Yeah, I prefer a skinned Windows 10, which shouldn't be an issue since the XBox One is actually a skinned Windows 7. Otherwise you lose the huge existing PC gaming library and have another platform splitting up the userbase. Much easier to just have games made for Windows 10 work on SteamBox because its running the same OS, just a tweaked image where its skinned and remove everything you don't need and stop unnecessary services.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_light.png){kind=logo}
What Will the Xbox Two Be Like and When Will We See It?
- Thread starter CommanderFrank
- Start date
Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,085
Zero good games for consoles so far unless you got into the Destiny Trap.
Bloodborne hopefully will bring my 2013 PS4 some new life.
Bloodborne hopefully will bring my 2013 PS4 some new life.
Oh please. You really missed the point buddy. Go build a $600 PC and tell me what runs farcry 4 and dying light better. Your $600 PC or a $400 console. Yeah, exactly. Like I said I prefer PC gaming and ALWAYS have. Reading is key. The fact is that games across all platforms will most likely be optimized for current gen consoles, making a technical equivalent PC run the game much much worse. Hence the case of recent game releases. Fanboys are so aggravating.
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
Even a $500 PC destroys an Xbox One. A $500 PC can do Battlefield 4 at 1920x1080. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/build-budget-gaming-pc,4021-14.html
Meanwhile the Xbox One is stuck in the dark ages at 1280x720.
The fact is that because of the masses games are going to be optimized for consoles, like it or not. Minus a few gems here and there like PC loyal titles, Skyrim etc. I truly wish that wasn't the case. Considering I would think that people playing recent cross platform titles at 1080 on PC with high settings, not maxed out but high, are probably using at least a $250-$300 GPU alone. That's nearly the price of a console right there.
I'm not saying I like it. That's just how it is, and how it's going to be. I personally have no problem spending $1000++ on an amazing desktop because I do more then just gaming with it. But most gamers are on consoles now, and if you really don't think games are going to be catered to consoles even more now then you're in for dissappontment and some major component upgrades to play some un-optimized game
I'm not saying I like it. That's just how it is, and how it's going to be. I personally have no problem spending $1000++ on an amazing desktop because I do more then just gaming with it. But most gamers are on consoles now, and if you really don't think games are going to be catered to consoles even more now then you're in for dissappontment and some major component upgrades to play some un-optimized game
If agree, also consider that BF4 was made to play in last gen too. That game looks like shit to be honest. It also has strong PC roots, I would consider that to be a title that probably kept PC gamers in mind much more then say a game like Dying Light which people need to downgrade graphics and disable all types of dumb settings to get it to run. Is it because of their PC? No... And that's exactly what I'm saying. It's cause they didn't give a shit about PC gamers
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
You know whats really great about PCs, even if a company makes a shitty port, I can just jam more power into the PC and plow through performance problems. You cant do that with a console. So you can choose to have a slightly worse experience in some games with a cheap PC vs a cheap console, or you can choose to get a console and just miss out on a lot of the games and the best rising new game types, or you can just buy a pretty good PC for around $1000 and have a good experience on almost everything except a few console exclusives. If a company doesn't care enough about PC gamers I don't miss a thing I am sure there are other great games. Actually as a PC gamer I have hundreds of games I don't even have time to play there are so many and they are so cheap.
Flogger23m
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 14,449
That Alpha is probably slower than a PS4/One. You can't just look at hardware and how it performs on Windows with PC titles and apply that to consoles. Consoles get more mileage out of their hardware. I do have to say, the One impressed me graphically. Obviously they are slower than mid range PCs, and this will become even more in favor of the PC as time goes on. But you don't have to deal with upgrades or anything. Try playing BF3 on a PC from 2005 (when the 360 came out) and see how that works out for you. Hint: It won't, because video cards from that era won't run BF3 and unless you have XP 64bit you'd need a new OS to.
You referencing free to play games (probably the worst thing to happen to the industry) as a positive for PC gaming is laughable. Free to play games illustrate what is wrong with the industry. And you know you can play free to play games on consoles, like War Thunder, right?
Obviously, PC gaming isn't as expensive as some make it out to be. But over a 6-8 year period it will certainly present more hurdles and probably more money (due to upgrades) in the long run. Consoles present a level playing field for all players without the need of spending additional money. This is a big issue when it comes to MP games. The guy getting 20 frame rates with no AA on his 6 year old can't compete with the person that has a brand new $1,300 PC getting 60 frame rates with 4x AA. On consoles, the only disparity is screen size.
As for SteamBox; it is a solution looking for a problem. I know a few of you hardware geeks will enjoy it, but no one else will. All the shortcomings of a PC combined with the shortcomings of a console. And depending on the model, none of the advantages of either. What is to like? You can get either a:
1) Crappy PC which only plays Steam games, limited hardware support. Not upgradable. Voids the advantages of a PC.
