Support NeoGAF

[Metfanant]

It's not just a comparison between the consoles. PC has always been part of it.

and my point is that it shouldn't be...lol

While my opinion is that PC of course should always be mentioned in such articles for technical analysis, some things should just go by as "obvious" in such discussions here on forums.

By "obvious" I mean that PC will always (unless there is a huge fackap from dev team) obviously have the better version.

PC will always obviously offer higher resolution options than consoles.

PC will always obviously offer higher settings for anisotropic filtering

PC will always obviously offer higher AA options.

PC will always obviously offer higher textures settings.

...

...

you see where I am going with it?

It is simply OBVIOUS that PC has the best version. To everyone. Whether he has an XB1 a PS4 or a Wii. Now I am not suggesting that nobody should mention PC in such articles or threads, but people should keep in mind that it in some way, PC is out of the equation for a lot of people.

Not because it is not better but because it is better. People tend to focus more on console tech wars, because those are (historically) closer to each other, than to PC. PC is considered by most "out of the question" because it is a given fact that PC can be customized and be much more powerful in all respects when it comes to raw numbers and technical performance. Thus, people see the PS4 and XB1 as the main "meat" of the battle when it comes to such technical analysis articles.

They dont really even pay attention as to what is the difference between consoles and PC. It is a given the difference will be as big as the machine that each one has at their homes. What most people do care, is the battle between closed sytems/consoles which cannot be altered in any way and will always display the same thing.

PC and consoles are in some way completely different things. Its like apples and oranges, and thats because the difference in specs can be vast if we take into consideration a maxed out hardware-wise PC.

So, in a way, to me atleast, PC is a given that it will be the best everytime, thus the focus and the interesting part, turns into who is going to come to take second place overall and 1st place in consoles. Its like 2 different categories, PC is heavyweight, consoles are middleweight. I hope it makes sense the way I put it.

And that is my whole point...it's OBVIOUS...unless the developers absolutely intentionally hamstring the PC version so that it cannot be better than the console version then it's IMPOSSIBLE for the consoles to touch it...

And this is why I think the PC should be removed from the comparison...the PC is just in a different category because it has limitless options depending on how much money you want to spend to push the limits...

If I'm having a conversation about the two high school baseball teams playing for the state championship...do I then compare them to the New York Yankees because they play the same sport? No, of course not

If DF were to publish their console comparison...and then publish another article that says "hey, the PS4 version of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare is the best console version...now let's see how it stacks up to our gaming PC" them that would be TOTALLY cool...and I'd want to read that...

But I just don't feel the PC belongs in the discussion when the other two consoles are being compared

 

[Foxyone]

....But I just don't feel the PC belongs in the discussion when the other two consoles are being compared

I think it'd be nice if they could come up with some fixed spec / budget PC(s) to use in comparisons. Say, a $400-$500 gaming PC, or maybe even some of the early Steam Machines near the end of the year.

 

[valkyre]

I think it'd be nice if they could come up with some fixed spec / budget PC(s) to use in comparisons. Say, a $400-$500 gaming PC, or maybe even some of the early Steam Machines near the end of the year.

That would be a better/more accurate solution indeed.

Simply comparing a maxed out PC with a console, is just pointless.

 

[Seanspeed]

But I just don't feel the PC belongs in the discussion when the other two consoles are being compared

Total nonsense. If if we're talking about the same exact game, then its fair to compare to all available platforms.

Its inevitable that the PS4 versions of games will look better than XB1 versions, but its still interesting to know in what ways. PC version is a little more complicated, in that it can run varying resolutions and framerates, but the comparison always use 1080p for equality and performance talk isn't usually involved obviously, other than mentioning how it can run at 60fps, which is the typical gold standard for PC gamers. There's still plenty of other factors worth mentioning, like the type and level of effects, what sort of AA tech is available in-game and whatnot.

 

[MaLDo]

Anyways, I wonder if the different algorithm mucked up the shadow sampling density. Seems weird that they would render a lower res shadowmap (than usual) while going with the other shadow algorithm, especially on PC.

Could just be funny distribution if they were doing cascades + contact hardening (?)

I just bought the game to test the shadows. actually it seems that there is a problem with shadows on pc. Yesterday Rebellion fixed a bug: ultra shadows resets to high shadows after closing the game. On top of that, it seems the "Advanced Shadows" parameter from Sniper Elite v2 is missing in SE3. The parameter exists in the game, but Launcher and game menu don't show it. And adding it into the config file doesn't affect the game. Sniper Elite v2 shadows are a lot better in pc than SE3 shadows.

