Consoles Are Holding PC Games Back

XvMMvX said:
Not this shit again....

The market base has moved on from nerd boy sitting in front of his computer. Gaming has gone mainstream, the general consumer still thinks (even though its not) that the PS3 and 360 have great graphics. Sitting at a desk playing games blows....they want to kickback on the couch and play. The fact that your PC can render Gordan Freeman's ball hairs or that the Keyboard and Mouse is better is irrelavant.

I cannot see how educated people do not understand that it has nothing to do with technology or piracy and everything to do with the direction of the industry.
Click to expand...

The direction of the industry is what most PC gamers are concerned about. If sitting on your couch playing fuktard console games on a toy computer is your bag, then you see why PC gamers are concerned with the direction of the industry. We don't want to play computer games on a Toys R Us device.

140853356_f0ff5eed80.jpg
 
Blown 89 said:
People were buying Pentiums for other software. The ability to rip music without choking up your system and creating blips in your mp3's, playing and burning DVD content, etc, etc. Gamers had very very very little influence on processor sales back then and they have even less now.
Click to expand...

DVD content? Ripping music? I'm talking about the original Pentiums. Nobody was ripping music back then to mp3's because disk space was still at a premium. There were no DVD drives back then because DVD's did not exist until 1995. The original Pentium was manufactured in 1993. Nobody had a DVD drive back then because they did not exist! Doom was the main game at the time, released in 1993 and if you did not have a 486 you could not play it. Quake was the first 3D shooter, and the first game utilizing FPU since the P1 had FPU built in. Maybe you don't remember the difference between a 486-SX and a 486-DX processor? Quake hit the scene in 1996, and if you did not have a Pentium or better you were fairly screwed, so people went out and upgraded.

The only place your statement about processor sales holds water is in regards to business PC's vs the home market. I'll give you a little clue there though. Large-scale corporations are not early-adopters. Unless you're doing high-end CGI rendering or realtime CAD/CAM stuff, you're running two generations back on hardware and OS. If you think games don't drive the market, you've not been keeping up with the war between Nvidia and ATI much, nor do you follow motherboard design much either. SLI and Crossfire do not exist so you can run TurboTAX. :rolleyes:
 
Rizen said:
65" TVs aren't a necessity, either. You could play games on a 32" CRT from 1999 just fine, even with something like a PS3 or a 360. The point is that the experience is better if you have nicer equipment. Currently, PCs allow you to run nicer equipment than a console does.

I'm not arguing consoles don't have their place. Hell I grew up playing my SNES, PS, etc right alongside my PC. But in the recent years I just haven't seen the need to have both, since I have a good PC and 85% of the games I want to play are on PC as well and run better there.
Click to expand...


They don't "run better there" they simply look better there because you chose to invest more money into making it look better. A $300 console is not going to look as good, graphics wise, as a PC. So what? COD:BO runs as good on my 360 as it does on my $1500 PC. Does that mean it runs better on my PC because the graphics are better? No, it's doesn't.

when you can convince the mass console purchasing public that shelling out $1000 for a console to run games as good as a PC, AND convince them to shell out an additional $200/year for upgrades to keep their console current I'm sure you'll get your way.

Until then I don't see consoles coming even remotely close to being capable of doing eyefinity with the hardware required for it at a reasonable price for everyone to enjoy.

Let me see you build a capable gaming rig, with new components, for $200-250.

*crickets.....crickets*

Yeah, that's what I thought.

That is why developers are favoring consoles.

Trust me, I'm a die hard PC gamer from the mid 80's on. But when you have to spend several hundred dollars a year to get the latest hardware to run games at the bleeding edge, well, that just doesn't make sense to the average consumer. Argue as you will, but that is fact.

PC gaming at the bleeding edge of graphics and performance is a niche group. It will never be more than that. Consoles are for the masses. Deal with it.
 
XvMMvX said:
Why do people say this...so much fail in this statement. Nobody has said that the controller is better than the Keyboard and mouse.
Click to expand...

I say it because it's true. The fail is your inability to recognize that graphics and controls DO matter to a great deal of people. You treat the PC market like it doesn't even exist. I'm not willing to "settle" for the crap quality of a console, and I'm certainly not alone in this.
 
Phoenix333 said:
I say it because it's true. The fail is your inability to recognize that graphics and controls DO matter to a great deal of people. You treat the PC market like it doesn't even exist. I'm not willing to "settle" for the crap quality of a console, and I'm certainly not alone in this.
Click to expand...

not alone, but the not the majority either. Read my post above.
 