2) Expensive PC with crappy case. Costs the same as a traditional PC, but comes with a limited OS. Less functional than a regular PC. Has all the headaches traditional PCs have; most console gamers don't give a damn about upgrading hardware.
Maybe if Valve made it a traditional console, but with free online play, massive Steam sales, Steamworks for mods, low costs for software and peripheral developers we would have something interesting on our hands. But as it is Steambox doesn't do anything a regular PC doesn't while taking some steps back.
Rather specific examples (I heard the PC version of Far Cry 4 at launch had stutter issues, and was generally a very poorly ported game), but:
1) You need a PC in the house in 2015 anyway, and $400 buys a helluva awesome video card!
2) Are you comparing apples to apples?
I hope you aren't saying the PC has to run at 1080p with beautiful graphics settings while we know the Xbox One can't run that game at 1080p and upscales a lower resolution, averaging 30FPS with dips below this (watch youtube), while running low fidelity settings with limited draw distance, particle effects, and lighting to keep it from choking.
To more than match the Xbox One:
CPU AMD Athlon X4 760K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor $73.98 @ OutletPC
Motherboard Asus A88XM-A Micro ATX FM2+ Motherboard $47.99 @ SuperBiiz
Memory Crucial 4GB (1 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory $26.49 @ SuperBiiz
Storage Seagate Barracuda 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $43.99 @ SuperBiiz
Video Card Sapphire Radeon R9 280 3GB Dual-X Video Card $159.99 @ Newegg
Case Thermaltake VL80001W2Z ATX Mid Tower Case $19.99 @ Micro Center
Power Supply EVGA 500W 80+ Bronze Certified ATX Power Supply $29.99 @ Newegg
Total
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available $402.42
To drastically exceed it, while costing far less in the long run since you don't need Xbox Live and games are cheaper:
CPU Intel Core i5-4460 3.2GHz Quad-Core Processor $179.69 @ SuperBiiz
Motherboard ASRock H97M PRO4 Micro ATX LGA1150 Motherboard $79.89 @ OutletPC
Memory G.Skill AEGIS 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory $56.99 @ Newegg
Storage Western Digital Caviar Blue 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive $51.98 @ OutletPC
Video Card MSI Radeon R9 290X 4GB TWIN FROZR Video Card $282.98 @ Newegg
Case NZXT Source 210 (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case $34.99 @ SuperBiiz
Power Supply EVGA SuperNOVA NEX 750W 80+ Bronze Certified Semi-Modular ATX Power Supply $39.99 @ Micro Center
Prices include shipping, taxes, rebates, and discounts
Total (before mail-in rebates) $786.51
Mail-in rebates -$60.00
Total $726.51
Sorry, I'm mainly using the PS4 as an example. I don't like the Xbox one, way too much DRM for me.
And you're comparing basic technical specs. I completely agree with you. On the technical side of any console you can build a PC and be very close in price. There's more nonsense that goes into it though, which is unfortunate. I only have a PS4 and a decent gaming laptop as of recently, but as I said I would much prefer to play almost any game on a good PC. Graphically a better PC will easily exceed a lot of games with higher fps and refresh rates. I just don't think you can deny now that games are heavily catered to being optimized for consoles, leaving PC as second thought which often leads to bad performance on a PC that is technically superior to the console.
And you're comparing basic technical specs. I completely agree with you. On the technical side of any console you can build a PC and be very close in price. There's more nonsense that goes into it though, which is unfortunate. I only have a PS4 and a decent gaming laptop as of recently, but as I said I would much prefer to play almost any game on a good PC. Graphically a better PC will easily exceed a lot of games with higher fps and refresh rates. I just don't think you can deny now that games are heavily catered to being optimized for consoles, leaving PC as second thought which often leads to bad performance on a PC that is technically superior to the console.
I'm not as familiar with how those games performed on console v. the PC, but I decided to look it up for Far Cry 4. Apparently if you're running at high settings at 1080 on equivalent hardware, it's not difficult to maintain 30fps like the PS4. In other words it sounds like about what you would expect for equivalent hardware? I don't think your argument carries much weight here. In the past, optimization really made a difference because of completely different architecture. Nowadays it's all on x86 and AMD graphics, the spread just isn't going to get as large as it once did. Especially when you consider that both Nvidia and AMD have solutions now for auto-optimizing the settings (Geforce Experience / Gaming Evolved), you're essentially going to be having that done for you anyway. Maybe you can find one or two outliers, but I bet if you picked 10 random games on the new consoles that were also on the PC, the $600 PC will give you better performance than the $400 console in almost all of them. I mean you say I'm missing the point, but your point has to be THERE to begin with. If this was 2008, yes, you'd have a solid point.