 

[Seanspeed]

I think it'd be nice if they could come up with some fixed spec / budget PC(s) to use in comparisons. Say, a $400-$500 gaming PC, or maybe even some of the early Steam Machines near the end of the year.

How about a typical mid-range rig? Would obviously cost more than $400-500 but PC's do a lot more than consoles do.

You guys clearly just dislike hearing about how the PC is better and want to try and bring things to a 'fair' level, as if this were a competition or something rather than just an informative article.

 

[Metfanant]

Total nonsense. If if we're talking about the same exact game, then its fair to compare to all available platforms.

Its inevitable that the PS4 versions of games will look better than XB1 versions, but its still interesting to know in what ways. PC version is a little more complicated, in that it can run varying resolutions and framerates, but the comparison always use 1080p for equality and performance talk isn't usually involved obviously, other than mentioning how it can run at 60fps, which is the typical gold standard for PC gamers. There's still plenty of other factors worth mentioning, like the type and level of effects, what sort of AA tech is available in-game and whatnot.

Absolutely not!

- like I've pointed out, what IS the PC platform? Is it a $2000 monster? Is it $500 Dell?
- it's NOT inevitable that the PS4 version is better (graphics? Sure)...You only need to look at Ghosts or UFC for examples...PS4 looks better, Xbone has slightly better framerate...which is more important?...
- again, yes talking about the PC version and all it's different options is awesome...but it doesn't belong in the closed box direct competition world of the consoles...in a separate article? Absolutely fine...the vast majority of gamers don't even see the PC as a competitor to the consoles..they are completely different things...

How about a typical mid-range rig? Would obviously cost more than $400-500 but PC's do a lot more than consoles do.

You guys clearly just dislike hearing about how the PC is better and want to try and bring things to a 'fair' level, as if this were a competition or something rather than just an informative article.

- once again...what is a typical mid-range rig?...and that is NOT what is used for DF comparisons when they show off every game on ultra settings...

- it has NOTHING to do with not liking it...it's just a FACT that the PC version is better...the point is that most people don't CARE that it's better, because the PC is irrelevant to them as a gaming machine...the focus is on the consoles..

- I personally would LOVE to read about the PC versions...in a separate comparison than the consoles...either in a face off with the "console winner" or do a face off between a budget, a mid range, cutting edge rig...

- It might be interesting if DF built a "console like" PC in the $400-$600 range and threw that into the comparison to see what kind of performance you get from something like that...

 

[El-Pistolero]

The face-off includes the PC so that is why the PC is in the discussion. I know people are eager to return to the 2007 heyday of pretending the PC doesn't exist, but that is not going to happen. If the face-off specifically only compared the two console versions, like say for a console exclusive title, I would agree with you that PC talk would be out of place. That is not the case though.

As far as the hardware setup, using a mid-range modern gaming machine should be fine. It would be disingenuous and not serve the game playing audience for them to use a decade old Dell internet-browser for a comparison in modern game performance.

Well, the Xbox One version runs as good or better than my PC could handle. There is no such thing as PC vs consoles, because the former encompasses tens, hundreds of possible configurations...

 

[Metfanant]

Well, the Xbox One version runs as good or better than my PC could handle. There is no such thing as PC vs consoles, because the former encompasses tens, hundreds of possible configurations...

Exactly

 

[Seanspeed]

- it has NOTHING to do with not liking it...it's just a FACT that the PC version is better...the point is that most people don't CARE that it's better, because the PC is irrelevant to them as a gaming machine...the focus is on the consoles..

Oh please. PC gamers or people interested in hearing about PC gaming may not be a majority, but we aren't a tiny minority either and its still totally worth including in the article.

Anyways, the 'what is a gaming PC' thing - not even really important. Digital Foundry basically just assumes 1080p/60fps and max settings for comparison purposes. Doesn't really matter what sort of specific rig is needed. PC gamers will be aware that their rig may or may not be capable of that. There is no reason to leave this info out just because some people cant achieve that, other than to assuage console owner's insecurity on the issue.

 

[valkyre]

- It might be interesting if DF built a "console like" PC in the $400-$600 range and threw that into the comparison to see what kind of performance you get from something like that...

Actually even then it wouldnt be accurate. Because in 2 years for example, a 400$ PC would be far more superior than the consoles or the 400$ PC you can buy today.

