Support NeoGAF

[copelandmaster]

OP

Visual/Image Quality?
If you have a discerning eye for AA, AF, texture resolution, shadow resolution, AO, draw distance, etc. the difference will be pronounced. Overall things will look similar to consoles, yet so much better if you have an eye for detail. Tech like Lightboost (CRT style strobbing motion clarity) and G-sync/Freesync for consistent frame delivery also adds another layer of additional quality to the PC ecosystem.

For me personally, I pick up on stuff like shadow res, draw distance, and AF (the big one) and also have a Lightboost monitor. When I play my games on PS4 the often huge quality deference really bothers me.

Graphics?
PC typically has high end graphics effects not present on consoles, not event counting NVIDIA/AMD exclusive technologies that improve both graphics and image quality. This will be more pronounced than the VQ difference, but can also boil down to taste e.g. some people don't like the certain implementations of physx.

PS4 gets more AAA graphics showcases, but those same showcases (sans The Order, mostly) also suffer from the IQ problems that PC doesn't have. "Minor" things like sub par quality AF are usually to be found in these showcases.

Framerate?
Huge. Huge. HUGE. By a factor between 2x - 4.8x. Once you go 120hz+Lightboost/144hz Gysnc or Freesync, you really don't want to go back. The chase for high smooth frames will have you dumping the $600 - $800 builds most PC gamers advocate like a bad date, but you'll love the ride.

PC wins, no question. I mean at the worse, you get the occasional a capped Japanese console port, but without framerate problems or bad quality AF.


TL;DR: Pretty damn big, even if you're not a freaky deaky mofo like me.

However, you should go where the games you like are. If you like multi plats the most, and don't have to worry about IRL friends/friends lists, definitely go PC, as almost everything is getting ports to PC these days, even retroactive "exclusive" stuff like Valkyria Chronicles (which now runs at 120fps I might add!).

 

[NeonBlack]

I really hope that the difference to a decent gaming rig is huge cause so far this console gen has been a huge disappointment when it comes to graphics. I can barely make out any difference to last gen tbh. I know people will call me crazy and blind for saying that but that's just how it is. Textures look a bit nicer but that's about it.

When was the last time you played a Ps3 game? The difference in graphics and performance is huge as well as the speed of the OS. But my gaming rig is also laps and bounds ahead of my consoles. The reason I built one was because of performance issues I've been seeing in New games and wanting to experience them at full throttle.


OP, it really depends on what you build and what you're looking for. The visuals and performance can be amazing or just better depending on how much you're willing to go in for. If you're trying to decide, think of what games you want to play and if any are going to be exclusive.

 

[derExperte]

Nowhere near big enough to ignore the convenience of console gaming in my opinion.

But what could be more convenient than a nice list with hundreds of games from all genres and decades I only have to double-click on, grab a gamepad or the mouse and start gaming? Consoles are an inconvenience for me, everything's slower, less flexible and more cumbersome. Stuff like the PS4's sleep mode could help a little but in practice I still get much more actual play time when sitting at my PC.

You'll have way more AAA exclusives on consoles that just aren't available on PC, whether they are 1st-party or 3rd-party.

This gen has fewer console exclusives than any gen before it, especially from 3rd parties. On the other hand there's one PC port after another filling the release lists. I bought a PS3 because I couldn't get many interesting games otherwise, that hasn't happened yet and I more and more doubt it will.

 

[Xyphie]

If you have money to spend the gap is absolutely massive.

Crossfire Fury X is ~17 TFLOPS. That's almost 10x PS4 performance.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Well, yeah, but it is disturbing to me that my four-year-old i3-2100+6850 is decently competitive with a PS4 and Xbox One. The last graphically intensive game that I played was Alien: Isolation, and I was able to nearly max it out.

However, games like The Witcher 3, Battlefield 4, MGSV, and GTAV have made me reevaluate my next purchase. If I get a new PC, it would only make sense to go all in and get a brand new machine, which would cost double the PS4, but... It might be worth it. I don't know.

