The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Technology & Information => Topic started by: Lord Dave on July 12, 2014, 12:46:45 PM
-
www.alienware.com/landings/alpha/
I honestly didn't see this coming. I thought PC games would die off as console games became the dominate market. Now it seems like PC gaming and console gaming will merge into one.
There may come a day when buying a disk doesn't happen anymore and shelves of game stores are full of license keys instead of actual games.
And once the steambox comes out then we'll have two steam based consoles.
-
I thought PC games would die off as console games became the dominate market.
Fucking lol
-
There may come a day when buying a disk doesn't happen anymore and shelves of game stores are full of license keys instead of actual games.
What kind of business would rent a shop to sell license keys, Dave? You'd sell them online.
-
I thought PC games would die off as console games became the dominate market.
Fucking lol
To be fair the number of PC games being released and marketed is dwarfed by console games. Just step into your local game shop and compare the displayed PC titles to their displayed console titles.
-
There may come a day when buying a disk doesn't happen anymore and shelves of game stores are full of license keys instead of actual games.
What kind of business would rent a shop to sell license keys, Dave? You'd sell them online.
Normally I'd agree but I have this feeling that an online catalog just isn't going to be as popular as looking at boxes in an actual store when dealing with games.
-
I thought PC games would die off as console games became the dominate market.
Fucking lol
To be fair the number of PC games being released and marketed is dwarfed by console games. Just step into your local game shop and compare the displayed PC titles to their displayed console titles.
Because consoles don't have steam.
-
We've seen many weird consoles this generation.... the Ouya, MOJO, among other android based home consoles. Most of these consoles are failing or being bought solely to be used as pirate machines.
This Alienware Alpha isn't going to change anything. PC gamers are already using their Xbox controllers with PC games, so that's not a selling point. Also, PC gamers would opt for a mouse & keyboard over a damn controller any day. Most PC gamers are already using steam, so they're not going to purchase a home console that lets them do the same thing they are already doing. Console gamers who are not familiar with PC gaming will probably ignore this console altogether or just not buy one due to the price point (which will inevitably be high).
Of course, this could be wishful thinking. I prefer physical copies over digital copies any day, and I don't care whether or not they throw in some stupid .pdf artbook.
-
PC gamers are already using their Xbox controllers with PC games
Althought why, I can not fathom.
Well. Unless it's a game which is atrociously badly ported from consoles.
-
PC gamers are already using their Xbox controllers with PC games
Althought why, I can not fathom.
Well. Unless it's a game which is atrociously badly ported from consoles.
For many, controllers are just more fun. With some games it is actually technically better as well as long as you are using the right control scheme. For instance, in halo the control scheme known as bumper jumper puts every combat related action on the triggers, bumpers and pushing the sticks in which means that as long as the user is in a combat situation, there is no need to ever remove fingers from the thumbsticks. That way you can jump, shoot, lob grenades, zoom, crouch and melee without ever taking your sights off target.
The advantage to a mouse is precision and quick turns but some games have some degree of auto aim and turning quickly is only necessary if your awareness isn't up to snuff. Pros and cons.
-
But auto aim is pure bullshit.
-
Most FPS games on PC don't have auto-aim. The only reason I'd use a controller on PC is for emulation or fighting games.
-
It's far more comfortable to play with a controller. Mouse and keyboard requires you to stay in a rigid position. Controller let's you sit how and where you like and move your body and arms while you play. This is why the Wiimote was my favourite controller to hold. I could have either of my hands wherever and move them independent of one another.
-
There may come a day when buying a disk doesn't happen anymore and shelves of game stores are full of license keys instead of actual games.
What kind of business would rent a shop to sell license keys, Dave? You'd sell them online.
Some people like to hold the license key in their hand to see how it feels.
-
But auto aim is pure bullshit.
The phrase "auto aim" does sound bad but it depends on the game. In halo it is very minor and it still takes skill to get a head shot. Especially in halo, where precision is important but not as important awareness and acrobatic dexterity.
-
There may come a day when buying a disk doesn't happen anymore and shelves of game stores are full of license keys instead of actual games.
What kind of business would rent a shop to sell license keys, Dave? You'd sell them online.
Normally I'd agree but I have this feeling that an online catalog just isn't going to be as popular as looking at boxes in an actual store when dealing with games.
Don't be retarted. Digital sales have already surpassed physical sales in the U.K. Don't forget that a huge portion of the game market comprises casual mobile games.
There may come a day when buying a disk doesn't happen anymore and shelves of game stores are full of license keys instead of actual games.
What kind of business would rent a shop to sell license keys, Dave? You'd sell them online.
Some people like to hold the license key in their hand to see how it feels.
License keys are numbers. They literally don't exist.
-
Digital media is just numbers. They literally don't exist.
-
PC gamers are already using their Xbox controllers with PC games
Althought why, I can not fathom.
Well. Unless it's a game which is atrociously badly ported from consoles.
Analog control is very important for some games.
-
Games are just numbers they dont actually exist.
-
That is a correct fact.
-
Don't be retarted. Digital sales have already surpassed physical sales in the U.K. Don't forget that a huge portion of the game market comprises casual mobile games.
I don't count casual mobile games in that only because they aren't the traditional market of consoles or PC games.
-
Don't be retarted. Digital sales have already surpassed physical sales in the U.K. Don't forget that a huge portion of the game market comprises casual mobile games.
I don't count casual mobile games in that only because they aren't the traditional market of consoles or PC games.
ITT: Lorddave has finally lost it.
I'll probably buy a Steam controller at some point. I have no interest in using Steam OS, but since it's just another Linux distro, the Steam controller will probably work on Debian too. I really like the direction Valve is taking Steam at the moment.
-
Don't be retarted. Digital sales have already surpassed physical sales in the U.K. Don't forget that a huge portion of the game market comprises casual mobile games.
I don't count casual mobile games in that only because they aren't the traditional market of consoles or PC games.
Ah, yes. The "traditional market".
-
Digital sales have already surpassed physical sales in the U.K. Don't forget that a huge portion of the game market comprises casual mobile games.
I'm not going to claim authority on the subject, but as a 100% real gurl gamer with real gamer friends living in the UK, I know literally nobody who still goes to game stores to buy their PC games. There is no point or reason to it. That's why game stores are either closing or shifting their focus to console games. It says nothing about the state of PC gaming - we simply have better platforms to do our buying through.
Also, I have an xbox360 controller, which I use for a couple of games, mostly platformers. I don't actually see much of an advantage to it most of the time, I just pick whatever feels good at the time - which, in my case, is usually the keyboard.
Parsifal, from what I've heard, setting up an x360 controller with Linux and Steam is easy. They're also pretty cheap, so you may want to consider trying that.
-
Filthy console peasants still have to obtain individual physical mediums to hold their console games. I can obtain millions of PC master race games without ever having to interact with another human being and getting their peasant residue on me.
Also:
I thought PC games would die off as console games became the dominate market.
Fucking lol
-
That's certainly the weirdest thing I've ever heard. Why would the 'best' platform die off?
-
That's certainly the weirdest thing I've ever heard. Why would the 'best' platform die off?
Short answer is PC has bad marketing.
There are more people than you can imagine that think a computer can't play anything more demanding than solitaire and genuinely think consoles are the only devices capable of playing graphic intensive games. Many people don't even think of a PC as a gaming device. There's also the classic "you have to spend, like, $4000 to game on a PC!"
-
As well as the "No, I can't build my own PC, because that's hard :("
-
Rushy, PC gaming is expensive to get into. That's not really an excuse. Average Joe 6 can't spend $700 out of pocket for a gaming rig. Most people find consoles to be the less expensive of the two and most of the games that are worth a damn are on consoles anyways. Granted, PC gamers do get some titles that are amazing but console gaming has grown so large now that most of the great PC titles are on consoles as well.
At this point, PC gaming seems to be for modding and MMOs.
-
Consoles can't do good strategy games, for example. They're decent for some genres, and absolutely abysmal for others.
-
Rushy, PC gaming is expensive to get into. That's not really an excuse. Average Joe 6 can't spend $700 out of pocket for a gaming rig. Most people find consoles to be the less expensive of the two and most of the games that are worth a damn are on consoles anyways. Granted, PC gamers do get some titles that are amazing but console gaming has grown so large now that most of the great PC titles are on consoles as well.
At this point, PC gaming seems to be for modding and MMOs.
2009:
Motherboard, CPU, 8 GB of RAM, and Video Card: $786.33
2014: Still getting decent FPS.
When I do end up upgrading, I'll just get a new video card and maybe a SSD. It's more expensive in the short term but that cost can be broken up over several years. You don't have to plunk down $400 all at once like a console. Not only that but most of the parts don't require upgrade such as power supplies, cases, and optical drives(if you get those anymore).
-
At this point, PC gaming seems to be for modding and MMOs.
Not quite. The most played PC games are shitty MOBAs currently.
