PC Gaming: Should there be a freeze on technology and hardware development?

[mattttherman3]

Just based on the title, it would be nice, but it won't happen, and the simple reason is money makes the world go round.

 

[shadow skill]

I also cannot count how many times I have come across a game that I supposedly met the minimum requirements for only to have it run like absolute molases.

Meeting the minimum requirements is very different than meeting the recommended requirements. You can't expect a computer that just barely makes it over the minimum to make the game look gorgeous and still get good framerates (if it can even make it look good at all).

Does it make sense that meeting the minimum requirements does not even get you smooth frame rates with everything set to low? If a game cannot even be expected to run well at low settings there is really no point in even listing the minimum requirements since they lie.

 

[Joeshie]

Original poster is a moron.

If you are spending more than $2000 for a gaming computer you are doing it fucking wrong. I could easily build a PC that can play all the latest games on high settings for well under a grand.

If you go and buy an Alienware computer for $5000, you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

[Uncompetative]

How many people entering college now can claim to have been a hardcore PC gamer since the mid 90's? The era brought us classics like "Myst," "Return to Castle Wolfenstien," and "X-Com: UFO Defense." I remember being given my first actual video game outside of those educational software games, "Star Wars: Tie Fighter" back in '96 (I was seven back then). Since then, I've played the first two "Rainbow Six" games, the old Jane's combat simulations like "Longbow," "Advanced Tactical Fighters," and "F-15," the original "Half-Life," "Operation Flashpoint," "Starcraft," "Diablo 2," the first two "Fallout" games, "Mechwarrior 3," and "Homeworld." In all those years, not once did I have migraines and aneurysms because of CTD's and error messages, not once did I have to upgrade my computer (the machine I used for gaming had a 600 mhz intel processor, 128 mb ram, and a 4mb video card), hell, I was too young in those days to even know that even mattered.

Fast-foward to 2001 and the release of "Ghost Recon." When I bought it for my PC, my thinking was "Hey, its not a PS2 game, its a computer game, should work on my PC. Right?" Wrong, so imagine how perplexed I was when I recieved a "General Protection Fault" error screen when I double clicked the shortcut icon. It took an angry call to technical support to discover that my 4mb video card wasn't up to the task, so I grovelled at the feet of my parents to buy a new video card so I could get back to gaming. Back in those days, we were able to get a Geforce 2 for about 50 dollars on sale, since then, I've purchased 3 video cards (Geforce 4, Geforce 5600, and a Geforce 7600GT), 3 CPU and Motherboard combos (an 800mhz, 1.7 ghz, and 3.2 ghz), and upgraded my RAM 4 times until I finally got a gaming laptop as a high-school graduation present last summer.

Recent years have made me realize the reason why console gaming has begun to gain favor over PC gaming. The cost of hardware is starting to become nothing short of monolithic (for the cost of a top-of-the-line Falcon gaming PC, about $8000, you could get a second-hand 998cc Yamaha R-1 sport bike, or send your kid to a state university for a year). In addition, with increasingly complex game engines comes an increasing number of things that can go wrong with a game, from hardware incompatibility (excacerbated by the insane variety of hardware today) and processing conflicts, as a result, most PC games are buggy messes. Lets not forget the breakneck speed at which the technology progresses; by the time I bought a Geforce 7600GT, the 9 series of Nvidia cards were announced. Sometimes engine technology outpaces the actual hardware, for instance, "Crysis." For me, that game represents everything that is wrong with PC gaming today: an overly flashy engine with no class and finesse to back it up (with "Cryetek" being a German developer, I suppose Germany's game developers are just like their automobile companies ) that laughs at even $5000 gaming desktops and more bugs than an anthill.

So my question is this: When PC hardware has left consoles in the dust in terms of technology, should PC developers stall on technology and hardware development for the sake of the area where console platforms excel (cost and functionality)?

Thank you for writing this post. I got accused of trolling for suggesting that PC gamers saved the money that they would be spending over the next 18 months upgrading their system as I predicted that Microsoft would launch its successor to the 360 around then, with the new console (the 1080) being available for purchase from November 2010. What are your predictions?