I also only have a Wii U and I'm about to put together a new PC for the first time in... eight years? So I'm pumped. Don't forget that there are a handful of console "exclusives" (The Witness, No Man's Sky, Cuphead, Tomb Raider) that are still covered with a PC.

 

[Yautja_Warrior]

Performance on consoles has a long way to go to match PC and while visual's are generally better on PC, this console generation is closer when it comes to graphics.

When you see games like DriveClub and Uncharted 4, it shows how much graphics have come along on consoles and how talented some console developers are.

 

[Jay Sosa]

When was the last time you played a Ps3 game? The difference in graphics and performance is huge as well as the speed of the OS. But my gaming rig is also laps and bounds ahead of my consoles. The reason I built one was because of performance issues I've been seeing in New games and wanting to experience them at full throttle.

I jump between gens all the time. Just finished FFT: WOTL on my PS1 this summer.

 

[CertifiedFP]

 

[shiyrley]

BUT YOU CAN'T PLAY ON A COUCH WITH A GAMEPAD ON PC

*goes back to his 2001 cave*

Spoiler

Considering most games are 30 FPS on console and 60+ FPS on PC that's already a HUGE difference on its own. Add the major visual differences in most games and the leap is really huge

 

[copelandmaster]

Nowhere near big enough to ignore the convenience of console gaming in my opinion.

Playing on PC is more convenient than playing on my PS4.

• Booting into games is faster.
• I can control my graphics/IQ preferences.
• I can take my Steam library with me on my older Sager gaming laptop (which I am doing right now, halfway across the U.S. from my desktop).
• It doubles a sound system receiver for my PS4: I run my audio through optical into my ZXR equipped rig
• Most importantly, I can alt tab and use my full desktop while I'm sitting idle waiting for an online game. I don't even have hear anything, I know exactly when to switch back thanks to playing in borderless windowed + the Windows Aero transparency feature. If I was more enterprising, I could even use a second monitor, easily.

Consoles take forever to boot, and have capped SATA II interfaces for the HDD. They force updates just as much as PC: I can buy a game from steam without having to update the client/os. They have day one patches, and now have to install games to the HDD for play. Local same-machine multiplayer is now a rarity unless you're Nintendo. I grew up playing Halo 1/2/3 with friends in the same room, we wouldn't be able to do that with Halo 5 apparently (correct me if I missed clarification on this).

Consoles are now just like PCs, without any of the benefits, perks (like the OT of this thread), breadth of alternative control schemes, or workarounds.

Consoles don't win for convenience anymore.

 

[Swarna]

Why did we have to wait for graphics like Batman Arkham Knight's, which in my opinion is the most graphically impressive title that I've played across XBO, PS4, and 2500K/680, to come out on consoles before we were able to get that level of visuals (regardless that it's broken on PC)? This level of graphics really should have been on PC years ago, especially since they are using UE3, and the consoles are using HD7790/7850, where even a GTX 480 would have outdone either of those.

I think it's a bit hyperbolic to say that AK was a huge leap over AC. I'm playing through the Arkham series right now and I didn't get that impression. The differences can be summed up as better textures, rain, and LOD. And a shit load of post-processing like chromatic aberration and film grain which isn't something everyone agrees is good. Inferior AA as well. The rain on the cape was probably the biggest upgrade along with the city itself being bigger and more colourful. The batmobile, too. I think you might be underrating AC a bit here. Most of the upgrades are really just extras added on to the AC engine.

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

And the Steam controller and Steam link only make that argument stronger.

We know this. You know this, THEY know this, but that comfy couch is still so much better when playing games on a Sony console.

For... reasons.

