Gaming taste is subjective. Facts are not. Keep that in mind when engaging in an objective discussion, like whether the (still great) ps4 won't be as powerful as many gaming pcs (like the ones we discuss on a "hardcore gaming" forum)
Digital Foundry Tech Analysis: Watch Dogs on PlayStation 4
- Thread starter j0hnny_385
- Start date
Gaming taste is subjective. Facts are not. Keep that in mind when engaging in an objective discussion, like whether the (still great) ps4 won't be as powerful as many gaming pcs (like the ones we discuss on a "hardcore gaming" forum)
That's great and all, but aren't you the one needlessly invested when you go into PC comparison threads, despite just making clear how much you don't care about just that comparison?
LowEndTorque
Member
That's just beating a dead horse, that's already been dead for decades. Everyone with half a brain already understands the simple fact that high end PCs are more powerful than consoles, always have been and always will be. Are you telling me the whole purpose of the discussion is to continue beating that dead horse? I'd say most posters intentions and motives are a little more complex than that, wouldn't you?
1000 $ is not high-end, 1800 ~ is high-end
FeiRR
Banned
You overestimate humans.
fatgamecat
Member
Do people take into account the # of years they'll be paying for PSN or Xbox Live (50/60 a year?) when looking at a cost analysis against a PC?
Consoles have great price/performance and PS4 games will look amazing for a $400 box, for sure.
Consoles have great price/performance and PS4 games will look amazing for a $400 box, for sure.
A medium end PC would best these, and this is the first time in a while that the highest end console being released wont best them. That is the distinction here.
Paying for online also sucks but that's a separate issue when you guys talk about value per dollar.
Yes, this current one, pc games looked and ran better than 360 at launch.
googleplex
Member
I've said it before and I'll say it again. PC GAF ideal of what constitutes Low, mid, Hi PC specs is completely fucked.
Just because Rocket cars exist doesn't make Ferrari low end cars.
LowEndTorque
Member
Cost analysis is only one aspect. Personal preference and game library are more important aspects.
Over this gen, I've owned a Wii, 360, PS3 and decent gaming PC. I can afford to do the same thing next gen but I just don't see the point anymore.
I've gotten the most gaming enjoyment out of my Sony and MS consoles by a landslide. And the reasons for that are personal preference, taste and game library, not cost analysis. The PC was never touched outside of The Witcher series and the Wii... well, no need to elaborate.
I'm not a hardware engineer and I don't write peer reviewed articles for computer science journals, so the tech debates are meaningless to me beyond having a general sense of what next gen games will be capable of. I play games for leisure enjoyment and so enjoyment is what matters to me.
When DF says that differences are minor, they actually are minor to me. I can't even tell the difference at all most times. We've reached a point where technical differences between platforms aren't as big of a deal as they once were. Game library and personal taste/preference is king now.
PdotMichael
Banned
Don't waste your time. You're talking abut people who pay >1000$ to play console ports in 1440p@120fps.
I mean who cares? It's not we're in the 90s who pc gamers had Unreal 1 while the console gamers had jusz Tomb Raider 2 without Z-buffer and texture filtering.
And it's not even that the the technical impressive stuff are dominating the PC sales charts. Stuff like SimCity, Sims, Starcraft and Diablo dominate the charts here - games you can play without problems on over five years old PCs.
Bullshit, if anything they are much bigger than they ever were.
Evolution_1ne
Banned
Why do you say this?
PdotMichael
Banned
Compare Unreal 1 and the Playstaton version of Tomb Raider 2 and say the difference between PC and console was smaller than today.
PCs were destroying console games in the 90s and had even a completly different (technical way more impressive) lineup than the consoles. But consoles became more and more popular.
LowEndTorque
Member
A statement without any explanation or reasons given to back it up? You've convinced me.
BradleyLove
Member
Indeed, and every single thread relating to next gen consoles play out the same.
