Id follows Crytek, Lucas Arts

[Red Storm]

Well, this is how I assume most tech-savvy PC gamers do it:

New consoles usually sell north of $300. That'll get you a high end card on the PC, but it's certainly not necessary as you can get good performance in the $200 range. So after using their card for a few years, at some point it may start to show its age in certain games, so they look to upgrade. They sell their $200 card for $100, and use that money towards purchasing a new card. Now remember to add on top of this the money that PC gamers save due to cheaper new release prices (a 10 game collection is around a $100 difference between consoles and PCs). With those savings they buy a new $200 card that now outperforms the console.

Now obviously not everyone's story runs like this, but I imagine quite a few PC gamers do keep up to date this way. Is there more work to PC gaming (selling old and upgrading, installing games, etc) than compared to consoles? Sure, and if you want to argue that then I definitely agree that consoles have that Plug-n-Play aspect to them that's great to have. But when you talk overall cost over a long term period, the flexibility of PC hardware and cheaper games allows PC gamers to upgrade their performance over time - surpassing consoles - without spending anymore then you would on console hardware on the day of their release.

 

[NYHoustonman]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

But the reason a video card bought now for $150 might not run games that are released five years from now is because the PC is constantly evolving as a platform.

My comment was directed at the very dishonest notion that PCs are somehow cost competitive with consoles. That is, at best, a flat out lie. It could be for many different reasons, but the one thing it isn't is honest.

Five years from now, PS3/XB360 won't be close to what the PC is (raw processing power, they're already behind).

GPU and RAM wise by a hefty margin. Processor wise, well, PCs are quaint.

If you wanted to, you could continue playing games at around the technical quality of console games of a given generation - i.e. lower detail levels for newer releases, or just play older releases (which isn't so bad, these Steam $5 sales have been awesome, I've gone back and hit a lot of games I had been looking at when they were released).

The selection of PC games is weak enough as it is, forcing people to go back and try and find something worth while that they missed the first time is asking quite a bit. True, a great deal of new PC games are worth $5, but PC gaming doesn't exist in a vacum outside some platform bigots.

With the console, you're stuck at that level; with the PC, you have the option to advance beyond it (although at that point it ceases to be less expensive depending on exactly what you buy).

Alright, let's try this then- show me cheaper PC hardware that was available launch day for the PS3 that can run any game close to the detail levels in KZ2 or GT5. You are also quite wrong on games not looking better as the console ages, just too used to lousy PC coding(by necessity- 1000s of configurations absolutely demand sloppy horribly optimized code). Entirely different approach between the two platforms- console game advancement comes from game makers writing better code- PC side comes from, well, hard to say. Crysis still smacks any other game around and that came out in '07

PCs have a lot of strengths going for them, cost and selection are very far removed from those though

I would argue that my good ol' 8800GTX (RIP) is capable of running Crysis at detail levels that overall are at least equivalent to anything on the consoles - and I had this in hand before the PS3 release - but it was quite expensive (My entire build at the time was ~$1500). Also, I've not seen KZ2 in person, but the general consensus seems to be that Crysis is still the best available.

It is true, too, that console games improve technically due to more efficient coding, but in the past this simply has not been enough to keep them on a level playing field.

Overall, price-wise, it is hard to argue that PCs are cheaper as a gaming platform exclusively, but given the price differences in games (and that I've bought enough to make up most of the price difference compared to a new console at the time) and the fact that I've used my PC for far more than just gaming (I'm an engineering student), I've been more than happy with the cost/benefit I've seen over these 2.5 years. I'd also argue that PC game selection has not been bad at all during that span - I've probably put a solid 15-20 hours of gaming in each week, never being left without anything enjoyable to spend time on.

You kind of hit the nail on the head, though, by mentioning that Crysis was released in '07. We haven't seen the kind of advancement that previous generations saw during any single console's life span, for a variety of reasons, some real, some exaggerated. Consoles are becoming more and more viable as alternatives to PCs for gaming/etc.

 

[BenSkywalker]

New consoles usually sell north of $300. That'll get you a high end card on the PC, but it's certainly not necessary as you can get good performance in the $200 range. So after using their card for a few years, at some point it may start to show its age in certain games, so they look to upgrade. They sell their $200 card for $100, and use that money towards purchasing a new card.

Could you show me any card, ever, that sold new for $200 and then three years later was still worth $100 used? Honestly, I can't think of any. The 8800GT has been out roughly 1.5 years as a guideline, that was the best value holding card that I could think of. As far as cheaper new release prices, console gamers have the wonderful used market and we save tons of money there. I consider that, at best, a wash for PCs. Thanks to game makers still overloading Q4 a good chunk of the year we are paying maybe $35 a game.