If it had to be accurate, it would have to be a 400-500$ PC with specs limited to those available the day those consoles were released, ie november 2013.

It cant work, it just cant. PC is in a different category. Heavyweights vs middleweights i think tha sums it up nicely.

 

[Foxyone]

How about a typical mid-range rig? Would obviously cost more than $400-500 but PC's do a lot more than consoles do.

You guys clearly just dislike hearing about how the PC is better and want to try and bring things to a 'fair' level, as if this were a competition or something rather than just an informative article.

I have an inkling a $400 PC from scratch could at least come close to a PS4 (a $500 one easily could beat it; not that I'd personally want such a cheap PC). I'd be interested in an informative article about how a similarly specced (or priced) PC actually performs compared to consoles in multi-plats to see if there really is a "closed-box advantage".

(Also, I don't think it's fair to have to build a PC for $400 to compare, I'd just like to see it done for the sake of putting an end to the idea it cannot be done)

 

[Fliesen]

i figured that in comparisons where the PC version isn't obviously a totally botched port, the PC screenshots are used as a "This would be the best possible IQ without any hardware constraints other than

• a 1080p display
• (and no downsampling from 4k)

kind of, as using an uncompressed image next to a compressed one as a benchmark to show the quality of the compression algorithm used.

i don't think anyone is meant to believe that the PC "competes" with the console platforms.

 

[Qassim]

I don't see why it's not a valid comparison to compare the best possible experience on each platform. Just because consoles are a set specification doesn't mean it's not worth comparing.

Stuff like Digital Foundry analysis are there for enthusiasts. Enthusiasts care about getting the best possible experience within their given means. Showing them the best possible experience for each version is helpful for that certain segment of the audience. I don't know why these 'average consumers' are always brought up in threads like these, because they're certain not the audience for these articles.

Otherwise, I just see calls for an exclusion of the PC as being there to avoid people getting their feelings hurt as evidenced by all these dreamed up scenarios where they introduce limits to what the PC used could be. Because that's an irrelevant argument compared to the "What is each version of the game capable of?"

 

[Seanspeed]

Actually even then it wouldnt be accurate. Because in 2 years for example, a 400$ PC would be far more superior than the consoles or the 400$ PC you can buy today.

If it had to be accurate, it would have to be a 400-500$ PC with specs limited to those available the day those consoles were released, ie november 2013.

It cant work, it just cant. PC is in a different category. Heavyweights vs middleweights i think tha sums it up nicely.

Scrap the idea of needing a spec'd computer for comparison purposes. Its not needed and I shouldn't have responded with a suggestion. Its not needed and is fine the way it is. If you don't care about PC, then ignore the parts in there about the PC.

 

[valkyre]

Otherwise, I just see calls for an exclusion of the PC as being there to avoid people getting their feelings hurt as evidenced by all these dreamed up scenarios where they introduce limits to what the PC used could be. Because that's an irrelevant argument compared to the "What is each version of the game capable of?"

I honestly dont think anyone's feelings are getting hurt when they hear that a PC can run a console game at 4K and 120 frames per second. (I know I exaggerate but hopefully you get the point). On the other hand feelings do hurt when there are console discrepancies.

 

[NBtoaster]

and my point is that it shouldn't be...lol



And that is my whole point...it's OBVIOUS...unless the developers absolutely intentionally hamstring the PC version so that it cannot be better than the console version then it's IMPOSSIBLE for the consoles to touch it...

And this is why I think the PC should be removed from the comparison...the PC is just in a different category because it has limitless options depending on how much money you want to spend to push the limits...

If I'm having a conversation about the two high school baseball teams playing for the state championship...do I then compare them to the New York Yankees because they play the same sport? No, of course not

If DF were to publish their console comparison...and then publish another article that says "hey, the PS4 version of Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare is the best console version...now let's see how it stacks up to our gaming PC" them that would be TOTALLY cool...and I'd want to read that...

But I just don't feel the PC belongs in the discussion when the other two consoles are being compared

It's not guaranteed PC will be better. And when it is, it's still worth seeing how it is better. The articles are comparing the versions of the game for interest and purchase decisions. Presenting the PC version and seeing how it is better can show you if it is worth going that version. It's serves no purpose to gimp pc for 'fairness' or whatever.