PCs are more expensive because they can do everything. The idea of buying a device dedicated solely to playing games when you could instead have a device that plays games even better AND allows you to read funny forwards from your aunts and look at cool maymays on 4chan (inb4 somebody points out that consoles have internet browsers also) is ridiculous. Sure, initially you save a few hundred dollars if you buy a console. Enjoy buying new games for $50 or $60.
-
At this point, PC gaming seems to be for modding and MMOs.
Not quite. The most played PC games are shitty MOBAs currently.
PCs are more expensive because they can do everything. The idea of buying a device dedicated solely to playing games when you could instead have a device that plays games even better AND allows you to read funny forwards from your aunts and look at cool maymays on 4chan (inb4 somebody points out that consoles have internet browsers also) is ridiculous. Sure, initially you save a few hundred dollars if you buy a console. Enjoy buying new games for $50 or $60.
Not to mention scratched disks. God help you if you damage your disk. We don't give half a fuck. :D
-
At this point, PC gaming seems to be for modding and MMOs.
I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_strategy) beg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlanetSide_2) to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARMA_3) differ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dota_2).
-
Oh yes. I forgot about strategy games. I haven't any big name ones on consoles since Starcraft 64 and Halo Wars, which both sucked.
-
Rushy, PC gaming is expensive to get into. That's not really an excuse. Average Joe 6 can't spend $700 out of pocket for a gaming rig. Most people find consoles to be the less expensive of the two and most of the games that are worth a damn are on consoles anyways. Granted, PC gamers do get some titles that are amazing but console gaming has grown so large now that most of the great PC titles are on consoles as well.
At this point, PC gaming seems to be for modding and MMOs.
Since Intel and AMD started making APUs, having a mainstream gaming PC can cost less than a major console (assuming you build the computer yourself), though you'll get less graphics performance, I'd argue that as a solo gamer having a PC is optimal versus having a console. The only console I can justify buying is a Wii due to the wide variety of party games available and the abysmal difficulty of setting up motion detection on a PC.
Starcraft 64
My family had one computer (and most of my friends didn't even have that much), which made playing starcraft multiplayer impossible. We resorted to playing split screen on the N64. Most frustrating experience ever.
-
I bought a Wii at a pawn store the other day and played some Mario Kart with my respectable significant other. It was fun.
That said, I don't see myself buying any more consoles anytime soon, unless they're £30 like this was.
-
Hey, look, yet another thread in which people simply can't understand why their own area of interest/expertise isn't universally acknowledged as basic common knowledge and shared by the whole world. I'd love to be present the next time one of you has car problems:
"What, you can't fix it? You don't even know what the problem is? You're actually calling a garage? [Insert shitty "mfw Guest mehmay here] But it's so easy! It's objectively trivial to fix an engine and get a car running! Any drooling retard could do it! There are kids who can handle things like this easily, and you can't! How do you even manage to feed yourself when you're this stupid?"
-
What is a mehmay exactly?
I'm trying to figure out if I should be pissed or not.
-
What is a mehmay exactly?
I'm trying to figure out if I should be pissed or not.
Guest should be.
I can understand why people don't use PCs for gaming. Most people are just stupid, especially when it comes to technology (and I'm no exception).
-
Saddam is wise in this case.
-
Hey, look, yet another thread in which people simply can't understand why their own area of interest/expertise isn't universally acknowledged as basic common knowledge and shared by the whole world. I'd love to be present the next time one of you has car problems:
"What, you can't fix it? You don't even know what the problem is? You're actually calling a garage? [Insert shitty "mfw Guest mehmay here] But it's so easy! It's objectively trivial to fix an engine and get a car running! Any drooling retard could do it! There are kids who can handle things like this easily, and you can't! How do you even manage to feed yourself when you're this stupid?"
Your comparison doesn't really make sense in this situation, since you can just buy prebuilt computers. You don't need advanced technical knowledge to realize that PCs are better for gaming or to enjoy their advantages.
tl;dr: nice memes
What is a mehmay exactly?
I'm trying to figure out if I should be pissed or not.
Guest should be.
I can understand why people don't use PCs for gaming. Most people are just stupid, especially when it comes to technology (and I'm no exception).
What is this? You guys are suddenly too retarted to figure how to use Steam? You don't necessarily have to build your own computer and create your own Linux distro to program your own private games to enjoy the financial and practical benefits of PC gaming.
-
Saddam is never wise in any case. He jumps into threads, makes a vaguely accurate post attacking previous posters, then leaves before a proper argument can start.
-
Saddam is never wise in any case. He jumps into threads, makes a vaguely accurate post attacking previous posters, then leaves before a proper argument can start.
Yes, but he is master of his trade.
-
Hey, look, yet another thread in which people simply can't understand why their own area of interest/expertise isn't universally acknowledged as basic common knowledge and shared by the whole world. I'd love to be present the next time one of you has car problems:
"What, you can't fix it? You don't even know what the problem is? You're actually calling a garage? [Insert shitty "mfw Guest mehmay here] But it's so easy! It's objectively trivial to fix an engine and get a car running! Any drooling retard could do it! There are kids who can handle things like this easily, and you can't! How do you even manage to feed yourself when you're this stupid?"
YouTube makes everyone an expert at everything.
-
Your comparison doesn't really make sense in this situation, since you can just buy prebuilt computers. You don't need advanced technical knowledge to realize that PCs are better for gaming or to enjoy their advantages.
Yes, but prebuilt gaming PCs tend to be very expensive, and once someone points that out, the PC Aryans then resort to the "Just build a computer!" argument. I just thought I'd save some time and cut straight to that particular point.
-
Only if you get one from Alienware. You can get prebuilts built by dudes working at a PC parts place for $50 or so more than what it would cost to do it yourself.
-
There is also a large variety of online stores that ship custom built computers for very little premium over the parts required. I've even found some that are cheaper than the individual parts combined; I still ordered the parts myself because I just think it's fun putting the computer together.
-
Your comparison doesn't really make sense in this situation, since you can just buy prebuilt computers. You don't need advanced technical knowledge to realize that PCs are better for gaming or to enjoy their advantages.
Yes, but prebuilt gaming PCs tend to be very expensive, and once someone points that out, the PC Aryans then resort to the "Just build a computer!" argument. I just thought I'd save some time and cut straight to that particular point.
Okay, so you need to be either "smart", or wealthy. If you are both poor and dumb then you are a waste of life.
-
Consoles are still better because of developer support.
The only remotely playable PC game is DOOM 2. Everything else is a rehash or DOOM knockoff. 2 perfected the genre and is still a classic to this day. The storyline has also been ripped off countless times in other media.
-
Consoles are still better because of developer support.
The only remotely playable PC game is DOOM 2. Everything else is a rehash or DOOM knockoff. 2 perfected the genre and is still a classic to this day. The storyline has also been ripped off countless times in other media.
Developer support.. wut. Most of the games I play have subreddits where the devs post regularly, and often ask for feedback. If something's broken you can make them aware almost immediately.
-
Consoles are still better because of developer support.
The only remotely playable PC game is DOOM 2. Everything else is a rehash or DOOM knockoff. 2 perfected the genre and is still a classic to this day. The storyline has also been ripped off countless times in other media.
Developer support.. wut. Most of the games I play have subreddits where the devs post regularly, and often ask for feedback. If something's broken you can make them aware almost immediately.
epicly troled
-
Saddam is never wise in any case. He jumps into threads, makes a vaguely accurate post attacking previous posters, then leaves before a proper argument can start.
Well, I meant more towards his first sentence because elitists of any type annoy the hell out of me. There just happen to be a massive deluge of PC elitists on the internet
-
PCs are more expensive because they can do everything.
This is the main reason why I favour PCs. It's a huge step backwards to go from general-purpose computers that can be made to be good at any computing task with the right components, to locked-down computers that are only designed to be good at one thing, and then only for games that target that specific console.
Related to that point, consoles also fragment the game market. I can buy a PC from Lenovo, Dell or Apple, with a CPU from Intel or AMD, and memory, storage and graphics from countless other vendors, and it will play the exact same set of games (give or take performance and OS requirements) once I install Steam. I don't need to base my hardware decisions on which games I want to play, aside from getting a powerful enough PC.
With consoles, you have vendors who compete not only with their hardware, but also with the selection of games available for their platform. As a console buyer, you would need to base your choice of console hardware as much on the games available for each as on the capabilities of the hardware itself. As soon as you want to play two or more games that don't both target the same console, the cost argument against PCs becomes null and void, as you now need to buy multiple systems to satisfy your requirements.
This argument should be nothing new to anyone acquainted with the progress computer science has made over the last 70 years. There has been a tremendous amount of work in moving us from multiple incompatible systems (like today's consoles) in the '50s and '60s, to operating systems portable across multiple hardware (like today's Linux) such as UNIX in the '70s, to applications portable across multiple operating systems (like GNU) in the '80s and '90s. Finally, we have arrived in the 21st century, where we can take portability for granted, and everyone wants to go back to the days of mutual incompatibility at the hardware level.
Consoles make no sense, economically or practically. (SteamOS consoles excepted, since they are PC-compatible.)