I grab my ds4, press the playstation button, and thanks to hdmi-cec my receiver and tv turn on and set the correct inputs automatically without having to touch a remote. The pc cant do that without extra hardware like an ir blaster as someone suggested a few months ago.
And controller support still isnt universal for pc games. Neverwinter and The Elder Scrolls Online are two noteworthy titles that as of a few months ago didnt have controller support on pc. As far as the steam controller goes not everyone is a fan of the layout.
Simply put, the convenience of gaming on a console still outweighs the technical benefits
of gaming on pc.
Just because you and others want to dismiss console gamers reasons for gaming on consoles because you dont consider their reasons valid doesnt actually mean those reasons are invalid no matter how much you want them to be. Different gamers, different priorities.

 

[nynt9]

I grab my ds4, press the playstation button, and thanks to hdmi-cec my receiver and tv turn on and set the correct inputs automatically without having to touch a remote. The pc cant do that without extra hardware like an ir blaster as someone suggested a few months ago.
And controller support still isnt universal for pc games. Neverwinter and The Elder Scrolls Online are two noteworthy titles that as of a few months ago didnt have controller support on pc. As far as the steam controller goes not everyone is a fan of the layout.
Simply put, the convenience of gaming on a console still outweighs the technical benefits
of gaming on pc.
Just because you and others want to dismiss console gamers reasons for gaming on consoles because you dont consider their reasons valid doesnt actually mean those reasons are invalid no matter how much you want them to be. Different gamers, different priorities.

It's not simply put, because you referenced a couple games that are exceptions from the norm and one corner case feature that isn't relevant for anyone. Anyone can make mass generalizations and/or cherry pick a couple of points to "win" an argument, simply put.

 

[JudgmentJay]

I grab my ds4, press the playstation button, and thanks to hdmi-cec my receiver and tv turn on and set the correct inputs automatically without having to touch a remote. The pc cant do that without extra hardware like an ir blaster as someone suggested a few months ago.
And controller support still isnt universal for pc games. Neverwinter and The Elder Scrolls Online are two noteworthy titles that as of a few months ago didnt have controller support on pc. As far as the steam controller goes not everyone is a fan of the layout.
Simply put, the convenience of gaming on a console still outweighs the technical benefits
of gaming on pc.
Just because you and others want to dismiss console gamers reasons for gaming on consoles because you dont consider their reasons valid doesnt actually mean those reasons are invalid no matter how much you want them to be. Different gamers, different priorities.

I don't really understand the convenience argument. In the time it takes my PS4 to wake up from rest mode, I could be in-game on PC. Installs and patches are also significantly faster on PC. Finally, a universal remote does what your setup does with 1 button press as well. It just seems like an incredibly weak argument to me, sorry.

 

[copelandmaster]

I grab my ds4, press the playstation button, and thanks to hdmi-cec my receiver and tv turn on and set the correct inputs automatically without having to touch a remote. The pc cant do that without extra hardware like an ir blaster as someone suggested a few months ago.
And controller support still isnt universal for pc games. Neverwinter and The Elder Scrolls Online are two noteworthy titles that as of a few months ago didnt have controller support on pc. As far as the steam controller goes not everyone is a fan of the layout.
Simply put, the convenience of gaming on a console still outweighs the technical benefits
of gaming on pc.
Just because you and others want to dismiss console gamers reasons for gaming on consoles because you dont consider their reasons valid doesnt actually mean those reasons are invalid no matter how much you want them to be. Different gamers, different priorities.

So buy the IR blaster when you spec the PC. No PC hardware is extra, there is no standard config.
There are a multitude of workarounds that can cover older games. Configure them once, then forget.
No, because the PC is capable of having both technical superiority and a higher convince factor.
Go ahead and game on console. It's up to you if you willfully ignore that the PC is capable of having the same or even higher convenience factors than your console in those same prerequisites/priorities.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

That's a pretty funny gif, but it's also like the exact goddamn opposite of what actually happens in PC threads on GAF.

