PC Gaming [The Consumerism Conspiracy]

764dak

• Big companies release big budget games on home consoles as many games saturate the PC market (okay decision)
• When they release PC versions they upgrade the games so much that you would have to upgrade your PC or buy a console to play.
• Somehow they manage to put some of these games on handhelds.
• An original PC game will always be playable on consoles when they get a release. For example, the 2007 game Crysis required players to upgrade their new high-end gaming PCs. PS3 and Xbox 360 could play it and its sequel even though they have lesser CPUs and GPUs compared 2007 gaming PCs.
• They want consumers to buy CPUs, GPUs, or consoles.

Sonics2k

764dak wrote: »

• Big companies release big budget games on home consoles as many games saturate the PC market (okay decision)
• When they release PC versions they upgrade the games so much that you would have to upgrade your PC or buy a console to play.
• Somehow they manage to put some of these games on handhelds.
• An original PC game will always be playable on consoles when they get a release. For example, the 2007 game Crysis required players to upgrade their new high-end gaming PCs. PS3 and Xbox 360 could play it and its sequel even though they have lesser CPUs and GPUs compared 2007 gaming PCs.
• They want consumers to buy CPUs, GPUs, or consoles.

Jesus, where to begin with this.

1. Not a conspiracy, it's marketing.
2. Typically speaking, PC's are more powerful than consoles. Don't argue, it's bloody well true.
3. Crysis on Ultra on PC was considerably higher quality than you could hope to run on a console. It was always about pushing the limits of graphical capabilities at the time/
4. You are, in no way, -required- to upgrade your PC to play new games, unless your machine is woefully out of date. As in 10 years old.
5. Once again, Crysis would run on most machines when it came out, but to play it on the Ultra High settings did require high-end parts. This was purely for cosmetic reasons, and didn't impact gameplay.

764dak

Sonics2k wrote: »

Jesus, where to begin with this.

1. Not a conspiracy, it's marketing.
2. Typically speaking, PC's are more powerful than consoles. Don't argue, it's bloody well true.
3. Crysis on Ultra on PC was considerably higher quality than you could hope to run on a console. It was always about pushing the limits of graphical capabilities at the time/
4. You are, in no way, -required- to upgrade your PC to play new games, unless your machine is woefully out of date. As in 10 years old.
5. Once again, Crysis would run on most machines when it came out, but to play it on the Ultra High settings did require high-end parts. This was purely for cosmetic reasons, and didn't impact gameplay.

Laptops outnumber desktops. How many Intel HD laptops can run Watch Dogs 2? https://technical.city/en/video/HD-Graphics-620-vs-Xbox-One-GPU
Watch Dogs 2 only runs at 13.8 FPS on an Intel HD 620.

Sonics2k

764dak wrote: »

Laptops outnumber desktops. How many Intel HD laptops can run Watch Dogs 2? https://technical.city/en/video/HD-Graphics-620-vs-Xbox-One-GPU
Watch Dogs 2 only runs at 13.8 FPS on an Intel HD 620.

Laptops are not designed for gaming, and you know it.

You may as well compare a Fiat Panda with a Nissan Skyline if you're going to make that comparison. Yes, they may do the same thing in that you'll drive from point A to point B, but you'll do it in a very different way in each car.

Dohnjoe

??

Tech goes forward not backwards. We demand better looking games, which in turn demand better PC's/generations of consoles to run.

It's an optional giant conspiracy where everyone is involved, or not if they chose. Nothing stopping you buying an old console or old PC to play older games or less graphically demanding new games on

764dak

Dohnjoe wrote: »

??

Tech goes forward not backwards. We demand better looking games, which in turn demand better PC's/generations of consoles to run.

It's an optional giant conspiracy where everyone is involved, or not if they chose. Nothing stopping you buying an old console or old PC to play older games or less graphically demanding new games on

Better PCs and hardware, eh? I guess that's why a PS Vita with its weaker GPU can run Amazing Spider Man, Atelier Sophie, Dead or Alive 5, and Borderlands 2 better than Intel HD 2000.

Dohnjoe

764dak wrote: »

Better PCs and hardware, eh? I guess that's why a PS Vita with its weaker GPU can run Amazing Spider Man, Atelier Sophie, Dead or Alive 5, and Borderlands 2 better than Intel HD 2000.