 

[lizards]

i think that game makers should keep progressing in graphics but i think that they need to start giving you the option of taking graphics WAY down as in blocks for buildings if needed i got a new laptop last year payed 2500 for it (1/3 was from christmas money) and now for christmas i went out and bought some newer games but my graphics card and all cant play it very well so i can barely play them my graphics card is a 8800 geforce by the way

 

[shadow skill]

I think gamers should stop buying expensive laptops to game on them. The GPUs are not only extremely limited, cause the computer to be super expensive, and obsolescent by the time they come out, the worst part is that you can't do anything to upgrade later on.

The same thing is true for consoles, but I think if the External PCI-Express really takes off, we might see a *huge* watershed shift in both the laptop and console markets.

We have to get Laptops to the point where the cases are standard and we can easily replace parts just like desktops. We don't need external GPU's the manufacturers just need to stop being douches.

 

[Uncompetative]

You can get that Falcon for a 10th of the price if you build it yourself instead of buying it premade. I'm currently looking at buying something of similar quality for $950, waiting for the post x-mas price drop so i can get it below $800.

Indeed. That Falcon Northwest system doesn't even have great hardware, and is the ultimate in price gouging. It is quite frankly crap. I mean, DDR3 at 1,066MHz? Rubbish.

Then there's the Crysis fallacy. No matter how much crytek keeps yapping on about how it's supposed to be a benchmark for pc's, IT ISN'T. It's badly optimised is most places and not at all in some and the higher graphics are riddled with memory leaks which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to run them on ANYTHING to run them for extended periods of time without community fixes, not even university grade supercomputers(we tried and it grinded to a halt in less then 6 hours with the full).

That is awesome. I've always wanted to try something like that.

Cevat Yerli said that Crysis had 'built-in scalability', criticism of its unattainable specifications are a widespread misconception. It.can even be tweaked to do more with computers that don't yet exist. He wanted you all to be happy that you had bought a game with some longevity.

 

[shadow skill]

You can get that Falcon for a 10th of the price if you build it yourself instead of buying it premade. I'm currently looking at buying something of similar quality for $950, waiting for the post x-mas price drop so i can get it below $800.

Indeed. That Falcon Northwest system doesn't even have great hardware, and is the ultimate in price gouging. It is quite frankly crap. I mean, DDR3 at 1,066MHz? Rubbish.

Then there's the Crysis fallacy. No matter how much crytek keeps yapping on about how it's supposed to be a benchmark for pc's, IT ISN'T. It's badly optimised is most places and not at all in some and the higher graphics are riddled with memory leaks which makes it IMPOSSIBLE to run them on ANYTHING to run them for extended periods of time without community fixes, not even university grade supercomputers(we tried and it grinded to a halt in less then 6 hours with the full).

That is awesome. I've always wanted to try something like that.

Cevat Yerli said that Crysis had 'built-in scalability', criticism of its unattainable specifications are a widespread misconception. It.can even be tweaked to do more with computers that don't yet exist. He wanted you all to be happy that you had bought a game with some longevity.

He's lying plain and simple. That said I cannot wait to upgrade my card so I can actually play the game, I did think the demo was fun.

 

[runtheplacered]

or the cost of a top-of-the-line Falcon gaming PC, about $8000,

This made me shoot Sunny Delight (now with more orange!) out of my nose.
A good top-end-of-the-line nowadays costs around 1250$~~.

Don't believe me? Check this out: http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/falcon-northwest-mach-v/4505-3118_7-33370265.html

I'm not saying that because its for my personal gain, I'm saying this because this is one of the main reasons why PC developers have alienated gamers. These days, PC ports are almost afterthoughts compared to their console counterparts. Console games have suddenly grown in favor in the eyes of developers because PC games are too difficult to develop for due to the overwhelming amount of hardware they have to program for in order to support them.

Every single sentence in this entire post is wrong.

I'm not saying that because its for my personal gain, I'm saying this because this is one of the main reasons why PC developers have alienated gamers.

If game developers have in fact alienated PC gamers (of course, it depends what developer you're talking about) it's not because of the price of hardware. What do they care? It's because marketing departments at Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, Sega, etc have done their jobs and sold their console's to the masses. It follows suit to believe that this is why developers write software for the audience they they do. But as an avid PC and console gamer, I definitely don't feel this alienation you're talking about on the PC side of things.