I think I recall us having this conversation before. I still consider mail-in rebates "cheating" since sometimes you don't get your money back and that's more money you need upfront. As for Linux, game compatibility is king. Maybe it will get there some day, but I bet there are plenty of games that will run on Windows that won't run on Linux. I still stand by my assertion that you can't get PS4-level gaming performance on the PC for $400. Yet, anyway.Ashbringer said:
Maybe because the Genesis came out in USA in 1989 and the 90mhz Pentium came out in 1994? Let's get real, in the old days, there were real reasons for consoles to exist. Sometimes even if specs were higher, the device could do other functions that a desktop PC was incapable of handling. I mean christ, Carmack had a breakthrough trying to port Mario Bros 3 over to the PC because at the time the system just simply couldn't handle the smooth scrolling system the NES used. Even the Xbox original, while SLIGHTLY slower than the fastest GPU, released just a month earlier was still bleeding edge at the time. Not counting Nintendo, this is the first generation of consoles that didn't launch at the edge of performance the way they did in the past.Ashbringer said:
Flogger23m
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2009
- Messages
- 14,449
dgz
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2010
- Messages
- 5,838
yes, i can see consoles adopting annual device release. it works for mobile
jbltecnicspro
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,586
Because some (most) people don't care about quality in graphics or frame rates.
Also, consoles (for the initial cost) are far cheaper than a gaming PC.*
*Even the road to ruin has its toll.
You know, it's pretty interesting. I would say up until the fifth generation, maybe the fourth generation (32-bit machines), it used to be that game consoles were pretty powerful with dedicated audio and video processors. Every game console had a reason for existing - and each console brought its own unique "something" to the table.
Nowadays... That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Hardware-wise, game consoles are now nothing but stripped-down PC's. Whereas the SNES had its own custom graphics processor and Sony custom SPU, Microsoft and Sony are just pushing a low-end Radeon along with a low-end AMD multi-core.
PC only costs more in the long run if you want it to. Over the course of 8 years, yeah, you'll probably have to upgrade once. I would say about 5 years is the cutoff point where it starts hurting. On the other hand, you're not paying extra online fees and if you have some patience, you're getting $60 games from 2 years ago for $5. Hell, Wolfenstein The New Order got marked down to $30 five weeks after it came out during sale. It depends, if you play two games a year and don't do online gaming, yeah, I guess console could still come out cheaper, but for much past that, PC wins out on game prices along, big time.
Definitely will think about that. You may very well be right. Id actually like it better that way. I think we will definitely see in the next year with future releases, it would be nice if PC users dont get shafted. I guess all the feedback from dying light has left a bad taste in my mouth. I just hope more games dont produce the same results.
next-Jin
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,388
It's just the Microsoft employee's getting their 2 cents in. Valve is going to do a huge presentation of SteamBox and OpenGL-Next. It's about as dead as PC gaming is.
It's much cheaper than that. I could match it for $400 using a G3258 with a 750 Ti. Minus the OS of course but you would use Linux for that. And yes it's gotten that good.
Initially no, a PC is cheaper. Lets compare the $350 Xbox One to the $500 Alienware Alpha. Both come with a controller and both have no games. But since the Alienware Alpha is a fully working PC it isn't a door stop. The Xbox One might as well be a box with blinking lights without a game.
On the Alpha you can download hit games for free like TF2, DOTA2, LOL, and HearthStone. Best of all you don't even need to pay for Xbox Live to play them online. It's still free on PC. You can buy two games for the Xbox One and 1-3 months of Xbox Live to play them online, which would equal the cost of the Alpha.
It's not an Apples to Apples comparison cause if you wanted to play FarCry 4 for example the initial cost on PC would be higher. But since games are cheaper on PC and no monthly fee to play online then it would take a few months to break even between the two. But if you wanted a machine to just play any games then PC would be cheaper initially.
Consoles have always been behind ANY PC historically. The exception was the 360 and PS3. Why you think I was able to play Sega Genesis games on a Pentium 90 or PSX games on a Pentium MMX 166? Cause consoles have historically been a fraction of the performance of a fully working PC. They've also been a fraction of the cost, so it makes sense. I mean PCs cost $2k back then.
But the problem today is that the PC is so cheap that buying a console makes no sense. Especially cause consoles have a walled garden that dictates to you how much to spend on a game. Oh look FarCry 4, game of the year edition, 10/10, it's like Skyrim but with guns! $60 please and not a penny less. Oh and don't forget to buy FarCry 4 Goldfinger edition for $100.
PC gamers are harder to please because we don't buy into that bullshit.