I have no idea why you are comparing integrated graphics with handheld - there are so many differences between the two

The handheld is specifically for gaming, pushing a far lower res. Integrated graphics on Intel chips aren't for enthusiast gaming and are aimed more at supplementing a system with no dedicated graphics card

Different markets, different needs, different chips, different coding, etc

764dak

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I have no idea why you are comparing integrated graphics with handheld - there are so many differences between the two

The handheld is specifically for gaming, pushing a far lower res. Integrated graphics on Intel chips aren't for enthusiast gaming and are aimed more at supplementing a system with no dedicated graphics card

Different markets, different needs, different chips, different coding, etc

Different markets and needs, eh? I guess that's why asking about laptop performance seems like one of the most common queries on any game forum.

Dohnjoe

764dak wrote: »

Different markets and needs, eh?

Yes

A standard laptop isn't specifically designed for gaming - it's designed to run Windows, many different applications and programs, to run with low power on battery (which is why chips are often lower power and graphics solutions are integrated)

Comparing a laptop to a system which is designed almost purely around the need to run games is absurd

764dak

Dohnjoe wrote: »

764dak wrote: »

Different markets and needs, eh?

Yes

A standard laptop isn't specifically designed for gaming - it's designed to run Windows, many different applications and programs, to run with low power on battery (which is why chips are often lower power and graphics solutions are integrated)

Comparing a laptop to a system which is designed almost purely around the need to run games is absurd

It's absurd to expect a laptop to run the same games as an inferior PS Vita?

Colonel Claptrap

764dak wrote: »

It's absurd to expect a laptop to run the same games as an inferior PS Vita?

I use my food processor for baking. It kneads dough, chops nuts, whips cream and mixes cake mixture. It can also slice vegetables when fed from the top and even mix smoothies for me.

But I never use it to mix smoothies as it's too cumbersome, has a lower rpm and takes too long to clean.

So I use a nutri bullet for smoothies. Unfortunately, it doesn't do much else.

Have I been hoodwinked by the kitchen appliance corporate types?

Dohnjoe

764dak wrote: »

It's absurd to expect a laptop to run the same games as an inferior PS Vita?

A tractor has a far more powerful engine than let's say a Fiesta ST.. but the Fiesta can go much faster

Different reasons and purposes

Can a PS Vita run multiple spreadsheets, encoding software, thousands of different applications, etc? no. It's not designed for that. It's designed almost purely to run specifically coded games on a small quarter HD screen and little else.

I have no idea what the conspiracy is here. Seems to be based entirely on non-understanding of tech and application

cml387

I think the OP is a bit confused about the technicalities of dedicated game consoles v generalised pc's but he may have a wider point about the way software upgrades drive the hardware upgrade cycle.

For many users, a system running windows xp would be perfectly adequate for their needs but the relentless drive by Microsoft to add complexity to their OS plus refusal to support older OS's means the hardware manufacturers do benefit.

And let's not forget how Apple cripple older iPhones with software upgrades to encourage purchase of newer phones.

Overheal

No, your 'conspiracy' just lacks basis. There are some truths though. For instance, Nvidia especially and AMD both support game developers. They do this largely with their APIs and their developer tools, educating developers how to optimize the games for their graphics hardware. That's a twofold problem, first because yes development is sponsored by the hardware vendor, especially titles which are leading edge in terms of visuals. Another because the two companies very often dont coexist: a developer working more closely with Nvidia's closed-door APIs will usually stick with those, and same with AMD's open-source. Nvidia spends more money with marketing and training and supporting, while AMD generally just puts the tools out there and lets the developer market scoop it up. That's because AMD/Radeon ($3.3B) just isn't that big a monster compared to Nvidia ($10B) and with Intel ($113.3B) both of whom have proven able to use anti-competitive practices to keep their rival(s) down and keep hardware prices up. Look at things like FreeSync vs. G-Sync, or GPUopen vs. Gameworks and you start getting the idea. There have been numerous antitrust lawsuits and other gross product failure recalls/coverups along the way but I digress.

The conspiracy isn't a conspiracy so much as it is Planned Obsolescence of hardware and of software. Security updates drive you to newer OS's which requires support of software or legacy emulation, even if you don't want to upgrade. Plus these companies stay in business by innovating, and developing more new things. It's not "their" fault, that's just how Capitalism works - and for all the great things that system of economics does for technological advancement and stuff, there are some obvious drawbacks, like the need for continuous economic growth year over year, which requires mass consumerism.

