What is Digg?56 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+40Thankyou for mentioning the granddaddy of the little consoles running around, the PC is probably 3 to 5 years ahead of the consoles
- Tezkah, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17this site makes the PC portion of E3 seem as lame as Sony's. Uhh... PCs "awesome showing" is... a superman branded laptop... a "new" headset... and a fancy monitor? oh wait! I forgot the "awesome wheel".
I can kinda see why the media is concentrating on Nintendo. - Lynx34, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Not to mention the surprise hit of the show, Spore.
- LycoLoco, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Cheap PCs my ass. Have you seen the price of the PS3?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9carpespasm: The interview with Will Wright posted on digg yesterday said Spore would be ported to the consoles as well. It's not a killer app for the PC, it's a killer game for all the entire electronic entertainment industry.
- WATYF, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@elnerdo and Zero82z
Where on earth do you buy your parts? The government? ...."at least" $1000 for "drives, a power supply, and a case"???? Are you on crack??
The reason the PS3 price is ridiculous is because you very well *could* build a PC for about that much that could perform as good or better. You act as if the PS3 comes anywhere near Quad SLI and an FX-60... it doesn't... therefore, you wouldn't need to build a PC with those components in order to outperform it. The PS3 only has... what...? 256MB of system memory? And a 60GB (at most) drive... when was the last time you saw a PC with that little memory/disk space? Building a comparable PC would be dirt cheap. And if you know the least bit about overclocking you can even do better. Grab an X2 3800+ or a D805 and OC the hell out of it and get a 7900GT (or similar) and do the same...
As for an exact comparison, well the PS3 uses RISC processors and a lot of specific GPUs and what not, so I don't know that you could (or would want to) build an *identical* machine for a "PC", nor do I know how much that would cost... but in terms of strict performance, you can do as good or better for the same or less.
WATYF - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11spore is already so popular that it's buzz trancends what platform it's on. it will be on PC though, so the PC's killer app for the next year is better than Yet Another FPS. :)
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Mr. Miller doesn't look retarded to me.
- Klever, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Console fanboys pounding their chests, you make me laugh.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Mrs. Miller, I would like to apologize to you for pork197's comments.
- Dari, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Spore was the surprise hit of the GDC, and it was even hotter at E3. Damn, that game will be good.
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13If you tried to build a computer with the PS3's specs, it would cost you over 2000 dollars.
- reedreeder, on 10/12/2007, -9/+13Five years might be a stretch. PC games still don't look like metal gear solid 4, let along three to five years ago (when max payne and serious sam won game of the year awards). I will admit, however, that the PC is leading the market. I mean, consoles are nothing more than cheap PC's.
- chickenselects, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4any displays of conroe or sweet water cooled pcs? Any new cases or quad SLI at the showing?
- Lane5slacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Yeah, the article kinda sucked. I dugg it for the fact that someone finally mentioned the PC in all the E3 commotion
- nuvem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Like what, bland platformers, sports games, and RPGs?
- Jovan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I like this argument you're having over PC vs Console, let's go over some basic factoids:
Manufacturers of hardware:
PC - More than I can count.
Console - The company that made the console.
Intended for:
PC - Gaming, Programming(this is huge, it also includes making games for Consoles).
Console - Gaming.
(Now, for the zealots who are going to jump in "But what about running a linux server on your xbox!111" - It's not official, its something that a third-party found out and therefore not directly supported).
The bottom line is this: A PC is much different than a console. It is far more powerful and the range of hardware that is produced for is much greater. Anyone who has common sense knows that computer hardware is made to be replaced and added (SLI, more RAM, extra processors), which contributes to the costs and the fact that the whole bloody thing has to be modular.
Second: Processors. You cannot compare Sony's Cell Chip to Intel ones, why? Because they are nowhere the same. It would be like comparing cats and dogs.
As someone stated in 3 years computers will be better and cheaper because they are upgraded quickly. I agree with this statement, however this is a very important reason as to why a PC will always win over a Console. The fact that everything can be replaced and upgraded is just gorgeous.