I see game consoles going the way of the dodo within the year. Why the hell else would Microsoft create Xbox Two? Xbox One is barely a year old and already a two? And you know a lot of people predicted the death of the game console.
I present to you SteamBox. The console like PC without the stupid for the stupid.
It does because you're not suppose to know it runs Linux on a SteamBox. Just like you don't know the OS that runs on 360 or that PS4 runs a form of BSD. It's a dumb box meant for dumb dumbs. Valve doesn't expect you to get up and learn Linux to play games. You're not meant to look behind the curtain. Ignore the OS behind the curtain. You've been doing it this whole time with Xbox and PS.
Unless they removed Windows and used Linux instead. Then it wouldn't be at a loss.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: AMD Athlon X4 760K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($77.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: Asus A88XM-A Micro ATX FM2+ Motherboard ($57.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill NS Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($60.98 @ Newegg)
Storage: Hitachi Deskstar 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($50.00 @ Amazon)
Video Card: Gigabyte GeForce GTX 750 Ti 2GB WINDFORCE Video Card ($114.99 @ Newegg)
Case: Thermaltake VL80001W2Z ATX Mid Tower Case ($19.99 @ Micro Center)
Power Supply: EVGA 430W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply ($19.99 @ Newegg)
Total: $401.91
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-02-16 12:31 EST-0500
Also I could build a PC for $400 and stick Linux on it that would destroy the PS4 and Xbone. Why wouldn't PC builders be able to do the same and make a profit? After all I'm just picking retail parts, not stuff ordered in bulk.
To sell PC hardware for money? Money is a good thing right?
Have you ever tried to use a PC as a living room PC? Even with SteamOS it's not 100% controller 100% of the time. It's all about ease of use,
It's awesome when setup right and blows consoles out of the water but my HTPC is not easy to setup nor maintain.
In other words my wife can't simply buy a PC plug it in and go. Don't get me started on setting up movies and TV Shows using third party software.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
I have for lots of people. Wireless keyboard and mouse does wonders.
What the hell are you doing to it that causes you problems? My suggestion is to put linux as you'll get no viruses
Yes, yes you can just buy it and plug it in.
Also Plex is pretty easy to setup, and it's even on Linux.
PCpartpicker just updated today and now they have a check mark for no mail in rebates. Guess what I have for you? Time to get started with Mint which is my suggestion for a linux distro.
PCPartPicker part list / Price breakdown by merchant
CPU: AMD Athlon X4 760K 3.8GHz Quad-Core Processor ($77.98 @ OutletPC)
Motherboard: MSI FM2-A75MA-E35 Micro ATX FM2 Motherboard ($53.98 @ Newegg)
Memory: G.Skill Ares Series 8GB (2 x 4GB) DDR3-1600 Memory ($57.99 @ Newegg)
Storage: Hitachi Deskstar 1TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive ($50.00 @ Amazon)
Video Card: XFX Radeon R7 260X 1GB Core Edition Video Card ($101.97 @ OutletPC)
Case: Apex SK-393-C ATX Mid Tower Case ($26.47 @ NCIX US)
Power Supply: EVGA 430W 80+ Certified ATX Power Supply ($33.89 @ OutletPC)
Total: $402.28
Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available
Generated by PCPartPicker 2015-02-17 01:25 EST-0500
There are but that's where Wine comes in. Though I'm hoping someone forks Wine cause they seem to have alternative purpose for Wine. Like treating it as a way to get free bug reports for CrossOver.
Well that's what I owned but I've run Genesis games on a friends 486. Remember Genecyst? That was like what 1990 hardware? I've heard people do it on a 386 as well.
Should also mention that I ran NES games on a 386 as well. Nesticle was the emulator I used back then. So why did Carmack have a hard time porting Mario 3 to PC?
The Xbox was Microsoft trying to enter the console market with a bang but failed. The Xbox 360 was their second attempt that was a success. But even in the early 2000's PC gaming was largely expensive and rapidly evolving. Just look at how often they released DirectX.
DX7 2000
DX8 2000
DX8.1 2001
DX9 2002
DX9c 2004
DX10 2006
DX11 2009
Holy crap it was a bonanza of graphic cards that were released to use that technology. DX9.0c that was released in 2004 is the API we've been using for majority of games since. It's gotten super cheap to game on PC for this reason. DX10 died along with Vista and DX11 rarely gets used.
So when the Xbox uses a Geforce 3 chip it seems rather impressive for that time, but due to ram limitations the Xbox fell behind and games had to use modified versions of PC games to work. This happened a lot in console history. The PSX couldn't get full 100% Quake so it had to be stripped down. Doom for SNES had the same issue, besides it using a extra CPU built into the cartridge. The PS3 doesn't get a Skyrim expansion due to ram limitations. The list goes on and on.
