Hmm, what are Razer up to? Wall Street Journal ad.

ShadowHearth

gizmo wrote: »

How can anyone say it's the golden age for PC gaming when we've lost the focus of the likes of Epic and iD to console development? I'm not saying PC gaming isn't great, it most certainly is, but golden age? God no.

If there are so many PC gamers out there then why do 90% of multiplatform titles sell considerably more copies on consoles?

As for PC gaming hardware affecting the development of consoles, that will only hold true as long as the platform holders rely on off-the-shelf components for their designs. Oddly enough, as Carmack stated in that interview I linked in the other thread, a lot of developers are looking towards a change which would mean a move away from this. What this will mean and how long it'll take is anyone's guess of course, but the next two generations of consoles and how both they and PCs begin to converge is going to be extremely interesting.

in my opinion, there will be one thing that will make most happy.

a proper powerful console, which primary controls are mouse+keyboard.

the first one who will be able to make this work - will be rich.

NotorietyH

gizmo wrote: »

How can anyone say it's the golden age for PC gaming when we've lost the focus of the likes of Epic and iD to console development? I'm not saying PC gaming isn't great, it most certainly is, but golden age? God no.

If there are so many PC gamers out there then why do 90% of multiplatform titles sell considerably more copies on consoles?

As for PC gaming hardware affecting the development of consoles, that will only hold true as long as the platform holders rely on off-the-shelf components for their designs. Oddly enough, as Carmack stated in that interview I linked in the other thread, a lot of developers are looking towards a change which would mean a move away from this. What this will mean and how long it'll take is anyone's guess of course, but the next two generations of consoles and how both they and PCs begin to converge is going to be extremely interesting.

I think the Bombcast anyway were saying that it was an exciting time for PC games at the moment with Battlefield 3 and all that coming out and pushing boundaries, not necessarily a golden age. The interesting thing I took from it is that apparently HP are thinking of dropping Desktop PCs altogether, as most consumers buy PCs for the internet a bit of word processing and not much else. Tablets and Laptops will probably be the dominant, at least in the home, computer from here on out, they probably already are. Not sure how it will effect PC gaming, if at all, but it will definitely be interesting to see what happens.

gizmo

ShadowHearth wrote: »

in my opinion, there will be one thing that will make most happy.

a proper powerful console, which primary controls are mouse+keyboard.

the first one who will be able to make this work - will be rich.

So you think the future of gaming will be people sitting at desks in front of a keyboard and mouse, really?

The problem with this view is that it assumes there will be one universal solution for all, this is simply not the case, at least as long as we're using traditional peripherals for control.*

To give you an example using the FPS genre, generally speaking a PC gamer will never be able to enjoy the full benefits of a traditional K&M setup from the comfort of their couch. On the other hand, a console gamer will never be able to enjoy the full benefits of a K&M setup due to their use of a controller in the first place.

Now, in the formers case, the immediate reaction is probably "well don't sit on the couch in front of the TV, move to a desk" or perhaps some will even say "just use a TV tray" which may do them just fine. In the latter case however, the more relevant question is "do they care about the limitation that's imposed on them?". Hell do they even see it as a "limitation" like PC gamers do? If one looks at the sales figures for the CoD, Halo and Bad Company series as well as the take up rate of K&M support in the PS3 version of Unreal Tournament 3 then it would seem that the majority don't.

So, who's right? Neither I would say. For now, it still comes down to personal choice. Me? When Battlefield 3 comes out, I'll be getting it on the PC. I don't care about not sitting on the couch to play it, I want my K&M, my bigger maps and a reason to justify spending a couple of hundred quid on a new graphics card. When Arkham City and Uncharted 3 come out though, I want to be able to plop down on my couch in front of my big TV and just soak it up. Do I want this to change? Hell no. Do I see the divide changing any time soon? Hell no. Do I think it will change in the future? Definitely. However until the inherent strengths and weaknesses of both platforms are addressed, more than likely through some sort of convergence in hardware, I don't think it's going to happen any time soon.

I'd just be careful waiting for a solution which makes the most people happy in the short term because I don't think it's one you'd appreciate.

NotorietyH wrote: »

I think the Bombcast anyway were saying that it was an exciting time for PC games at the moment with Battlefield 3 and all that coming out and pushing boundaries, not necessarily a golden age. The interesting thing I took from it is that apparently HP are thinking of dropping Desktop PCs altogether, as most consumers buy PCs for the internet a bit of word processing and not much else. Tablets and Laptops will probably be the dominant, at least in the home, computer from here on out, they probably already are. Not sure how it will effect PC gaming, if at all, but it will definitely be interesting to see what happens.