You gotta admit, consoles are now the majority of gaming. Devs saw the easy way out and they took it. There are too many games are out for PC right now and yet, I'm still stuck from 4-6yrs old games. Reason.... Most new games on PC are now crap load of console ports. (except for source games and WoW). The PC gaming experience have changed and it wasnt the same as Quake/UT ERA. I blame COD series for this. :D All jokes aside, PC gaming will not die as long as we have enough devs to support it and that's why I love Valve and Blizzard. :D Go Go Go HALF LIFE 3 and Diablo III.
 
The 2nd part, you are horrible and he's right.... you shouldnt talk about PC gaming if you think everyone with autoaim is skillful (and therefor fun) when many people think the opposite here.
Click to expand...

Somebody is skillful at something when they exceed the competition given a level playing field.

When playing on a console you can be good at the game using a controller and be more skillful at it than the other players, they all have the same limitations/advantages. Just like the best console player couldn't beat Fata1ity with a keyboard and mouse, fata1ilty would probably get his ass handed to him by some of the best on the console.

This argument comes down to ones understanding of economics and the make up of an industry, that is all. You can not like it all you want, but to bash others and call them stupid because they like things that are different to you (and of which you are clearly in the minority) is just ignorant. If the money was there you would have a thriving PC market, but if I was a developer I would have left the whiney ass PC market long ago. Its a market thats wants a steak at the price of McDonald's. Wants you to spend millions on a game and then support for 5 years down the road, they won't move to the next thing because they fear change and are cheap.

Microsoft could have used the money spent on the last two xbox generations and created a Gaming platform right in windows that probably would have dominated the market. Games for windows live could have been just like Xbox is, and they could have given the developers the ability to put both things in games (controller support etc etc). But they didn't and I wonder why?

The direction of the industry is what most PC gamers are concerned about. If sitting on your couch playing fuktard console games on a toy computer is your bag, then you see why PC gamers are concerned with the direction of the industry. We don't want to play computer games on a Toys R Us device.

140853356_f0ff5eed80.jpg
Click to expand...

I want to make sure I quote ICOM's personal attack at me as I have been called down for that on this forum.
 
Betauser said:
You gotta admit, consoles are now the majority of gaming. Devs saw the easy way out and they took it.
Click to expand...

It's not that they took the easy way out; it's that that is where the money is. If it took the salary of 100 devs, a truck load of small sacrificial goats and a fleet of priests/rabbi's to bless the damn thing, but ended up making the company a hundred million plus.. you bet your sweet ass they'd still do it.
 
SeraphicalChaos said:
It's not that they took the easy way out; it's that that is where the money is. If it took the salary of 100 devs, a truck load of small sacrificial goats and a fleet of priests/rabbi's to bless the damn thing, but ended up making the company a hundred million plus.. you bet your sweet ass they'd still do it.
Click to expand...

At some point, that's what I meant. They took the easy way out to make more money to stay in the market, which is on console gaming. Call it what you will, but that's how I see it and IF i'm a dev, I would bandwagon as well to stay alive against all Major competitors. It's not how they love to make games anymore, It's how much $$$$ they can generate on a sub par console games.
 
HydroBudz said:
Let me see you build a capable gaming rig, with new components, for $200-250.

*crickets.....crickets*
Click to expand...

Can't be done because people who make PC components actually post a profit on them. They don't rely on software attach rate that a closed system would. To play games at the same visual quality on PC, you would be spending about $325. Not much different actually. Especially since it has more functions than a console.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Can't be done because people who make PC components actually post a profit on them. They don't rely on software attach rate that a closed system would. To play games at the same visual quality on PC, you would be spending about $325. Not much different actually. Especially since it has more functions than a console.
Click to expand...

Well said. The whole argument of "well consoles are cheaper" is a complete bullshit cop-out. They're easier (for the lazies) to use and at the right price point to catch the consumer eye. That's all there is to it.

When the PS3 was first released the damn thing went for upwards of 600 bucks.. and that was without any real must have accessories.
 
ICOM said:
The direction of the industry is what most PC gamers are concerned about. If sitting on your couch playing fuktard console games on a toy computer is your bag, then you see why PC gamers are concerned with the direction of the industry. We don't want to play computer games on a Toys R Us device.

140853356_f0ff5eed80.jpg
Click to expand...

I laughed.
 
Honestly, and even a consoler might understand this but after gaming on a setup like my sig rig why the fuck would I want to game on a console? It would be like banging an fugly chick after tapping super model pussy.