Xbox was powerful but 64MB of ram was a big limitation. Most powerful console of 2001 but not for PC gaming. Even still it didn't appeal to PC gamers to switch. Not until the 360 which was overkill.
Exactly. This is it right here. The PC is 100% CAPABLE of having the easiest experience possible, better than console, but it's not that way out of the box, which is where vendors would have to step up in order to gain marketshare in this area.
You're not thinking basic enough. By "just plug it in", we're talking take a PC out of the box, turn it on, navigate to the game you want via a controller. Traditionally, consoles have been put the game in, turn it on, start playing. That's how basic PCs need to get in order to compete in this space. If you have to use a mouse or keyboard at ANY point (or an interface designed for one), then it's not basic enough. I'm arguing consumer HTPCs aren't there yet, they need to be pre-configured by someone else first to have that level of functionality.Ashbringer said:
That option existed since many months ago, but whatever. Your build is showing up as $419 for me and you only have a quad core AMD CPU (two floating point units). You can argue the extra cores aren't necessary, but 2014 showed us that some games will in fact use all cores and perform better. Basically you need an octo core on AMD or a quad core with Hyperthreading on Intel to hit the same levels. Game like Watch Dogs, Far Cry 4, or any other that depends on multiple cores heavily will likely run worse on this than on the PS4. As for the GPU, it's possible at this level optimization on the console actually would overtake a 260x, though I'm not sure.Ashbringer said:
Because Carmack was doing this in 1990 and Nesticle came out in 1997. But fine, you were playing emulated NES games using software from 1997 on your 386. Well the 386 didn't even come out until 1986, a year after the NES was released in USA. I think you're missing my point here. You said consoles have ALWAYS been behind the PC. My point is when older ones released, they really were doing things that weren't possible at the time on the PC, typically with hardware that was bleeding edge. Did the PC catch up? Absolutely. Carmack had to figure out TRICKS to get Mario running with smooth scrolling, it wasn't just a conversion of the code since it was doing things there was no equivalent for on the PC at the time.Ashbringer said:
Again man, I really am advocating the use of PC, but I feel like you're misrepresenting the facts. $400 doesn't get you PS4-level hardware (and gaming OS), SOME consoles really did have capabilities PCs didn't, and gaming HTPCs aren't as basic as consoles OUT OF THE BOX (although the Alienware Alpha could be an exception, haven't researched it). Will this change in the future? Hopefully so. But by pretending this isn't the reality RIGHT, it's just adding misinformation.
Okay, I did some quick research on a few titles:
Sleeping Dogs: won't run
Assassin's Creed Unity: won't run, nor will any other DirectX 11 game
These are major titles, I'm sure there would be dozens like this for obscure ones. Linux is not on the same level as Windows for gaming, period. Maybe it will be some day (I certainly hope it will), but RIGHT NOW it is not, and acting like it is simply disingenuous.
Hornet
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 6,624
You're right, most AAA titles are made solely for Microsoft's API which is kind of a problem for open source OS.
But Valve can't just take Windows, modify it and put it in Steam Box, because Windows isn't open source and it belongs to Microsoft. And there are no incentive for Microsoft to do that as they are pushing xbox to be the media center device for the living room.
next-Jin
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,388
It's not simple enough... You said you had to set it up for lots of people (not to mention Linux is not a capable enough gaming OS). Even with a wireless keyboard mouse you still have to use it almost on a daily basis and what about Linux updates and installing plex?
I've been there done that, there is no way on gods green earth you can have any mass market appeal like consoles do with what you're talking about. Like I said my wife would be clueless the moment she had to actually do anything in Linux. We aren't simply talking about opening Firefox and surfing the web.
Installing Plex requires you to know how to type in the console and which repository to grab it from. Once setup sure, but you're still on Linux while trying to game.
You don't get to exclude the mandatory OS that is needed to make the PC work, so you can add another $100 minimum to both of those builds. Fact is you cannot build a PC that matches an XB1 and PS4 at the time they went on sale for the same amount of money.
Then again, I just wish people would get off this stupid idea that you can only own either a console or PC. Owning both and accepting that a PC isn't a console and a console isn't a PC is far more gratifying.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
I've been using my PC from my Sofa for about 8 or 10 years now.
With a wired keyboard and mouse its no problem at all, I use USB extensions.
Some mice dont track very well and some sofa material is hard for a mouse to track.
Its easy to get a big cushion to use the mouse with or use the arm if its convenient, this makes it easy to sit up and play.
Much of the time I use cushions to support myself while quarter to half laying down (like the Romans did on their couches) with another cushion under the elbow of my mouse arm and use my mouse on the seat surface.