 

[Seanspeed]

I honestly dont think anyone's feelings are getting hurt when they hear that a PC can run a console game at 4K and 120 frames per second. (I know I exaggerate but hopefully you get the point). On the other hand feelings do hurt when there are console discrepancies.

Judging by the vigorous efforts of some people to downplay PC gaming over the past year or so since the introduction of the new consoles, I'd say there's a fair percentage of console fans who are indeed insecure about the PC 'advantage' and talk of it. Just like there's a fair percentage of XB1 owners insecure about talk about PS4's advantage.

 

[grandwizard]

It's not guaranteed PC will be better. And when it is, it's still worth seeing how it is better. The articles are comparing the versions of the game for interest and purchase decisions. Presenting the PC version and seeing how it is better can show you if it is worth going that version. It's serves no purpose to gimp pc for 'fairness' or whatever.

Exactly. This comparison alone shows that there is a discrepancy in the Shadows tech compared to what we would traditionally expect and it is good to know that. A lot of people use these articles to simply reinforce existing views but they are also good for purchasing advice to potential buyers, which is very valuable in this multiplatform world. The constant evolution of PC hardware means as time passes the articles we be more and more useful to determine the differences between platforms.

 

[valkyre]

Judging by the vigorous efforts of some people to downplay PC gaming over the past year or so since the introduction of the new consoles, I'd say there's a fair percentage of console fans who are indeed insecure about the PC 'advantage' and talk of it. Just like there's a fair percentage of XB1 owners insecure about talk about PS4's advantage.

I dont think PC gaming downplay comes down to its technical superiority over consoles, rather than the fact that devs dont really show much love to the PC as the years go by.

Graphics that wow us today, and I am offering just an example Assassins Creed Unity, are graphics that were possible for some year now on PC.

PC could have assassins creed Unity graphics when Assassins Creed 3 released. And yet they got the same ΑC3 in terms of poly count , the same geometry as consoles and just added extra res , AA, textures and frames to compensate PC enthusiasts. But that clearly aint enough, at least to me.

Devs simply hinder PC versions because the games they make have to be created with the lowest denominator in mind, ie consoles.

To put it simply, PC gaming has been utterly mistreated for years now. People have powerful machines that were not even showing their maximum potential 90% of the time. Sure once in a while there was a Crysis 3 or a Witcher 2 that tried to exploit PC's extra power. But in most cases, like multiplats PC hardware was just waiting there for the new consoles to arrive.

That is the reason I would downplay PC gaming (but generally I actually dont). Not because the hardware was not there, but because it was almost never ever fully exploited and realized. Its a major rip off for PC gamers imho. And I honestly sympathize with them for having to wait so long to see graphics they could have had 2 years ago.

 

[Morat]

On the topic of having PC in DF, one point to make is that many ports are poorly optimized, and can be lacking in many of the options which would make a PC version superior. Therefore, I think putting PC in the comparison is very much justified

 

[Metfanant]

Oh please. PC gamers or people interested in hearing about PC gaming may not be a majority, but we aren't a tiny minority either and its still totally worth including in the article.

i never said that PC gamers were a "tiny" minority, but its a simple fact that the PC is irrelevant to the average gamer...

according to Steam, the game with the largest number of concurrent players today was DOTA2 with almost 900k players at its peak...thats a whole shit ton for a single game...of course those numbers begin to fall of significantly after that with the 2nd most popular game being CS:GO with a peak of 158k concurrent players...

and then mid way down the list you find a shooter from last fall named Call of Duty: Ghosts with a peak of 4,359 (1841 currently)...in comparison youve currently got ~18k people currently playing Ghosts on the PS4 alone...

for reference...again, according to Steam...only 9 games currently have more players than CoD:Ghosts on just the PS4 alone (Dota2, CS:GO, TF2, Football Manager, Skyrim, Civ 5, Garry's Mod, Payday 2, and Unturned)...

Now granted, im not gonna win a Supreme Court case using this as evidence for sure...and there are all sorts of flaws in the argument, and i know Ghosts is a mess on the PC...but looking purely at the numbers...yes, the PC is quite irrelevant to the avg gamer...

