You have KILLED PC Gaming

[Insomniak]

Heh, yeah, it's all over...

...Just like when PS2 and Xbox launched. :roll:



The sky is falling, we're all doomed, etc.


Next.

 

[giz02]

Originally posted by: SkyBum


Ah, so you are implying that you and I are on the same level.

LOL - ok then yes, we both think there is a good possibility that you may not know what you are talking about.

Sorry.. I couldn't resist

 

[giz02]

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Heh, yeah, it's all over...

...Just like when PS2 and Xbox launched. :roll:



The sky is falling, we're all doomed, etc.


Next.

Don't you think it is a bit different this time? The boxes are alot more funtional and more matured then their previous generations. These to boxes took a huge leap forward.

 

[Griffinhart]

While consoles are great gaming platforms, there is no indication that the next gen boxes will be any better at gaming in any other way other than graphically vs today's consoles.

The PC flatform is, inherently, a better platform for FPS games. Playing a RTS game on a console would be painfull, at best.

You also need to consider, no matter how good the consoles get, people will still buy home computers to do real work. Consoles will never be seen as work machines. They may get some usefull functions, like E-Mail, and web browsing, but the livingroom TV isn't where people want to do work. I would never do my taxes on a console.

As a result, there are and will continue to be millions of PCs out there that easily run games. A large portion of those PC owners will be willing to buy games. Combine a platform that isn't going away with people willing to play games on them, and you have a market that isn't going to die.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: giz02

Originally posted by: Insomniak
Heh, yeah, it's all over...

...Just like when PS2 and Xbox launched. :roll:



The sky is falling, we're all doomed, etc.


Next.

Don't you think it is a bit different this time? The boxes are alot more funtional and more matured then their previous generations. These to boxes took a huge leap forward.

The previous boxes took a huge leap forward from the generation before that too....

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: giz02

Fine, I suppose we can agree to disagree then. Do you honestly think companies are going to rehash the same old graphics engines over and over again, when better hardware is available...?

Edit: I hate to keep using UE3 as my only/primary example, but it's certainly the most visible one, and I honestly do think it will get substantial use over the coming years. Unreal Tournament 2007 will be out by the time the PS3 is scheduled to be launched, as will likely at least a few other games using the engine...

Nah, that's cool.. I mean it is a very capapable engine (from the tech demo's and screen shots I've seen), I really think the PC is quickly losing it's appeal as a place for devs to show their stuff, or even target as a gaming market.
It's expensive and therefore there is a smaller audience, this makes a smaller audience, for less net.

PC gamers have always been a much smaller audience than console gamers, there's nothing new there.

 

[giz02]

Originally posted by: Griffinhart
While consoles are great gaming platforms, there is no indication that the next gen boxes will be any better at gaming in any other way other than graphically vs today's consoles.

The PC flatform is, inherently, a better platform for FPS games. Playing a RTS game on a console would be painfull, at best.

Is that just an interface issue (controller?) Halo 1 was pretty slick...

You also need to consider, no matter how good the consoles get, people will still buy home computers to do real work. Consoles will never be seen as work machines. They may get some usefull functions, like E-Mail, and web browsing, but the livingroom TV isn't where people want to do work. I would never do my taxes on a console.

that is true, and a common trend, but by the same token do you think that we are on the verge of adoptin a new trend, and the PC's will branch more to business less to entertainment? Longhorn looks to be a business first platform. While I'm not doing my taxes on my console any time soon, do you think we'll have the same opionon with PC's and serious gaming?

As a result, there are and will continue to be millions of PCs out there that easily run games. A large portion of those PC owners will be willing to buy games. Combine a platform that isn't going away with people willing to play games on them, and you have a market that isn't going to die.

I disagree. While you do have the base out there, you lack a baseline! Hardware is all over the place. You may get games (solitare is a game ;P ) you won't get GAMES.

You have some good points there. Thanks for positivley entering the discussion!

 

[minofifa]

Originally posted by: t3h l337 n3wb
Are you saying just because EVERYONE in the entire world can't afford a $5000 PC, the gaming industry is dead? If so, then you should die. The gameplay and fun of a game has nothing to do with being able to get 100 FPS on the hugest resolution possible. I would continue to flame you, but I'm at school and need to get to English, so I'll come back and edit this later

that's what i got out of it. for 1800 canadian, i got a decent cpu, ram and motherboard, hardrives, case etc. i still would need a better graphics card ( i have a 9800 SE) 5.1 surround speakers, better keyboard and mouse etc etc. I probably couldn't live without my computer and i do like gaming on it, but for a huge % of the market out there, buying an xbox or playstation is way cheaper and easier to get up and running.