The real conspiracy, below

Also cartoonified by The Lorax (2012), basically.

764dak

Telltale Games don't recommend Intel integrated graphics for games like Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead yet they make $150 smartphones compatible.  Is a Galaxy Grand Prime Value Edition a specifically designed gaming device?

Dohnjoe

764dak wrote: »

Telltale Games don't recommend Intel integrated graphics for games like Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead yet they make $150 smartphones compatible.  Is a Galaxy Grand Prime Value Edition a specifically designed gaming device?

Differently coded games, different platforms

When consoles came out, they were actually better than more powerful PC's at handling certain types of games (e.g. sidescrollers) because they had better architecture for it and were specifically designed for that purpose

Moving on, when the PS4 came out for example it was 400 euros. The equivalent gaming PC box could be built for 400 to 500. With the PC having the disadvantage of having to adhere to older architecture and to run not just games, but everything else

With the PS4 - every single game is coded just for that machine, for that specific graphics unit and that specific cpu, both of which are mass produced on a huge level driving down costs

PS4 games are essentially far more efficient than an average PC game + they have the benefit of running on a platform almost exclusively designed to run games

Billy86

764dak wrote: »

Better PCs and hardware, eh? I guess that's why a PS Vita with its weaker GPU can run Amazing Spider Man, Atelier Sophie, Dead or Alive 5, and Borderlands 2 better than Intel HD 2000.

OK, I'm just going to go ahead an assume you don't know what a GPU is. Here is a comparison of Intel HD 2000 integrated graphics (e.g. not a GPU) with the lowest end, most budget cost GPU of the current generations on the market. Typically anything above around 15% signifies a notable difference on these comparisons...

ED E

Billy86 wrote: »

OK, I'm just going to go ahead an assume you don't know what a GPU is. Here is a comparison of Intel HD 2000 integrated graphics (e.g. not a GPU) with the lowest end, most budget cost GPU of the current generations on the market.

No, Billy, you dont.

One is discrete, one is integrated, BOTH are GPUs.

Billy86

ED E wrote: »

No, Billy, you dont.

One is discrete, one is integrated, BOTH are GPUs.

Decent point, though he is talking about CPUs and GPUs separately and gaming PCs as in his initial post. Integrated graphics are not a standalone, separate GPU, are not intended for gaming and will not be found as the GPU on any gaming system that isn't extracting the urine and preying on less informed consumers.

764dak

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Differently coded games, different platforms

When consoles came out, they were actually better than more powerful PC's at handling certain types of games (e.g. sidescrollers) because they had better architecture for it and were specifically designed for that purpose

Moving on, when the PS4 came out for example it was 400 euros. The equivalent gaming PC box could be built for 400 to 500. With the PC having the disadvantage of having to adhere to older architecture and to run not just games, but everything else

With the PS4 - every single game is coded just for that machine, for that specific graphics unit and that specific cpu, both of which are mass produced on a huge level driving down costs

PS4 games are essentially far more efficient than an average PC game + they have the benefit of running on a platform almost exclusively designed to run games

Okay. PCs seem too complicated for efficient game coding so coders make games on mobile work well.

Billy86 wrote: »

OK, I'm just going to go ahead an assume you don't know what a GPU is. Here is a comparison of Intel HD 2000 integrated graphics (e.g. not a GPU) with the lowest end, most budget cost GPU of the current generations on the market. Typically anything above around 15% signifies a notable difference on these comparisons...

I brought up Intel HD 2000 as a more powerful GPU compared to PS Vita's PowerVR SGX543MP4.

Your benchmark site shows Intel HD 630 has over 16,000 benchmarks compared to RX 550's 736. Game developers should try to put more settings to enhance performance on more popular CPUs and GPUs.

Digital Solitude

764dak wrote: »

Your benchmark site shows Intel HD 630 has over 16,000 benchmarks compared to RX 550's 736. Game developers should try to put more settings to enhance performance on more popular CPUs and GPUs.

That would mean huge budget increases, it is already up to AMD and nVidia to make sure their cards can run new games via driver updates, not the other way round.

Your counter points show a clear lack of understanding of the industry, hardware and software design.