But anyway I'll get back to what I was stating earlier: When nVidia or ATI go to create a new card, they have to think about all the different hadware that the card has to be compatible with. This in turn is one of the things that accentuates the costs. For consoles, and using Sony as an example, they know exactly what they are going to use they know exactly how they are going to build it.
Oh, and did I mention that PCs serve far greater purpose than Consoles meant for gaming? Guess not.
Anyway here's a very basic lesson in history for anyone who doesn't know or has forgotten: Nintendo Entertainment System.
I am sure anyone who is even vaguely interested in game development or simply the figures that work on games knows John Carmack. Before he made Doom, there was NES. Before he made Dangerous Dave in Copyright Infrigiment, there was NES. One night he decided to go all out and create a game he called "Dangerous Dave in Copyright Infrigiment", which was one of his characters, Dangerous Dave, in a look-a-like Mario level for the NES. The key was smooth horizontal parallax scrolling. On the NES, this was no problem, infact the goal WAS to get something as smooth-scrolling on the computer as it is on the NES.
Where are we now? It's been more than a decade and computers are way ahead Why? Hardware. Such hardware does cost, and such hardware is made. Another problem is optimization. Computers aren't optimized for gaming, thats exactly why back in the day John Carmack had to create his own algorithm for smooth scrolling. Xbox, PS3, Wii, etc are exactly meant for gaming, therefore they are optimized and all of their hardware is BUILT for gaming.
Alright ***** it, I am done. I typed out a lot of useless crap that fanboys won't read and mod down at sight. Later. - scott1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3PC>All conoles
I think someday that buying and upgradeing pc's would be chaper then consoles. Just look at the price of the PS3 - scott1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"Did anyone notice how retarded the guy who wrote the article looks?"
No he doesn't but I know how retarted the person that wrote the comment I'am replying to is. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Long dead? That must make me a necrophiliac. I have a crazy amount of fun screwing around with PC games. Not only have the games I played in recent years been far better than the console versions, they were cheaper as well. PCs may not be as popular as consoles for gaming, but they're hardly dead.
- BogogF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The reason consoles are so much faster graphically is because the developers optimise the game for the specific hardware, whereas PC developers have to try and optimise for a multitude of varying and differing hardware. Now if John Carmack said he was making "DoomQuakeX" or whatever and decided to optimise for an AMD 4000+ nvidia 7800, specific ram, soundcard etc the consoles would be left in the dust. But then the game would sell maybe 5 copies to the random people who have that exact specification.
- frem001, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5it would be great if RTS games could be developed for consoles since you can use a keyboard and mouse with both the PS3 and 360. They're also intended for Hi res displays so that solves the previous problem of standard def resolution. Consoles seem like a better deal as a gaming machine, sure you will get better performance on a gaming pc, but not everyone is looking for that. Just get a PC or Mac for work and use a console for gaming. Flame away
Oh and spore was not a surprise hit, that game is hot. - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wow who cares? I'm a PC guy. I don't have a console, I might buy a Wii. Used to have a NES. Broke my xbox adding a mod chip to run linux, never bothered replacing it. Owned a PSP for 2 days, returned it to buy a few PC games.
I just like PC's better. I don't like consoles as much. Many people like consoles more. Who cares?
BTW: I like dogs more than cats, and winter more than summer. The neat thing about being human and haveing free-thought is that we can like different things. Who cares if you like a console more than a PC or a PC more than a console? Certainly not me. You will NEVER EVER convince me one is better than the other or that that are equal. It's a stupid argument.
Please take your small penis envy and contribute more useful posts. - dude3609, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2yea theres other games at e3 like dark and light( http://darkandlight.net/ ) .....
so many things, but everybody seems to be REAL focused on the consoles at this e3. kinda determines the fate of the whole industry so i can see why, but e3 shouldnt 'just' be about the consoles or extremely popular games like mgs4 or gears of war. - matt0817, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2all consoles suck at doing rts games... starcraft 64 anyone?