-
everyone wants to go back to the days of mutual incompatibility at the hardware level.
Only if you're talking about console manufacturers. Us customers and normal people do not.
-
Consoles make no sense, economically or practically. (SteamOS consoles excepted, since they are PC-compatible.)
Millions of people disagree with you.
Most games are cross-platform these days with the exception of Halo, Titanfall, and maybe 2 others. The market for games on consoles is also larger, meaning consumers can easily find games they want to play that usually aren't available on PC. Third-party support has a lot to do with the success of a platform, and while PC has many devs making games it doesn't have nearly as many that are as prolific as some console devs. There's a reason there's more demand for consoles than PCs. We all know that PCs can do much more and are usually more powerful with the right parts, but that's irrelevant. Games are about having fun. The more games, the better. Consoles have more high-quality games, therefore consoles win.
I don't care if your PC can run six instances of WoW, mine bitcoin, and create a grand unified theory of physics from code. Can it play Uncharted without crappy emulation? God of War? Metal Gear Solid? Zelda? Pokemon? Monster Hunter? Etc? If not, then you just lost a big chuck of the consumer base.
PCs might be more practical in the long run, but they are not practical for the average consumer.
-
everyone wants to go back to the days of mutual incompatibility at the hardware level.
Only if you're talking about console manufacturers. Us customers and normal people do not.
Console manufacturers want to make money. They will take gaming technology in any direction that customers and the law enable them to, in order to achieve that goal. If mutually incompatible consoles sell, then customers want mutually incompatible consoles; otherwise, they wouldn't buy them.
Most games are cross-platform these days with the exception of Halo, Titanfall, and maybe 2 others. The market for games on consoles is also larger, meaning consumers can easily find games they want to play that usually aren't available on PC. Third-party support has a lot to do with the success of a platform, and while PC has many devs making games it doesn't have nearly as many that are as prolific as some console devs. There's a reason there's more demand for consoles than PCs. We all know that PCs can do much more and are usually more powerful with the right parts, but that's irrelevant. Games are about having fun. The more games, the better. Consoles have more high-quality games, therefore consoles win.
I don't care if your PC can run six instances of WoW, mine bitcoin, and create a grand unified theory of physics from code. Can it play Uncharted without crappy emulation? God of War? Metal Gear Solid? Zelda? Pokemon? Monster Hunter? Etc? If not, then you just lost a big chuck of the consumer base.
That is all incidental, and a circular argument. The reason many games exist for consoles is that people buy consoles. If people didn't buy consoles, there would be no gain in making games for them.
Your argument therefore boils down to "consoles make sense because consoles make sense".
-
Your argument therefore boils down to "consoles make sense because consoles make sense".
Not really. My argument is that consoles make more sense because devs make more games for consoles. Yes, consoles are popular because people enjoy them and buy them. That's a fact with everything that's popular. The reason they're more popular is because 1) there's less know-how required to play console games 2) less expensive entry cost 3) more quality games and 4) simple convenience.
I agree with you that PCs are potentially better than consoles from a hardware perspective, but PC lacks games the average consumer wants to play. That's the bottomline here. There's a reason consoles sell well.
-
Consoles are holding back game development.
-
I think our arguments don't quite meet in the middle. I'm arguing that consoles don't make sense fundamentally, regardless of what situational convenience there may be in buying them now. I also don't consider the decisions made by consumers to be an indicator of what makes sense. Consider the vinyl record - a mainstay of 20th-century recorded music, yet it initially gained dominance over technologically superior cylindrical media because it was cheaper to manufacture and consumers were sheepish enough to go along with what record companies wanted to sell.
After 60 years of dominance, it finally gave up its place to CDs, which (big surprise) have held onto their popularity due to commercial convenience, not technical superiority (which they lack in abundance). Now I see people throwing money at console manufacturers and can't help but wonder if the capitalist world is setting itself up for another half-century of inferior products.
-
That is all incidental, and a circular argument. The reason many games exist for consoles is that people buy consoles. If people didn't buy consoles, there would be no gain in making games for them.
Your argument therefore boils down to "consoles make sense because consoles make sense".
Not quite. Consoles make sense because there has been a growing market for consoles for more than 30 years.
-
CDs have numerous advantages over vinyl. For one, you can pop a CD into your car. You can rip a CD onto your computer. Numerous systems can read CDs. Vinyl is cumbersome, and CDs are seen as superior because they are more functional. This analogy works with consoles and PCs as well.
Developers and console makers are in it to make money, yes. The most profitable platforms right now are consoles. But how did it get that way? Because the consumer chose consoles over PCs time and time again. It's not like some mega-corp run by satanists decided "we will brainwash the consumer into buying consoles so that we can make money". It was more like "hey, let's take a risk with this console thing and see where it goes". People liked the idea. People no longer had to go to an arcade to play KoF or Street Fighter or Galaga, they could do it at home by plugging some wires into the back of their TVs. Consumers made consoles profitable. If consumers had chosen the PC over consoles back in the day, devs would be making games mostly for PC.
Technology is usually made to make our lives easier. Consoles make gaming easier; It is the superior option out of the two choices.
-
Console manufacturers want to make money. They will take gaming technology in any direction that customers and the law enable them to, in order to achieve that goal. If mutually incompatible consoles sell, then customers want mutually incompatible consoles; otherwise, they wouldn't buy them.
I absolutely disagree with this argument. Not boycotting consoles doesn't mean you want mutually incompatible consoles, it means you don't feel like not getting to play the games you want to because of some PC ideal. I would love for everything to be on one platform, but I don't feel like missing out on games for that ideal. So I buy consoles.
-
The only reason consoles are more popular than PC's is because consoles existed before you could play any games on a computer.
-
The only reason consoles are more popular than PC's is because consoles existed before you could play any games on a computer.
The Magnavox Odyssey still has better games than the entire PC gaming library to date.
-
On the general notion:
Consoles were a much better option back in the 70s-80s and even in the early 90s. Computer hardware was expensive ($1200 for a Tandy 1000 in 1983 compared to $300 for an NES) and lacking Hard Drive space, you had to run everything on a floppy disk anyway so why bother buying a very expensive computer that could run games when a much cheaper solution was available? Especially since PC programming was extremely tight. Drivers were a pain to code. And a program had to fit everything on a 5.25" floppy disk.
Granted, the NES wasn't exactly a complex machine even back then. They could be made cheaply and require only one language with one hardware set. PC gaming couldn't compete with the cost but it made up for it with more complex games, like Adventure Games.
Sega Genesis and the SNES were also big sellers and their graphics were pretty good for the time. And what did the PC have? Windows 3.0 and Dos. Granted, there are some great Dos games of that era but getting them to work required actual knowledge of how computers worked. You had to set your video driver (EGA, VGA, SVGA) as well as audio IRQs. AND you had to usually type in command line text to get something running. The console gave players ease of use at an affordable price. And with both Nintendo and Sega not porting their games to PC for profit reasons(They'd be morons if they did), this was the start of the console exclusives. Today, consoles aren't much different than PCs. Just with very specific hardware designed for high resolution graphical rendering. But they still hold that place of the "traditional" gaming machine.
As for the popularity of games. As I'm sure most of the programmers here will agree, coding for one set of hardware under one OS is much easier than coding for multiple hardware types with multiple OSes. Heck, just putting all the graphical options in the game(turning off anti-alising, render distance, sky effects, etc...) takes time. On a console, you don't have to care about that stuff, just make it work on the one piece of hardware it needs to work on and you're done. Debugging is far simpler and as such development is, theoretically, cheaper.
That is all incidental, and a circular argument. The reason many games exist for consoles is that people buy consoles. If people didn't buy consoles, there would be no gain in making games for them.
Your argument therefore boils down to "consoles make sense because consoles make sense".
Not quite. Consoles make sense because there has been a growing market for consoles for more than 30 years.
PC games didn't exist 30 years ago?
-
That is all incidental, and a circular argument. The reason many games exist for consoles is that people buy consoles. If people didn't buy consoles, there would be no gain in making games for them.
Your argument therefore boils down to "consoles make sense because consoles make sense".
Not quite. Consoles make sense because there has been a growing market for consoles for more than 30 years.
PC games didn't exist 30 years ago?
barely
-
PC games didn't exist 30 years ago?
I think Frogger and Centipede were out on PC around that time, but they were ported from console.
-
That is all incidental, and a circular argument. The reason many games exist for consoles is that people buy consoles. If people didn't buy consoles, there would be no gain in making games for them.
Your argument therefore boils down to "consoles make sense because consoles make sense".
Not quite. Consoles make sense because there has been a growing market for consoles for more than 30 years.
PC games didn't exist 30 years ago?
Irrelevant. Consoles actually made more sense 30 years ago because they were so much cheaper than PCs.
-
That is all incidental, and a circular argument. The reason many games exist for consoles is that people buy consoles. If people didn't buy consoles, there would be no gain in making games for them.
Your argument therefore boils down to "consoles make sense because consoles make sense".
Not quite. Consoles make sense because there has been a growing market for consoles for more than 30 years.