 

[giz02]

PC gamers have always been a much smaller audience than console gamers, there's nothing new there.

Is it shrinking or growing?
I think it retracts and expands, but each retraction is getting bigger, and each expansion is getting smaller. from the gaming POV that is.

 

[giz02]

that's what i got out of it. for 1800 canadian, i got a decent cpu, ram and motherboard, hardrives, case etc. i still would need a better graphics card ( i have a 9800 SE) 5.1 surround speakers, better keyboard and mouse etc etc. I probably couldn't live without my computer and i do like gaming on it, but for a huge % of the market out there, buying an xbox or playstation is way cheaper and easier to get up and running.

So would you say it makes more sense to spend less on the PC, say $700 for a system that I could communitcate and work on, and $500 for a console (or $1000 for two) that I could play on?

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: giz02

Originally posted by: SkyBum

Originally posted by: giz02
Let me ask you, what is on the horizon for PC's. And I realize that I am asking someone who maybe a bit confused... Why an ATI card with an ASUS SLI motherboard? LOL

Unlike yourself, I'm not real big on making wild speculations for the future.

As for the SLI board, I held out from October to December waiting for vanilla nForce 4 boards to ship.

LOL Talk about makin a while speculation for the future

I should have been more clear, what's on the gaming horizon?

Age of Empires III
Vanguard, City of Heroes
The next Unreal game

There are three games that instantly come to mind that I am excited about. And I would never play any of these games on a console.

 

[SynthDude2001]

Originally posted by: giz02

PC gamers have always been a much smaller audience than console gamers, there's nothing new there.

Is it shrinking or growing?
I think it retracts and expands, but each retraction is getting bigger, and each expansion is getting smaller. from the gaming POV that is.

I honestly don't know, and I'm not sure it really matters. Console games have always dominated PC games in sales because of their huge installed base, and the PC game market survives to this day. You also have to wonder if consoles would be getting so advanced if they didn't have the benefit of PC hardware having progressed so far in the time since the last console launch...

 

[Azsen]

Is Half Life 2, Far Cry or Doom 3 not good enough for you? These games look fantastic at high detail with full AA and AF. I don't know what you're on about. Then we've got Battlefield 2 due in June, that will be impressive as well.

PS3 is a good year away yet.

 

[RussianSensation]

giz 02, what you proposed for yourself sounds like a very good solution for you. If you plan on getting an HDTV, fine with spending $ on games (as opposed to burning them for free for PC if you do), or renting them, then there is nothing wrong with having a $700 pc for work and $500 console strictly for games. However, if you enjoy FPS games, and strategy games you still need a PC.

I always say that if you fully want to enjoy gaming, you have to own both a PC and a console(s). But, if you were to make a compromise for gaming, a console is a cheaper and more secure bet since it lasts 5 years and still outputs good games. Let's put graphics aside for a moment. I played Legend of Zelda:Majora's mask on the gamecube (same as on N64) and the graphics suck. Yet it was a really fun game. Then you have Doom 3 that doesnt even touch this game even if you mulitplied its graphics by 10x further. The point is gaming is NOT only ABOUT GRAPHICS. It is about having fun and gameplay. Then the most important question for you to ask is -- do I have more fun playing platform, sports, fighting, action-adventure, rpg, racing games on a console?? or FPS, Massively multiplayer, RTS on a PC?

I know you are waiting for this amazing graphical game to impress you with your great PC rig, but is it ultimately going to make you enjoy the game that much more if gameplay sucks? If you enjoy the former, a console will suit you just fine. If you enjoy the latter more, a PC is your platform. If you enjoy both you need to own both. It's difficult to say whats better a console or a PC since each offer different strengths based on each person's gaming preferences for gaming genres. I do dislike the fact though....that for me to enjoy console genre of games, all I need to spend is $500 but to enjoy FPS and RTS i need to spend $1000+ on a PC. It's a bit unfair from that perspective.

 

[Insomniak]

Originally posted by: giz02
Don't you think it is a bit different this time? The boxes are alot more funtional and more matured then their previous generations. These to boxes took a huge leap forward.

No I don't, and no they didn't.

These consoles are about as far advanced past their predecessors as their predecessors were past the ones before them.

I see absolutely nothing different about this console launch from prior ones.