You can use a mouse mat or the cover of an A4 cartridge paper book (gives a little grip to the mouse and has excellent resolution) on top of the cushion.
I have the keyboard on my knee, or half on my knee half on the sofa, or half on my knee half on a cushion, whatever is comfortable and most convenient.
Most important is to make sure your back is well supported and undue pressure isnt put on any part of the body, like the elbow. This is why I put a cushion under it.
Its really really comfortable because there are many different ways to sit so it doesnt get fatiguing.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
The CPU's in both Xbone and PS4 are octacore but running 1.6Ghz and Jaguar cores. The 760k is 3.8Ghz quad core with kaveri cores instead of Jaguar. I'd say the 760k easily beats it hands down.
It's about equal to the PS4.
These are emulators. Not running Mario natively. Emulators typically need 10x more processing power than the machine it's trying to emulate. You need a 3Ghz Core2Duo to run PS2 or GC games but by no means are these consoles equivalent in power to that PC.
Got it? Good. So to emulator a Genesis or Nes machine on 386 or 486 hardware means that those machines were already 10x more powerful.
next-Jin
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,388
I'm using Kodi with App Launch, I only use my phone as a controller and a wireless Xbox 360 controller for gaming.
The only time I have to use a mouse and keyboard (wireless) is when I have to do something other than sit down and play. Convenience is something I strive for, I usually have to use the mouse and keyboard once a week.
The point is it took literally an entire day to setup my HTPC the way it is now.
That will never have mass market appeal.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
Yes you're right, linux isn't on the same level and Windows for games. Wine does a terrible job of closing that gap. But that doesn't mean that you don't have a good selection of games on Linux already. Bethesda needs to port their games over to Linux already, as does Blizzard. Also Dark Souls games.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
Why use your cell phone as a controller? My family fights for the wireless keyboard and mouse and I have a old Microsoft Media center remote for launching MediaPortal to watch their movies. Otherwise it just boots to desktop cause that's where majority of PC use takes place. It's not necessary to make it start up in Kodi or Steams big picture mode unless that's the only thing you do with the PC.
Also a whole day to set that up? To use your phone to control Kodi and 360 controller? What's wrong with just plugging it in and using the wireless keyboard+mouse? The 360 controller works automatically when you plug it in. Kodi with smart phone remote is kinda overkill. Especially when there's tons of HPTC remotes that have built in physical keyboards that you can just fling around like a wiimote for a mouse. They're called Air Mouse and they work extremely well.
This is the one I have called the Tronsmart TSM-01. It's less than $20 and works as soon as you plug it in. Everything you described is just unnecessary setup process. A HTPC is plug and play.
HDMI+Wireless Mouse + Keyboard = HTPC
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
My setup is easy to get going and use.
Yours is awkward to set up and over complicated to use, it wont have mass market appeal.
I want to use a keyboard and mouse, thats why I use them. I dont want to control my PC in any other way.
Gaming is exactly how it should be, not restricted. I only use an MS pad for racing games and some console ports.
Sitting on my sofa with the best console on a big screen and great control methods, very convenient.
Perfect
What exactly are you trying to prove? I feel like you diverged into another topic entirely. I'm responding to this quote:
Ashbringer said:
The NES was an example where the way it handled smooth scrolling was not something x86 processors were handling at the time. Its sound processor was unique and not something that was replicated in the same way on the desktop. In other words, consoles were doing some things PCs couldn't at launch. I was trying to prove what you said wasn't accurate. You responded by saying you were playing NES games on Nesticle. What does that have to do with anything? Yes, PCs got so powerful they could run laps around the NES. That happened years later, not at launch. Thus, consoles haven't ALWAYS been behind ANY PC historically. In fact, even later consoles have been at the bleeding edge of what was capable at the time to future proof it as much as possible. The Xbox One and PS4 are unique because they're NOT pushing the envelope of what's doable. Historically, this is a shift.
D
Deleted member 108676
Guest
I'm curious how they're wasting your time? Are they forcing you to go out and buy their products? Are they giving you their product for free and asking you to test it, to which you think it sucks, there by wasting your time?
If its a waste of your time, why would they stop? YOU should stop buying their products.
I'm confused by your statement.
Ur_Mom
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 20,691
Are we going to see another Sega/Nintendo style war? With the newer technologies, they last longer and give less benefits between generations.
I'd prefer a nice kick ass system that costs a bit more ($500 is the limit) instead of incremental upgrades... And no more gimmicks. Kinect is nice, but not even Microsoft is using it to anywhere close to it's potential.
PC gaming? Linux? Sure, they are options. But, some of us like consoles and enjoy playing consoles. No reason to ditch those for a PC. I use both and game on both. The console vs. PC argument sucks. Let people game on what they enjoy. I do, and I am doing just fine.