PC games didn't exist 30 years ago?
Irrelevant. Consoles actually made more sense 30 years ago because they were so much cheaper than PCs.
Which is why they still make more sense.
-
That is all incidental, and a circular argument. The reason many games exist for consoles is that people buy consoles. If people didn't buy consoles, there would be no gain in making games for them.
Your argument therefore boils down to "consoles make sense because consoles make sense".
Not quite. Consoles make sense because there has been a growing market for consoles for more than 30 years.
PC games didn't exist 30 years ago?
Irrelevant. Consoles actually made more sense 30 years ago because they were so much cheaper than PCs.
See my edit.
-
Consoles make gaming easier; It is the superior option out of the two choices.
Other than being less expensive (which is still debatable because of the high cost of console games), in what ways do consoles make gaming easier?
-
Consoles make gaming easier; It is the superior option out of the two choices.
Other than being less expensive (which is still debatable because of the high cost of console games), in what ways do consoles make gaming easier?
They are easy to set up, don't require much maintenance, and are user-friendly. Whereas PC games usually require a bit of know-how to get everything up and running smoothly. Not to mention the fact that if you want an affordable PC you would have to buy the parts yourself and assemble it yourself, which is tedious and requires a lot of knowledge on the user's part. Of course, you could pay someone to do it but that requires more monetary investment. Consoles work out of box as advertised with very little surprises. Also, handheld gaming makes gaming easier solely because you can travel and game at the same time, something that is impossible with a PC.
The shear amount of games for consoles also makes it easier for the consumer to find a game that they enjoy. Most of this has been covered in my previous posts. I feel like PC gaming has become a niche hobby at this point.
-
Consoles make gaming easier; It is the superior option out of the two choices.
Other than being less expensive (which is still debatable because of the high cost of console games), in what ways do consoles make gaming easier?
They are easy to set up, don't require much maintenance, and are user-friendly. Whereas PC games usually require a bit of know-how to get everything up and running smoothly. Not to mention the fact that if you want an affordable PC you would have to buy the parts yourself and assemble it yourself, which is tedious and requires a lot of knowledge on the user's part. Of course, you could pay someone to do it but that requires more monetary investment. Consoles work out of box as advertised with very little surprises. Also, handheld gaming makes gaming easier solely because you can travel and game at the same time, something that is impossible with a PC.
The shear amount of games for consoles also makes it easier for the consumer to find a game that they enjoy. Most of this has been covered in my previous posts. I feel like PC gaming has become a niche hobby at this point.
I've never understood this argument. What "know-how" is required to run a game in Windows? Also, there are obviously far more games available for PC. This is mostly because developing and distributing a PC game can be done by anybody without having to deal with Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo.
-
I've never understood this argument. What "know-how" is required to run a game in Windows? Also, there are obviously far more games available for PC. This is mostly because developing and distributing a PC game can be done by anybody without having to deal with Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo.
Of course there are many games for PC. Anyone can develop their own trash game and attempt to sell it. What I'm saying is that there are more high-quality titles people want to buy on consoles as opposed to PC. The average console gamer doesn't know how to replace missing DLL files or install obscure drivers to make their games work.
Are you saying that you have never once encountered an error when trying to run a PC game?
-
Consoles make gaming easier; It is the superior option out of the two choices.
Other than being less expensive (which is still debatable because of the high cost of console games), in what ways do consoles make gaming easier?
They are easy to set up, don't require much maintenance, and are user-friendly. Whereas PC games usually require a bit of know-how to get everything up and running smoothly. Not to mention the fact that if you want an affordable PC you would have to buy the parts yourself and assemble it yourself, which is tedious and requires a lot of knowledge on the user's part. Of course, you could pay someone to do it but that requires more monetary investment. Consoles work out of box as advertised with very little surprises. Also, handheld gaming makes gaming easier solely because you can travel and game at the same time, something that is impossible with a PC.
The shear amount of games for consoles also makes it easier for the consumer to find a game that they enjoy. Most of this has been covered in my previous posts. I feel like PC gaming has become a niche hobby at this point.
I've never understood this argument. What "know-how" is required to run a game in Windows? Also, there are obviously far more games available for PC. This is mostly because developing and distributing a PC game can be done by anybody without having to deal with Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo.
http://youtu.be/2Sq9EZFjgiQ?t=56s
-
I usually only have problems if I'm heavily modding a game, which is to be expected. I've never heard of a situation where DLL files were missing from an installation package for no reason. Why would you need "obscure drivers" for anything? Why not just the latest drivers?
-
I usually only have problems if I'm heavily modding a game, which is to be expected. I've never heard of a situation where DLL files were missing from an installation package for no reason. Why would you need "obscure drivers" for anything? Why not just the latest drivers?
Some older PC games are not compatible with newer drivers. Also, I've had numerous DLL files missing but normally only when I'm pirating something.
-
I've never had that problem, and I run a lot of very old games. I think we can reasonably assume that our hypothetical casual PC gamer has no need to worry.
-
I've never had that problem, and I run a lot of very old games. I think we can reasonably assume that our hypothetical casual PC gamer has no need to worry.
Once he has his rig set up with the right parts and drivers, sure.
Another plus for consoles is that you don't need to upgrade your console every few years to keep up with the games that are coming out. Every 10 years you might have to buy a new console, but you don't have to worry about whether or not your rig can handle a specific game.
-
The result being that your games look much worse.
-
I've never had that problem, and I run a lot of very old games. I think we can reasonably assume that our hypothetical casual PC gamer has no need to worry.
Once he has his rig set up with the right parts and drivers, sure.
Another plus for consoles is that you don't need to upgrade your console every few years to keep up with the games that are coming out. Every 10 years you might have to buy a new console, but you don't have to worry about whether or not your rig can handle a specific game.
But on the flip side, your console is 10 years old and any game that comes out at year 9 could have come out at year 1.
By contrast, 10 year old games are very visibly aged and modern games use top of the line technology and can't easily run on 10 year old hardware.
-
But on the flip side, your console is 10 years old and any game that comes out at year 9 could have come out at year 1.
This is not necessarily true. The Ps3 had some games that looked about as good as late PS2 games when it first came out. Now, there are several games that look pretty damn good on Ps3 that look infinitely better than early Ps3 games. The Ps4 renders games that look very close in quality to Ps3 games. Most of the PS4's library consists of Ps3 ports at this point. Surely, in 5 years we'll have games that look much better than what we are seeing now on the Ps4.
The result being that your games look much worse.
Yes, they probably do look much worse than their PC counterparts. No arguments there.
-
But on the flip side, your console is 10 years old and any game that comes out at year 9 could have come out at year 1.
This is not necessarily true. The Ps3 had some games that looked about as good as late PS2 games when it first came out. Now, there are several games that look pretty damn good on Ps3 that look infinitely better than early Ps3 games. The Ps4 renders games that look very close in quality to Ps3 games. Most of the PS4's library consists of Ps3 ports at this point. Surely, in 5 years we'll have games that look much better than what we are seeing now on the Ps4.
And if you had a Ps3 bought on release day, that game will still look the same on it. What you just proved is that when given limited hardware with no upgrade capabilities programmers are able to cut corners and create more efficient code. That's all it is, efficient code. That pretty good looking game could have come out 10 years ago yet it did not.
-
And if you had a Ps3 bought on release day, that game will still look the same on it. What you just proved is that when given limited hardware with no upgrade capabilities programmers are able to cut corners and create more efficient code. That's all it is, efficient code. That pretty good looking game could have come out 10 years ago yet it did not.
That's either because A) the devs got better at coding for the system or B) launch titles are usually rushed. Not all gamers see graphics as the reason to purchase a gaming system, so it's not really relevant to this argument.
If this was about graphics PC would win every time. No one is arguing otherwise.
-
It's thanks to consoles that games haven't made any significant advancements in graphics in the past 10 or so years.
-
It's thanks to consoles that games haven't made any significant advancements in graphics in the past 10 or so years.
Well, no.
-
please elaborate
-
Games have made significant graphical advancements in the past ten years.
Also PC exclusives exist. The graphical quality of games like ArmA or The Witcher aren't affected by consoles.
-
Fine.
-
My previous post about DOOM 2 being the last good PC game was slightly incorrect.
I have revised my opinion because I almost completely forgot about the true greatness that is Dino D-Day.
Have you ever asked yourself: "What does it feel like to shoot a Triceratops in the face?" or "How would WW2 turn out if the Nazis had dinosaurs?" Well, this game is your answer.
By far the best game ever made. Any FPS game that lets you play as a T-Rex is doing something right. The graphics are also the best I have seen on any system. If you haven't played Dino D-Day then you're not a qualified PC gamer and you should just leave this thread. Or at least purchase it on Steam and start playing it. Call out of work/school if you have to. Dino D-Day is by far the most important game to come out on any system in the past 3 decades.
-
I played Trespasser. I know what it feels like shooting a triceratops in the face.
-
I played Trespasser. I know what it feels like shooting a triceratops in the face.
Do you know what it feels like being a triceratops getting shot in the face?