I'll definitely give it a listen anyway. I'm surprised at the HP comments though since I would have assumed their primary desktop market would have been the business and not the home market.

*That last point is probably worthy of a thread all of it's own so I won't go into more detail now.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah, but you're a twat gizmo

Retr0gamer

gizmo wrote: »

I'll definitely give it a listen anyway. I'm surprised at the HP comments though since I would have assumed their primary desktop market would have been the business and not the home market.

I tried to listen to bombcast for a while but stopped because I think it just isn't very good at all. They never really discus the news indepth or criticise anyone and all they talk about is the big games and you won't find out anything from them that you don't already know. Then they sometimes come out with stuff that totally baffles me (Demon's Souls having control issues? It's probably got the most precise and perfect control system of any ARPG). It seems like a bunch of jocks just discussing the big games with nobody there with any real knowledge or anything interesting to say.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

yeah, but you're a twat gizmo

I hope this isn't personal abuse. I'll let it slide for now since it's so out of place. If it's playful banter then ok but if isn't don't do it again.

gizmo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I tried to listen to bombcast for a while but stopped because I think it just isn't very good at all. They never really discus the news indepth or criticise anyone and all they talk about is the big games and you won't find out anything from them that you don't already know. Then they sometimes come out with stuff that totally baffles me (Demon's Souls having control issues? It's probably got the most precise and perfect control system of any ARPG). It seems like a bunch of jocks just discussing the big games with nobody there with any real knowledge or anything interesting to say.

Ah, well that's some time saved anyway, ta.

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I hope this isn't personal abuse. I'll let it slide for now since it's so out of place. If it's playful banter then ok but if isn't don't do it again.

Nah, that's just some banter, I highly doubt he even read the post.

Retr0gamer

Well give them a go anyway, you might like them. They are really popular but it baffles me why they are. You might like them.

ShadowHearth

Well everyone is getting ready for pc funeral... For the last 15 years atleast now... I will die amd I bet my grandchildren will still play counter strike 5 and read on boards.ie how pc gaming will die on 5 years .

There will be people who like gaming on pc or gaming on console. As long as there demand, there will be supply. I would not wrote of pc just yet.

NotorietyH

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It seems like a bunch of jocks just discussing the big games with nobody there with any real knowledge or anything interesting to say.

I think that may be the one and only time I'll ever see the Bombcast guys be described as jocks. I don't always agree with them individually or collectively, but they produce a roughly 2 and a half hour podcast every week that covers pretty much everything that's happened in the previous week. They go pretty in depth into a fair few subjects too, moreso than some other podcasts, except for I suppose the podcasts that are about specific games or genres or something. I like them anyway, light-hearted but a bit more in depth than the other podcasts I've listened to.

Overheal

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Well everyone is getting ready for pc funeral... For the last 15 years atleast now... I will die amd I bet my grandchildren will still play counter strike 5 and read on boards.ie how pc gaming will die on 5 years .

There will be people who like gaming on pc or gaming on console. As long as there demand, there will be supply. I would not wrote of pc just yet.

As I recall Lenon once said something about the likes of "God is Dead".

My english professor seems to think he was onto something. About killing your preconceived notion of what God is so you are always re-iterating and uncovering more about your personal truth on the matter.

In the same manner, PC Gaming is dead, and has died, many many times. And usually comes back re-imagined as something else. Right now, single-player is "Dying" in the same way offline play "died". And text-based adventures "died".

Retr0gamer

NotorietyH wrote: »

I think that may be the one and only time I'll ever see the Bombcast guys be described as jocks. I don't always agree with them individually or collectively, but they produce a roughly 2 and a half hour podcast every week that covers pretty much everything that's happened in the previous week. They go pretty in depth into a fair few subjects too, moreso than some other podcasts, except for I suppose the podcasts that are about specific games or genres or something. I like them anyway, light-hearted but a bit more in depth than the other podcasts I've listened to.

My big problem is that they only cover the big games and any news and they seem to be afraid to criticise anyone in the industry in case they hurt peoples feelings. The news and games they do cover are all well known by the time the podcast comes out or just regurgiated press releases so I'd only be interested in good discussion on these but they really don't do this satisfactorily. There's also way too much off topic banter that goes on too long and becomes uninteresting quickly.