Consoles are great for those on a budget or that don't have the technical aptitude but make no mistake about it consolers, consoles are cheap pieces of shit. I can buy all the console hardware I want but choose not to and while one day I may decide to actually buy one because I fall on hard times or consoles actually become interesting that day is not today.
 
I can't help but read Cervat Yerli's comments and think how completely full of crap he is. His comment basically comes from the fact that they can't milk the console market without putting effort into porting their games. They only reason they need to do this at all is because they know not enough PC gamers will give enough of a crap about their games to make the sales numbers they want.

Valve and Blizzard continue to rake in millions and millions dollars from the PC gaming market. Neither of these companies appear to give a shit about whether or not "consoles are holding back PC gaming", because they don't need to give a shit. They make games that PC gamers give a crap about, so they don't need to worry about how effectively they can milk the console market to get their target sales numbers.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
Can't be done because people who make PC components actually post a profit on them. They don't rely on software attach rate that a closed system would. To play games at the same visual quality on PC, you would be spending about $325. Not much different actually. Especially since it has more functions than a console.
Click to expand...

SeraphicalChaos said:
Well said. The whole argument of "well consoles are cheaper" is a complete bullshit cop-out. They're easier (for the lazies) to use and at the right price point to catch the consumer eye. That's all there is to it.

When the PS3 was first released the damn thing went for upwards of 600 bucks.. and that was without any real must have accessories.
Click to expand...

and when the PS3 was released it's hardware was relevant, mostly. Same thing when the 360 dropped in 2004. They were making games for those consoles that kept up with what PC's were capable of doing, only PC's out-paced them quickly so their prices dropped to reflect that.

Please, post a link to all the hardware you would put in to a $250 gaming rig, case, PSU, CPU, mobo, ram, vid card, keyboard and mouse(wireless since that's what consoles provide) and I'll shut my mouth.

Oh, I've looked....unless you want to play your precious games on your PC at shitier than console resolutions with worse frame rates it can't be done. Please, prove me wrong.
 
it's a perfect shi*-storm actually.

Money & Volume = Consoles
Less piracy = Consoles
Ease of development for consistent hardware = Consoles....

PC gamers =
- Loud and obtrusive feedback (mostly justified but rarely executed tactfully)
- HUUUUUGE variance in hardware and Operating systems
- Tiny sales demographic (relatively speaking)
- Constantly changing cutting-edge technology means that PC users are looking for games to push the limits of the newest hardware but only have games that were designed for 5 year old consoles

Can I blame developers for catering to consoles? No. Makes sense logistically and economically.

Am I pissed to see where PC gaming is going? Absolutely.

Perfect shi*-storm I tell ya...
 
HydroBudz said:
They don't "run better there" they simply look better there because you chose to invest more money into making it look better. A $300 console is not going to look as good, graphics wise, as a PC. So what? COD:BO runs as good on my 360 as it does on my $1500 PC. Does that mean it runs better on my PC because the graphics are better? No, it's doesn't.

when you can convince the mass console purchasing public that shelling out $1000 for a console to run games as good as a PC, AND convince them to shell out an additional $200/year for upgrades to keep their console current I'm sure you'll get your way.

Until then I don't see consoles coming even remotely close to being capable of doing eyefinity with the hardware required for it at a reasonable price for everyone to enjoy.

Let me see you build a capable gaming rig, with new components, for $200-250.

*crickets.....crickets*

Yeah, that's what I thought.

That is why developers are favoring consoles.

Trust me, I'm a die hard PC gamer from the mid 80's on. But when you have to spend several hundred dollars a year to get the latest hardware to run games at the bleeding edge, well, that just doesn't make sense to the average consumer. Argue as you will, but that is fact.

PC gaming at the bleeding edge of graphics and performance is a niche group. It will never be more than that. Consoles are for the masses. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
The cost argument is stupid for several reasons:

1) A PC can do far more than a console can, so even if you spend more money, you are getting substantially more for your dollar. Yes, you can now use the recent consoles for streaming video and media center functions, but can you do anything productive on them? No.

2) Consoles are sold at a loss primarily by companies who have enough revenue in other areas that they can sit in the red for a few years until they recoup they money on software licensing fees. Could I outdo a PS3 for $250? Probably not, but the PS3 when it launched (at $600, mind you) cost Sony over $800 to build. Could I have built a PC that would outdo PS3 graphics for $800? Definitely.

The only console that is the exception to this is the Wii, and I most people's HTPCs can run graphics more advanced than that console.