Anyways, all PS Vita's use the same hardware, with slight variations between models but for the most part they're identical. Its pretty easy to code a game to run well when the hardware is always the same, compared to numerous different Intel CPUs, AMD CPUs, integrated GPUs, AMD mobile GPUs and nVidia GPUs. Coding a game to fit all these is often more difficult as there's so many variations and architectural differences to make a one size fits all program that runs well on hardware that's several times weaker than its designed for.

Look at iPhone - Android (but let's not discuss, god knows we don't need that argument again).

There's about 5/6 iPhones that iOS 9 for example, needs to run on. Like the Vita-Laptop thing I mentioned above, that's only 5, already similar hardware variants, vs literally thousands of androids on Android 6.0. So where new iPhones are 100% on dual core chips with 2gb RAM, that's budget android territory because Android is simply harder to run as it needs to fit thousands of devices and hardware configurations, as opposed to 5 or 6.

lmimmfn

764dak wrote: »

• An original PC game will always be playable on consoles when they get a release. For example, the 2007 game Crysis required players to upgrade their new high-end gaming PCs. PS3 and Xbox 360 could play it and its sequel even though they have lesser CPUs and GPUs compared 2007 gaming PCs.

Oh dear, where to start. Crysis 1 was released in 2007 and based on CryEngine 1, it was later released on PS3/XBox360 in 2011 based on the more efficient CryEngine 2( same engine as Crysis 2 ).
It was completely dumbed down on consoles( reduced texture quality/lighting etc. ) but CryEngine 2 has much better multi threading capabilities hence why it was even possible.
I was playing the game in Ultra settings in 2007 on PC( with an Nvidia 8800GT ) which was still higher quality than the console release 4 years later.
You pay for what you get, end of.

Shiminay

764dak wrote: »

• Big companies release big budget games on home consoles as many games saturate the PC market (okay decision)
• When they release PC versions they upgrade the games so much that you would have to upgrade your PC or buy a console to play.
• Somehow they manage to put some of these games on handhelds.
• An original PC game will always be playable on consoles when they get a release. For example, the 2007 game Crysis required players to upgrade their new high-end gaming PCs. PS3 and Xbox 360 could play it and its sequel even though they have lesser CPUs and GPUs compared 2007 gaming PCs.
• They want consumers to buy CPUs, GPUs, or consoles.

1) Correct.

2) Incorrect. Game Engines are created to make the most of the available (and ideally future) technological limits. In the world of consoles, these limits are fixed and you'll see the quality of games improve over the lifetime of the hardware as the people writing software for them will get more experienced. The limits of PCs continue to expand over time.

3) Yes, they do. Writing for a specific piece of hardware with a specific set of limitations is MASSIVELY easier than writing for Direct X and its potentially infinite combination of hardware. The resolution of the art and the quality of the engine's output is almost always significantly lowered for a console and doubly so for a handheld.

4) Not necessarily. You don't seem to know anything about games engines and how they're created. They're not creating an engine that can't work on the most available hardware (i.e. consoles) because that would be financially ruinous for AAA level budgets. GTA V runs on the previous Gen as well as current Gen of hardware, they have significant differences in-game. Same for FIFA and I think Madden (both on EA's Frostbite engine AFAIK). Look at Unreal or Unity, they run on all sorts of platforms from phones to consoles and even web browsers.

5) Yes, they absolutely do because they need a return on investment ASAP. Companies like Intel, nVidia and AMD spend billions on R&D and that's why they work hand in hand with AAA developers to make sure that everything looks its best.

Maximus Alexander

Handheld games have considerably lower poly counts, lower texture resolutions, and simpler shaders. They would run on pretty much any PC from the last decade comfortably, but they'd look like sh*t on a big screen.

Overheal

764dak wrote: »

Telltale Games don't recommend Intel integrated graphics for games like Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead yet they make $150 smartphones compatible.  Is a Galaxy Grand Prime Value Edition a specifically designed gaming device?

It's just different hardware altogether. Intel HD is still running on an x86 or x64 system; but the smartphone uses ARM architecture, and the two environments are fundamentally different. Developing an app for Android or Apple is pretty straightforward with their APIs, and I assume whatever engine they run on assists this also. But it could simply be the game is optimized for running on ARM but not on x86 or x64 so it does not support lower end integrated GPUs. Most salient example I can think of is Fallout Shelter - there was also 40k Space Wolf - both of which came out for mobile before being ported to PC.