I'm not saying PC gaming isn't worth the cost- typing this on my gaming PC, just saying it is certainly more expensive then console gaming. Actually, in hardware costs I spend more on my PC then I do on consoles and I buy all the consoles every generation. If not for gaming, no- I wouldn't need the more powerful processor, double the RAM, 4x the HD space, 3x the PSU etc

Also, I've not seen KZ2 in person, but the general consensus seems to be that Crysis is still the best available.

Overall for the type of game it is I think it is. I think GT5 is better in certain areas(completely different type of game though), KZ2 is better in certain areas, but from an overall package I still think Crysis is the best looking title overall. Sad thing is, it's an '07 title and I haven't even seen anything on the horizon that looks better

 

[Red Storm]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

New consoles usually sell north of $300. That'll get you a high end card on the PC, but it's certainly not necessary as you can get good performance in the $200 range. So after using their card for a few years, at some point it may start to show its age in certain games, so they look to upgrade. They sell their $200 card for $100, and use that money towards purchasing a new card.

Could you show me any card, ever, that sold new for $200 and then three years later was still worth $100 used? Honestly, I can't think of any. The 8800GT has been out roughly 1.5 years as a guideline, that was the best value holding card that I could think of. As far as cheaper new release prices, console gamers have the wonderful used market and we save tons of money there. I consider that, at best, a wash for PCs. Thanks to game makers still overloading Q4 a good chunk of the year we are paying maybe $35 a game.

I'm not saying PC gaming isn't worth the cost- typing this on my gaming PC, just saying it is certainly more expensive then console gaming. Actually, in hardware costs I spend more on my PC then I do on consoles and I buy all the consoles every generation. If not for gaming, no- I wouldn't need the more powerful processor, double the RAM, 4x the HD space, 3x the PSU etc

The $200 to $100 was a general example I threw out there, change the number to $50 if you want. The point is you can upgrade performance and recoup some of that cost by getting rid of your older hardware. The total amount spent on those two video cards (with the latter improving performance) still adds up to a new console price, not higher.

If you buy all your games used, then hats off to you for doing the smart thing and saving some money. But the fact is, new sales do outnumber used sales so they are a factor to the majority. But, I'll leave that out.

As I said earlier, most modern PCs already have capable components to run a good performing midrange card. You don't need a more powerful processor, double the ram, 4x the HD space, or 3x the PSU. Those are extras, not necessities. These are exactly the kinds of things other people say when talking about PC gaming being expensive. 4x the HD space to run the newest game? What are you using, an 8GB hard drive?

You buy every console each generation and still spend more on PC hardware?

If I were to buy one console for each generation I would break even with what I spend to keep my PC game-capable.

 

[BenSkywalker]

The $200 to $100 was a general example I threw out there, change the number to $50 if you want. The point is you can upgrade performance and recoup some of that cost by getting rid of your older hardware. The total amount spent on those two video cards (with the latter improving performance) still adds up to a new console price, not higher.

I'd normally go through three video cards in one console life cycle.

If you buy all your games used, then hats off to you for doing the smart thing and saving some money. But the fact is, new sales do outnumber used sales so they are a factor to the majority.

$2Billion in used game sales for one year from one chain. I think used games sell a bit better then you are thinking

As I said earlier, most modern PCs already have capable components to run a good performing midrange card. You don't need a more powerful processor, double the ram, 4x the HD space, or 3x the PSU. Those are extras, not necessities. These are exactly the kinds of things other people say when talking about PC gaming being expensive. 4x the HD space to run the newest game? What are you using, an 8GB hard drive?

I should have explained a bit better- not quite 5 years ago. So, what new vid card are you going to put into that AGP slot? How about that 1GB of RAM? True, you could opt for the PCI-E 8x board in the review, and spend considerably more money up front, but I thought the assertion was that a basic PC with a good graphics card was all that was needed to remain competitive? For basic PC needs, a very cheap $300 machine will server people just fine. As a gaming PC? You need to double that and then add a vid card for pre built(although around $600 total works for DIYers). I guess HD space isn't a concern if you uninstall and reinstall games, I don't

You buy every console each generation and still spend more on PC hardware?

Very easily, $900 this generation total cost for consoles. Spent more then half that on the PC and it's about time for another overhaul(need new processor, mobo, RAM and GPU sadly).

 

[skace]

Id Software need to get their head out of their collective asses, it's been stuck up their too long, since the 90s ended basically.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Overall for the type of game it is I think it is. I think GT5 is better in certain areas(completely different type of game though), KZ2 is better in certain areas, but from an overall package I still think Crysis is the best looking title overall. Sad thing is, it's an '07 title and I haven't even seen anything on the horizon that looks better

Don't think there's any reason to see anything better than Crysis, gotta let video cards catch up first.

