does require power and Im not saying it looks the SAME. Im saying if you took your PS3 version of battlefield 3, increased the resolution to 1080p, increased the AA, and improved the textures... it really wouldnt look THAT much different. Lets take a look back at the Crysis 3 thread where people were posting pictures from Ultra, to high. The difference was barely even noticable at all, and were talking a HUGE performance hit between the two.

Just becuase your game has max shadows in the foreground and the background as opposed to only the foreground... doesnt mean its going to make a HUGE difference while your're playing it

 

[alexandros]

Ok, but you can't just buy a $500 GPU and play games on it. You have to buy the rest of the parts. The initial cost of building a PC is more than just buying a PS4. And most people just don't want to build a gaming PC, so if they get a PC, they most likely pay even more for it pre-built.

True, however:

a) You won't need a $500 GPU to surpass PS4 performance, I think $250-300 is a more reasonable price range. That brings the price of the whole PC down to much more nanageable level for quite a few people.

b) Hopefully the Steamboxes will be able to provide the mainstream audience with a gaming PC without the complexity.

c) A not-insignificant part of the console audience also has a PC but buys new consoles because at launch and for a while they present a better bargain. If these people are able to upgrade their PCs to better-than-console performance for a smaller cost, then the console is no longer a bargain to them.

 

[orioto]

Tech tech tech and tech, but in the end consoles games will be prettier this gen. Even with 3, 4 or 5 time the power on pc. Diminishing returns guys, diminishing returns!

 

[ElfArmy177]

People buying $500 GPUs are enthusiasts.



What on a 32" screen? I'm sorry but at a proper tv size and distance it will never look as good.



Keep telling yourself that.

I think your just against consoles in general if you think otherwise. Im a full on graphics whore and Ill stick by what I said. I think you may just need a reason to defend your expensive gaming PC to be honest... but what do I know, its not like Ive built my own gaming rig or anything...

 

[lord pie]

Nvidia's GPUs slowed down in 2011?

 

[FordGTGuy]

I think your just against consoles in general if you think otherwise. Im a full on graphics whore and Ill stick by what I said.

I've put a ton of hours playing on a console and in no way am I against consoles but I'm also not blind.

but in the end consoles games will be prettier this gen. Even with 3, 4 or 5 time the power on pc. Diminishing returns guys, diminishing returns!

Where do you come to this logical conclusion?

 

[ElfArmy177]

I've put a ton of hours playing on a console and in no way am I against consoles but I'm also not blind.

So you are saying that the difference between Crysis 3 from high to extreme is SO huge that only blind people couldnt tell the difference? You are saying Battlefield 3 from high to max.. the difference is SO huge that if you were in the middle of a firefight and quickly asked "IS THAT MAX SETTINGS OR HIGH" you would be able to tell without even THINKING about it?

I think your're wrong.

 

[iceatcs]

I don't think it will increase more faster after two next gens, I suspect it will settle down, just like 360/ps3 gen.

So you are saying that the difference between Crysis 3 from high to extreme is SO huge that only blind people couldnt tell the difference? You are saying Battlefield 3 from high to max.. the difference is SO huge that if you were in the middle of a firefight and quickly asked "IS THAT MAX SETTINGS OR HIGH" you would be able to tell without even THINKING about it?

I think your're wrong.

Remember in Neogaf, we have very high standard. If there is only AA and AF different then it is a big deal.

 

[Enlil]

You're right, it does require power and Im not saying it looks the SAME. Im saying if you took your PS3 version of battlefield 3, increased the resolution to 1080p, increased the AA, and improved the textures... it really wouldnt look THAT much different. Lets take a look back at the Crysis 3 thread where people were posting pictures from Ultra, to high. The difference was barely even noticable at all, and were talking a HUGE performance hit between the two.