The only podcast that covers broad gaming topics I've ever liked was 1up yours were the guys on it really criticised the industry and ripped into it when it deserved it and there was great discussion. Nothing has really come close other than WAHP which is unfortunately very intermittent with podcast releases and only covers the japanese industry. Giantbomb is probably the closest to 1up yours but it's still tame by comparison and they really get it badly wrong sometimes. I just stick to Retronauts, Roleplayers Realm and WAHP whenever it does come out now.

NotorietyH

Retr0gamer wrote: »

My big problem is that they only cover the big games and any news and they seem to be afraid to criticise anyone in the industry in case they hurt peoples feelings. The news and games they do cover are all well known by the time the podcast comes out or just regurgiated press releases so I'd only be interested in good discussion on these but they really don't do this satisfactorily. There's also way too much off topic banter that goes on too long and becomes uninteresting quickly.

I don't think that describe the bombcast at all in my opinion anyway. If anything at times I find them overly critical at times and usually go pretty in depth with any news topics, especially since Patrik Klepek joined. Used to listen to the 1up podcasts but I find them more and more sanctimonious as time goes on. Anyway, we're not going to change each other's minds! At least there are enough podcasts around to suit different tastes!

the_syco

gizmo wrote: »

If there are so many PC gamers out there then why do 90% of multiplatform titles sell considerably more copies on consoles?

We've moved from PC's that mainly do other things and games, to PC's that are built for games that can do other things, but the PC's built for other things can no longer play games.

By this, I mean before I could play Wolfenstein 3D, Commander Keen, and a few other games on a PC that had a pretty standard spec in the 1990's, as the games were designed around limited specs. Now, there is no limit to the specs, and you'll need a good GFX card, lots of RAM, etc, to play a game, and thus a PC that was built for MS Office won't be able to play the "new" games.

TomCo

My favourite podcast at the moment is joypod (http://spong.com/podcasts/joypod/), followed by the Bombcast.

I don't really listen to gaming podcasts for the news, if I learn something new its a bonus.

Genghiz Cohen

the_syco wrote: »

We've moved from PC's that mainly do other things and games, to PC's that are built for games that can do other things, but the PC's built for other things can no longer play games.

By this, I mean before I could play Wolfenstein 3D, Commander Keen, and a few other games on a PC that had a pretty standard spec in the 1990's, as the games were designed around limited specs. Now, there is no limit to the specs, and you'll need a good GFX card, lots of RAM, etc, to play a game, and thus a PC that was built for MS Office won't be able to play the "new" games.

Minecraft.

the_syco

NotorietyH wrote: »

how HP and other companies seem to be trying to step away from the desktop PC market because there's no money to be made

On that point, HP, like IBM before them, are unable to compete against the Asian makers of computer.

NotorietyH wrote: »

The interesting thing I took from it is that apparently HP are thinking of dropping Desktop PCs altogether

Interesting how? Interesting in the same way that IBM sold its PC division to China-based Lenovo Group in 2004?

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Minecraft.

Like World of Warcraft, it's based on an engine that you don't need to update your machine to play. This sort of game whose gameplay is the selling point not the graphics may be what drives PC gaming in the future. Hopefully, as graphics can only go so far.

People that want quick mindless crap can get a console. That's one of the reasons why I like the console: you plug it in, you play a game. No install needed. Well, not when I last played a game on the console. Also, the console you get, can play all games for it. No upgrade needed. I just can't play FPS games on them as I need the K&M to play such games.

NotorietyH

the_syco wrote: »

On that point, HP, like IBM before them, are unable to compete against the Asian makers of computer.


Interesting how? Interesting in the same way that IBM sold its PC division to China-based Lenovo Group in 2004?

Well yes I guess, it was interesting to me at least. As I said I'm not really a PC gamer and not up to speed on PCs in general, but it was an interesting discussion to me at least.

marco_polo

the_syco wrote: »

On that point, HP, like IBM before them, are unable to compete against the Asian makers of computer.


Interesting how? Interesting in the same way that IBM sold its PC division to China-based Lenovo Group in 2004?


Like World of Warcraft, it's based on an engine that you don't need to update your machine to play. This sort of game whose gameplay is the selling point not the graphics may be what drives PC gaming in the future. Hopefully, as graphics can only go so far.

People that want quick mindless crap can get a console. That's one of the reasons why I like the console: you plug it in, you play a game. No install needed. Well, not when I last played a game on the console. Also, the console you get, can play all games for it. No upgrade needed. I just can't play FPS games on them as I need the K&M to play such games.

Large OEMs like HP, dell et al, are part of the problem for PC gaming if you ask me, I often wonder how many people have been put off PC gaming because the 'gaming PC' they bought was not worthy of the name, and ended up with an expensive coaster when they couldn't run that new game they just bought.