Depends on which post you want to cherry-pick. I saw a bit both in this thread so far (as always, really). Like this:

Console wars always come into play when someone is upset that a competition can do things better. People gotta justify their purchases I guess.

Also:

Other than those two reasons, a multiplatform game is better on PC 9/10.

Guess Batman AK is the 1 out of 10?

I don't really disagree, btw. I play games on my PC too and bought a PS4 for Bloodborne. But my PC is aging and struggles with current-gen games, and I don't feel like investing another couple of hundreds to bring it back to speed, so multiplats are gonna be on the PS4 I already bought for now unless I'm really confident that my PC will run a PS4 game better than the PS4. So yes, there can be many reasons to choose console gaming despite having a moderately decent PC, and it's not about "justifying my purchase".

I also don't get the belittling of the "couch" argument. Yes, you can play PC games on a big TV and a couch. No one said that it was impossible to do so, as far as I know. But it's not always convenient or practical to do so, depending on how your home is set up.

 

[lmimmfn]

Ill admit, im a gfx whore, I cant play games @ native 3440x1440 on a curved screen on console. Ok not all games support 21:9 but most that dont have mods/fixes. For me thats a huge difference in terms of immersion in games. Couple it with a G25( that works on PC since it was released and dont have to worry about it being unsupported any time soon ) and a Saitek X52 Pro, i can just game better on PC in general.

Openness on PC means you can have the very best but of course it can cost a lot if you're on the bleading edge in terms of hardware required to drive a 4k screen, but thats a choice and it is nice to have the option.

 

[Swarna]

Guess Batman AK is the 1 out of 10?

Not to nitpick but AK is better on PC (now).

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

It's not simply put, because you referenced a couple games that are exceptions from the norm and one corner case feature that isn't relevant for anyone. Anyone can make mass generalizations and/or cherry pick a couple of points to "win" an argument, simply put.

I should have wrote "Simply put, for alot of gamers, the convenience of gaming on a console still outweighs the technical benefits of gaming on pc. I wasnt speaking for all gamers obviously.
And I wasnt trying to "win an argument" - simply pointing out that different people have different reasons for picking the platform they choose to play on. Whether those reasons are valid to you or anyone else is irrelevant, their validity is only important to the people using them to make their choice of platforms.

 

[King Gilga]

I mean PC is undeniably better than consoles.

But handhelds are also undeniably better than phones.

Doesn't mean I wouldn't rather play something on my phone 9/10 times. I haven't even touched my 3ds or vita in months.

Something might be better, but the convenience factor is what matters most.

Convenience > all for most people.

There's a reason why Console gaming, mobile gaming, and facebook gaming are more mainstream.

 

[K.Jack]

1080p + 60fps everywhere. It's hard to go back. Nigh impossible, for me personally.

 

[AU Tiger]

To me, it's not really so much a visual difference but a feel in gameplay difference when @ 60fps.

The console titles that manage to run at 60 fps feel superb and for me, practically every genre feels and plays better to me at the higher frame rate. Even slower paced games like TLOU. Switching from 30 to 60 feels much better.

Whether you should buy a new console, OP, I would say is up to whether or not you really want to play console exclusives for either of the new machines.

I grabbed a PS4 becusae I love uncharted, god of war, TLOU and am a big souls fan so I had to get bloodborne.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Not to nitpick but AK is better on PC (now).

Sure, but it took a while and the whole thing was kind of a disaster. Can't blame people for going with convenience and fewer headaches in cases like this.

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

So buy the IR blaster when you spec the PC. No PC hardware is extra, there is no standard config.
There are a multitude of workarounds that can cover older games. Configure them once, then forget.
No, because the PC is capable of having both technical superiority and a higher convince factor.
Go ahead and game on console. It's up to you if you willfully ignore that the PC is capable of having the same or even higher convenience factors than your console in those same prerequisites/priorities.