That's what I thought. Buy Dino D-Day.
-
No, but i know what i feels like beign a Xenomorph being shot in the face.
-
Do you even dinosaur?
-
Rarely.
-
And if you had a Ps3 bought on release day, that game will still look the same on it. What you just proved is that when given limited hardware with no upgrade capabilities programmers are able to cut corners and create more efficient code. That's all it is, efficient code. That pretty good looking game could have come out 10 years ago yet it did not.
That's either because A) the devs got better at coding for the system or B) launch titles are usually rushed. Not all gamers see graphics as the reason to purchase a gaming system, so it's not really relevant to this argument.
If this was about graphics PC would win every time. No one is arguing otherwise.
Wait... you AREN'T arguing about graphics? Because that's really all consoles have. If PC games can use 10 year old hardware then the cost of a PC becomes WAY cheaper.
-
And if you had a Ps3 bought on release day, that game will still look the same on it. What you just proved is that when given limited hardware with no upgrade capabilities programmers are able to cut corners and create more efficient code. That's all it is, efficient code. That pretty good looking game could have come out 10 years ago yet it did not.
That's either because A) the devs got better at coding for the system or B) launch titles are usually rushed. Not all gamers see graphics as the reason to purchase a gaming system, so it's not really relevant to this argument.
If this was about graphics PC would win every time. No one is arguing otherwise.
Wait... you AREN'T arguing about graphics? Because that's really all consoles have. If PC games can use 10 year old hardware then the cost of a PC becomes WAY cheaper.
I'm arguing that consoles are more convenient for gaming than PCs. You could use 10 year old hardware to play older PC games, yes, but if you wanted to play current games then you'd have to shovel out some money for upgrades. Buying a Ps3 and keeping it for 10 years is arguably less costly than keeping your PC up-to-date just so you can play Watch_Dogs with the draw distance at max. Graphics are relevant to games, true... but my argument is not "PC has better graphics so it's more practical for gaming".
PCs are more costly to the average consumer, so consoles are more practical for people low on funds or casuals. The entire console market proves this. Trends in gaming prove this. Consumers have proved this.
-
And if you had a Ps3 bought on release day, that game will still look the same on it. What you just proved is that when given limited hardware with no upgrade capabilities programmers are able to cut corners and create more efficient code. That's all it is, efficient code. That pretty good looking game could have come out 10 years ago yet it did not.
That's either because A) the devs got better at coding for the system or B) launch titles are usually rushed. Not all gamers see graphics as the reason to purchase a gaming system, so it's not really relevant to this argument.
If this was about graphics PC would win every time. No one is arguing otherwise.
Wait... you AREN'T arguing about graphics? Because that's really all consoles have. If PC games can use 10 year old hardware then the cost of a PC becomes WAY cheaper.
I'm arguing that consoles are more convenient for gaming than PCs. You could use 10 year old hardware to play older PC games, yes, but if you wanted to play current games then you'd have to shovel out some money for upgrades. Buying a Ps3 and keeping it for 10 years is arguably less costly than keeping your PC up-to-date just so you can play Watch_Dogs with the draw distance at max. Graphics are relevant to games, true... but my argument is not "PC has better graphics so it's more practical for gaming".
PCs are more costly to the average consumer, so consoles are more practical for people low on funds or casuals. The entire console market proves this. Trends in gaming prove this. Consumers have proved this.
Convenient? Yes. I mean, what's easier than popping a disk into a drive and getting a game? Or a cartridge into a port and pressing a power button?
However, I would like to point out that if PC software stood still for 10 years then the PC becomes much cheaper.
The Ps3 remained the same price for quite some time. PC hardware, however, did not. So in 3 years that Ps3 is going to cost the same but the same PC is going to be cheaper.
-
And if you had a Ps3 bought on release day, that game will still look the same on it. What you just proved is that when given limited hardware with no upgrade capabilities programmers are able to cut corners and create more efficient code. That's all it is, efficient code. That pretty good looking game could have come out 10 years ago yet it did not.
That's either because A) the devs got better at coding for the system or B) launch titles are usually rushed. Not all gamers see graphics as the reason to purchase a gaming system, so it's not really relevant to this argument.
If this was about graphics PC would win every time. No one is arguing otherwise.
Wait... you AREN'T arguing about graphics? Because that's really all consoles have. If PC games can use 10 year old hardware then the cost of a PC becomes WAY cheaper.
I'm arguing that consoles are more convenient for gaming than PCs. You could use 10 year old hardware to play older PC games, yes, but if you wanted to play current games then you'd have to shovel out some money for upgrades. Buying a Ps3 and keeping it for 10 years is arguably less costly than keeping your PC up-to-date just so you can play Watch_Dogs with the draw distance at max. Graphics are relevant to games, true... but my argument is not "PC has better graphics so it's more practical for gaming".
PCs are more costly to the average consumer, so consoles are more practical for people low on funds or casuals. The entire console market proves this. Trends in gaming prove this. Consumers have proved this.
Convenient? Yes. I mean, what's easier than popping a disk into a drive and getting a game? Or a cartridge into a port and pressing a power button?
However, I would like to point out that if PC software stood still for 10 years then the PC becomes much cheaper.
The Ps3 remained the same price for quite some time. PC hardware, however, did not. So in 3 years that Ps3 is going to cost the same but the same PC is going to be cheaper.
Build me a PC that plays GTA IV on max settings at 60fps for $400 or less and I will convert.
-
Do you own a PC?
-
Do you own a PC?
I did own a decent gaming rig but it died about two years ago. Why?
-
Build me a PC that plays GTA IV on max settings at 60fps for $400 or less and I will convert.
That's sort of silly considering even consoles can't play GTA IV at max settings, let alone at 60 FPS.
-
Build me a PC that plays GTA IV on max settings at 60fps for $400 or less and I will convert.
That's sort of silly considering even consoles can't play GTA IV at max settings, let alone at 60 FPS.
This.
Remember the console versions will usually have different rendering technologies from PC versions.
Also console ports suck and often require faster hardware to compensate for poor coding in the port.
Oh and PS: the Xbox 360 had a whopping 512 MB of ram. Just so you know.
-
So it's not possible?
-
So it's not possible?
Probably not, but I'm not sure of its relevance to anything. Seems like an arbitrary benchmark.
-
So it's not possible?
Probably not, but I'm not sure of its relevance to anything. Seems like an arbitrary benchmark.
The relevance is that I want a good gaming PC but I'm not willing to spend more than $400.
-
The relevance is that I want a good gaming PC but I'm not willing to spend more than $400.
Well, that really depends on your definition of good. Integrated graphics have gotten advanced enough to play most modern games at low or medium settings at 720p at 30 FPS (the equivalent of modern consoles). For comparison an Intel chipset 4600 is at about 432 Gflops whereas a PS3 runs at about 400. Your experience may vary depending on driver updates and how well optimized the game is.
For another $200 you could easily step your system above and beyond any console. Even mainstream PC graphics cards can run modern games 1080p at medium settings and 60 FPS, blowing both "next gen" consoles out of the water.
-
Um, sir... What are Gflops?
What kind of PC would you recommend in my price range? I'm a beginner at building my own. I had a 2007 Dell XPS. It played most games at the time around low-medium settings. Although I could run Team Fortress at max. It was $800 at the time, I believe.
-
Um, sir... What are Gflops?
Giga floating point operations per second.
It isn't a 1:1 comparison for graphics performance due to game variations, most games on the PS3 are built to be very efficient thus you'll probably see better performance on it than on an Intel APU, but the performance is close enough to be relevant.
What kind of PC would you recommend in my price range? I'm a beginner at building my own. I had a 2007 Dell XPS. It played most games at the time around low-medium settings. Although I could run Team Fortress at max. It was $800 at the time, I believe.
You didn't state a price range. We were talking about a $400 computer but now you're talking about a $800 one. I'm confused.
-
The original XPS was a gift. I didn't buy it. If I were to buy it then I would only want to spend around $400.
From my understanding, the graphics card and chipset/motherboard are the most expensive parts. That still leaves a fan, a case, and any other electronic parts left over. I have no idea where to start. Would newegg.com be a decent starting point?
-
Do you own a PC?
I did own a decent gaming rig but it died about two years ago. Why?
I was thinking about the cost efficiency of consoles VS. PCs, and realized that most console owners are probably also going to own a PC anyway. The most cheepy cheep PCs for the average user will cost around $200. If you put that $200 towards a gaming PC instead of buying a $400 console, then you've spent the same amount of money, and $600 can buy a PC that performs excellently.
Newegg is good. Logical Increments (http://www.logicalincrements.com/l) is an excellent place to determine what you want based on price.
-
The original XPS was a gift. I didn't buy it. If I were to buy it then I would only want to spend around $400.
From my understanding, the graphics card and chipset/motherboard are the most expensive parts. That still leaves a fan, a case, and any other electronic parts left over. I have no idea where to start. Would newegg.com be a decent starting point?
Yes. I always start with the motherboard and work my way from there, since it is the key part which all other parts must be compatible with.