Anyways, the 'what is a gaming PC' thing - not even really important. Digital Foundry basically just assumes 1080p/60fps and max settings for comparison purposes. Doesn't really matter what sort of specific rig is needed. PC gamers will be aware that their rig may or may not be capable of that. There is no reason to leave this info out just because some people cant achieve that, other than to assuage console owner's insecurity on the issue.

even if that was true (its not)..one could easily flip that around and say the only reason a PC gamer would really want it included is to stroke their ego as the "superior gamer"

wouldnt a PC gamer rather see the game compared on different levels of PC hardware instead of against the lowly consoles?...a PC gamer is already going to purchase those multiplatform games on the PC no? i mean isnt that why they purchased the PC to begin with? why compare it to the consoles?

Actually even then it wouldnt be accurate. Because in 2 years for example, a 400$ PC would be far more superior than the consoles or the 400$ PC you can buy today.

If it had to be accurate, it would have to be a 400-500$ PC with specs limited to those available the day those consoles were released, ie november 2013.

It cant work, it just cant. PC is in a different category. Heavyweights vs middleweights i think tha sums it up nicely.

i agree

I don't see why it's not a valid comparison to compare the best possible experience on each platform. Just because consoles are a set specification doesn't mean it's not worth comparing.

Stuff like Digital Foundry analysis are there for enthusiasts. Enthusiasts care about getting the best possible experience within their given means. Showing them the best possible experience for each version is helpful for that certain segment of the audience. I don't know why these 'average consumers' are always brought up in threads like these, because they're certain not the audience for these articles.

lets be honest here...DF articles are there for console wars website hits...plain and simple..

Judging by the vigorous efforts of some people to downplay PC gaming over the past year or so since the introduction of the new consoles, I'd say there's a fair percentage of console fans who are indeed insecure about the PC 'advantage' and talk of it. Just like there's a fair percentage of XB1 owners insecure about talk about PS4's advantage.

or are they frustrated by the vigorus efforts of some people to constantly point out that the consoles have "tablet CPUs?"

 

[grandwizard]

i never said that PC gamers were a "tiny" minority, but its a simple fact that the PC is irrelevant to the average gamer...

according to Steam, the game with the largest number of concurrent players today was DOTA2 with almost 900k players at its peak...thats a whole shit ton for a single game...of course those numbers begin to fall of significantly after that with the 2nd most popular game being CS:GO with a peak of 158k concurrent players...

and then mid way down the list you find a shooter from last fall named Call of Duty: Ghosts with a peak of 4,359 (1841 currently)...in comparison youve currently got ~18k people currently playing Ghosts on the PS4 alone...

for reference...again, according to Steam...only 9 games currently have more players than CoD:Ghosts on just the PS4 alone (Dota2, CS:GO, TF2, Football Manager, Skyrim, Civ 5, Garry's Mod, Payday 2, and Unturned)...

Now granted, im not gonna win a Supreme Court case using this as evidence for sure...and there are all sorts of flaws in the argument, and i know Ghosts is a mess on the PC...but looking purely at the numbers...yes, the PC is quite irrelevant to the avg gamer...

So your argument for PC being irrelevant is that it has games with many times more players than the latest PS4 release of CoD?

 

[Metfanant]

So your argument for PC being irrelevant is that it has games with many times more players than the latest PS4 release of CoD?

no....more that you have 10x's the number of players playing the same game on the PS4 alone (while the vast majority of North America is still asleep) than on the PC...forget the PS3, 360, and Xbone versions...

 

[Watto]

I don't really understand what the issue is with including PC version in these comparisons. Sure if someone has a high end PC they are obviously going to have the best version, but there are plenty of people with mid range PCs where the decision between getting the PC version or the console version is not clear cut at all.

wouldnt a PC gamer rather see the game compared on different levels of PC hardware instead of against the lowly consoles?...a PC gamer is already going to purchase those multiplatform games on the PC no? i mean isnt that why they purchased the PC to begin with? why compare it to the consoles?

The problem here is you've started with an incorrect assumption. Not all PC owners own PCs which are better than current gen consoles.

 

[Metfanant]

I don't really understand what the issue is with including PC version in these comparisons. Sure if someone has a high end PC they are obviously going to have the best version, but there are plenty of people with mid range PCs where the decision between getting the PC version or the console version is not clear cut at all.

so what good then, does the DF comparison do when they show the game with every setting cranked up to max?...How does showing the PC version maxed out help someone with a mid-rage PC who wont get to experience the game in that form, make a decision between PC and console?

 

[Watto]

so what good then, does the DF comparison do when they show the game with every setting cranked up to max?...

How does showing the PC version maxed out help someone with a mid-rage PC who wont get to experience the game in that form, make a decision between PC and console?

