PS3 vs. PC :D

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: dripgoss
I'm a PC gamer primarily but I am starting to get extremely sick of having to upgrade my hardware everytime a new, technologically superior game gets released because the developer doesn't want to take the extra effort to optimize their games (EQ2, Doom3 anyone?). PC gaming is a money sink if you want to play the games the way the developer wants you to play them. I'm also getting tired of the MMO craze already and I'm welcoming the ability to play very immersive games on my 42" panny plasma via a next gen console. As for FPS, the Halo series was great so FPS can be done well on console. We'll just have to see how well HL2, D3, BF and other popular shooters will translate. As for console hardware, I think Sony and MS are going to surprise everyone with the power of their consoles. I'm lucky enough to have a birds eye view of a few games in development and I am awed at the LOD, IQ, AI, FX and environments on the new shiz...

Upgrading PC could be in some situation a better option than buying a 300-400 dollars gaming consoles each 3 or 4 years. I mean if you only game, just buy the console, But if you use the PC for other things (My PC makes me earn money) I just invest some money in it and will also have a very good gaming machine. I mean I inverst 150 or 200 dollars a year (a new CPU and mobo or a new videcard, or more memory, or a new hard disk, etc, except when I have to buy all the components at the same time, which doesn't occur often), always having a very good gaming machine that makes me earn money because I use it to work. Great. The console will become old in a couple of years not allowing you to make any money, just wasting your time playing.
Plasma TVs have DVI or VGA inputs, also the latest video card have HDTV support, so playing games in a 42" plasma screen in NOT something a PC gamer has to miss.

 

[Nickrand]

For me it all comes down to what is the most fun. I'm 28 and have brothers that are 2 years older and 1. 5 years younger - we use to game all the time together. Now we live 500 miles apart and the past 5 years has been all about pc gaming over the internet (mostly AoC/AoM, SWGB, SW-battlefront). With consoles getting much better at the on line stuff I'm almostly definitely switching back to the console. I have friends that run a NCAA 2005 PS2 football league that sounds like soo much fun its driving me crazy to be missing it. I can't wait to get the next generation console and start gaming with my bro's again. And sports games are no doubt much, much better on a console.

 

[ddogg]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
How much money did Sony funnel to Nvidia to develop the RSX? They might be pretty peeved that Nvidia refined the design they gave Sony and released something faster on a competing market. On the other hand, how can Sony expect Nvidia to sit on the laurels for 12 months?

Personally, I still believe in the PC, always will. Its an industry that lends itself better to high performance hardware due to the cut throat competition.

ya me 2

 

[ddogg]

Originally posted by: biostud
G70 SLI

that should pretty much slaughter everything...even the PS3 also but it would come at a hefty price!!

 

[Dukemaster]

Once gamedevelopers start to really utilize al the power of the playstation 3(wich they can't do with pc because all pc's are different) i'm positive that will look better then any game with G70 in SLI.

 

[nOObBooB]

OK well to think about it, so at the xbox360 showing at E3, the xbox360 was not acutally rendering those playable demos probably a 6800U was on a Mac G5. So why cant we have that kind of quality in our games??? It was shown there it is possible.

In addition, yeah maybe the ps3 or xbox360 will have better graphics initially but it wont replace pc gaming. These consoles come out every 5 years or so by then it will look like crap and we laugh. Like we have now ps2 and xbox graphics cant compare to pc.

However, I believe that console games are better programmed and developed compared to pc games. They still can make the xbox and ps2 look great on that 5 year old hardware!!

 

[Regs]

Right now im more worried about what type of processors AMD and Intel will have out by then to match the gaming performance of a Cell CPU.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: nOObBooB
OK well to think about it, so at the xbox360 showing at E3, the xbox360 was not acutally rendering those playable demos probably a 6800U was on a Mac G5. So why cant we have that kind of quality in our games??? It was shown there it is possible.

In addition, yeah maybe the ps3 or xbox360 will have better graphics initially but it wont replace pc gaming. These consoles come out every 5 years or so by then it will look like crap and we laugh. Like we have now ps2 and xbox graphics cant compare to pc.

However, I believe that console games are better programmed and developed compared to pc games. They still can make the xbox and ps2 look great on that 5 year old hardware!!