Imagine the scenario where guys are comparing Ford Focus's and Vauxhall Astras. They're similar price and power. Next thing you know, the Ferrari guys barge in, swinging their dicks around telling the Focus/Astra folks their cars are shit.
If I'm buying a Focus, I don't compare it to a frigging Ferrari, I compare it to an Astra. If I'm buying a console, I'm comparing it to comparable consoles FFS.
The constant looking-down and cock-waving is beyond tedious now. We get it: your cock is huge. Well done.
I'd rather compare PC Tomb Raider 2 to console Tomb Raider 2. There are less PC exclusives however maxing out the potential of the PC, that is true. But really, it didn't change too much, it was always about framerate, resolution and graphical gimmicks.
fatgamecat
Member
Factoring in 5 years of PSN ($250) to your PS4 purchase, the system will cost $650 total.
You can build a PC w/ GTX 760 for $700, including the $90 Windows license.
In any case, if you can afford it you should get both a PC and console, as they'll both have great exclusive games.
You can build a PC w/ GTX 760 for $700, including the $90 Windows license.
In any case, if you can afford it you should get both a PC and console, as they'll both have great exclusive games.
alexandros
Banned
Oh, I see someone beat me to the punch:
This may very well be the first time in gaming history where a mid-range gaming PC outperforms both next-gen consoles at launch. If true (we'll have to wait until launch to know for sure), this fact alone may influence the market in unpredictable ways. For instance:
1) a not-insignificant part of launch console buyers do so because it would take a lot of money to upgrade ther PCs and achieve the same performance. If this isn't the case anymore, how will it affect launch sales?
2) The relatively modest leap in graphical quality between generations is also a factor worthy of consideration. Will consumers flock to these machines as they did on the start of the HD generation? Or are the current-gen machines "good enough" for a large part of the gaming populace?
3) What will publishers and developers do in terms of platforms support? Will we see an increasing number of multi-platform cross-gen games for quite a few years into the next gen? How will these affect game design, since devs may have to limit their ambitions to support the older gen?
So you see, for people who love to talk about the industry in general and speculate on what may come next, this is a fascinating time. "LOL my console has teh BEST gamez!!1!" is fun too I suppose, but maybe it's more suitable for other threads.
PdotMichael
Banned
Well, even if you want compare console ports. Playing Tomb Raider 2 with Z-buffer and texture filtering is already a bigger thing than adding a little bit more AA.
And PCs had the technical impressive exclusive games back in the 90s. Something like the Wing Commander series was in a different league compared to everything you could play on the consoles.
Evolution_1ne
Banned
again what the fuck is a mid range PC to you guys
show the specs post them now and swear I'll buy the shit
and don't give me that decent CPU/GPU bullshit post the specs
heear I'll give you a guide
CPU:
GPU:
PSU:
Case:
RAM:
HDD/SDD:
Optical Drive:
Motherboard:
alexandros
Banned
Again, you should wait a few months. It's not like you can buy a PS4 right now, so why hurry? There are significant hardware launches between now and the end of the year, most notably AMD's 9000 series of cards. Then we'll know for sure.
Evolution_1ne
Banned
Laughing my fucking ass off if you seriously considering the NEW Vulcan Islands GPUs will put your PC budget in the "mid range" area
more or less confirmation of the above quote about rocket cars and Ferrari's
iceatcs
Junior Member
While you doing that, don't forgot monitor, keyboard, HDTV, sofa, desk, etc...
True, but I'd say it's actually not the gap in performance that changed so much but rather the focus on console development. PC games would blow the console out of the water if exclusives would be developed for them. See actually Witcher 2. The console version really isn't comparable. It just pretends to be the same game, but it's really a way worse experience. It feels like the difference between owning a original highend smartphone and a cheap chinese knock-off which barely works. That's how I feel about it.