I'd prefer a nice kick ass system that costs a bit more ($500 is the limit) instead of incremental upgrades... And no more gimmicks. Kinect is nice, but not even Microsoft is using it to anywhere close to it's potential.
PC gaming? Linux? Sure, they are options. But, some of us like consoles and enjoy playing consoles. No reason to ditch those for a PC. I use both and game on both. The console vs. PC argument sucks. Let people game on what they enjoy. I do, and I am doing just fine.
next-Jin
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2006
- Messages
- 7,388
My setup is easy to get going and use.
Yours is awkward to set up and over complicated to use, it wont have mass market appeal.
I want to use a keyboard and mouse, thats why I use them. I dont want to control my PC in any other way.
Gaming is exactly how it should be, not restricted. I only use an MS pad for racing games and some console ports.
Sitting on my sofa with the best console on a big screen and great control methods, very convenient.
Perfect
It works for you, but that's not going to ever work for the masses. It would take Microsoft to have a "gaming OS" streamlined for the living room.
With Xbox that's not going to happen. SteamOS will never work and to make due you'll have to use Steam Big Picture which again involves a mouse keyboard.
There is a reason no consumer product with a keyboard and mouse has ever broken out with success in the living room.
defaultluser
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 14,398
Not true, the Tandy 1000 PC released in 1984 had:
16-color 320x200 graphics with smooth-scrolling
multi-channel Texas Instruments sound generator
All PCs had this capability within a few years, with the release of Adlib and EGA.
Now, it was expensive at $1200, and that is really where consoles shine: getting you as much horsepower as possible for your dollar, and simplifying the task of owning one.
Unfortunately, that gap has disappeared now that you can buy a desktop PC from an OEM, install a graphics card, and install Steam. It's unbelievably easy compared to the pain of computers form 30 years ago, and since everything is already highly-integrated, there's no real benefit in building a custom console anymore. Also, since everything gets multiple patches, the "ease-of-use" argument for consoles is also out the door.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,875
I love the fact that my Xbox one is something that just works. If I feeling like playing a game, I can. If I feel like watching Netflix or a movie, I can. All without touching a single controller except when I am playing a game. I also own an Xbox 360 and enjoy that device as well. They are easy plug and play devices and updates and streamlined and automatic.
I love my PC too and I am pleased I can use both. Why should I limit myself too one platform or the other if I do not have to? I tried the PC exclusive thing for a while but it just did not work. Using a keyboard and mouse from my easy chair was just not comfortable at all. PC gaming is overall more expensive but, that does not bother me one bit.
I am a computer professional who uses his own computer at work and at home. (Built them both myself.) As I grow older, I realize there is little to no point in taking sides other than creating a reason for an argument. Enjoying them all is what it is about for me. Not really sure why you would consider the ease of use argument of consoles to be out the door but hey, enjoying all platforms is not for everyone I guess.
I love my PC too and I am pleased I can use both. Why should I limit myself too one platform or the other if I do not have to? I tried the PC exclusive thing for a while but it just did not work. Using a keyboard and mouse from my easy chair was just not comfortable at all. PC gaming is overall more expensive but, that does not bother me one bit.
I am a computer professional who uses his own computer at work and at home. (Built them both myself.) As I grow older, I realize there is little to no point in taking sides other than creating a reason for an argument. Enjoying them all is what it is about for me.
Not really sure why you would consider the ease of use argument of consoles to be out the door but hey, enjoying all platforms is not for everyone I guess.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,875
Oh, and gaming on PC's were a joke back in the day. Now the Amiga, that was a different story all together. My Amiga 500 that I used to have played games beautifully.
I should have specified smooth HORIZONTAL scrolling. It just didn't happen fast enough on PCs before Carmack as the delay in redrawing the screen was too high. This is essentially the breakthrough he made on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_tile_refresh
It really was something the console was doing that the PC wasn't (yet).
As for the sound, I did some research and it looks like the NES sound chip was more sophisticated than the Texas Instruments one. Even if it wasn't, it's a different sound. Hell even for Adlib, they were both making sounds that weren't capable on the other, so it really was something different not on the PC.
