childplease
Banned
Gimped next gen consoles holding back innovation.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Visual Downgrade In Next-Gen Tech Demos Going From PC To Consoles?
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
Gimped next gen consoles holding back innovation.
alexandros
Banned
Your post is highly subjective as I'm sure you understand.
Bitterness? Would you maybe care to explain that?
Sarcasm, I suppose. Otherwise, your reply doesn't make any sense.
Posts after posts regurgitating the hardware superiority -as if it were anything new-, and as if that argument would somehow make the consoles any less intersting. The hastiness to draw comparisons between tech demos and unfinished first gen software...
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
Come on now. Most of those exclusives are confined to a couple of genres.
Well, in that case, they should continue gaming on their current gen systems - still plenty of games coming out for those. Also, exclusives are coming out on Day 1 on the next gen consoles.
alexandros
Banned
This is a hardware and visuals thread though, what did you expect to read? Why even click on it if you don't care about specs?
I have a PS2, Wii, Xbox360, and two PS3:s, so I love console gaming no doubt.
But I mean, having inferior hardware must surely make a conole a tiiiny bit less interesting? Thats one of the big points with a new generation of consoles, that the better hardware makes it a bit more interesting.
Comooon, how cheap are you with your primary hobby? Going to play on that kind of really old hardware, and miss out on all the good stuff? And there are many nice PC exclusives too. Are you really so very, very anti-PC-gaming?
curlyfriski
Banned
Why would anyone compare specs of a console to some PCs to begin with? What PCs are you comparing them to? Certainly not mine, I can assure you. The whole comparison is absurd, imo...
Compared to what, again? That's the crux of the argument. There is no one abstract PC that could work as a reference. There are myriad of graphic cards, memory layouts, CPUs...
Even if by the grandest miracle of all, you could design a machine that embarks a similar hardware to what could be assembled for twice of three times the cost on PCs and launch it for 399$ (Magic!), you'll still be faced with an array of new, more powerful PC components launching regularly every 6 months and, if you insist on drawing sterile comparisons, making your product look obsolete.
alexandros
Banned
You'll be poorer if you stick with console gaming.
Why not compare? I don't understand what your point is here. If it's about price, should we also not compare PS4 and XBO because the Xbox is more expensive? These are all competing gaming platforms, of course we'll compare them. The fact that you don't have a decent PC is of no relevance.
curlyfriski
Banned
That's why I wait til consoles are at the end-of-generation and play on my shitty integrated graphics PC.
With those games prices? I think so too.
childplease
Banned
No sarcasm my man.
These next gen consoles are grossly underpowered compared to current PC tech.
This is a horrible situation for gaming as it will stagnate innovation and hurt pc gaming unless devs develop for PC first then gimp the games for consoles.
This of course will not happen.
alexandros
Banned
So what is the point of the next console generation?
Compare what to what? What PC are you using? At least name your product. PC is a blanket designation when it comes to gaming calibrated configurations.
Specify the budget and the memory-GPU you have in mind, and then we could move to a more rational discussion.
The same for every gen that has come and gone. Revitalizing the market and offering developers more possibilities. Was always understood to be the goal, unless I'm mistaken...
alexandros
Banned
Generally speaking, the point of comparison should be a modern (2013) performance mid-range PC. You'll have to wait until the consoles' launch for specifics but for now, I'd say any PC with a recent quad-core CPU and something like the Nvidia 760 for a GPU.
sleeping_dragon
Banned
I have a friend who have to upgrade his GPU every year just to play the latest Battlefield. If you talking about a good investment then console is a better value investment considering that the best games are made exclusively for console.
Fair enough. Genuine question -as I don't have enough information on pricing- : What would that specific combination cost?
Dictator93
Member
Your friend must buy really low end crap if he is upgrading every year....especially considering battlefield 3 runs better than BFBC2 in a lot of ways.
either that... or you are lying.