 

[DanDaMan315]

Ban him now I say.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
giz 02, what you proposed for yourself sounds like a very good solution for you. If you plan on getting an HDTV, fine with spending $ on games (as opposed to burning them for free for PC if you do), or renting them, then there is nothing wrong with having a $700 pc for work and $500 console strictly for games. However, if you enjoy FPS games, and strategy games you still need a PC.

I always say that if you fully want to enjoy gaming, you have to own both a PC and a console(s). But, if you were to make a compromise for gaming, a console is a cheaper and more secure bet since it lasts 5 years and still outputs good games. Let's put graphics aside for a moment. I played Legend of Zelda:Majora's mask on the gamecube (same as on N64) and the graphics suck. Yet it was a really fun game. Then you have Doom 3 that doesnt even touch this game even if you mulitplied its graphics by 10x further. The point is gaming is NOT only ABOUT GRAPHICS. It is about having fun and gameplay. Then the most important question for you to ask is -- do I have more fun playing platform, sports, fighting, action-adventure, rpg, racing games on a console?? or FPS, Massively multiplayer, RTS on a PC?

I know you are waiting for this amazing graphical game to impress you with your great PC rig, but is it ultimately going to make you enjoy the game that much more if gameplay sucks? If you enjoy the former, a console will suit you just fine. If you enjoy the latter more, a PC is your platform. If you enjoy both you need to own both. It's difficult to say whats better a console or a PC since each offer different strengths based on each person's gaming preferences for gaming genres. I do dislike the fact though....that for me to enjoy console genre of games, all I need to spend is $500 but to enjoy FPS and RTS i need to spend $1000+ on a PC. It's a bit unfair from that perspective.

I agree with you. It's about the gameplay, not the graphics. I still play the n64 all the time, and most of the games that I have for that are way better than xbox or new pc games out now.

 

[giz02]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
giz 02, what you proposed for yourself sounds like a very good solution for you. If you plan on getting an HDTV, fine with spending $ on games (as opposed to burning them for free for PC if you do), or renting them, then there is nothing wrong with having a $700 pc for work and $500 console strictly for games. However, if you enjoy FPS games, and strategy games you still need a PC.

I always say that if you fully want to enjoy gaming, you have to own both a PC and a console(s). But, if you were to make a compromise for gaming, a console is a cheaper and more secure bet since it lasts 5 years and still outputs good games. Let's put graphics aside for a moment. I played Legend of Zelda:Majora's mask on the gamecube (same as on N64) and the graphics suck. Yet it was a really fun game. Then you have Doom 3 that doesnt even touch this game even if you mulitplied its graphics by 10x further. The point is gaming is NOT only ABOUT GRAPHICS. It is about having fun and gameplay. Then the most important question for you to ask is -- do I have more fun playing platform, sports, fighting, action-adventure, rpg, racing games on a console?? or FPS, Massively multiplayer, RTS on a PC?

I know you are waiting for this amazing graphical game to impress you with your great PC rig, but is it ultimately going to make you enjoy the game that much more if gameplay sucks? If you enjoy the former, a console will suit you just fine. If you enjoy the latter more, a PC is your platform. If you enjoy both you need to own both. It's difficult to say whats better a console or a PC since each offer different strengths based on each person's gaming preferences for gaming genres. I do dislike the fact though....that for me to enjoy console genre of games, all I need to spend is $500 but to enjoy FPS and RTS i need to spend $1000+ on a PC. It's a bit unfair from that perspective.

Great points. For me, it's not 100% the gfx, it's the IMMERSION, and gfx are a huge part of that. Being able to interact, to see and hear what is going on around me at a life like rate (60+fps 5.1 no aliasing, etc etc). The story of course is part of it. Maybe it's because my imagination is not as strong, I need to see it as well.

For me, that is what gameplay spells out. Sports, Sim (racing and flying), and FPS are my genres, it's about them
-looking good
-sound good
and responding well.

I didn't want to get into the burning vs buying, but those are option on all platforms

 

[giz02]

Originally posted by: DanDaMan315
Ban him now I say.

Play nice

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: giz02

Is that just an interface issue (controller?) Halo 1 was pretty slick...

Mostly yes. Halo was a great game. I loved it. But, honestly, I enjoy it more on the PC. Using the mouse makes all the difference.

that is true, and a common trend, but by the same token do you think that we are on the verge of adoptin a new trend, and the PC's will branch more to business less to entertainment? Longhorn looks to be a business first platform. While I'm not doing my taxes on my console any time soon, do you think we'll have the same opionon with PC's and serious gaming?