- megabytehl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Reported for utter lameness. Nice attempt for a newbie, but with the major gaming media outlets doing hands-on indepth coverage a quick 30 second write up is absolutely useless. Not to mention the tagline "PC had an awesome showing" is terribly misleading. They didn't even show off supreme commander.
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Their site sort of sucks"
That's not a good sign... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1thanks for that. one look at the article and i felt dread that it would be long winded and i wouldnt get to the point until page 3 of 5
- elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Actually, the PS3 would be very well suited for an RTS game. RTS's require lots of processor power to keep track of the many, many units. The PS3's processor could allow for amazingly grand RTS's.
- phatpat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Did anyone read the article? Not really worthy of diggs.
- kolop1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6umm..No, It is not 3-5 years ahead. Right now it's actually rather close. The PC will be better 3 years from now because it can be upgraded and the console can not.
- MasterFunk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The article seems to scream, "Hey! Don't forget about us! We did a good job too."
- Cerberus047, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1you find more pc stuff at ces right?
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2No it didn't. It was as console-centric as usual. PCs are relegated to mouse and keyboard FPSes and MMORPGs, at least unless Blizzard comes out with a new *craft game. And there's little sign of that, heck, Starcraft: Ghost fell off the radar this year after years of being shown with no ship date.
I was there. Yeah, Spore. Wow. I doubt it'll go far personally. Wil Wright has tried evolution games before. Ever play Sim Earth? It was awful. And besides, consoles are powerful enough and big enough sellers that any successful game is ported to them, except MMORPGs.
And anyone who thinks of E3 as a console show is a n00b. Before 2002 or so, there was the "console hall" and the "PC hall". Only with the release of the PS2 did consoles get bigger than the PC and basically eliminate the "PC hall", scattering PC-oriented companies between the halls.
The Logitech wheel was cool. It also costs $300. That's more than an entire Wii.
E3 concentrates on the consoles because that's where the money is. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news there. It's not a conspiracy, just many companies trying to make money and all of them knowing that most games will sell 10X as well on a console as on the PC platform. - jsp317, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2PC vrs console. well that's a tough one. ill give the PC an edge because you can upgrade. consoles the only way to upgrade is to buy a new one. if you want to play the new games you got to buy a new one. i offered my son a xbox 360 for Christmas he told me he didn't want one. he loves halo. he beat halo 1 in 2 days. he beat halo 2 in one night. he still plays them all the time. now that halo 3 is on its way. guess what? i got to buy a 360 for him. it want play on the xbox. that sucks. you know what it will play on? yep you got it PC. now don't expect your old PC to play it either.when i say old you know what i mean. i work on computers for a living. people bring in old ass PCs and ask me can you upgrade it. ill ask them what do they want it to do. play games or just check email and browse. most of them tell me i just bought a game for my child my PC want play it. did you look to see if your PC meets the specs? whats that they ask. that's where consoles have there place. they know i just bought him or her a xbox360. wall mart makes it easy to find games for them. now for true gamers that know what there doing PCs kick consoles butt. my kids would rather play on my PC any day.why? because it is a kick ass system makes the xbox 360 look bad real bad. bad thing is my PC ain't all that. its got a 3500+64bit amd two gigs of ram asus a8n-sli motherboard Nevada 6800 graphics card 2 300 gig hard drives. ill tell you one thing damn this thing is fast. i love my PC. i know the 6800 graphics card ain't the best but guess what i can plug in a better one soon for allot less than the ps3. hell i could buy 2 for less. the PC will always win in the game war for one reason we stay on top of whats new and better.
- TrainwreckX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1CAN SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE THE PC GAME FURY SOME PRESS?
I played Fury @ E3 and was simply blown away by how much fun the small Australian developer made the Unreal 3 MMOPVP game. http://www.unleashthefury.com
Their site sort of sucks, but don't be fooled, this was my pick for PC game of E3. - einsfahrt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The way I understand it, you can only use a keyboard on the 360 for text input and not controlling any action. I have not heard as to whether you can use a k/b or mouse on the PS3.