Just becuase your game has max shadows in the foreground and the background as opposed to only the foreground... doesnt mean its going to make a HUGE difference while your're playing it

But it is making a HUGE difference. when I play a game like FIFA 13 and compare it to what is possible on the PC, you know the little things: cloth moving, realistic lighting etc. those things really make a huge difference. You might be satisfied with less and that's all fine, i enjoy FIFA without all the bells and whistles, but objectively speaking the difference are huge, even if it's just a small "feature".

This thread is a mix of people basing their arguments on their satisfaction and not based on facts. (<<<--- not meant for you StealthxHawk)

 

[FordGTGuy]

So you are saying that the difference between Crysis 3 from high to extreme is SO huge that only blind people couldnt tell the difference? You are saying Battlefield 3 from high to max.. the difference is SO huge that if you were in the middle of a firefight and quickly asked "IS THAT MAX SETTINGS OR HIGH" you would be able to tell without even THINKING about it?

I think your're wrong.

So we've gone from comparing low to high to high and max?

High and Max are nonsensical terms for comparison as what they mean differ from game to game.

 

[orioto]

Where do you come to this logical conclusion?

Pretty simple actually.

This gen : console games are below 30 fps, below 720p, with bad or no AA = ugly IQ. PC shines mostly in that department, and the quality of textures. The difference is pretty obvious.

Next gen : Consoles games will be 1080p with average but good enough AA. Texture will be good enough if not great. The IQ difference will be way less noticeable. Of course you will be able to play multi games at 60 fps, with super sampling if you want, but that difference will be marginal and not perceived by most.

So why would console games be prettier in the end ?
Cause with a more fair IQ fight, what will stay is the artists, budgets, animations etc.. And first party games will always be superior in that regard.

 

[FordGTGuy]

Pretty simple actually.

This gen : console games are below 30 fps, below 720p, with bad or no AA = ugly IQ. PC shines mostly in that department, and the quality of textures. The difference is pretty obvious.

Next gen : Consoles games will be 1080p with average but good enough AA. Texture will be good enough if not great. The IQ difference will be way less noticeable. Of course you will be able to play multi games at 60 fps, with super sampling if you want, but that difference will be marginal and not perceived by most.

So why would console games be prettier in the end ?
Cause with a more fair IQ fight, what will stay is the artists, budgets, animations etc.. And first party games will always be superior in that regard.

What you said makes no sense.

You openly admit it won't keep up with what PC gaming will be capable of but you turn around and say console games will be prettier? You can't have it both ways.

PC games will continue to run better effects, higher texture resolutions and better uncapped physics engine or in other words it will be "prettier".

I don't think it will increase more faster after two next gens, I suspect it will settle down, just like 360/ps3 gen.

Remember in Neogaf, we have very high standard. If there is only AA and AF different then it is a big deal.

Neogaf is a gaming enthusiast website, having high standards comes with the territory.

 

[Enlil]

It is obvious that developers won't invest extra man power just to look the pc game much better. that will cost them millions of dollars. The only one taking advantage of the ps4 power are the developers who make exclusive games for the ps4. period.

 

[sandkiller]

But you know what I love about consoles now that I'm not 15 and have all the time in the world to troubleshoot shit? Just popping that fucker in and playing it. No modifying .dll's, no driver updates, no nothing. I got stupid grown up shit to do, so I want to do my childish hobby as fast and easy as possible.

Amen, brother!

 

[ElfArmy177]

So we've gone from comparing low to high to high and max?

High and Max are nonsensical terms for comparison as what they mean differ from game to game.

thats assuming all current gen consoles are running everything on low though... which they are not. Didnt Crytek say that Crysis 2 was comparable to medium settings on PC? If next gen consoles are as powerful as they say, there is no reason that Crysis 2 on PS4 couldnt be running at max, at 1080p if the PS3 version was running at medium 720p.

EDIT: Also, if a driver for Nvidia can increase the performance of a game by 33%, why cant coding a game "to the metal" or whatever not increase performance by 50/60/70%??

 

[orioto]

What you said makes no sense.