Absolutely. Look at history. PC's have always been more business than entertainment. PC's and Consoles have co-existed since the early days. Consoles have always done some things better than PC's and PC's have done other things better. There is no indication this will change. FPS are still better on the PC and RTS just isn't a real option on the console.


And Longhorn will be as much entertainment as business. Microsoft knows that games are a huge part of the software industry. They own and publish many game titles. They aren't going to lessen support for gaming. Longhorn is going to have a new version of DirectX for example.

I disagree. While you do have the base out there, you lack a baseline! Hardware is all over the place. You may get games (solitare is a game ;P ) you won't get GAMES.

You have some good points there. Thanks for positivley entering the discussion!

Hardware being all over the place makes game development more challenging than a console, for sure. But, that has been a constant in the industry. Even with this challenge, PC gaming has been incredibly successfull.

Take a look at World of Warcraft. It can run on old and new hardware. I have a friend that plays on an 800mhz PC with a Geforce 5200, and he loves playing it. It sold millions of copies and is widely praised as an excellent game. Even if it weren't a pay to play game, it would be considered a massive success.

GuildWars is another game that runs on a huge range of hardware and has been a big success.

There is a market there. That market isn't going to go away any time soon. There is big money to be made in PC games even after the next gen consoles are released. Software developers will always go for the big money, especially in an extremely competitive market.

 

[giz02]

Originally posted by: Azsen
Is Half Life 2, Far Cry or Doom 3 not good enough for you? These games look fantastic at high detail with full AA and AF. I don't know what you're on about. Then we've got Battlefield 2 due in June, that will be impressive as well.

PS3 is a good year away yet.

Those were great... I MEAN GREAT titles. but it seems the hit parade has hit a standstill.

I'd like to comment on those games. (and yes I play all of them at 16x12 4xaa,16xaf) [ok occasionally 1280x1024 just to keep the frames over 60 on certain levels..]

Doom3 really didn't start blowing me away untill the Hell Levels. At that point, I felt immersed FULLY! The stones looked better than hand drawn. They looked like clay (remember claymation?) like it really looked 3d.

Far Cry blew me away, the WHOLE GAME looked like it was 'clay'

Halflife 2's textures were sharper than both to the other games (imo) and at times also felt clay.. Like i was manipulating a 3d object, not a 2d rendition of a 3d scene.

BUT those games are from a Pre Nexgen console world, and if they represent the pinacle of current 3d gaming, with nothing (save UT2007/BF2) on the horizon, then that's it. Look at the flood of titles for the Nextgens that (look to) provide the same level of immersion...

 

[giz02]

Take a look at World of Warcraft. It can run on old and new hardware. I have a friend that plays on an 800mhz PC with a Geforce 5200, and he loves playing it. It sold millions of copies and is widely praised as an excellent game. Even if it weren't a pay to play game, it would be considered a massive success.

You know, I never really give those types of games a chance, so I'm biased against them. I do realize that there are alot of people out there who are playing the mmorpgs, because they get immersed more in trhe char/plot developement than the gfx/responsiveness. That said, mmorpg will be nextgen as well. They really took alook at what works in the Pc world and are appling it to the console formula to equate to more net.

you are totally right about the huge following those games have on the PC platform, and that type of game does allow the user with hardware less tailored for gaming to be used for entertainment.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: t3h l337 n3wb
Are you saying just because EVERYONE in the entire world can't afford a $5000 PC, the gaming industry is dead? If so, then you should die. The gameplay and fun of a game has nothing to do with being able to get 100 FPS on the hugest resolution possible. I would continue to flame you, but I'm at school and need to get to English, so I'll come back and edit this later

Yeah, maybe devs should try to make more efficient code

 

[sharkeeper]

LOL I still play Giants on my Dell XPS lappy and it runs it at like 300 fps at 1920x1200.

I even play NFS II SE with a 3DFX wrapper to emulate glide. Nothing like zipping around paradise at 277 mph in the FZR-2000 with PIONEER engine upgrade and smoke with flying cows!

I rather suck at these games but who cares if I enjoy it? I play Far Cry as well on the same system and it runs fine for me. If I can blow stuff up and guns fire without the sound skipping I don't care.

To each is own I suppose.

 

[Vernor]

All of you clowns who have been playing ?double-dutch? ([Edit] (NOT) having the balls to [know when to] jump in to the PC game), the majority of the users here running XP1600?s (or any XP for that matter) and Radeon 9800?s (or anything less than a X800pro/6800GT) have really tanked the PC market.


Go play a game that requires a brain:

http://www.warinthepacific.net/