Also keep in mind that although I have built $400 computers that do what I describe, they did not include peripherals (keyboard, mouse, monitor, etc) and had cases of rather objectionable quality. You'll have to push the envelope of budgeting your PC build and it's not exactly something I'd suggest you to do.
http://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc
These guys live on the internet to help you. The links on right of the page are pretty helpful too.
-
Just use PC part picker.
-
CDs have numerous advantages over vinyl. For one, you can pop a CD into your car. You can rip a CD onto your computer. Numerous systems can read CDs. Vinyl is cumbersome, and CDs are seen as superior because they are more functional.
You misunderstand me. I was not comparing CDs and vinyl to each other (although even then, vinyl does have some advantages), but to their respective contemporary competitors. Vinyl competed with technologically superior wax cylinders and won; just as, decades later, CDs competed with the superior DVD-Audio and digital download formats and won. Even as digital downloads are now gaining in popularity, the most common format is MP3, a specification that was outdated more than 10 years ago.
The point of all this is that consumers suck at making good decisions, so I don't take popularity as evidence of intrinsic worth. I'll respond to other posts later, when I'm not on my phone.
-
This console was hodgepodge'd together at the last minute. It feels pretty janky.
-
So it's not possible?
$395
That's Case, Motherboard, memory, Video Card, Power supply, HDD, DVD Drive, keyboard, mouse. Basically everything an XBox360 comes with.
Not only does this more or less exceed the XBox360 in specs but it should run GTA IV without a problem.
AMD Athlon X4 740 Trinity Quad-Core 3.2GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113329)
ESC A55F2P-M2 AMD A55 Micro ATX Motherboard. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813135378)
2xTeam Elite 2GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313101)
Micro-ATX Case (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147166)
WD HDD 500 GB SATA2 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5AD1P56503)
Lite-ON 18x DVD-ROM drive. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106276)
FSP 450w MicroATX Power Supply (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817104132)
Diamond Radeon R5 230 Graphics Card. 1GB DDR3 PCI-Express 3.0x16 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103107)
Keyboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823201028)
mouse (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5H61PT4622)
OS not included.
-
So it's not possible?
$395
That's Case, Motherboard, memory, Video Card, Power supply, HDD, DVD Drive, keyboard, mouse. Basically everything an XBox360 comes with.
Not only does this more or less exceed the XBox360 in specs but it should run GTA IV without a problem.
AMD Athlon X4 740 Trinity Quad-Core 3.2GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113329)
ESC A55F2P-M2 AMD A55 Micro ATX Motherboard. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813135378)
2xTeam Elite 2GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313101)
Micro-ATX Case (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147166)
WD HDD 500 GB SATA2 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5AD1P56503)
Lite-ON 18x DVD-ROM drive. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106276)
FSP 450w MicroATX Power Supply (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817104132)
Diamond Radeon R5 230 Graphics Card. 1GB DDR3 PCI-Express 3.0x16 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103107)
Keyboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823201028)
mouse (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5H61PT4622)
OS not included.
Thank you, Dave. This is super helpful. I'll bookmark this for a later date when I have the cash.
-
inb4PCvsConsole
owait...
-
inb4PCvsConsole
owait...
(http://i.imgur.com/IgA2L3e.png)
-
So it's not possible?
$395
That's Case, Motherboard, memory, Video Card, Power supply, HDD, DVD Drive, keyboard, mouse. Basically everything an XBox360 comes with.
Not only does this more or less exceed the XBox360 in specs but it should run GTA IV without a problem.
AMD Athlon X4 740 Trinity Quad-Core 3.2GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113329)
ESC A55F2P-M2 AMD A55 Micro ATX Motherboard. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813135378)
2xTeam Elite 2GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313101)
Micro-ATX Case (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147166)
WD HDD 500 GB SATA2 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5AD1P56503)
Lite-ON 18x DVD-ROM drive. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106276)
FSP 450w MicroATX Power Supply (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817104132)
Diamond Radeon R5 230 Graphics Card. 1GB DDR3 PCI-Express 3.0x16 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103107)
Keyboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823201028)
mouse (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5H61PT4622)
OS not included.
I hope you didn't buy this. That's the cringiest budget PC I've ever seen. Just wait for black friday and get an AMD APU build that's twice as good for the same price.
-
So it's not possible?
$395
That's Case, Motherboard, memory, Video Card, Power supply, HDD, DVD Drive, keyboard, mouse. Basically everything an XBox360 comes with.
Not only does this more or less exceed the XBox360 in specs but it should run GTA IV without a problem.
AMD Athlon X4 740 Trinity Quad-Core 3.2GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113329)
ESC A55F2P-M2 AMD A55 Micro ATX Motherboard. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813135378)
2xTeam Elite 2GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313101)
Micro-ATX Case (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147166)
WD HDD 500 GB SATA2 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5AD1P56503)
Lite-ON 18x DVD-ROM drive. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106276)
FSP 450w MicroATX Power Supply (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817104132)
Diamond Radeon R5 230 Graphics Card. 1GB DDR3 PCI-Express 3.0x16 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103107)
Keyboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823201028)
mouse (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5H61PT4622)
OS not included.
I hope you didn't buy this. That's the cringiest budget PC I've ever seen. Just wait for black friday and get an AMD APU build that's twice as good for the same price.
Its designed to run GTA 4 well for under $400.
So yeah, its budget. Why is it cringiest though? Its not like you can get cheaper and better parts now.
-
So it's not possible?
$395
That's Case, Motherboard, memory, Video Card, Power supply, HDD, DVD Drive, keyboard, mouse. Basically everything an XBox360 comes with.
Not only does this more or less exceed the XBox360 in specs but it should run GTA IV without a problem.
AMD Athlon X4 740 Trinity Quad-Core 3.2GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113329)
ESC A55F2P-M2 AMD A55 Micro ATX Motherboard. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813135378)
2xTeam Elite 2GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313101)
Micro-ATX Case (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147166)
WD HDD 500 GB SATA2 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5AD1P56503)
Lite-ON 18x DVD-ROM drive. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106276)
FSP 450w MicroATX Power Supply (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817104132)
Diamond Radeon R5 230 Graphics Card. 1GB DDR3 PCI-Express 3.0x16 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103107)
Keyboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823201028)
mouse (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5H61PT4622)
OS not included.
I hope you didn't buy this. That's the cringiest budget PC I've ever seen. Just wait for black friday and get an AMD APU build that's twice as good for the same price.
Its designed to run GTA 4 well for under $400.
So yeah, its budget. Why is it cringiest though? Its not like you can get cheaper and better parts now.
The CPU is slow as balls, the PSU is a crappy brand, along with the motherboard, awful budget RAM, slow GPU, and it looks like that's a WD Green hard drive or something. You can get a faster one for the same price. If he wants a platform to play just one game, he should get a console so he knows he can at least play any games that will be released for it. If he got this, it's already outdated and he probably won't be able to play many games that he'll inevitably want to play.
Just save up for an APU build and you can just not get a GPU and add one later if you want.
-
I don't get it. If you're aiming for shit tier performance, why not just get a console? Gaming PCs are for surpassing console performance, not matching it.
-
So it's not possible?
$395
That's Case, Motherboard, memory, Video Card, Power supply, HDD, DVD Drive, keyboard, mouse. Basically everything an XBox360 comes with.
Not only does this more or less exceed the XBox360 in specs but it should run GTA IV without a problem.
AMD Athlon X4 740 Trinity Quad-Core 3.2GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113329)
ESC A55F2P-M2 AMD A55 Micro ATX Motherboard. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813135378)
2xTeam Elite 2GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313101)
Micro-ATX Case (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147166)
WD HDD 500 GB SATA2 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5AD1P56503)
Lite-ON 18x DVD-ROM drive. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106276)
FSP 450w MicroATX Power Supply (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817104132)
Diamond Radeon R5 230 Graphics Card. 1GB DDR3 PCI-Express 3.0x16 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103107)
Keyboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823201028)
mouse (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5H61PT4622)
OS not included.
I hope you didn't buy this. That's the cringiest budget PC I've ever seen. Just wait for black friday and get an AMD APU build that's twice as good for the same price.
Its designed to run GTA 4 well for under $400.
So yeah, its budget. Why is it cringiest though? Its not like you can get cheaper and better parts now.
The CPU is slow as balls, the PSU is a crappy brand, along with the motherboard, awful budget RAM, slow GPU, and it looks like that's a WD Green hard drive or something. You can get a faster one for the same price. If he wants a platform to play just one game, he should get a console so he knows he can at least play any games that will be released for it. If he got this, it's already outdated and he probably won't be able to play many games that he'll inevitably want to play.
Just save up for an APU build and you can just not get a GPU and add one later if you want.
You clearly didn't read the whole thread.
I'll summarize:
V: Consoles are better because they cost less.
LD: PC is better because its cheaper in the long run for better quality.
V: Impossible. I'll only believe it if you can build a gaming PC that will play GTA 4 at max settings at 60fps for less than $400.