You openly admit it won't keep up with what PC gaming will be capable of but you turn around and say console games will be prettier? You can't have it both ways.

PC games will continue to run better effects, higher texture resolutions and better uncapped physics engine or in other words it will be "prettier".

It's hard to focus until the end of a post i know

 

[RibbedHero]

Omg yes, yes! so much little bs in pc gaming. Why do I have to delete my config files everytime I want to play Sonic Generations on my tv? Why?

In order to download a game on Steam I have to actually physically turn my rig upside down and jiggle it a bit. I've never had to do that on the PS3. Also, every time I want to save my game I have to reinstall Windows, while that doesn't need to be done on the PS3.

 

[Ol No Bones]

You can build a PC with a 1TB 7200 rpm hard drive, Z77 motherboard, gtx 670, i5 2500k CPU(and overclock to 4.2 and even higher with stock cooling), a good quality power-sufficient power supply(500W), and 8GB of ram, for under $1000.

There has never been a better time/year to build a PC and you have no idea what you're talking about regarding that, and some of your other points. Those "bells and whistles" equate to a night and day difference via performance and image quality. Therefore prefacing that sentence with "look exactly the same" makes no sense because, no, they will look far from the same.

PS: No, a lot of people who game on PCs don't automatically expect everyone to build their PCs. But when posters start pulling astronomically high monetary figures from their nether regions to show how expensive PCs are, citing prebuilt units is disingenuous.

They are night and day now but with current cards the ps4 and probably Durango will look the same or close mid to high end pcs for a couple years unless you buy the top cards in 2014 or 2015. It's just easier to buy a 300 to 400 dollar console.

 

[gofreak]

c) A not-insignificant part of the console audience also has a PC but buys new consoles because at launch and for a while they present a better bargain. If these people are able to upgrade their PCs to better-than-console performance for a smaller cost, then the console is no longer a bargain to them.

If you own an 'average' PC today, I'd imagine you'd have to spend more on incremental upgrades over 7 years than the cost of a launch console to keep your PC at 'better-than-console' performance over that period.

PCs are great for the best possible performance, but consoles are a very secure bet in terms of return on your money. That's why I think - along with marketing and simplicity and everything else - people gravitate toward them. You pay relatively little on hardware and you know it'll give you the latest games for years into the future, at the same quality as everyone else using that console. The number one concern of consumers I dealt with when I worked in retail many moons ago was obsolescence. People always wanted to make sure the next iteration wasn't coming around the corner soon. I think 'static hardware' is actually quite comforting to consumers in many ways.

It would be an interesting experiment though, over the next 5, 6, 7 years, to maintain an 'average' 2013 PC and compare hardware costs vs the cost of a launch console. If PC came out looking like a bargain (on the hardware side) in the end, I think it'd be breaking new ground. I think it'd be the first generation that happened.

 

[Dictator93]

So you are saying that the difference between Crysis 3 from high to extreme is SO huge that only blind people couldnt tell the difference? You are saying Battlefield 3 from high to max.. the difference is SO huge that if you were in the middle of a firefight and quickly asked "IS THAT MAX SETTINGS OR HIGH" you would be able to tell without even THINKING about it?

I think your're wrong.

Some thingss are actually immediately visible. Especially in Crysis 3

Water Caustics... Particle Shadows and motionblur. Style of Depth of field and motionblur. And harware tesselation for environmental objects.

All of these things are very obvious actually when going from High to Very high.

 

[FordGTGuy]

thats assuming all current gen consoles are running everything on low though... which they are not. Didnt Crytek say that Crysis 2 was comparable to medium settings on PC? If next gen consoles are as powerful as they say, there is no reason that Crysis 2 on PS4 couldnt be running at max, at 1080p if the PS3 version was running at medium 720p.

Comparable being the keyword here, console games run on custom setups specifically for the hardware.

Like I've said before max means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

It's hard to focus until the end of a post i know

I read the end of your post and it was the most nonsensical part of it.