Interestingly with integrated CPU/GPUs starting to emerge it will should come back around to the point where fairly demanding games will be playable on a bog standard off the shelf PC in the next couple of years. Already the on die GPUs of the first generation AMD Fusion APUs are not that far off the consoles in graphical power.

Magill

The biggest problem with PC gaming is how badly the games (And machines) are optimized. Yes your £500 PC may be technically 10 times more powerful than a £150 console... but you simply don't get 10 times the performance from them when playing multiplat games. My laptop is much more powerful technically than my PS3... but it can barely run css at a decent frame rate (on low settings) nevermind something like crysis2/deus Ex.

Dcully

Magill wrote: »

The biggest problem with PC gaming is how badly the games (And machines) are optimized. Yes your £500 PC may be technically 10 times more powerful than a £150 console... but you simply don't get 10 times the performance from them when playing multiplat games. My laptop is much more powerful technically than my PS3... but it can barely run css at a decent frame rate (on low settings) nevermind something like crysis2/deus Ex.

What spec is your laptop?
My 4 year old PC now passed on to my son can play cod,bc2 etc at much higher resolution,much better graphical quality and much better framerate than he could dream of getting on his 360.
I also ran CSS at well over 80fps @ max settings @ 1920X1080.
Crysis 2 runs at about 40-60fps @ max settings.
A €500 PC will run pretty much anyhing on the market no problem at all.
Its a myth that you have to spend a lot on a gaming pc.

mcgovern

the_syco wrote: »

On that point, HP, like IBM before them, are unable to compete against the Asian makers of computer.

Why would they not be able to compete with them? It's not like IBM for example, didn't manufacture PC's in China before the sold it.
They sold it because the margin is crap, same reason HP are selling.

Magill

Dcully wrote: »

What spec is your laptop?
My 4 year old PC now passed on to my son can play cod,bc2 etc at much higher resolution,much better graphical quality and much better framerate than he could dream of getting on his 360.
I also ran CSS at well over 80fps @ max settings @ 1920X1080.
Crysis 2 runs at about 40-60fps @ max settings.
A €500 PC will run pretty much anyhing on the market no problem at all.
Its a myth that you have to spend a lot on a gaming pc.

Err i3 2.2ghz / 3gb ram / ATI HD4250 (cost about 400 last year)

I know a 500e (Tower only, you've still to spend another 200+ for everything else tho if you don't already have it ! Monitor/keyboard+mouse+headset or speakers and possibly a desk + chair. so yeah... it CAN be expensive if your starting from scratch, as it would if you didnt have a TV for your console ) will run most things these days. Just from experience tho... while people say stuff like a PC is 10 times more powerful than a console (And usually 10 times the price) you simply don't get 10 times the graphical power or frame rates because of how PC's are built and how they aren't dedicated gaming machines. Another way of looking at it... if someone handed you 200e and told you to build them a pc capable of matching the performance of a console it would be simply impossible.

IMO its a myth that building your own gaming PC from scratch is cheap... otherwise i would have done it months ago !

ShadowHearth

Magill wrote: »

Err i3 2.2ghz / 3gb ram / ATI HD4250 (cost about 400 last year)

I know a 500e (Tower only, you've still to spend another 200+ for everything else tho if you don't already have it ! Monitor/keyboard+mouse+headset or speakers and possibly a desk + chair.. so yeah... it CAN be expensive if your starting from scratch, as it would if you didnt have a TV for your console ) will run most things these days.. Just from experience... while people say stuff like a PC is 10 times more powerful than a console (And usually 10 times the price) you simply don't get 10 times the graphical power or frame rates because of how PC's are built and how they aren't dedicated gaming machines. Another way of looking at it... if someone handed you 200e and told you to build them a pc capable of matching the performance of a console it would be simply impossible.

IMO its a myth that building your own gaming PC from scratch is cheap... otherwise i would have done it months ago !

PC needs monitor, same as console needs a TV. When me and misses moved in to apartment ( from house with 3 couples living to our own little apartment ) we had nothing, our first purchase was a desktop pc, which was set on coffee table...worked fine.

Console (250-300eu)
PC (500eu)

PC needs Monitor ( 100eu )
Console needs TV ( 500eu )

PC needs a table + chair ( 100eu )
TV needs a Stand ( 100 eu )

keyboard+mouse can be bought for 20 eu...

bouth can be expensive if you start from zero.