Improvements are subjective. QOL is always better on consoles due to ease of use. I build my own gaming rig about every 4 years and I will say that consoles are still superior in terms of accessibility.
Well, considering the better value of consoles - if they play games at sub 1080 and sub 60FPS me thinks that there is no value to be found in them at all. Because gaming at sub 60FPS just isn't any more fun to me. 
So I'm not even thinking about the value of a console as long as there isn't a fundamental change.
So I'm not even thinking about the value of a console as long as there isn't a fundamental change.sleeping_dragon
Banned
He buy mid-range GPU which costs around $400-600 AUD.
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
Always-honest
Banned
You got two things wrong:
1. a PC is always highest end possible. every PC is best PC. You can just use the word "PC" from now on.
2. a PC costs about 300$, has no drawbacks and is perfectly optimised.
It also has all the games you want.
Old hardware? Ok...
Btw, played The Last of Us?
Yeah, I did. Brilliant game put on a platform which is vastly overstrained and therefore compromissing the fun one can have with this game by a large margin. It's basically the console problem in a nutshell.
Your friend is a crazy person, Battlefield is not an annual franchise. No sane person would buy a new GPU every year to run a game that comes out biannually. It's not like the same game is constantly getting more demanding.
alexandros
Banned
Your friend doesn't have to upgrade, he chooses to upgrade. The Battlefield series can run on some surprisingly low-end hardware, unless of course you just have to turn everything up to 11. It's choice, not necessity that dictates his upgrading behavior.
I have no clue, if we're talking about US prices I'd say about $600 or so? I'll take a look and get back to you on that.
dragonelite
Member
Old hardware? Ok...
Btw, played The Last of Us?
7 year old hardware is not old?
mind is blown.
Even 2 years is old when it comes to computing hardware.
Dictator93
Member
Not exactly sure he is purchasing multiple mid-range GPUs over multiple years... a very inefficient use of his money to achieve his performance desires. Then again I scarcely believe your anecdotal evidence from someone who purchases unwisely in any case.
Thanks for this very useful post adding to the conversation by maligning all of those who are trying to make useful and relevant points.
curlyfriski
Banned
He buys mid-range cards annually to play a game you can play on high details on a low-range card. Checks out.
sleeping_dragon
Banned
Its not that he is crazy well maybe, considering he is a hair dresser but he got money to burn and his love FPS so naturally his first FPS love was COD and then when he saw the graphics on Battlefield 3 he naturally caved in and built a brand new PC ($1500) just to play the game.
Old hardware? Ok...
Btw, played The Last of Us?
We were talking about what buy now , that will last you a few years until the new consoles have dropped in price and the awesome new console exclusives starts coming out.
Or are you just doing the "Have you seen titanfall?"-of-PS3?
(And yes, I have played it on one of my PS3s!)
I built my PC when BF3 came out actually. It could play everything on Very high with 1080p resolution. It cost me around $800. That's a lot of money, I know, but its no 1500.
Also, you said he buys a new GFX "every year" to play the new Battlefield... buuut, you said that he bought his gaming pc for BF3. So what "every year gfx" are you talking about? There hasn't been any Battlefield games after nr 3.
Always-honest
Banned
i agree. Let's all do that from now on.
It is kind of new actually.
Fact is, this is the first generation in many where consoles are launched with a clear power-disadvantage (and then next generation GPU's will be around the corner at launch making the gap even bigger). What it will mean in every respect we don't know yet. But is it interesting? Of course it is.
One scenario could f.ex. be that now that VR seems to be sailing full speed ahead into being an actual useable thing, we could end up with a situation before the end of the new cycle where to efficiently drive a set of high-resolution VR glasses (I'm talking up to 4K at up to 120fps in a graphical-intense VR experience here..) you will need a mid- to high-end PC because the consoles aren't really powerful enough. Who knows. But we will see..
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
Well, isn't that a bit hypocritical? Berating others for playing on a PS3 but doing so yourself?
If the compromise was significant, it wouldn't have been brilliant, would it? In other words, you're talking about something negligible.
