What is Digg?234 Comments
- rderveloy, on 10/10/2007, -13/+54Let me be the first to say, "Good!" I dugg this story because it makes me happy. Something needs to slow down the steady and rapid increase in hardware requirements for newer games. Not everyone can spend $2000+ every two or three years so they can play some of the more recent games. Yes, graphics are nice, but gameplay is what matters the most. Need proof? All you have to do is look at the success of Nintendo's Wii console.
- footbag01, on 10/10/2007, -5/+45All consoles are guilty of this... But only hardcore gamers are willing to spend $2000 on a gaming system. And there are not enough of these gamers to support a console that expensive.
- Mercenary4Ever, on 10/10/2007, -4/+33PC gaming is not dead. There are over 9 million World of Warcraft users alone. Thats more people playing World of Warcraft than people who own PlayStation 3's.
- zubi, on 10/10/2007, -10/+34good.. Im sick of trying to keep up with the graphics cards.. Its time for a rest.
- agrabob, on 10/10/2007, -4/+26This comes in the week after Epic takes lots of flak(and sued) for failing to provide a solid, multi-threaded version of the Unreal engine for consoles. Seems odd.
- Antialias, on 10/10/2007, -4/+25Who says you need to spend $2000. For less than $1000 you can build a PC with graphics as good or better than 360/PS3. Assuming you have some stuff already of course, screen, mouse keyboard, etc.
- butbutz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18Here is the actual interview with mark rein: http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=169200
the linked article is some useless blog ***** - skjede, on 10/10/2007, -6/+21It isn't that expensive to buy a great directX10 card. You can pick up an 8800 GTS for around $250 and even cheaper soon. Console games and PC games are two very different entities with equally different audiences. I love both, but when I want a polished gaming experience I head to my PC.
- ScornForSega, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17Pfft. *****.
People have been saying that PC gaming is dying for years now then something like WoW or Battlefield 2 causes people to take another look at it.
The consoles have always been a "me too" platform lagging behind the PC. Online gaming, the RPG, the FPS, gaming in resolutions higher than 480i... where did they start?
Innovation will continue to begin on the PC then trickle down to the consoles. It's an inherent quality of making a game that's running on truly modular hardware instead of working inside the confines of a predetermined system. - freehunter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Seriously, it's not as black and white as "gameplay versus graphics". Sometimes you can have both, neither, or only one, and still have a best seller. Not everything on the Wii is gold, it sells because it is new ans easy to use. I have one and love it, but realize, lots of other games have just as good gameplay as the Wii titles have. There are plenty of titles on the PC that don't require high-end hardware and are just as fun as can be, but some people like amazing visuals and are willing to pay. Doesn't mean you have to, but don't knock the gameplay value of Oblivion, Half Life, Flatout 2, and countless other PC games with great graphics that don't skimp on gameplay fun.
- totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18A while back, Rein blamed Intel's GMA chipset for holding back gaming. Maybe he just needs to realize that
1) The vast majority of PC buyers, esp. notebook buyers, aren't hardcore gamers
2) The advanced gaming specs Rein wants are totally out of whack compared to the graphic requirements for practically every other PC application (even Aero :p ), so of course there is no impetus for manufacturers to saddle consumers with overpriced / overpowered graphic solutions.
3) Microsoft didn't do anyone any favors by pushing Vista only DX10 (except themselves, of course) - Eichenator, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14MMO, FPS and strategies dominate on PCs. FPS are way to frustrating to play on consols.
- Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Agreed, people always look at the cost of cutting edge gaming systems but not the one step below cutting edge. You pay a pretty high mark-up for a little extra umph that isn't really necessary to play any current gen games at the max settings. Additionally in 3 years the a serious video card upgrade will probably be enough to get your system running the lastest games very well since cpu/ram requirements seem to increase much more slowly than video-card requirements. Not to mention that for your money you also happen to get an awesome computer.
- SquirrelOnFire, on 10/10/2007, -7/+19Can I be the first to say, "who cares?" Companies make what consumers buy. If consumers buy consoles and their games, maybe they don't care as much about shinier graphics. I'm sure most think that better graphics would be nice, but that adding a few particle effects won't convince them to buy a game.
- Dubbsacc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Not really, you're just a retard.
Hard drive formatted itself? LOL? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15And in the end, Mac users still lose out.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Because typically those players never had a PC in their life and use phrases like 'yea *****' and 'u got ownd son' over the 360 mic.
- RonPaulsiPhone, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11A few years? 2GB of RAM and 640MB of video RAM with a 2.4GHz dual or quad core processor with a 500GB SATA hard drive blows a PS3/360 out of the water. But games aren't written for that kind of system, they're written for a more middle of the road PC so there's a bigger audience.
- Gongjimein, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Not just that, but console gamers pay for new titles more than P.C. gamers. P.C's have MMO, free online play (Counterstrike, StarCraft, etc.), AND user generated content. Console gamers are somewhat forced to buy future iterations of games (Sequels to Super Smash Brothers, Halo, Madden) just to stay up to date with their community.