LD: (finds cheap parts to satisfy gta's recommended requirements)
I sure as hell wouldn't buy this for a gaming PC. I'm just proving a point.
-
So it's not possible?
$395
That's Case, Motherboard, memory, Video Card, Power supply, HDD, DVD Drive, keyboard, mouse. Basically everything an XBox360 comes with.
Not only does this more or less exceed the XBox360 in specs but it should run GTA IV without a problem.
AMD Athlon X4 740 Trinity Quad-Core 3.2GHz (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113329)
ESC A55F2P-M2 AMD A55 Micro ATX Motherboard. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813135378)
2xTeam Elite 2GB 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820313101)
Micro-ATX Case (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811147166)
WD HDD 500 GB SATA2 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5AD1P56503)
Lite-ON 18x DVD-ROM drive. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106276)
FSP 450w MicroATX Power Supply (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817104132)
Diamond Radeon R5 230 Graphics Card. 1GB DDR3 PCI-Express 3.0x16 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814103107)
Keyboard (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16823201028)
mouse (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA5H61PT4622)
OS not included.
I hope you didn't buy this. That's the cringiest budget PC I've ever seen. Just wait for black friday and get an AMD APU build that's twice as good for the same price.
Its designed to run GTA 4 well for under $400.
So yeah, its budget. Why is it cringiest though? Its not like you can get cheaper and better parts now.
The CPU is slow as balls, the PSU is a crappy brand, along with the motherboard, awful budget RAM, slow GPU, and it looks like that's a WD Green hard drive or something. You can get a faster one for the same price. If he wants a platform to play just one game, he should get a console so he knows he can at least play any games that will be released for it. If he got this, it's already outdated and he probably won't be able to play many games that he'll inevitably want to play.
Just save up for an APU build and you can just not get a GPU and add one later if you want.
Build a better one for roughly the same price if you're such a pro at budget PCs.
Gaming PCs are for surpassing console performance, not matching it.
Maybe if you're an elitist PC masterace, but graphics aren't very important to me. I just want something that can play a few PC exclusives, all of which are not very graphically extensive.
-
For that kinda price, you'd could have a fairly decent 2nd hand pc/laptop. consoles are becoming too expensive for what you get. I wouldn't be surprised to see the console age come to an end. More people would rather prod their phone/tablet.
-
More people would rather prod their phone/tablet.
Incorrect.
Smartphone gaming is for children.
-
More people would rather prod their phone/tablet.
Incorrect.
Smartphone gaming is for children.
All gaming is for children. Adults should be working or getting laid, or looking after said children.
-
More people would rather prod their phone/tablet.
Incorrect.
Smartphone gaming is for children.
All gaming is for children. Adults should be working or getting laid, or looking after said children.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Jb3VhwK00
Game for Cats says otherwise.
-
PC gaming will die before console gaming. The reason is that PC gaming is more of a solitary experience. It's more of a chore to set up a LAN party or lug your computer around than to just bring a console and plug in three extra controllers. For a lot of people, console gaming is just more fun. And game mechanics will always be > graphics in terms of enjoyment.
-
PC gaming will die before console gaming. The reason is that PC gaming is more of a solitary experience. It's more of a chore to set up a LAN party or lug your computer around than to just bring a console and plug in three extra controllers. For a lot of people, console gaming is just more fun. And game mechanics will always be > graphics in terms of enjoyment.
trololololol
-
PC gaming will die before console gaming. The reason is that PC gaming is more of a solitary experience. It's more of a chore to set up a LAN party or lug your computer around than to just bring a console and plug in three extra controllers. For a lot of people, console gaming is just more fun. And game mechanics will always be > graphics in terms of enjoyment.
epic
-
PC gaming will die before console gaming. The reason is that PC gaming is more of a solitary experience. It's more of a chore to set up a LAN party or lug your computer around than to just bring a console and plug in three extra controllers. For a lot of people, console gaming is just more fun. And game mechanics will always be > graphics in terms of enjoyment.
Considering how many split screen games are being made these days, I'm going to say you're wrong.
Very, very wrong.
-
PC gaming will die before console gaming. The reason is that PC gaming is more of a solitary experience. It's more of a chore to set up a LAN party or lug your computer around than to just bring a console and plug in three extra controllers. For a lot of people, console gaming is just more fun. And game mechanics will always be > graphics in terms of enjoyment.
Considering how many split screen games are being made these days, I'm going to say you're wrong.
Very, very wrong.
That isn't why he's wrong. Also, many split screen games for the PC?
-
split screen is terrible
-
split screen is terrible
-
That isn't why he's wrong. Also, many split screen games for the PC?
Well it depends on your definition of "split screen gaming." Two people could easily play two "split-screen" games on the same computer at the same time, but I doubt there are many computer games that actively support this with in-game options.
-
There are less and less split screen games now that devs are aiming for online multi. A lot of popular console games don't even have split screen anymore. I think it's so the publishers can make a few extra bucks and push more copies.
-
There are less and less split screen games now that devs are aiming for online multi. A lot of popular console games don't even have split screen anymore. I think it's so the publishers can make a few extra bucks and push more copies.
Well, that and console hardware is so utterly shitty now that the console can't handle two PoVs at the same time.
-
There are less and less split screen games now that devs are aiming for online multi. A lot of popular console games don't even have split screen anymore. I think it's so the publishers can make a few extra bucks and push more copies.
Well, that and console hardware is so utterly shitty now that the console can't handle two PoVs at the same time.
Eh, most can if they cut the res or make other tweaks for split screen. Its just not desirable to the player, really. That's probably the main reason split screen is dying out.
-
Eh, most can if they cut the res or make other tweaks for split screen. Its just not desirable to the player, really. That's probably the main reason split screen is dying out.
That's exactly what I'm talking about though, it can't handle two PoVs at a viewable resolution. Saying "you'd just have to lower the settings" equates to "shitty console." Since it can't handle itself they just don't include split screen. Games like Battlefield are perfect for splitscreen, but don't include it because reasons.
-
Eh, most can if they cut the res or make other tweaks for split screen. Its just not desirable to the player, really. That's probably the main reason split screen is dying out.
That's exactly what I'm talking about though, it can't handle two PoVs at a viewable resolution. Saying "you'd just have to lower the settings" equates to "shitty console." Since it can't handle itself they just don't include split screen. Games like Battlefield are perfect for splitscreen, but don't include it because reasons.
Well, I doubt many people have rigs that can handle two instances of the same modern game running at the same time anyways.
-
split screen is never perfect. The screens gets too disproportionate. Unless you play on a big ass TV with four player split screen so that the screens can be in proper proportions, but how many games supports this?.
-
I don't get it. If you're aiming for shit tier performance, why not just get a console? Gaming PCs are for surpassing console performance, not matching it.
One reason could be that it lets you do more than gaming.
-
Eh, most can if they cut the res or make other tweaks for split screen. Its just not desirable to the player, really. That's probably the main reason split screen is dying out.
That's exactly what I'm talking about though, it can't handle two PoVs at a viewable resolution. Saying "you'd just have to lower the settings" equates to "shitty console." Since it can't handle itself they just don't include split screen. Games like Battlefield are perfect for splitscreen, but don't include it because reasons.
Well, I doubt many people have rigs that can handle two instances of the same modern game running at the same time anyways.
Yes, because that's exactly how consoles do it.
-
Eh, most can if they cut the res or make other tweaks for split screen. Its just not desirable to the player, really. That's probably the main reason split screen is dying out.
That's exactly what I'm talking about though, it can't handle two PoVs at a viewable resolution. Saying "you'd just have to lower the settings" equates to "shitty console." Since it can't handle itself they just don't include split screen. Games like Battlefield are perfect for splitscreen, but don't include it because reasons.
Well, I doubt many people have rigs that can handle two instances of the same modern game running at the same time anyways.
Yes, because that's exactly how consoles do it.
Did I say that? Please enlightening me as to where I had typed these words, good sir.
-
If you didn't believe that, the comment about PCs not being able to perform well with two completely separate instances of a game running would be entirely irrelevant.
-
If you didn't believe that, the comment about PCs not being able to perform well with two completely separate instances of a game running would be entirely irrelevant.
He was probably reflecting back to my earlier post:
Well it depends on your definition of "split screen gaming." Two people could easily play two "split-screen" games on the same computer at the same time, but I doubt there are many computer games that actively support this with in-game options.
-
PC gaming will die before console gaming. The reason is that PC gaming is more of a solitary experience. It's more of a chore to set up a LAN party or lug your computer around than to just bring a console and plug in three extra controllers. For a lot of people, console gaming is just more fun. And game mechanics will always be > graphics in terms of enjoyment.
Considering how many split screen games are being made these days, I'm going to say you're wrong.
Very, very wrong.
That isn't why he's wrong. Also, many split screen games for the PC?
In 10 years when everyone has gigabit internet connections, we'll just pay for a cloud based service and we'll stream games to our TV through an Apple TV size box. The PC enthusiast days will end as the smartphone generation grows up.