The point is it's not like the old days where the consoles really were bringing something different to the table. The new consoles are essentially PCs, just with a ton of locked down restrictions on them that are there only to serve the company. I mean christ, look at what MS attempted with the Xbox One reveal, it would have literally been the most restrictive console ever made. The more locked down a platform is, the more companies are itching to exploit it so that you're paying more and more. I mean hell, console users already pay for online gameplay on top of their internet bill and we're seeing free-to-play microtransactions creep in on $60 games. Also exclusives aren't a good thing either. If you're a PC gamer and want to play The Last of Us and Forza Horizon 2, great, add $750 to the price tag on top of the game costs. The hardware is basically the same, it's simply an artificial limitation now that doesn't help gamers. (And for those people who say "lol too poor to buy all of them loser", all I can say is you're an idiot and miss the point. That line of thinking is the reason we get shitty DLC content now instead of actual expansions. Good job.)Ur_Mom said:
Now the ease of use argument IS legitimate. Most people don't want to screw around configuring everything or worrying about specs, they just want to play the damn game. Right now consoles are still the only game in town for best gamine ease-of-use. The PC isn't there yet, but it's just waiting to happen for companies willing to go that route. Point is, consoles are hurting the future of gaming more than they're helping it. The sooner we get away from it the better, but the PC needs to step up to fill the gaps also.
Digital Foundry has been doing graphics/performance comparisons using a 750ti and i3. The 750ti beats the PS4 in performance in every game they have tested so far @ comparable settings 1080, 30fps.
So you see your $1200 claim seems a bit absurd.
Ashbringer
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 5,522
The CPU I did it on was a 386DX I think at 33Mhz. A CPU released in 1987. Again, emulators require 10x more performance over the machine it tries to emulate. Jut the nature of emulating. I did in school during typing class. Where else would you find machines that old?
Happened two years later as far as the 386 goes. The emulator itself wasn't created until over a decade later. Doesn't matter cause that was a time period where gaming on PC was for those who could afford it. Games like Decent and Wolfenstien 3D didn't come out until the mid to early 90's when Windows 95 erupted the PC into mainstream.
But games like Doom and Decent were able to run on a 1987 386 CPU. But 80's and early 90's is not a time period I would call PC gaming. A PC back then cost more than a car.
The only computer you could afford was a Tandy TRS-80 or commodore 64. The NES used a 6502 while the Genesis used a Z80 with a 6800. The NES was using a chip made in 1975. The same stuff you'll find in Apple II's and such in 1977. Not so different from modern consoles where they use PC parts.
No they are not. Consoles use whole sale PC parts. The exception was the 360 and PS3, not the Xbone and PS4. Why use Jaguar cores instead of kaveri? Kaveri is easily twice as fast clock for clock. People claim the PS4 has a 7850 GPU in it, but performs like a 260X. Probably because AMD's HSA isn't magic and rainbows. Even on PC the 7850K performs like crap cause of it. Why else would the aging Vishera continue to kick it's ass in performance?
Consoles use cheap off the self PC parts. For what you pay for it's very impressive but that's a thing of the past. Hardware manufacturers keep pumping out so much hardware that they don't know what to do with it. A $100 750 Ti does a better job over the PS4. A $100 260x does an equal or better job than the PS4. The reason to own a console is diminishing with each year. The real threat to Xbox One isn't PS4 but PC. They know that and are doing everything they can to stop it. Microsoft gave Windows 10 the ability to stream Xbox One games over to PC, which is utter nonsense. I would rather have Xbox One games run natively on Windows. It's not hard for Microsoft to do.
The Xbox One got off with a terrible start. Weak performance. Used games fiasco. Including Kinect for $100 more than the PS4. While the PS4 is doing a lot better it isn't because of it's performance. It was cheaper for the longest time and didn't try to screw over customers with used game sales. People remember that.
So now the Xbox Two is probably a couple of years away to damage control the Xbox One. New name and new hardware. The Xbox is a sinking ship and Microsoft is doing everything they can to slow it down. Spreading fud like SteamBox is dead. The SteamBox is exactly what PC gaming needs for console owners. The power of PC with the convenience of a console. I'm not saying 2015 is the year of Linux, cause god knows we're a good 2 years away from that, but it is the year the Xbox One begins to fail.
Sheesh, I was giving an example of one recent game and the systems people were running with it. Very decent systems that were having trouble running a new game because it wasn't optimized for PC. Which is exactly my point, and its something that will be much more frequent. I did not say you have to buy a $1200 PC to match a console on everything. Everyone constantly says how they can build a "$500 gaming PC that blows consoles away" I merely pointed out that people with far more expensive PC's were getting shitty performance on a new game. I own a PS4 and will gladly build a PC over $1000 because I enjoy both.
I prefer PC gaming most of the time. So I really have no stake in the game to sway you one way or another. People put far more money into a PC for various reasons. I really dont care if you can build a technically equal system for $100 more then a console. If anyone wants to own a PC and constantly shit on video game consoles, then go right ahead anyone is entitled to do that. Its stupid. There isn't any need to pick one side or another. But 3 years from now the console is going to be running brand new games pretty decently, and that $500 gaming PC is going to need another $100-$300 video card. But hey, thats one reason I like PC gaming, you can upgrade as you need to.