Upping the image quality and playability however is a major difference. If anything, it's the defining difference for me. I'd rather stop gaming than going back to console gaming. If you don't care about shit framerates and image quality however, there is not much you can get out of PC gaming, that is true.
alexandros
Banned
I don't know if you follow tech news, but typically a new graphics card series launch is comprised of mutliple cards for every budget. Nvidia's 700 series had the 780, 770 and 760, the latter being a $250 part. AMD's launch will likely be similar, with a range of cards from super high-end to mid-range. So it's prudent to wait and see how the market develops.
Doesn't matter. Historically, what he wrote is true: Console systems usually released with an overall hardware advantage that you couldn't really get a hold off anywhere else for some time after. This time it is not so. It is an interesting fact which makes little sense to refute.
Evolution_1ne
Banned
So you have to go 5 years into the future just to get your PS4 to STILL cost less than a PC TODAY
completely excluding all the free shit your get in those 5 years from plus not like Steam sales where you get extreme discounts you get those discounts AND just flat out free games
so umm nice try but try again
this is another PC myth that is complete bullshit
do I really have to show you what games looked like on PCs when the PS3 and 360 came out???
fatgamecat
Member
Yes, new entries into the market tend to drive down previous product prices, and you typically get a range refresh of GPUs as you mentioned. Common sense when it comes to PC parts. Prices are bound to come down between now and end of year console launches.
ChorusLindarr
Banned
It always fascinates me how cheaply folks in the US are able to built PCs. I really envy you guys. There's no way I could build the exact same PC for the same price. Heck your GTX 760 PC for $700 would cost me a cool £700.
UK folks always get the shaft when it comes to PC gaming. And so its little wonder we don't seem to care so much about PC gaming the way our cousins from across the pond seem to do so.
Evolution_1ne
Banned
yeah with the low end cards just being re branded versions of the older cards that were already out with the prices hardly moving at all
770 = 680
760 = 660ti
but ok I'll bite because your wrong and you wont give up
when the next gen AMD cards launch I should be able to buy a 400 PC that will blow away the PS4.........
alexandros
Banned
No. But you will be able to buy a really affordable PC that will give you tons of value in the course of time, through free online and cheaper games.
KaiserBecks
Member
Gemüsepizza;70538246 said:
I don't think so. Steam offers something for anybody. A lot of people enjoy strategy games, you don't need a beefy system for most of them. Same goes for indie games. And don't forget: You can play those on a laptop as well.
Gemüsepizza;70539036 said:
Because they don't cost considerably more than Euro 1000. I built a mid-high end PC for my brother last christmas that ended up costing less than Euro 800. If I'd build the same system next christmas, I'd get a better graphics card for the same money. You don't need a TItan in order to have a system that'll be stronger than a PS4 and you sure as hell don't need to spend more than a 1000 euros, not to mention "considerably" more.
Gemüsepizza;70539036 said:
People also love to compare the PS4 to the PC. "Coding to the metal" and all.
Evolution_1ne
Banned
and now he admits it
so what's your argument, what was the point in all this back in forth
but those aren't the games PC gamers are championing though. Those are games that can be made on console with no compromise what so ever, so when a PC gamers starts bitching about how much better PCs are compared to consoles those aren't the games he'd use to illustrate that point, so they don't count.
it's the games that clearly show the gap between PCs and Consoles that matter, only to get that jump you need a PC that cost at least 3 times as much as you would spend on a console
Too right you are! coding in assembler is something that isnt done in a game apart from in the most used functions and libraries too eke extra performance in areas where the compiler doesn't do it in the best way. for them ost part game code is in C++ and or scripting languages.
It in no way gives you double the performance this is a ridiculous misinformed statement to make!
Coding to a platforms strengths and weaknesses allows you to hide things the system isn't so good at while showing off the things it excels at. it allows you to customise the experience to run as well as it can on that system, its more eficcient than a PC but that most certainly doesnt mean the parts suddenly have twice the flop count!
dragonelite
Member
The fact that titles at launch are cheaper is already a big win.
No live or psn cost good for 3~10 games with steam sales.