The argument should be that DF does include midrange PC settings then, not that DF should stop doing PC altogether.

Not to mention the fact that it's of interest to people considering spending money on a gaming PC to see how much of a step forward a high end machine gives them compared to the consoles.

 

[hesido]

I don't really understand what the issue is with including PC version in these comparisons. Sure if someone has a high end PC they are obviously going to have the best version, but there are plenty of people with mid range PCs where the decision between getting the PC version or the console version is not clear cut at all.

This, and some others

Hey, they could also build a 400 dollar PC every year; declare high end PC's winner by default, but have consoles run against that 400 dollar PC. But even then people wouldn't agree as the way you could spend the 400 dollars would be numerous.

 

[Metfanant]

The argument should be that DF does include midrange PC settings then, not that DF should stop doing PC altogether.

Not to mention the fact that it's of interest to people considering spending money on a gaming PC to see how much of a step forward a high end machine gives them compared to the consoles.

my point throughout this ENTIRE discussion has been just that...

- focus on just the consoles
- OR use a "console comparable" PC vs the consoles
- OR, if you're intent on showing off the PC muscles, then give me a seperate comparison of the PC vs the better of the two consoles
- OR give me a PC only comparison where you show off the game using 3 different levels of PC (budget, mid range, enthusiast)
- OR if you really want to be in-depth...go all out and give me Budget PC vs Console(s) vs Midrange PC vs Enthusiast PC

simply throwing the two closed box consoles into the ring against a PC that is not a direct market competitor just doesnt do it for me

This, and some others

Hey, they could also build a 400 dollar PC every year; declare high end PC's winner by default, but have consoles run against that 400 dollar PC. But even then people wouldn't agree as the way you could spend the 400 dollars would be numerous.

building a new $400 PC every year skews the point of the comparison though...6-8 years from now, when this console generation is coming to a close...the PC you could build with $400 would be a juggernaut compared to a PS4...

 

[Watto]

simply throwing the two closed box consoles into the ring against a PC that is not a direct market competitor just doesnt do it for me

But you're like the PC market, a minority. DF has to appeal to the mass market (consoles) and clearly the system they currently use works for them in terms of page views.

 

[Metfanant]

But you're like the PC market, a minority. DF has to appeal to the mass market (consoles) and clearly the system they currently use works for them in terms of page views.

they would get just as many page views if they dropped the PC from the comparisons...we all know that the overwhelming reason people read them is for console war ammunition...

 

[Watto]

they would get just as many page views if they dropped the PC from the comparisons...we all know that the overwhelming reason people read them is for console war ammunition...

Advertisers like PC gamers, even if they make up a minority of a readership. They spend money.

 

[b1tcrusher]

This, and some others

Hey, they could also build a 400 dollar PC every year; declare high end PC's winner by default, but have consoles run against that 400 dollar PC. But even then people wouldn't agree as the way you could spend the 400 dollars would be numerous.

Maybe the PC budget should be put in relation to how much the consoles cost at that given point in time? I mean, the PS4 will be at it's 399$ price point for a while, but over time it will get cheaper and maybe down the road you would have a comparison between a 299 console and a 299 PC and so on.

But yeah - it's really pointless to compare a PC with a kickass GPU that alone costs more than a console, it simply states the obvious.

 

[Marlenus]

The simple solution to these "which PC?" arguments would be for DF to use two PC's. One that has a similar cost to the PS4 and the XBox One so in the £400 - £450 ball park and another one in the £800-1000 range. As the PC includes multiplayer out of the box I do not see it as unfair to allow a slightly larger budget to offset the costs of PS+/Xbox Live on the lower end machine.

As we all know people will argue about the tiniest minutia if they think it will win them an argument so I would suggest that the below all be part of the budget for the PCs to as closely match what consoles have out of the box as possible.

Blu Ray drive
HDD
PSU
Case
CPU
GPU
RAM
OS
Motherboard
Keyboard/Mouse

I think that would give people a fair idea of what kind of PC you can get for roughly console level price and features as well as giving a look at what a more expensive but still generally affordable PC can achieve. While you can spend a lot more on a PC than what I have suggested if the gap in price is too wide then it becomes a bit of a pointless endeavour.

 

[Metfanant]

Maybe the PC budget should be put in relation to how much the consoles cost at that given point in time? I mean, the PS4 will be at it's 399$ price point for a while, but over time it will get cheaper and maybe down the road you would have a comparison between a 299 console and a 299 PC and so on.