I haven't done that. Once again, let me say this one more time; we were talking about what to buy now, to play on the coming couple years. How is that berating people playing on the PS3 now, which is what I am doing?
IncandescentPrecept
Banned
Well, what to buy now depends on what games the person concerned wants to play.
Of course. But I think that a persons taste in games isn't about which console it's on, but what kind of game it is.
Many titles are multi-platform; and I argue that those are often best on the PC. And I think that going forward this is going to be the case even more, since the consoles are very similar to PCs inside.
Other titles are exclusives, but that's why I saying you should get a next-gen console in a few years; when it's cheaper, has more and better exclusives, and uses more stable hardware.
I can roughly estimate that console gaming has cost about one thousand per year during the last 7 and a half years and with that kind of sums I could have easily purchased even couple of gaming PCs with similar amount of games. So far I've paid for couple of different subscriptions for multiple years, purchased about 400 games (about a game per week it seems), upgrade the system once (needed a bigger HDD) and invested on a nice stack of different kind of controllers (dance map, couple of mics, 4 quiz controllers, 2 guitars, one arcade stick, 7 standard controllers and a camera).
So for me, the PC gaming would be much cheaper option.
I don't have to imagine, I am that person. The Last of Us seems like a good game and one that I would definitely play if it came out on PC but I don't think it's worth owning a PS3 for. Besides, the same could be said for every single exclusive game out there. Unless you buy every single platform and get every single exclusive game for them you are choosing to ignore some exclusives that are probably worth playing. It's not like I'm hurting for games without TLOU anyway. Besides, console exclusive gamers would never be able to play Paradox games for example, which are some of my favorite games, so it goes both ways.
What your friend is doing is unnecessary. I bought a 5870 in 2009 for about $350, it can play both BC2 and BF3 at mostly high settings with no problem and I doubt it would have any problem with BF4 either. Sure, your friend might want to always play the games at the highest settings and that's fine if he has the money to spare, but in that case consoles would probably be the worst possible option for him.
The Incredible Muffin
Member
I believe that consoles provides more bang for your buck than PC's would. Buying a new console at 400 / 500 $ and you are set for 8 or 10 years. Whenever I upgrade my PC I go way over that amount, and I definitly do not wait 8 years to do it.
However, your statement that the consoles offer better value due to ''the best exclusive games'' is wrong. What are the best games? In my eyes, ARMA, Planetside 2, Counter Strike, MOBA's etc.
While some make their way to the console, dont forget where they come from. Planetside 2 will make its way to PS4, but will it as much attention as the PC version does? Only time can tell.
I think a gamer that likes to play games, but does not take it overly serious should get a console. You will have great value, and it will last you for years. Are you a bit more of an enthusiast? Go build you awesome gaming rig, the whole process picking parts, and building it is at least as exciting as playing games on it.
(This argument is dead when Last of Us is mentioned,,, damn that game was good
Clear
CliffyB's Cock Holster
alexandros said:
For the industry: To continue the existing business and make more money going forward.
For the consumer: A new software/hardware ecosystem. "Power" being less significant than feature-set and usability.
Wii and Smartphone gaming have proven categorically that a beefier GPU is not what sells units outside of a niche market.
And honestly, the biggest hits on PC tend to be titles that actually leverage power the least so as to access the widest market.
OK, building a high end rig to enjoy a game that you like at it's best if you have the money to burn is perfectly reasonable. But that is not what you said in your other post. You said that he "have to upgrade his GPU every year just to play the latest Battlefield" which is crazy the rig he brought for $1.5k should be able to play even BF4 great without any upgrades unless he got a overpriced Alienware with a shitty GPU for some reason. Unless he just wanted the latest GPU out for some reason there is no reason for him to upgrade the GPU every year.
Man, this thread is amazing. Just amazing.