Psn plus will the trend continue on ps4 at launch?
Dont forget the humble bumble packs on pc.
First have to see how hardware failure are with the launch console after warranty.
On pc you can just replace a part with consoles you have to rebuy the whole console.
alexandros
Banned
Dear God, this is just... painful.
KaiserBecks
Member
I wasn't talking about that at all. Of course you need to spend money on a system if you want to see the benefits (and some of those benefits, besides performance, are lower prices and free multiplayer), I don't get why anybody would deny that. I was simply pointing out that the Steam hardware survey doesn't really say anything about what a "gaming PC" is, simply because the consumer base is too wide. If you want to see what an average gaming PC looks like, you simply have to look at a PC gaming magazine. They usually have charts that group systems in different tiers and point out, how the games that are being reviewed will perform.
Evolution_1ne
Banned
that's all I'm saying, and if you look at my original post it was simply asking for specs, because saying blanket statements like "mid-range" is a cop out and only used to misinform.
I am not owner of a super expensive rig (660ti, i52500k) and it's about gameplay, not graphics. I can live with some jaggies. I can't live with gameplay and immersion suffering because of shit framerates.
Did you read what he said? He didn't say "the GTX 680 is a mid-ranged card" he said "a few months after the ps4's launch the GTX 680 will be a mid-ranged card." There's a big difference between the two. A few months after the PS4's launch we'll see new GPUs being launched and I don't doubt that NVIDIA's mid-ranged solution(GTX 860/860ti) will offer performance on par with a 680.
GetemMa
Member
When I look at this game it doesn't scream next gen and I think all these cross gen games are going to really hurt the next gen consoles IMO.
Sure, to our trained eyes it has all of these great upgrades like deeper draw distance, more realistic lighting, particle effects, and a better resolution but your normies won't notice these things nearly as much.
If the current gen versions look close but in lower res and less graphical features and less NPCs but are entirely playable, it will make the next gen hardware a hard sell at this point. EA says they will be doing cross gen for 2 years post next gen launch. If Ubisoft and Activision follow suit, which wouldn't surprise me, I fear that with so many cross gen games already in the making and the next gen versions appearing to perform underwhelmingly, that the next gen is going to have a slow adoption rate.
Watch Dogs, Assassins Creed, COD, Battlefield, Madden, FIFA, Titanfall, Metal Gear 5, Need for Speed, Thief, Dragon Age, Destiny.
When I look at that list I see the top selling games of the year, and all will be on current gen consoles.
Sure, to our trained eyes it has all of these great upgrades like deeper draw distance, more realistic lighting, particle effects, and a better resolution but your normies won't notice these things nearly as much.
If the current gen versions look close but in lower res and less graphical features and less NPCs but are entirely playable, it will make the next gen hardware a hard sell at this point. EA says they will be doing cross gen for 2 years post next gen launch. If Ubisoft and Activision follow suit, which wouldn't surprise me, I fear that with so many cross gen games already in the making and the next gen versions appearing to perform underwhelmingly, that the next gen is going to have a slow adoption rate.
Watch Dogs, Assassins Creed, COD, Battlefield, Madden, FIFA, Titanfall, Metal Gear 5, Need for Speed, Thief, Dragon Age, Destiny.
When I look at that list I see the top selling games of the year, and all will be on current gen consoles.
Brofist
Member
Just curious did you only play the console's respective exclusives? Cause you should have at the very least been able to play all 3rd party multiplatform games on the PC.
Not really sure where you are going with the whole hardware engineer line. I'm no hardware engineer, and I don't need to be to see the strengths of each given platform.
I wouldn't be so sure of this. It's probably hyperbole on my part, but I think besides just straight fanboy loyalty the biggest cause for these PC vs console debates stems from the amount of misinformation that gets tossed around.
Do you want to factor in all the free games you'll get for PSN+? Because I have no doubt it'll add up to more then $650 dollars. Boom, 5 years of 'free' gaming