But yeah - it's really pointless to compare a PC with a kickass GPU that alone costs more than a console, it simply states the obvious.

you just build a comparable PC, at a comparable price at the beginning of the generation, and you roll with it until next generation...no need to change the "console PC" at all...thats the only way to fairly maintain any kind of cost/performance ratio...

 

[Marlenus]

you just build a comparable PC, at a comparable price at the beginning of the generation, and you roll with it until next generation...no need to change the "console PC" at all...thats the only way to fairly maintain any kind of cost/performance ratio...

Not really as PC improvements outpace console price drops. In 2 years time a console priced PC is likely to outperform a console by a reasonable margin where as today that is very unlikely outside of getting some parts at a reduced price.

 

[NBtoaster]

you just build a comparable PC, at a comparable price at the beginning of the generation, and you roll with it until next generation...no need to change the "console PC" at all...thats the only way to fairly maintain any kind of cost/performance ratio...

There is no need to be fair. Comparing the versions at their best is the entire point of the article. And nobody would be using a $400 2013 PC in 2020.

 

[Fliesen]

As we all know people will argue about the tiniest minutia if they think it will win them an argument so I would suggest that the below all be part of the budget for the PCs to as closely match what consoles have out of the box as possible.

Blu Ray drive
HDD
PSU
Case
CPU
GPU
RAM
OS
Motherboard
Keyboard/Mouse

I think that would give people a fair idea of what kind of PC you can get for roughly console level price and features as well as giving a look at what a more expensive but still generally affordable PC can achieve. While you can spend a lot more on a PC than what I have suggested if the gap in price is too wide then it becomes a bit of a pointless endeavour.

i don't think that's how it could work.
you won't be able to create a PC that's as small and / or as powerful as a console at a 400$ price point. The Windows license alone is around $100.

On the other hand, it being a Windows PC means that it'll do hundreds of times as many things as a Console will. Which is why comparing a PC to a Console is as pointless as comparing a Tablet to a PC, or a Phone to a PC, a TV to a Monitor or a Headset to a 7.1 surround system.
They all do similar things at their core, but their usability extends towards different directions beyond the functional overlaps.

A 7" tablet, a low-to-mid-range PC and a PS4 all cost 400$, they all play games and movies.
But one's super portable, one's super versatile, one's hassle free, well designed and sits under your TV.

you'd need to assign a monetary value for ergonomics as well as reduce the OS price by a certain factor (to factor out the other features of the full fledged OS that you don't want to compare).
And don't even get me started on what to do with the 10$ that a console game costs over a PC game due to licensing fees. How would you weigh those?

there is no such thing as a normalized "400$ PC vs 400$ console" comparison.

 

[Metfanant]

Not really as PC improvements outpace console price drops. In 2 years time a console priced PC is likely to outperform a console by a reasonable margin where as today that is very unlikely outside of getting some parts at a reduced price.

yes its obvious that as time goes on PC hardware greatly improves...consoles have to rely on their closed nature and optimization to attempt to keep up as much as possible...

so how do you decide when to upgrade the PC? whenever the consoles drop their price?...

There is no need to be fair. Comparing the versions at their best is the entire point of the article. And nobody would be using a $400 2013 PC in 2020.

and i beg to differ...the PC at maxed out settings is irrelevant in a "Face Off" because its just inherently better because youre dealing with exponentially more powerful (and expensive) hardware...if the PC stays in the face offs...then i believe it should be joined by a console comparable counterpart

i don't think that's how it could work.
you won't be able to create a PC that's as small and / or as powerful as a console at a 400$ price point. The Windows license alone is around $100.

On the other hand, it being a Windows PC means that it'll do hundreds of times as many things as a Console will. Which is why comparing a PC to a Console is as pointless as comparing a Tablet to a PC, or a Phone to a PC, a TV to a Monitor or a Headset to a 7.1 surround system.
They all do similar things at their core, but their usability extends towards different directions beyond the functional overlaps.

A 7" tablet, a low-to-mid-range PC and a PS4 all cost 400$, they all play games and movies.
But one's super portable, one's super versatile, one's hassle free, well designed and sits under your TV.

you'd need to assign a monetary value for ergonomics as well as reduce the OS price by a certain factor (to factor out the other features of the full fledged OS that you don't want to compare).
And don't even get me started on what to do with the 10$ that a console game costs over a PC game due to licensing fees. How would you weigh those?

there is no such thing as a normalized "400$ PC vs 400$ console" comparison.