I really think the difference is marketing. If a company came up with a solid $700 dollar PC (sans monitor) which had a decent video card with HDMI out, tucked it into an attractive HTPC-type case, and marketed the hell out of it for PC gaming, they could be successful. Considering that a GTX460 class video card can run every PC game at 1920x1080 (typical home television resolution these days) very well, it would be easy to build a box that would fit this price point.
 
Valve and Blizzard continue to rake in millions and millions dollars from the PC gaming market. Neither of these companies appear to give a shit about whether or not "consoles are holding back PC gaming", because they don't need to give a shit. They make games that PC gamers give a crap about, so they don't need to worry about how effectively they can milk the console market to get their target sales numbers.
Click to expand...

And what about blizzards games (which I play btw) push's PC gaming to the next level? Oh thats right....not a damn thing, they are just quality games... all of there games still hold up today.

Valve....they still do really well, but what you don't know is how much of their game development is financed by Steam.
 
indokyne said:
Ease of development for consistent hardware = Consoles....
Click to expand...
That isn't entirely true. The Wii is easy to develop for since the hardware is basically an overclocked Gamecube and that's been around for nearly a decade, but the PS3 was and is a difficult platform to develop for.
 
HydroBudz said:
Trust me, I'm a die hard PC gamer from the mid 80's on. But when you have to spend several hundred dollars a year to get the latest hardware to run games at the bleeding edge, well, that just doesn't make sense to the average consumer. Argue as you will, but that is fact.
Click to expand...

Your argument makes no sense. If you want to play games at the bleeding edge, yes, you have to buy new hardware every now and then. BUT you don't have to do that in order to play games, not even latest ones and future ones, at the same graphic level as consoles. They run at 720p, noAA or 2xAA max, with low quality textures and lowish FPS. Ages old PC can do that with no upgrades at all for the many years of its life. I see this stated all the time by console players, that PC users have to upgrade often and spend lots of money. NOT TRUE! It's that there are those who want to play latest games WITH latest graphics (which has not been as great lately because of the crappy consoles holding development back). There is something called a menu in a game, and something that has the words graphic and settings or options or quality somewhere in there. Shocking, I know!
 
I didn't read the whole thread, as it's the same re-hash.

Consoles are very advanced when they come out, but never improve.

When the Xbox 360 came out, for instance, it was a kickass gaming PC. It had a triple-core processor months before there were dual-core PC processors. It had an X1900 GPU, which was ATI's flagship at the time.

We complain about the limitations now, five years down the road, when we've made a ton of advances. But when consoles come out, they have very powerful capabilities.

When the next console generation comes out, we'll see a whole slew of new PC games that have amazing graphical capabilities, and console ports will be a blessing and not a curse.

Another important factor I want to mention is the innate 4-player split-screen multiplayer of console games. This is absolutely essential for teenagers.

If you have 2, 3, or 4 kids, and want to get them a game, it's easy to pick up a console and a game and have them all play it. At worst, you need to buy an extra $40 controller. I did so much gaming on a Nintendo 64 with my younger brother back like ten years ago. We got the two-controller bundle, and every game we could play together (except Ocarina of Time, which we'd take turns on). Then we picked up two more controllers, so we could have our friends over and all play together. That's a huge appeal of consoles for young gamers. You don't need to buy multiple computers or multiple copies of games.

For adults, this is inconsequential, as most of us have our own PCs, and our own copies of games. I don't have a console. If I want to game with friends, I grab my laptop and go. I don't want to deal with a crappy controller or sharing a screen.
 
Meeho said:
Your argument makes no sense. If you want to play games at the bleeding edge, yes, you have to buy new hardware every now and then. BUT you don't have to do that in order to play games, not even latest ones and future ones, at the same graphic level as consoles. They run at 720p, noAA or 2xAA max, with low quality textures and lowish FPS. Ages old PC can do that with no upgrades at all for the many years of its life. I see this stated all the time by console players, that PC users have to upgrade often and spend lots of money. NOT TRUE! It's that there are those who want to play latest games WITH latest graphics (which has not been as great lately because of the crappy consoles holding development back). There is something called a menu in a game, and something that has the words graphic and settings or options or quality somewhere in there. Shocking, I know!
Click to expand...

EDIT: So, you have a cheap PC that can play games that look as good(bad) as console ones, on your TV if you want, with a gamepad controller even, and do all the million other things a PC can do, or you can spend more and get vastly superior graphics and/or multimonitor gaming and whatnot. With consoles there is no choice. You are stuck at the same low quality picture (compared to what's available) for years.
 
sd11 said:
News flash, nobody but a few dead enders are buying desktops anymore. Buying a desktop makes you look just as foolish as the old geezer down the street with a type writer and snail mail.