The point is that with the ps4 I dont have to buy a ir blaster or universal remote to get this feature. As long you have a modern tv or surround receiver it just works after you enable the setting.
You're making my point for me. I dont have to configure games on the ps4 for gamepad support or for any other reason. Ever.
And they already run and look good enough for me not to bother with the pc version.
This is why the pc still doesnt have the same convenience as consoles for me. The technical benefits on pc simply dont outweigh the consoles convenience for me.
Btw built a pc with an i5-4690 and gtx780. I gamed on it for a month before going back to the ps4. The convenience simply isnt there in my opinion. Could not be happier.

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

I don't really understand the convenience argument. In the time it takes my PS4 to wake up from rest mode, I could be in-game on PC. Installs and patches are also significantly faster on PC. Finally, a universal remote does what your setup does with 1 button press as well. It just seems like an incredibly weak argument to me, sorry.

My ps4 downloads and installs updates and games while in rest mode. It also turns on the receiver and tv with no need for a universal remote.

 

[etta]

I think it's a bit hyperbolic to say that AK was a huge leap over AC. I'm playing through the Arkham series right now and I didn't get that impression. The differences can be summed up as better textures, rain, and LOD. And a shit load of post-processing like chromatic aberration and film grain which isn't something everyone agrees is good. Inferior AA as well. The rain on the cape was probably the biggest upgrade along with the city itself being bigger and more colourful. The batmobile, too. I think you might be underrating AC a bit here. Most of the upgrades are really just extras added on to the AC engine.

Well, first, you are using jpg shots for BAK, which add compression. The biggest improvement in BAK was the post-processing and all the little details, but there's also significant improvement in lighting, textures, particles/alpha particles...etc. I thought Rocksteady did an incredible job in that department, and I would easily compare them with Rockstar and GTA V. BAK is the closest thing that comes to the Samaritan demo, and it even exceeds it in certain parts, though not overall.

And yes, I still think BAK is a very large improvement over BAC, and a significant improvement in visuals in general. XBO because of png.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

 

[JudgmentJay]

My ps4 downloads and installs updates and games while in rest mode. It also turns on the receiver and tv with no need for a universal remote.

And Steam does the same.

As for the HDMI-CEC functionality, that's cool I guess? I have a universal remote, so it's moot for me. Installs and game boot times are still far slower on console though, which makes all that time you saved (1-2 seconds) go to waste!

 

[Timu]

http://i.imgur.com/7rw1Qwb.gifv

Lol, I never saw this before.

 

[pislit]

Depends on the set up, and depends on your settings, or mods installed, or tweaks, and tolerance from either wonky performance or jaggy visuals. You can choose what you are willing to compromise. Or just buy your way up, and then choose again between more fps or IQ. Really depends on your preference.

The real difference really comes down to one: options.

 

[etta]

http://i.imgur.com/7rw1Qwb.gifv

Hilarious gif. Doesn't really work in this situation, though.

 

[Weltall Zero]

IMHO when you get a console it's for the exclusives, not for better performance. If performance is a dealbreaker for you, you probably have a gaming PC already, and games will always (with some infamous exceptions, like Arkham Knight) perform better on it, especially going forward as you upgrade it.

I got my WiiU for Smash, and my PS4 for Bloodborne, and both have already paid for themselves with these and other exclusives (I already have ten Wii U games). The Wii U is the obvious choice as you're never going to see any of those Nintendo exclusives anywhere else, but if specific games are important to you, go for what you want.

 

[Dennis]

Sharp helmet, would not play.

 

[ShadowkillXNA]

And Steam does the same.

As for the HDMI-CEC functionality, that's cool I guess? I have a universal remote, so it's moot for me. Installs and game boot times are still far slower on console though, which makes all that time you saved (1-2 seconds) go to waste!

You realize that you stated the bolded in the post responded to right ? I wasnt saying that steam doesnt do that, simply that updates and installs on the ps4 work in rest mode.
And installs arent slow from disk on ps4 thanks to playgo - the game installs while you play. No issue with download speed on my ps4 either.