If you got only TV+CONSOLE, you will need LAPTOP for your computer needs.
TV + PC = profit.

i am not bashing consoles, i got myself xbox, ps3, psp, 3ds. I am just trying to explain that PC gaming is not that expensive as people ( who dont have a ****ing clue ) make it look.

marco_polo

No idea where you are getting 10X from Magill, but if you were using a 500 quid PC to play on low/medium settings @720p, you would certainly be seeing large triple figure fps numbers on most games.

As for PC hardware not being optimised, I am not sure what you mean, the Xbox is essentially a PC there is nothing especially different from an architectural point of view. Sure the PS3 Cell is quite different but if anything that is the most difficult platform to optimise for by all accounts and it is only recently that multiplatform are pretty much the same on both consoles, despite the theoretical advantage the PS3 should have.

Genghiz Cohen

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Console (250-300eu)
PC (500eu)

PC needs Monitor ( 100eu )
Console needs TV ( 500eu )

That is an amazing point, why did I not think of this?!

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

because people tend to have tv's anyway. if people bought tv's with their consoles, it'd be a stronger point to bring up.

Genghiz Cohen

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

because people tend to have tv's anyway. if people bought tv's with their consoles, it'd be a stronger point to bring up.

I didn't

ShadowHearth

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

because people tend to have tv's anyway. if people bought tv's with their consoles, it'd be a stronger point to bring up.

people ofc buying ****y laptops + TV too. heres a strong point.

Buy PC + Telly, skip on console = profit


loads of people buying TV, just for theyr console, because main TV is used by other family members?

gizmo

marco_polo wrote: »

As for PC hardware not being optimised, I am not sure what you mean, the Xbox is essentially a PC there is nothing especially different from an architectural point of view. Sure the PS3 Cell is quite different but if anything that is the most difficult platform to optimise for by all accounts and it is only recently that multiplatform are pretty much the same on both consoles, despite the theoretical advantage the PS3 should have.

Not really correct unfortunately.The 360 GPU is quite different from its PC counterparts, especially when it comes to the optimisation aspect. The PS3 has a more common GPU but as you rightly pointed out, the Cell is the kicker there, especially since it needs to make up for the underpowered GPU at graphical work.

Either way, ShadowHearth is correct in this respect. PC "optimisation" from the point of view of getting the most out of the hardware available, is a nightmare compared to what can be done on the console.

With regards the budget PC debate, the figures people are using are quite odd. Surely the only ones that matter are either a PC priced at the same as the console was at launch or a PC priced at what the console is now. Then compare the performance found in games now. Comparing a £500 PC with today's specs against a console now is ludicrous and completely misses the point.

Shiminay

I've got a telly that I bought some years ago to use as a PC monitor. I have since switched to a dedicated (and higher res) monitor and my TV is only ever used by my XBox (and occasionally my PC if I wanna watch a film on the couch, but that's rare). I'm looking at buying another telly atm cause it's on it's way out - took a knock going to a LAN years ago and hasn't been right since.

My point is, the two things are interchangeable and I don't personally think they should be considered a part of the pricing of your gaming platform of choice.

Why do PC's with considerably higher technical specifications not have similarly higher performance? APIs. Games use the OS and it's various APIs to interface with the hardware (DirectX being the most common example on Windows machines) and they have to be coded to allow as much flexibility to allow for past, present and future hardware and a practically limitless combination of parts that work to make up a PC.

Consoles have 1 set of hardware which never changes which means the operating system is considerably thinner and the code needed to write for them is also thinner. This is why you get considerably more bang for buck performance out of them.

It's also worth noting, that for all it's flexibility of parts and components and configurations, the PC is a relatively limited platform in it's own right. Look at the high end graphics market? There has been monsterous power and performance being pumped into it, but it all bottlenecks at a PCIeX16 slot. Your standard motherboard bus is quite limited in comparison to a console's because in order to keep the business going as it stands, you need to have standards that everyone agrees to stick to.

A friend of mine who's far more familiar with hardware than I once theorised that we should be moving to a platform where your machine has X system ram and y system processors and much wider data busses to allow communications between them and the various I/O devices. The software should be able to proportionally control what it wants to do with it all (e.g. assign 10% of cores/threading to physics, 20% to rendering, 25% to running the code, etc). Need an upgrade? Just buy another 16 core and 64 GB RAM card and plug it in and let the system realise it's got more cores and ram available, that should give more performance, but the running ratios remain the same. Sure, you'll still need "minimum specs" for things, but that'll be a lot easier to fix rather than wondering "hmmm, what sort of RAM do I need on this motherboard and which cpu chip does it take?"

I thought it an interesting idea and a very fresh approach to the issue.