The entire computer market is moving to laptops, netbooks, and portable devices. Processing power is already more than enough. Faster graphics are worthless. Slim stuff down, make it consume less power, and give me a slimmer item that gets great battery life.

That's what everybody but a few people actually care about. So making "high end PC games" is making games for a market that doesn't exist, and is worthless for most people.

Here is what a PC game dev should realize, can it run extremely well on a mobile chipset IGP? if yes, you have a market. If not, you are creating games to run on machines that most people don't want to buy and consider a burden, and you deserve to go bankrupt and go out of buisness.

It really doesn't matter what a desktop can render and it's benefits, since nobody wants one anymore.

Blaming consoles is just silly. Blame the fact that everybody has moved on to low power and portable devices, that bulky power guzzler on your desk is nothing more than an antiquated eyesore for most people in the market for a computer. And when new game X with whizbang graphics doesn't run 100% on a lower powered laptop, people make their vote and don't buy it.

PC gaming needs to stop targeting graphics and highend desktops if it wants to survive.
Click to expand...

There is a point here. I like my keyboard and mouse as much as the next guy, but I'll be damned if I have to keep spending godawful amounts of money just to have my games look pretty.
 
XvMMvX said:
And what about blizzards games (which I play btw) push's PC gaming to the next level? Oh thats right....not a damn thing, they are just quality games... all of there games still hold up today.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about "pushing PC gaming to the next level" or whatever because I don't really give a crap about that. PC games, just like console games, succeed based on gameplay, not graphics. Just look at Starcraft II, whose graphics are nothing to sneeze at but it isn't ground breaking either. But the game is damn fun to play and I personally know of a few people who haven't turned their consoles on since it came out. The same goes for Portal and Half-Life 2.

This is why I think Mr. Yerli's comments are garbage. He knows that Crysis is only relevant because of bleeding edge graphics and nothing else (and thats not enough to capture a large enough piece of the PC gaming market). Since they can't port that bleeding edge over to consoles, they can't milk that market using the only advantage they have. Hence, the bitching.

Valve....they still do really well, but what you don't know is how much of their game development is financed by Steam.
Click to expand...

That Steam brings in ridiculous amounts of money, part of which they can use to finance game dev, should tell you something about the quite healthy performance of PC gaming in general. I'm really not terribly worried about consoles and Gameboy derivatives taking over the gaming world anytime soon.
 
Hasn't console gaming always been bigger than PC gaming... The first games publically availible were all console. So really...nothing has changed. The PS2 sold more than the PS3 and xbox combined, and almost as many if you add the wii to it. There are lts more gamers than there was before, I mean I remember when it was hard to get 16 player deathmatches full. There are many many more games and you can still find full servers on most of them. So it's probably improved.
 
Emission said:
There is a point here. I like my keyboard and mouse as much as the next guy, but I'll be damned if I have to keep spending godawful amounts of money just to have my games look pretty.
Click to expand...

Which is fine however there are plenty that will and that's a good thing for consoles because otherwise console hardware would have to find a way to pay for itself.
 
OMFG NOWAI!!

You mean software designed for hardware 4-5 years old then porting it to a platform where even something 5 years old is more powerful than the "best" console, and your trying to tell me it's holding PC games back . . . blasphemy.
 
Rizen said:
I really think the difference is marketing. If a company came up with a solid $700 dollar PC (sans monitor) which had a decent video card with HDMI out, tucked it into an attractive HTPC-type case, and marketed the hell out of it for PC gaming, they could be successful. Considering that a GTX460 class video card can run every PC game at 1920x1080 (typical home television resolution these days) very well, it would be easy to build a box that would fit this price point.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this, It's actually not a bad idea. If there was a type of xbox live or psn for the pc, it would probably do a lot better. Steam is kinda-sorta-ish something like that but not quite the same overall experience.
 
SeraphicalChaos said:
Well said. The whole argument of "well consoles are cheaper" is a complete bullshit cop-out. They're easier (for the lazies) to use and at the right price point to catch the consumer eye. That's all there is to it.

When the PS3 was first released the damn thing went for upwards of 600 bucks.. and that was without any real must have accessories.
Click to expand...

I see arguments like this in Kotaku articles all the time. Sometimes said comments are so ignorant they make me feel physically ill reading them.