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/understanding-the-differences-between-arm-and-x86-cores/

Also, a smartphone is not going to be $150. A 16GB iPhone 6s Plus is $750. You may be hoodwinked into your phone carrier contract into thinking you aren't paying that monthly fee, in addition to that upfront cost, to ultimately pay for you phone hardware - but you are. Smartphones are at the same price point as a lower to middle end gaming tower.

764dak

Overheal wrote: »

764dak wrote: »

Telltale Games don't recommend Intel integrated graphics for games like Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead yet they make $150 smartphones compatible.  Is a Galaxy Grand Prime Value Edition a specifically designed gaming device?

It's just different hardware altogether. Intel HD is still running on an x86 or x64 system; but the smartphone uses ARM architecture, and the two environments are fundamentally different. Developing an app for Android or Apple is pretty straightforward with their APIs, and I assume whatever engine they run on assists this also. But it could simply be the game is optimized for running on ARM but not on x86 or x64 so it does not support lower end integrated GPUs. Most salient example I can think of is Fallout Shelter - there was also 40k Space Wolf - both of which came out for mobile before being ported to PC.

https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/understanding-the-differences-between-arm-and-x86-cores/

Also, a smartphone is not going to be $150. A 16GB iPhone 6s Plus is $750. You may be hoodwinked into your phone carrier contract into thinking you aren't paying that monthly fee, in addition to that upfront cost, to ultimately pay for you phone hardware - but you are. Smartphones are at the same price point as a lower to middle end gaming tower.

Intel HD 2000 can actually handle The Walking Dead so I'm unsure why they went out of their way to say that. 

I have a Samsung Galaxy Grand Prime Value Edition.  It cost less than $180 two years ago. https://www.devicespecifications.com/en/model/a1793ee9
Here are cheap smartphones:
https://www.brandsmartusa.com/all+phones/cell+phones/_/N-102476+102894?Nrpp=1000

Samsung offers many Galaxy phone series: A, E, M, W, S, J, Grand, Grand Prime, Note, etc. but the high-end S and Note series compete with iPhones so those get most of the ads.  Also, only S and Note series can use Samsung Gear VR.

Overheal

Goodness, those phones are so cheap I shudder to think about the "savings" passed on from factory line workers and such

Not to mention I see them crashing every couple hours like most android devices seem to

Digital Solitude

Overheal wrote: »

Goodness, those phones are so cheap I shudder to think about the "savings" passed on from factory line workers and such

Not to mention I see them crashing every couple hours like most android devices seem to

Agreed

I only buy Apple to ensure the workers get fair wages and don't end up jumping off of their work buildings

Oh wait...

murphthesmurf

It's all about the eye candy op. A high end pc will cost you a few thousand compared to a few hundred for an XBOX One or PS4. They will play the same games but at a different level of visual quality. Its like saying my 20 yr old tv plays all the tv shows and I can watch my dvd's on it, so why are there €3000 tv's. It's the same programmes I'm watching.
The new generation of consoles are based around pc hardware, you can build a pc using almost identical hardware found in the consoles yourself. It will cost you more, and won't run the games as well as the console. The reason is that a pc is 'a jack of all trades, and a master of none'. On the pc the operating system will have numerous tasks going on simultaneously, anti virus, emails etc. It is also designed to be a 'Jack of all trades' in that you can use it to edit photo's, write a spreadsheet, CAD designing etc etc. The console is designed to do little else but play the game.
Think of buying 2 identical cars, we'll say 2 x Honda Civic Type R. The one type R you are going to use purely for going fast, you don't need the back seats so you take them out. You don't need the sound deadening and stereo and aircon etc so you take it all out. The 2nd Type R you need to use as a family car, so you leave everything in as well as fitting a couple of child seats, a buggy and the shopping in the boot etc. Then asking why the 1st one is much faster than the 2nd. The 1st car is the console, the 2nd the pc.
As for the hand helds, the games may be called the same name but under the hood they are completely different.
To see what a high end pc can do you would need to see one playing a game like ARMA3, where the online multiplayer map is about 100 square kilometres. It is only available on the pc as there are no consoles that are powerful enough to play it. It really is in a different league.

Overheal

Digital Solitude wrote: »

Agreed

I only buy Apple to ensure the workers get fair wages and don't end up jumping off of their work buildings

Oh wait...

Pretty much. And if an iPhone is still subject to that kind of labor 'savings' imagine what cheaper phones are made from..