 

[exar333]

If they still make great games, who cares? They can always port them to the computer and make them good.

Lucasarts just gave up on good games altogether (Rebellion anyone?) and I, for one, was not sad to see them leave the PC market. No developer is better than a crappy one IMHO.

The glory days of Lucasarts is long gone, sadly.

 

[Atreus21]

I think the only game I pirated was Supreme Commander after my hard copy's key didn't work anymore. Called GPG and they basically told me either to buy another one or F off. So I said, F you. Torrent time.

 

[Beev]

Make better games and the real gamers will support you by paying for it.

Oblivion has no DRM to speak of (maybe it had a simple cd check?) and it sold amazingly well. Shit games get pirated.

 

[CottonRabbit]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Overall for the type of game it is I think it is. I think GT5 is better in certain areas(completely different type of game though), KZ2 is better in certain areas, but from an overall package I still think Crysis is the best looking title overall. Sad thing is, it's an '07 title and I haven't even seen anything on the horizon that looks better

Don't think there's any reason to see anything better than Crysis, gotta let video cards catch up first.

A $100 video card (4850) can play Crysis on high at a reasonable resolution. The "can it play Crysis" hype should have ended a long time ago.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: CottonRabbit
A $100 video card (4850) can play Crysis on high at a reasonable resolution. The "can it play Crysis" hype should have ended a long time ago.

And....... I don't believe you.

However, I only use 3 resolutions, 1680x1050 (low), 1920x1200 (medium), 2560x1600 (high).

 

[BudAshes]

lol, why would anyone possibly want to play ID games anymore? Doom 3 was barely worth pirating and the quakes have sucked since the 90's

 

[Beev]

I agree, iD sucks shit.

 

[Malladine]

Won't make a difference to me, I haven't been able to deal with console gaming for years.

PC all the way.

 

[Malladine]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

New consoles usually sell north of $300. That'll get you a high end card on the PC, but it's certainly not necessary as you can get good performance in the $200 range. So after using their card for a few years, at some point it may start to show its age in certain games, so they look to upgrade. They sell their $200 card for $100, and use that money towards purchasing a new card.

Could you show me any card, ever, that sold new for $200 and then three years later was still worth $100 used? Honestly, I can't think of any. The 8800GT has been out roughly 1.5 years as a guideline, that was the best value holding card that I could think of.

The 9800Pro was worth it's weight imo, lasted 3 solid years with me, and that's saying a lot. But you're right, 3yrs later there's no way i'd try to sell it for half it's original cost.

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
What a shame: http://www.gamespot.com/news/6...atestheadlines;title;1

As usual he blames piracy and says the Xbox 360 is their number 1 priority.

Todd Hollenshead of a self-absorbed pile of trash, and he was long before he started ranting about piracy on the PC.

They basically got rid of one John Romero and replaced him with another one.

While this is annoying, my opinion of id has always been that they create a good engine and other companies use it to create great games. I don't believe id has ever created a really standout title, and I don't expect Rage to be the case.

But I guess PC gamers can look forward to id games with no mouse control in the menus and shoddy dithered texturing ported from the XBox 360 to conserve space.

 

[RaiderJ]

I have a PC, I have a game console (or two). I play games on all of them. Release a good game and I'll buy it. Don't really care for what system.

 

[CottonRabbit]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: CottonRabbit
A $100 video card (4850) can play Crysis on high at a reasonable resolution. The "can it play Crysis" hype should have ended a long time ago.

And....... I don't believe you.

However, I only use 3 resolutions, 1680x1050 (low), 1920x1200 (medium), 2560x1600 (high).

$100 card averages 30 fps in Crysis on high with very high shaders at 1680x1050

For the single player campaign, 30 fps is entirely playable. When I had a gtx260 (now a $160 card for core 216), I played Warhead at the highest setting at 1680x1050. I would say 1680x1050 is the current mainstream resolution, and video cards priced entirely for the mainstream market can very adequately handle Crysis.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Let's see, my X850XT is almost 5 years old and it can run almost any game today .

Almost 4.5 years, and the price on that- $500. And as far as performance, well- 1280x1024 with no AA or AF? Under 10FPS for the generation beyond x1800xt. The 1800xt also fails to hit 30FPS in a couple other benchmarks at those same settings. The bad part of this for your end of the discussion is that the 1800xt is significantly faster then the x850xt- benches. So, you can pay $500 for a video card that doesn't come close to running the latest games 5 years later as well as a console. I could have agreed to that easily right from the start. My issue was with the absurd notion that you could buy a vid card for $150 that can do even better.