- MikeCampo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't forget that the Blu-ray drive boosts up the cost.
- nuvem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The wiimote would make a pretty good mouse substitute.
- Llanowar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Keyboard & Mouse > Controller
Plus, in the current age of gaming it gets more and more important to be able to mod games. Still something for PC's alone. - nuvem, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Seriously though, historically, the closest the consoles come is their release, and it only takes about 8 months for an equivalent (features wise, SLI puts PCs far ahead in raw power) card to hit the market.
No, you don't usually see MGS4 like graphics on the PC, and the reason is pretty simple:
Not enough people have the hardware required. Games need to sell quite a few copies to break even, let alone turn a profit (especially with the mega-budgets required for next-gen art), so unless you've got a name that resounds with hardcore looking-for-an-excuse-to-upgrade gamers (ie. Half-Life), there's no way you would make back your investment.
So even though it's completely possible to create a game that needs a dual core cpu and quad-sli, with graphics so good you'd think it was another lame attempt by Sony to pass off CG as in-game, you'd have to charge thousands per copy to break even.
Not that any of that means anything because... that's right Billy... you can own a PC, AND a console! Imagine that! - SanityInAnarchy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0No such thing as "strict performance".
And when was the last time you saw a 300 mhz PC that performed anywhere near as well as the PS2?
Nvidia has gone so far as to say that they hate working with the x86 architecture, and wish the entire game would run on their cards. Obviously something's wrong when you need a separate physics card on a dual core computer.
I will be sticking to PCs, because a console also happens to be a Trusted Computer, meaning it doesn't trust me to tinker with it. That, and I'd rather not support Sony or Microsoft, and the Wii looks positively un-tinkerable compared to either of those platforms.
However, if I could be convinced that the platform would be open enough, I'd buy a PS3 in a heartbeat. (Well, not really, I don't have the money, but I spent way more than that on my desktop.) All I'd need would be standard Ethernet, the ability to upgrade with stock hard drives (IDE or SATA), and a fully open Linux (with support for all the hardware), and I'd pretty much replace my desktop. I'd wager that thing can emulate an x86 chip faster than most desktops run them.
I can't honestly think of anything my desktop does better, other than run PC games, and if the same games were ported to the PS3, I'd imagine they'd run better.
But, I'm not convinced of that. Sony distributes rootkits. So, sad as it is, I will probably never buy a PS3.
That, and PC games are written with the assumption that you're running an OS, so there may be other applications open -- console games are written to assume they're entirely in control, so I doubt I could alt-tab from game to email to game to web to game to game. - BogogF, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yeah the article was rather short and detailess, why was it on the front page ?
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Weak article.
Headsets and Superman notebooks do not a center stage make. - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2All I read was the last line of your comment. And then I modded you down....
- Zero82z, on 10/12/2007, -9/+8it would cost you $2000 just for the Quad-SLI video cards. Assuming you're going as high as possible, it would cost ~$1000 for an FX-60, ~$500 for 4GB of the fastest RAM money can buy, $300 for the best mobo, $350 for the best soundcard, and $250 for a PhysX PPU. That's not even counting stuff like drives, a power supply, and a case, which would run at least another $1000. When you put things in perspective, consoles aren't at all behind PCs.
Now, that's not saying that consoles are better than PCs. Consoles are specifically designed to play games, which is why they perform so well. PCs, on the other hand, are designed to be used for anything that can be thought of, and therefore the tasks that are optimised for have to be carefully chosen, as does the extent to which they are optimized for. A good balance needs to be stricken between performance doing different types of tasks. This is why it costs so much more for a PC to be able to handle graphics as advanced as those of the Xbox360 or PS3. - BogogF, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Usefull posts ? You're expressing an opinion, I believe you fit into the penally challenged category.
- deepsub, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"the PC is probably 3 to 5 years ahead of the consoles"
Yet PC gaming market share continues to drop. If Windows PC's were gaming's future, Microsoft wouldn't have made Xbox. - SanityInAnarchy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I did read it, and it was useless crap. You're positively schizophrenic. Like here, for instance:
"computers are way ahead"
"Computers aren't optimized for gaming"
Oh, and for the record, somebody had to come up with a smooth scrolling algorithm for the NES also. I don't know whether it was in hardware or software. But I think what you're looking for is the brute force factor.