These days, PC ports are almost afterthoughts compared to their console counterparts.

It's completely redundant to say that a port is an afterthought to the 'original', since a port comes after the original. But if you're insinuating that console games that have counterparts on the PC are superior, then I'm going to have to ask where you got your source from, because I didn't get that memo. GTA IV, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Left 4 Dead, COd 4, GRAW 2, RAinbow Six Vegas 1&2 (do I seriously need to keep going?... I could..) were all much more fun in my eyes on a PC then on a console. And I know I'm not alone in thinking this. I can't even think of a game that's inferior on the PC from a technical standpoint either, but I'm sure if you try really hard you can name a couple. The point is, that opinion is not absolute.

Console games have suddenly grown in favor in the eyes of developers because PC games are too difficult to develop for due to the overwhelming amount of hardware they have to program for in order to support them.

I don't know what to say. This sentence is pretty amazing. All I can do for you is suggest reading that Wiki link on DirectX that Eggo so eloquently copied and pasted for you.

 

[Simriel]

I agree. I recently bought a brand new gaming P.C (its about 8 months old now) and i have moved to console gaming since for the simple fact, my 'new' P.C dont run new games as well. I mean honestly. I shouldnt have to change my hardware every 3/4 of a year just to play new games. Its silly. In fact the only reason im gonna even USE my p.c for gaming in the next while is kotor 3, Diablo 3, and DOW2. Everything thats for multi platform, will be bought for my new Xbox (which came with three games and was cheaper than my P.C... MUCH cheaper and itll still be useful for another couple of years!)

Fallout three looks better on an Xbox than it does on my pc. And it STILL runs better. i cant get full spec on it

You must have got a piece of junk Hell PC if it only lasted 8 months.

I mean it now dont run high end games at full spec.

Neither do the consoles...

 

[ElArabDeMagnifico]

or the cost of a top-of-the-line Falcon gaming PC, about $8000,

This made me shoot Sunny Delight (now with more orange!) out of my nose.
A good top-end-of-the-line nowadays costs around 1250$~~.

Don't believe me? Check this out: http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/falcon-northwest-mach-v/4505-3118_7-33370265.html

Yes, that machine is expensive but the specs are completely completely overkill and you don't need it. You don't need 12gb of fucking ram.

Yeah that shit is for Pixar Animators O_O

 

[Specter_]

or the cost of a top-of-the-line Falcon gaming PC, about $8000,

This made me shoot Sunny Delight (now with more orange!) out of my nose.
A good top-end-of-the-line nowadays costs around 1250$~~.

Don't believe me? Check this out: http://reviews.cnet.com/desktops/falcon-northwest-mach-v/4505-3118_7-33370265.html

Yes, that machine is expensive but the specs are completely completely overkill and you don't need it. You don't need 12gb of fucking ram.

Ever worked in professional graphic design or CGI? I admit you wouldn't use a PC for that but a Mac, but you still need tons of RAM

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

or the cost of a top-of-the-line Falcon gaming PC, about $8000,

This made me shoot Sunny Delight (now with more orange!) out of my nose.
A good top-end-of-the-line nowadays costs around 1250$~~.

You're seriously asking for further improvements on technology to stop, to halter for your own personal gain? Are we living in the Middle Ages or something? Of course it shouldn't. The faster the better, and to be honest, I've been playing next gen games with a really old graphic card.

You update if you want to. It's your choice, by the time you're really forced to update it would be around the same time you'd spend money on a new console to substitute your old one.

A good top of the line, even when built with your own two hands and a careful eye for sales is FAR more expensive than 1250 bucks. Yes, you CAN build a gaming system for that quantity of cash but it's nowhere near top of the line. A current, top end comsumer processor can command prices above $1400, top of the line video cards generally go for between $450 and $650, depending upon the vendor. In order to build a gaming system for $1250 you have to have made many compromises on performance. I'm not saying it takes eight grand to do the job - for four grand one can build a system with no compromises.

 

[cyber_andyy]

What I want is to see more energy efficient hardware.