I paid $200 AR for it in Feb 2006.

 

[ivan2]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

Let's see, my X850XT is almost 5 years old and it can run almost any game today .

Almost 4.5 years, and the price on that- $500. And as far as performance, well- 1280x1024 with no AA or AF? Under 10FPS for the generation beyond x1800xt. The 1800xt also fails to hit 30FPS in a couple other benchmarks at those same settings. The bad part of this for your end of the discussion is that the 1800xt is significantly faster then the x850xt- benches. So, you can pay $500 for a video card that doesn't come close to running the latest games 5 years later as well as a console. I could have agreed to that easily right from the start. My issue was with the absurd notion that you could buy a vid card for $150 that can do even better.

I paid $200 AR for it in Feb 2006.

paid $100 for my xbox 360(edit) in 07 at the amazon sale.

 

[superunknown98]

I don't think PC gaming will ever disapear,(if there is a market for something, someone will produce for it) but consoles have definitely detracted from it. Look at GTA4 for the pc, it took them 3 patches to get running smooth but I still can't use my mouse the way I want to.

However two things that bothers me about the 360( and yes I do own one) is Xbox live and the HD. To tell me that I need to pay my ISP a monthy fee and then pay another $49.99 a year to connect to microsoft servers just to get patches, extra content, and play online is blasphemy. I don't really care about the extra features Xbox live has, I don't want them, but I would still have to pay for them.

My other pet peeve with the 360 is the Harddrive. (I know the ps3 is upgradeable) I should be able to buy any form factor compatable hard disk and put it in the 360. I know microsoft does this to make money, but the prices they charge for the capcity they provide are downright awful.

So shall we calculate the price of A 360 when it first came out?

360 Elite Msrp on November 22, 2005 was $479*
A year of xbox live $49.99

So thats $530 if you want to play your games online.

over 5 years that would be $729.

Now after 5 years that 20gig( well 13gig) HD might fill up. Now you want the 120. Thats $129 Msrp maybe $100 on the internet.

I believe that a decent gaming pc could be built for 530, and then $200 could buy a decent video card upgrade 5 years later. (god willing it will fit in the same slot). My point is Consoles nickel and dime you to death. Over the course of the consoles life how much do you spend on acessories and DLC and crap. I bet it ends up costing just about the same as maintaing a PC.





*I use the elite becasue it's cheaper to buy than adding the accessories later)

 

[OCGuy]

Thanks pirates, you fuckheads. DIAF.

 

[skace]

Originally posted by: CottonRabbit
$100 card averages 30 fps in Crysis on high with very high shaders at 1680x1050

For the single player campaign, 30 fps is entirely playable. When I had a gtx260 (now a $160 card for core 216), I played Warhead at the highest setting at 1680x1050. I would say 1680x1050 is the current mainstream resolution, and video cards priced entirely for the mainstream market can very adequately handle Crysis.

30 average. What's the min, what's the max, what's the benchmark entail? Did they do a flyby similar to the VTOL level?

Just a note, 30 FPS is the bare minimum for playability in most players eyes. It doesn't make me feel good when we say the latest hardware barely hits 30 fps at 1680x1050 with no AA in an unidentified test of how the game might run in a real play through.

Edit: I played Crysis on 8800GTs in SLI and hit sub-10 FPS at areas running high quality at 1680x1050. I need to run through it on my new GTX295 to see how it compares.

 

[CottonRabbit]

Originally posted by: skace

Originally posted by: CottonRabbit
$100 card averages 30 fps in Crysis on high with very high shaders at 1680x1050

For the single player campaign, 30 fps is entirely playable. When I had a gtx260 (now a $160 card for core 216), I played Warhead at the highest setting at 1680x1050. I would say 1680x1050 is the current mainstream resolution, and video cards priced entirely for the mainstream market can very adequately handle Crysis.

30 average. What's the min, what's the max, what's the benchmark entail? Did they do a flyby similar to the VTOL level?

Just a note, 30 FPS is the bare minimum for playability in most players eyes. It doesn't make me feel good when we say the latest hardware barely hits 30 fps at 1680x1050 with no AA in an unidentified test of how the game might run in a real play through.

Edit: I played Crysis on 8800GTs in SLI and hit sub-10 FPS at areas running high quality at 1680x1050. I need to run through it on my new GTX295 to see how it compares.

As someone who beat Crysis on a 8800gts 640mb, 30 average fps is entirely doable for the particular game. If you still think Crysis's requirement are ridiculous, think how many times in the history of PC gaming has a $100 card been able to play the best looking game on the market on medium, much less high.