My computer wasn't made to play high-def movies, it doesn't have a hardware h.264 decoder, and I'm not using the hardware scaling. And yet, my CPU alone is fast enough to decode and scale HD movies to my 1600x1200 monitor.
However, new consoles beat computers for brute force, even just looking at mhz, because they are a loss leader. And, the advantage of better hardware is making the demands on plain old x86 hardware exponentially higher to compare with, say, the Cell. You're not going to see it all the time -- obviously, an HD-DVD player won't be able to even run Firefox, while my computer can do that, play an HD movie, play a game... But looking at these architectures, yes, some of them are specifically optimized towards gaming -- the Wii, for instance, would probably suck for anything else -- but the Cell looks like it's simply lots of types of processors, and gaming is only the easiest way to demonstrate its strengths.
Still, one disclaimer -- it's almost 4 AM, and most of the above is probably educated guesses. - SanityInAnarchy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Being able to upgrade doesn't mean you can bring it up to the latest and greatest.
Let's see... You didn't say what kind of RAM you had. That means you're probably going to be bitten in the ass very soon by the need to replace your motherboard and RAM, because otherwise your CPU will be sitting idle most of the time waiting for the RAM. And no, 100% on the CPU meter doesn't mean it's actually doing anything but waiting for RAM.
You've got a 3500+ amd64. Great, is it dual-core? If not, you'll also be buying a new CPU and/or a new physics card in order to keep up with the kind of physics that are easily possible on the 360 or the PS3.
You see, you'll see a smoother increase in power. For awhile, you'll even be ahead of the consoles, the way I was before the 360 came out. But upgrading all the time, chances are, you'll have bought 2 or 3 whole new computers, for far more than the cost of a PS3, by the time the PS4 comes out. Same with xbox 360 vs... whatever the ***** they want to call the next one.
You've got an SLI mobo, great. Does it have room for quad-SLI, or just two video cards? From what you're saying, you've only got one "Nevada" card (it's Nvidia, right there on the damn box)... did you know that for SLI to work, you've got to have the exact same card in each of them? And if your 6800 doesn't support SLI, it won't work at all. But the ones that do support SLI cost quite a bit more.
Getting a motherboard that supports all of your "upgrades" can cost you as much as my damn computer.
Xbox 360 vs your PC... hmm. Are you playing comparable games? And if so, do you actually have an HDTV? It amazes me that most consoles looked comparable to PC games when I was playing at 1024x768, minimum, while consoles were stuck at a TV's 640x480. Well, now that limitation's gone -- a true HDTV has higher net resolution than my 1600x1200 monitor, and it's widescreen.
Halo 3 on the PC -- yeah, right. Remember what happened to Halo on the PC? No way we're seeing PC Halo 3 within 2-3 years of 360 Halo 3.
No, consoles are here because they're cheaper. They're a loss leader. They're easier to develop for -- one platform, guarenteed to be the same, vs. the PC can be any user's random crap hardware, plus whatever bloatware is on their system, and you've got to support about 5 different versions of Winblows.... Console game runs right there on the bare metal.
The reason PCs will be here for at least awhile longer is that everyone needs a computer anyway, and none of the console manufacturers have really given us a sane way to hook up a keyboard and a mouse to the thing, and use it for web and email. It also happens to be the only platform at the moment which supports wholly free games, mods, and so on, or running a game entirely from the hard disk -- which loads faster. You can buy games online and download them, never have to go to the store. PC games tend not to be as dumbed down as console games -- you can actually set up your own Counter-Strike server, leave it on all the time, connect to it at a specific IP address. You can do more with a PC.
But, if all you want to do is go buy a game and play it, and have it look as good as possible, unless you already have a gaming PC (or something close), you're better off buying a console. -
Show 51 - 56 of 56 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is