It is easier for developer to produce games for consoles, since only they have to concentrate their efforts in only one type of hardware, but finally the hardware limitations of consoles will arise with time because of the zero upgreadeability.

 

[dripgoss]

Originally posted by: nOObBooB
OK well to think about it, so at the xbox360 showing at E3, the xbox360 was not acutally rendering those playable demos probably a 6800U was on a Mac G5.

Nope. Those G5 alpha kits are in fact running custom (non consumer) ATi cards. That is the major reason those boxes cost around $15k to developers...

 

[tfcmasta97]

Originally posted by: apoppin
from Anand's May 17 Blog:

So when will PCs catch up? The console vs. PC debate has always been a balance, consoles would always debut more powerful than PCs, then PCs would catch up and surpass consoles during their ~5 year lifespan.

:S When has a console ever been faster than a computer that was already released ? I dont recall any consoles like this...

 

[housecat]

Well I like the PC more, obviously.. but if all you do is games.. the consoles rule price/performance easily.

5 years for $250 or so.. and now the consoles have backwards compatibility finally.

I dont fault a guy for buying a console. Having a PC that just runs Windows/Photoshop/Word and stuff like that is easy.. then have your PS3 for gaming.

A economical way to go.

Its not like you can build a PC for $3-400 that can come close to a PS3.

I dont really know, I choose to keep my computer halfway updated since I enjoy its games more usually.. but with the advent of things like Xbox live.. and thinking of the nice price tag on those systems.. its certainly nothing to spit at.

For me, my complaint was the multiplayer..
but with Xbox live and the PS3 probably having it too.. theres nothing holding me back at all. I'm getting a PS3 and a new TV (with 1080 support).

 

[ZimZum]

Originally posted by: tfcmasta97

Originally posted by: apoppin
from Anand's May 17 Blog:

So when will PCs catch up? The console vs. PC debate has always been a balance, consoles would always debut more powerful than PCs, then PCs would catch up and surpass consoles during their ~5 year lifespan.

:S When has a console ever been faster than a computer that was already released ? I dont recall any consoles like this...

The 1st Xbox

 

[Emultra]

I'm going to have to buy a new TV to fully appreciate any of the new consoles.

The choice is probably between the 360 and the PS3 (know practically nothing about Revolution), and the full backwards compatibility of the PS3, all the way back to PSX, is appealing.
That way, I won't have to do the "console collector" thing just to play through a series of games, Final Fantasy and such. Just think of the library of games at its disposal...

For multiplayer (and singleplayer, I ain't never abandonin' my COMP), right now it feels like my PC will be better at that.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Emultra
I'm going to have to buy a new TV to fully appreciate any of the new consoles.

The choice is probably between the 360 and the PS3 (know practically nothing about Revolution), and the full backwards compatibility of the PS3, all the way back to PSX, is appealing.
That way, I won't have to do the "console collector" thing just to play through a series of games, Final Fantasy and such. Just think of the library of games at its disposal...

For multiplayer (and singleplayer, I ain't never abandonin' my COMP), right now it feels like my PC will be better at that.

i thinking of a widescreen monitor that will do double duty . . . .

i ain't abandoning my computer . . . just not upgrading it for "only games". What do i need more than 3Ghz on my PC - for the next two or three years - if my console is my primary gaming machine .. . . in 2-3 years i can REevaluate PC gaming.

i like having a choice . . . finally
:thumbsup:
[even if i have to get used to a controller]
(heck, i even got used to that damnable atari 5800 or was it 7800 controller!)
:shocked:

 

[tfcmasta97]

I thought the Xbox is 700mhz... and we were already into 1.4 P4's when it came out?

Oh well i still love my Xbox, just curious tho

 

[Dukemaster]

The Xbox is 733mhz, and yes there were much faster cpu's available when it came out.

 

[dripgoss]

The thing most users don't realize is that Mhz on a console are NOT equal to Mhz on a PC. Frquency for frequency they may be the same number, but the code, artwork and conventions are optimized for the hardware on the console. Where as PC hardware bends for the software that's out (or will be out in the near future) making it an exact opposite relationship. I game both ways, but this pc vs. console debate is getting old because it's not apples to apples...