Why do people keep comparing more expensive systems' power to cheaper ones,especially since everybody with just a little common sense knows that high-end PC were, are, and always will be more powerful than consoles. Still I'm going to be very, very happy with my new PS4. Games will look, and run good enough and there will be tons of them.
And since game makers make hell lot more money on consoles (with a few exceptions of course), almost every game will be made with their hardware in mind, resulting in that most high-end PC will be heavily under-utilised, and most of their GPUs' power won't be even needed.
Peace people. Just enjoy games.
Why do people keep comparing more expensive systems' power to cheaper ones,especially since everybody with just a little common sense knows that high-end PC were, are, and always will be more powerful than consoles. Still I'm going to be very, very happy with my new PS4. Games will look, and run good enough and there will be tons of them.
And since game makers make hell lot more money on consoles (with a few exceptions of course), almost every game will be made with their hardware in mind, resulting in that most high-end PC will be heavily under-utilised, and most of their GPUs' power won't be even needed.
Peace people. Just enjoy games.
DigitalSmoke
Banned
Without knowing whats taking place behind the software locks of PS4's GPU mods, there's no way for you to know.
Cerny build a road map for defelopers to get power granted at launch, and a learning curve going into the future.
Its the way sony "always" did it, and there's not a single valid reason for them to change that.
LowEndTorque
Member
It's funny you mention "daily experience." With video games, there’s a lot more to “daily experience” than pure graphics performance and that's what a lot of people just don't seem to get.
Hotel A has silk bedsheets, marble floors and mahogany furniture. But there is no elevator and I have to walk up a flight of stairs to get to my room. It’s far away from amenities and I also don’t like the menu at their restaurant. It also costs more.
Hotel B has cotton bedsheets, carpeted floor and pine furniture. But there is an elevator that gets me to my room easily. It’s close to amenities and I really like the menu at their restaurant. It also costs less.
In my case, I had hotels A, B, C and D this generation and chose where I like to stay based on the "daily experience" you describe.
alexandros
Banned
Then you don't expect to see anything new on the gameplay side.
Btw, I checked out pcpartspicker.com and it does seem pretty easy to configure a $600 PC that should be able to comfortably hold its own against consoles. Here's the link:
http://pcpartpicker.com/p/1pDEz
Throw in an extra $10 or so for a keyboard and mouse and you've got yourself a powerful yet small $605 gaming PC. I know people will ask so I tell you that yes, that price includes the OS and a Blu-Ray drive. If you don't need these, the price goes as low as $500. So there!
Why compare a $400 PS4 to a $500 XBO?
No, I get it just fine. Consoles are simpler to use than PCs, that's a fact. The gap has narrowed but it hasn't closed yet.
Pretty good analogy lol. I should add (without sounding pretentious) it's not a money thing for me. It's more convenience, community, up keep and speed. I don't think I've gone a year in the last decade or more where I haven't had a gaming PC, in fact, this year with my GTX 570 and i7 at 3.8ghz is perhaps the most behind I've been in a long time, yet I still do the majority of gaming on consoles.
Don't get me wrong, I greatly value visuals, but I value convenience, value proposition and community (most of my friends and family game on consoles) a hell of a lot as well.
I get the community aspect but proposition and convenience is just bullshit imo, at least with steam big picture mode and xbox windows controller, this thinking should be long gone.
So, I've got a question for you. Let's take games like Arkham City, Tomb Raider, maybe AssCreed, I don't know what you play - so you rather spend 60$ on the console versiont to play a ugly (sub)720p/sub30 game, which is not even quarter of the quality experience you get with 1080p/60, it really is heavily compromissed on consoles, so you take this experience over the pc version where, on top of it, the game costs between 5 and 20$ and is way superior, because of "conveniene"? Where is the convenice to be found? To me it just sounds silly.
Well, brilliant in concept, obviously, pretty shit in technical execution. The gameplay compromisses were so big that I did NOT enjoy it as a game. It was ok as an, well, interactive experience. Because of the framerate, playing the game felt like playing soccer under water. It's doable, but no fun.