 

[Tenebrous]

Lol at the "small difference" crowd.

The same crowd that goes crazy about 900p vs 1080p, by the way.

High-end pc can give absurd performance and quality advantages.

Some games on consoles struggle to maintain 30fps at 1080p while they can run at 4k60fps (or near that) with ease on pc (see Alien).

And then there's options. Tons of options.

3D, VR, gsync/freesync, high refresh rates, 21:9, multi-screen setups, crazy peripherals, etc.

Durante had a great visual aid in the GTAV thread a while back...

I've created a visual aid.

 

[Swarna]

Well, first, you are using jpg shots for BAK, which add compression.

Derp I guess imgur doesn't like bmp uploads.

I never said it wasn't an amazing looking game. It clearly is. Probably my favourite-looking game, too, out of everything I've played so far. I just think AC already looked pretty good already and that I don't feel like it was as big of an upgrade as you think it was (going on about how long it took for games to look at good as AK). It was more incremental for me, if that makes sense. Here's one last pic, anyways, as .png since we're a lil off-topic now. The LOD is ass, though, I'll give you that.

 

[curiouscharles]

this is just...

this is just too good.

 

[etta]

Derp I guess imgur doesn't like bmp uploads.

I never said it wasn't an amazing looking game. It clearly is. Probably my favourite-looking game, too, out of everything I've played so far. I just think AC already looked pretty good already and that I don't feel like it was as big of an upgrade as you think it was (going on about how long it took for games to look at good as AK). It was more incremental for me, if that makes sense. Here's one last pic, anyways, as .png since we're a lil off-topic now. The LOD is ass, though, I'll give you that.

Yea, I understand, but I can't agree. I liked how it looked back when it came out, but now it looks like trash in comparison. Simplistic lighting, ugly textures and low polygon matters, but most of all, it looks really basic and flat (because of all that post processing I got used to in AK).

 

[TheAdmiester]

Semi-related, another positive for PC is the infinite backwards compatibility. I'm sure that if you set things up right you could run early DOS software/games from 1981. And if you get nostalgic for older consoles, you can emulate just about anything up to the PS2 on a decent machine.

Fancy that eh? Playing console games at 4K/60/whatever?

 

[Corpekata]

The amount of PES fans sure seems to have increased given some of the posts in this thread.

If you need a few more examples to pretend like you care about, there's also Koei Tecmo games, might help you round out your topical examples.

 

[JudgmentJay]

You realize that you stated the bolded in the post responded to right ? I wasnt saying that steam doesnt do that, simply that updates and installs on the ps4 work in rest mode.
And installs arent slow from disk on ps4 thanks to playgo - the game installs while you play. No issue with download speed on my ps4 either.

And what about game boot times? For fun I just compared Dark Souls II SotFS load times on PC vs PS4. On PC+monitor it took me 26 seconds to get in-game. PC+home theater was 40 seconds. PS4 was 66 seconds. That seems more inconvenient than having to press additional buttons to get your home theater turned on.

Don't misunderstand my posts, there's no brand loyalty or fanboyism here. I play video games on whatever platform is best (for image quality/framerate) which means I have a powerful PC for multiplats and consoles for exclusives. I'm just baffled by your willful choice to play an objectively inferior product for the sake of some extremely insignificant "convenience." I can understand choosing a console over PC if you can only afford/only want one machine, but since you said you own a gaming PC, I really fail to see the logic.

 

[VibratingDonkey]

PC has a bow on its head.

 

[Walpurgis]

It's not like Star Citizen is a thing, right?

I thought about it but I didn't write it because I thought they were making a console version like Elite: Dangerous. If they aren't making a console version then that is exactly the kind of game that I am talking about. It would be nice if a game like that didn't require an insane Kickstarter to exist and if publishers could invest that kind of money on other PC games.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I thought about it but I didn't write it because I thought they were making a console version like Elite: Dangerous. If they aren't making a console version then that is exactly the kind of game that I am talking about. It would be nice if a game like that didn't require an insane Kickstarter to exist and if publishers could invest that kind of money on other PC games.