- Azio, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10Hitachi 320GB SATA drive = $97
LG DVD burner = $32
2x1GB Crucial PC2-5300 = $90
Antec Sonata II = $110
Asus P5B = $120
OCZ StealthXStream 600W = $70
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 = $190
eVGA Geforce 8800GTS 320MB = $289
Total $998
Prices from www.ncix.com - lordtyros, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Have you ever developed a PC game? PC development is far easier than console development simply because the hardware is more capable. A PC developer doesn't have to deal with limits like having only 256 MB of RAM or no hard drive. They only have to make sure it'll run well on the recommended system, and guess what? They get to choose the recommended system. And Xbox Live
- smackhero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11if you're using a standard API like OpenGL or DirectX, then all you have to worry about is porting the game to different OSes and having to switch APIs. you don't need to develop hardware specific code--that's what the OS, device drivers, and graphics APIs are for. your game may require an ideal amount of RAM, but as long as you keep it within range of what most people have installed then it's not a problem, and as hardware gradually advances, newer games will take advantage of the greater speed/power.
you don't need to know exactly how much RAM is installed on each PC. that's ridiculous. and in almost all PC games you can adjust the graphics settings depending on how much power your computer has. you don't need to specifically code for every video card or sound card. that's absolute nonsense. have you even played PC games before?
stop talking out of your ass. - Alegis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Because a portion of the money you spend on the console game goes to the console manufacturer.
That's why Sony/Microsoft can afford to sell their consoles at prices below production costs. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9"Xbox Live is better than anything PC gaming has to offer in an online gaming environment"
AIM + whatevergameonPCsince99%arefreeonline has worked for me for years.
I'm not saying Xbox Live sucks, its good for console, but we can do all that for free on PC.
I never had to pay to play CS:S online, nor countless other titles. - Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Driver issues = Only a problem with Vista. Windows XP drivers are fine.
Bugs = That's why they invented patches.
Installation = Just means you're not limited to one disc's worth of data. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9I haven't had a BSOD in about 6 years, and I only reformat when I need to, which is rarely. Try again though.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8LOL!!! Sorry pal but PC game graphics are already better than the current gen consoles. If you don't believe it wait till the PC version of GOW comes out and compare the gaming experience and graphics quality of the two. To be honest the hardware in current consoles are already obsolete compared to what middle of the road PC's have as RonPaul has just said.
- YouRookies, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9You guys exaggerate the costs of GPU cards. Unlike consoles, they do go on sale and you can get them cheap. I got my 8800gts 320MB for $150 AR. 2GBs of RAM can be found for $60-$80 when they go on sale.
- nectom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9Heh, I'd settle for ***** graphics if it meant actually making a game that is hard and fun to play. Games these days are too easy or lack imagination in story line, etc.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Exactly. My system is almost like the one you quoted. I have 2x the ram and 3x the hard drive space only because I'm a CG artist as well as a gamer. PC's are multiuse devices a console has really one maybe 2 uses. Games and playing DVDs.
- NTolerance, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Once upon a time, Epic only made games for the PC. They were highly optimized for the PC, with internet multiplayer and high-end graphics. But now Epic is making console games. Maybe Mark Rein should blame himself.
- KnightMareInc, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8less blog spam, more actual content
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Whoa, someone tell the PS3 owners they made the wrong choice then?
- morningmatters, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8It's strange to see a senior exec of a videogame company talking like this. His job is not to push out ultra hightech stuff which few of the gaming community can even afford, his job is to make a good game which is accessible to most people. It's not surprising that the best selling PC games have been the Sims and WoW, games which do not require the latest $800 videocard to run. With a new generation of much more expensive videogame consoles, it's unlikely that consumers will have the money to upgrade their pcs like they used to. That's common sense and hardly news.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The answer is simple. Stop buying the bleeding edge stuff. :-)
- Alesir, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Retard was originally a verb meaning "to hinder"..
- Watchm3n, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I forgot how long ago it was, but during something like E3 Mark Rein was bashing Nintendo for not having "Next-Gen" graphics. Well... who's the one laughing to the bank?
- emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Because I don't feel like going to a great deal of work to find the optimal system just because an idiot is skeptical, here's the specs of a prebuilt PC from my local computer store, sub-$1000:
INTEL CORE2 DUO 3.0GHz E6850 CPU
Asus P5K SE MB
2Gb Corsair DDR2 800Mhz RAM
NVIDIA N8800GTS 320MB PCIE VIDEO CARD
500G SATAII HARD DRIVE
18X DVD +/- RW
ANTEC SONATA III CASE W/500W POWER SUPPLY
The thing is, most people don't just buy a computer for games, so it's ridiculous to label a PC as a $1000 console. I have LOTS of uses for my computer, many of which greatly benefit from a higher-end processors. If I wasn't playing games, the only spec that I would downgrade is the video card. So even if I get an absolute top of the line (in terms of home use) video card for $500 or so, it's going to absolutely beat the pants off any console in the graphics department. - Chandon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Basically anything with a dual core processor and a current-generation high end video card (GeForce 8800 or Radeon X2900) is significantly more powerful than a 360 or PS3.