While you may have a cheaper up-front cost for the hardware, sub fees (XBL), high peripheral and accesory prices, and $10 for new games adds up very quickly. Add to that an HDTV if you don't already have one and that's pretty much the price of a fully competent gaming PC right there.

While I love PC gaming, it's been so hard to do with the flood of lazy cash-in ports as of late.
 
I find this thread interesting. To what people were previously saying about how PC's and general gaming has become, I've recently returned to my roots.

I used to have a Xbox 360, and a PS3, My computer was a Toshiba laptop with very midrange specs that could not even run Counter-Strike source very well, but I mostly used it to just check my e-mail, browse the internet, and just having a basic computer. Most of my gaming was done on consoles, the only computer game I played on my laptop was WoW and that was it.

I sold my Xbox. I got tired of paying 50$ a year for a online service that still is not as good as PC's in terms of potential. Very few titles offer dedicated servers and most have shitty peer-to-peer hosting. I still have my PS3 for my bluray and some PS3 exclusives.

It has a very active community, but 50$ a year is meh to me.

Until recently, I just upgraded to a full desktop, it's a budget, borderline mid range setup (AMD Phenom, ATI 5770 card) .. but it absolutely shits all over console games in terms of graphics in performances, and throws a complete haymaker to consoles in terms of gaming experience.

Strangely enough, I prefer sitting at a computer desk playing games as opposed to chilling back on a couch. I feel more in tune with myself and more focused and immersed in the game that way. Could just be me.
 
Companies like Crytek are holding games back, I.E. companies that think graphics are the most important part of a game.
Their games all have terrible gameplay, story, environment, sound, music, and replayability.
 
Blown 89 said:
People were buying Pentiums for other software. The ability to rip music without choking up your system and creating blips in your mp3's, playing and burning DVD content, etc, etc. Gamers had very very very little influence on processor sales back then and they have even less now.
Click to expand...

Wait, people were always buying music to rip to mp3's and burning dvd's while gaming on their Pentium 1 computers? What alternate reality are you from, sir!?
 
DeathPrincess said:
Hasn't console gaming always been bigger than PC gaming... The first games publically availible were all console. So really...nothing has changed. The PS2 sold more than the PS3 and xbox combined, and almost as many if you add the wii to it. There are lts more gamers than there was before, I mean I remember when it was hard to get 16 player deathmatches full. There are many many more games and you can still find full servers on most of them. So it's probably improved.
Click to expand...

There have always been more console gamers than PC gamers, and piracy has always been more rampant on PC, so that hasn't changed at all. If anything, there are more computers out there than ever before. There is a chance for a far larger audience on the PC.

The problem is that less computer owners have a PC that's capable of gaming and more people want computers that aren't capable of gaming.

as long as Blizzard and Valve exist, I feel secure about PC Gaming.
Click to expand...

And the interesting part of both of them is that neither is really pushing whizbang graphics or anything like that.

While you may have a cheaper up-front cost for the hardware, sub fees (XBL), high peripheral and accesory prices, and $10 for new games adds up very quickly. Add to that an HDTV if you don't already have one and that's pretty much the price of a fully competent gaming PC right there.
Click to expand...

This argument is really stale. Nobody on the market wants a desktop, that's why they don't have gaming PC's. Desktops don't count, everybody wants a laptop. If they have one computer it's going to be a laptop, if they get another item it's going to be even more portable like an ipad or a netbook.

Nobody wants desktops, it doesn't matter how cheap they are for what you get, it's a desktop, do not pass go, do not collect 200 bucks, and put it on the junk shelf for grandma.

If we're going to see an uptake in PC gaming it's going to be from laptops.
 
DirtyB said:
Companies like Crytek are holding games back, I.E. companies that think graphics are the most important part of a game.
Their games all have terrible gameplay, story, environment, sound, music, and replayability.
Click to expand...

Thank You... someone finally said it. +1
 
Blown 89 said:
People were buying Pentiums for other software. The ability to rip music without choking up your system and creating blips in your mp3's, playing and burning DVD content, etc, etc. Gamers had very very very little influence on processor sales back then and they have even less now.
Click to expand...

In terms of numbers sure but they must have some impact as who else is buying $1000 6-core 980x's? Most high end workstation folks I imagine are buying Xeons, a CPU like a 980x is pretty much a high-end gaming part with a lot more profit than average consumer parts.

Bottom line is that high-end hardware with big price tags and thick margins are very much tageted at gamers and it looks like Intel,nVidia and AMD are more than very happy to sell this stuff to gamers more than ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top