Well, the reason there aren't many games like that is that they're simply too expensive to make and not profitable enough. Most AAA games get the most sales from the console versions, after all, and we all know how expensive AAA gaming production is. It's no wonder that developers and publishers are reluctant to invest in making an expensive product that few people will buy.

There was a thread about this exact phenomenon with regards to Witcher 3 not too long ago, how its projected console sales paved the way for the game to even exist in its final state, I don't have the link right now though, but yeah it makes financial sense.

 

[nynt9]

I thought about it but I didn't write it because I thought they were making a console version like Elite: Dangerous. If they aren't making a console version then that is exactly the kind of game that I am talking about. It would be nice if a game like that didn't require an insane Kickstarter to exist and if publishers could invest that kind of money on other PC games.

The developers have repeatedly stated that they do not want to bring the game to consoles and their vision cannot be brought to consoles even if they wanted to, not just because of graphics but also due to the sheer scope of the game.

 

[ghibli99]

As many have mentioned, it depends on the power of the PC and the optimization of the game. In most cases, the PC version will be superior. Don't forget to weigh the importance of exclusives, though. I could never just stick with PC... there's just too much good stuff on the current consoles... and really, that's true for any generation. Also, if you level the playing field a bit and compare a $300-400 PC to current consoles, the gap narrows considerably.

 

[Dr. Kaos]

Depends on the PC.

On PC, your money is the limit.

PC will always be the place to go for higher frame rates, but if you're aiming for a lower spec system I don't think you'll miss too much sticking to consoles for multi-plats for now

I would say that, as of today, if you're spending in the $800-$1000 range, you're getting a significant benefit on the graphics quality/performance front.

However, if that sounds like way too much money, and you don't care about the other benefits of PC gaming, I'd probably suggest a console instead.

Not much to add, other than to say that when you have a 4K TV, then gaming on PC will look infinitely more compelling.

 

[Crossing Eden]

http://i.imgur.com/7rw1Qwb.gifv

That gif is fucking hilarious, I need to see that episode immediately, but no that's not what happened in this thread.

 

[Walpurgis]

Well, the reason there aren't many games like that is that they're simply too expensive to make and not profitable enough. Most AAA games get the most sales from the console versions, after all, and we all know how expensive AAA gaming production is. It's no wonder that developers and publishers are reluctant to invest in making an expensive product that few people will buy.

There was a thread about this exact phenomenon with regards to Witcher 3 not too long ago, how its projected console sales paved the way for the game to even exist in its final state, I don't have the link right now though, but yeah it makes financial sense.

I remember that Witcher 3 article. I get it. I just think that if they play their cards right, they could get a good amount of sales from PC and without a marketing campaign to boot (since PC gamers somehow know everything). I've heard that The Last of Us cost $20 million to develop. I think at least a game like that should exist on PC.

The developers have repeatedly stated that they do not want to bring the game to consoles and their vision cannot be brought to consoles even if they wanted to, not just because of graphics but also due to the sheer scope of the game.

Good.

http://i.imgur.com/7rw1Qwb.gifv

LMAO

 

[HTupolev]

I grew up playing Halo 1/2/3 with friends in the same room, we wouldn't be able to do that with Halo 5 apparently (correct me if I missed clarification on this).

It's entirely possible to play Halo 5 with friends in the same room.

Spoiler

You just have to use two XB1's and displays, or kludge together some manner of picture-in-picture solution.

 

[nynt9]

Not much to add, other than to say that when you have a 4K TV, then gaming on PC will look infinitely more compelling.

You don't have to go 4K, 1440p is enough. Even with 1080p, 60fps would be enough for many.