OS costs you probably have to simply toss out the window for the sake of the comparison if youre going to try and make it work...things like the form factor (size, weight etc) you have to just ignore as well because you just cant custom design hardware like a console manufacturer can when piecing together a PC from newegg....

 

[NBtoaster]

and i beg to differ...the PC at maxed out settings is irrelevant in a "Face Off" because its just inherently better because youre dealing with exponentially more powerful (and expensive) hardware...if the PC stays in the face offs...then i believe it should be joined by a console comparable counterpart

The point is not to see who the winner is. The point is to examine the differences. PC versions are usually better, but for a variety of reasons that may or may not be appealing to a reader/buyer.

 

[Metfanant]

The point is not to see who the winner is. The point is to examine the differences. PC versions are usually better, but for a variety of reasons that may or may not be appealing to a reader/buyer.

umm...then what is the point of the "Digital Foundry Verdict" section at the end of all the articles??



hint:

Spoiler

To tell you which one is the best

 

[Chobel]

A little OT, but anyone saw this: "Resolutiongate a 'perception challenge' that must be fixed, says Xbox exec"

Xbox UK marketing boss Harvey Eagle has some interesting quote:

Unless you are using a screen that's more than 60 inches big, I defy you to really see the difference

 

[Fliesen]

OS costs you probably have to simply toss out the window for the sake of the comparison if youre going to try and make it work...things like the form factor (size, weight etc) you have to just ignore as well because you just cant custom design hardware like a console manufacturer can when piecing together a PC from newegg....

you can't toss em out, really, as they are real costs to when making a purchase decision.
if we're tossing out partial costs arbitrarily, why even compare the price-points?

also, you can't just ignore the form factor. It's an important aspect of a device you put under your TV.

But here we are, trying to cut off everything that makes the devices what they are (the PCs versatility due to its operating system, the console's "living-room-compatibleness" due to its compact design) just for comparison's sake, thereby rendering any possible "conclusion" pretty pointless, though.

 

[Coulomb_Barrier]

A little OT, but anyone saw this: "Resolutiongate a 'perception challenge' that must be fixed, says Xbox exec"

Xbox UK marketing boss Harvey Eagle has some interesting quote:

Oh dear.

 

[Metfanant]

Xbox UK marketing boss Harvey Eagle has some interesting quote:

comments like that insult the intelligence of their customers...

- youre telling your customers that legitamately can see it that they are liars...
- youre trying to convince people to ignore the fact that they are spending the same amount of money for a product that is objectively inferior...

you can't toss em out, really, as they are real costs to when making a purchase decision.
if we're tossing out partial costs arbitrarily, why even compare the price-points?

also, you can't just ignore the form factor. It's an important aspect of a device you put under your TV.

But here we are, trying to cut off everything that makes the devices what they are (the PCs versatility due to its operating system, the console's "living-room-compatibleness" due to its compact design) just for comparison's sake, thereby rendering any possible "conclusion" pretty pointless, though.

i get it completely

 

[ethomaz]

The option to turn vsync on was there from the start, no patch needed. Unless I misunderstand you.

It needs a 10GB mandatory day 1 patch for retail version... digital version already come with it packed in.

 

[NBtoaster]

umm...then what is the point of the "Digital Foundry Verdict" section at the end of all the articles??



hint:

Spoiler

To tell you which one is the best

By summarising the differences.

 

[Metfanant]

By summarising the differences.

and really its only the console versions that are relevant...there is no context for the PC version, you dont know specs, or cost, or anything just simply this is it...its in no way a true comparison of what the vast majority of PC Gamers will see

 

[Neuromancer]

A little OT, but anyone saw this: "Resolutiongate a 'perception challenge' that must be fixed, says Xbox exec"

Xbox UK marketing boss Harvey Eagle has some interesting quote:

Thanks, I thought it was new thread worthy so I made a new thread.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=120489079

 

[NBtoaster]

and really its only the console versions that are relevant...there is no context for the PC version, you dont know specs, or cost, or anything just simply this is it...its in no way a true comparison of what the vast majority of PC Gamers will see

Again, the article is about the differences between the versions at their best. There are other sites for lower range benchmarks. Cost is not relevant, the game is the focus, not the platform. If you have all platforms and want to see comparisons, you don't need to hear about the cost of the platforms you already own.