Both the 360 and the PS3 have stripped down ~3ghz PowerPC processors. The 360 has 3 cores, while the PS3 has 1 core and 6 usable vector units. A modern PC has a dual core ~2.5 ghz x86_64 processor. The major difference between these stripped down PPC cores and a desktop processor core is Instruction-Level Parallelism. Leaving ILP out of the console processors was probably the right decision from a cost perspective, but it means that each core in the console processors is less than half as fast as a PC processor core in practice. The Xbox 360 processor *might* be able to compete with the slowest Althlon X2 processor on the market - but that's not what people are putting in gaming PCs these days.
The video cards in the PS3 and Xbox360 are basically old slow PC video cards. The PS3 basically has a slow Nvida GeForce 7800 with 256 megs of VRAM. The Xbox360 GPU is a bit more complicated - it's halfway between an ATI Radeon X800 and a ATI Radeon HD 2600. If either card was on the market as a PC card today, it'd be worth about $110 (or $180 at Best buy).
To reiterate - a computer with an Athlon X2 3600+, 512 megs of RAM, and a GeForce 8600 GT is probably faster than either console. Dell will happily sell you a system a bit better than that for ~$560. (A Dell Inspiron 531 - remove the monitor and speakers to get my price) - norman619, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Try being able to run mosty of my applications. Mac will be a niche OS as long as the software vendors refuse to support it. Most of my apps are either Windows only or run best under Windows. I'd love to switch to another OS but there is no other viable realistic choice. Accept that fact and leave the rest of us alone please.
- totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Of course there is a very good excuse for it. Obviously notebook manufacturers found that the majority of their buyers didn't buy a notebook to play games, much less cutting edge games, and put other issues like cost and battery life ahead of graphics capabilities. Who the ***** needs Hardware Accelerated Shaders or Frame buffer objects to run Excel and Powerpoint?
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6*****. Look online and actually look at the prices for 8800GTS cards. Nice way to try and spread BS.
- dukeochutney, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10which is why mac's are useless pieces of *****
- NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6It is true that many gamers won't spend $2000 on a gaming rig, but really many graphical advancements enjoyed by consoles are innovations originally designed for the PC. This could hurt consoles down the road as well, causing both console games and PC games to stagnate.
- BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Hardware manufacturers depend on gaming rig enthusiasts spending large sums of money on their systems. At the same time game developers want their product to appeal to the widest audience, so they choose the most common system specification. At this point only a wealthy minority has DX10 systems at their disposal. They might be willing to spend more, but combined, they promise smaller earnings than the massive low-end user base. That is the way it's always been.
Part of World Of Warcraft popularity has to do with low system requirements. They're bad for companies trying to push new operating system and graphics cards sales, but good for software developers. - emjaymj, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8What's touted as the Xbox's BEST fps games, Halo and Halo 2, are recognized by PC gamers as being bland and uninventive rehashes of the genre. There is nothing new nor is there anything special about the games. Maybe most of the 360's good games are FPS games due to the fact that the games are generally crap to begin with?
- wiii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Isn't the true problem that better graphics are seen as the only way to improve gaming by too many developers?
- KirbyMorph, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Like most have said, not everyone can spend $2000+ every 2 years on a new gaming rig or sprinkle $800 graphic card upgrades every year to keep up. Crysis is a prime example. I cant run that game. I wont be able to run that game for 3 years or so when I get a new computer.
I can spend $400 and play Gears of War, Mass Effect, Bioshock, etc and they all look incredible regardless of what 360 I buy (Core, Prem, etc). Even a PS3 will give me Lair and MGS4 and so on that look great regardless of when I buy the PS3. If I upgraded to play Doom 3 when it came out, I wont even be able to run Crysis with that same rig at max detail.
While PC games rock and push the envelope a lot of the times, I cant even begin to justify the insane upgrades required to play that one or two great games a year. Blizzard does so well because they make the equivilent of console games on the PC. They play on systems 5 years old or more and scale incredibly well to look good 10 years later typically. WoW makes a perfect example. Runs on anything pretty much and the graphic style they chose holds up well with time.
PC developers have to learn that graphics dont equal good games. Focus on the AI and other gameplay features instead of just pushing the next video card down our throat while waiting for the mod community to innovate for you. - louiedog, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7People have been saying that about graphics for years. Cars have been getting you from point A to point B comfortably for a long time. That doesn't mean people won't be buying 2012 models because they're better.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Gamers don't get their systems at retail stores...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 234 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is