-
lol gigabit connections in 10 years. Just a few people are getting that shit now, and it's expensive. There will be a lack of need for such a connection as well, even 10 years from now.
Assuming this hypothetical gigabit world, why would PC's be worse when the PC gaming market already largely exists on various cloud systems?
-
lol gigabit connections in 10 years. Just a few people are getting that shit now, and it's expensive. There will be a lack of need for such a connection as well, even 10 years from now.
If technology continues to progress at the rate it has been, gigabit connections will be common in 10 years.
Assuming this hypothetical gigabit world, why would PC's be worse when the PC gaming market already largely exists on various cloud systems?
What? You mean that people download their games from services like Steam, right? That's not what I'm talking about.
-
PC gaming will die before console gaming. The reason is that PC gaming is more of a solitary experience. It's more of a chore to set up a LAN party or lug your computer around than to just bring a console and plug in three extra controllers. For a lot of people, console gaming is just more fun. And game mechanics will always be > graphics in terms of enjoyment.
Considering how many split screen games are being made these days, I'm going to say you're wirong.
Very, very wrong.
That isn't why he's wrong. Also, many split screen games for the PC?
In 10 years when everyone has gigabit internet connections, we'll just pay for a cloud based service and we'll stream games to our TV through an Apple TV size box. The PC enthusiast days will end as the smartphone generation grows up.
This already exists.
games.onlive.com/
10 gigabits is hardly required. 1/10 of that is more than sufficient for now. It'll go higher as HD and HD4K become more common.
-
In 10 years when everyone has gigabit internet connections, we'll just pay for a cloud based service and we'll stream games to our TV through an Apple TV size box. The PC enthusiast days will end as the smartphone generation grows up.
There are a lot of companies that offer cloud gaming and they are all going down the tubes because its an awful idea. No one wants to add input latency on top of all of their games. Even as low as 1ms input latencies are noticeable. It doesn't matter how much bandwidth you throw at them (they only need as much as YouTube) there will always be slight input and return lag.
-
If technology continues to progress at the rate it has been, gigabit connections will be common in 10 years.
Technology development != technology deployment.
-
In 10 years when everyone has gigabit internet connections, we'll just pay for a cloud based service and we'll stream games to our TV through an Apple TV size box. The PC enthusiast days will end as the smartphone generation grows up.
There are a lot of companies that offer cloud gaming and they are all going down the tubes because its an awful idea. No one wants to add input latency on top of all of their games. Even as low as 1ms input latencies are noticeable. It doesn't matter how much bandwidth you throw at them (they only need as much as YouTube) there will always be slight input and return lag.
If everyone has the input lag, then it's not really an issue.
Also, it's not really much different than normal input lag. Yes your local view won't update as quickly but the time it takes for the server to update is the same. Most of this is solved with input prediction subroutines anyway.
-
If everyone has the input lag, then it's not really an issue.
....What?
Also, it's not really much different than normal input lag. Yes your local view won't update as quickly but the time it takes for the server to update is the same. Most of this is solved with input prediction subroutines anyway.
Dave, I understand your strategy is to make shit up and hope it makes sense and I'll admit it normally works out for you, but this is just utter nonsense and you should be ashamed for posting it.
-
Most of this is solved with input prediction subroutines anyway.
Which can only be used if you have a computer capable of doing that. In Andrew's hypothetical scenario, you wouldn't have that luxury.
-
If everyone has the input lag, then it's not really an issue.
....What?
Also, it's not really much different than normal input lag. Yes your local view won't update as quickly but the time it takes for the server to update is the same. Most of this is solved with input prediction subroutines anyway.
Dave, I understand your strategy is to make shit up and hope it makes sense and I'll admit it normally works out for you, but this is just utter nonsense and you should be ashamed for posting it.
gafferongames.com/networking-for-game-programmers/what-every-programmer-needs-to-know-about-game-networking/
Look at the bit titled Client-Side Prediction. In this case it would be on the server but the same principal applies. And all you need to do is loop the previous input until you get new input from the client.
Yes it will be slower by some number of ms but with a fast enough connection, it isn't too noticeable. I mean, its not like keyboard/mouse input data requires a lot of bandwidth. And that data only goes one way.
Also remember that while your local based game can visually react nearly instantly it still has to send your input data to the server, have the server process it, then send any corrections on position and status back to the client.
The only real difference with cloud gaming is that instead of sending status updates downstream, it sends a video stream.
-edit-
Wait, do you mean input lag as the lag between key press and visual output or key press and the system processing that key press only(before video output)?
-edit 2-
Well fuck. Looks like video games use the former definition of input lag and I use the latter. Sorry about that. In that context, yes, what I said is retarded and I'm ashamed.
-
Yes it will be slower by some number of ms but with a fast enough connection, it isn't too noticeable. I mean, its not like keyboard/mouse input data requires a lot of bandwidth. And that data only goes one way.
Bandwidth is not what you need here, it's latency.
-
Yes it will be slower by some number of ms but with a fast enough connection, it isn't too noticeable. I mean, its not like keyboard/mouse input data requires a lot of bandwidth. And that data only goes one way.
Bandwidth is not what you need here, it's latency.
Well you need both (bandwidth for the video stream) but you're right. Even 56kb/s upload would probably be sufficient if you had very low latency.
Which is why the services require you to live within 1,000 miles from their server farm.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36Jb3VhwK00
Game for Cats says otherwise.
Most expensive way to wreck a cheap rug.
-
In this case it would be on the server but the same principal applies. And all you need to do is loop the previous input until you get new input from the client.
I don't think you understand the concept of "client side".
-
In this case it would be on the server but the same principal applies. And all you need to do is loop the previous input until you get new input from the client.
I don't think you understand the concept of "client side".
Why do you say that?
-
gafferongames.com/networking-for-game-programmers/what-every-programmer-needs-to-know-about-game-networking/
Look at the bit titled Client-Side Prediction. In this case it would be on the server but the same principal applies. And all you need to do is loop the previous input until you get new input from the client.
Again, you're talking out your ass. Client-side prediction is not "input prediction subroutines" and the server does not loop input anywhere. It looks like you found an article on your google adventures and hopes it vaguely agreed with you. That didn't work out so well, bummer.
Yes it will be slower by some number of ms but with a fast enough connection, it isn't too noticeable. I mean, its not like keyboard/mouse input data requires a lot of bandwidth. And that data only goes one way.
Bandwidth is (mostly) irrelevant. Anything beyond dial-up upload speeds would suffice. The problem here is that the commands have to leave the client terminal, arrive at a server, be processed, then rendered, then sent back to the client terminal.
Also remember that while your local based game can visually react nearly instantly it still has to send your input data to the server, have the server process it, then send any corrections on position and status back to the client.
No it doesn't, that isn't how localhost or server hosted multiplayer games work. You should probably read that article that you posted, you would learn a lot.
The only real difference with cloud gaming is that instead of sending status updates downstream, it sends a video stream.
Uhh, no.
In this case it would be on the server but the same principal applies. And all you need to do is loop the previous input until you get new input from the client.
I don't think you understand the concept of "client side".
Why do you say that?
Client-side prediction is used in client-side multiplayer games. It means that players each have their own instance of a game that predicts what impact the player's actions will have on the game and other players. The server only verifies player activity. This is how multiplayer games became playable and Quake became so popular. OnLive is a step backwards from this, it uses server-side processes to determine player actions.
This is also why on games like Call of Duty another player can shoot you in the face when on your screen the player was around the corner.
-
gafferongames.com/networking-for-game-programmers/what-every-programmer-needs-to-know-about-game-networking/
Look at the bit titled Client-Side Prediction. In this case it would be on the server but the same principal applies. And all you need to do is loop the previous input until you get new input from the client.
Again, you're talking out your ass. Client-side prediction is not "input prediction subroutines" and the server does not loop input anywhere. It looks like you found an article on your google adventures and hopes it vaguely agreed with you. That didn't work out so well, bummer.
If the server is waiting for your input, what do you think it should do? Have your avatar do nothing? Assume you're doing nothing? That you aren't pressing any keys? Why not have the server simply assume that whatever input you sent it last is what input you're still sending it until it receives an update? If you press the forward key, odds are you're still pressing that key 50 ms later.
Yes it will be slower by some number of ms but with a fast enough connection, it isn't too noticeable. I mean, its not like keyboard/mouse input data requires a lot of bandwidth. And that data only goes one way.
Bandwidth is (mostly) irrelevant. Anything beyond dial-up upload speeds would suffice. The problem here is that the commands have to leave the client terminal, arrive at a server, be processed, then rendered, then sent back to the client terminal.
Let me make sure I'm on the same page. I assume that cloud gaming works by having a VM of a client computer on it's server farm. Your device connects to that and essentially get a stream of the screen data. Now in a multiplayer game, this VM machine has to run the client software for whatever game you're running. (let's say Counterstrike) That client, to connect to a multiplayer server, is going to go out and find one. It may be on the same server farm as the client VM, or maybe not.
I see the "client" as the VM running the game and the "server" as whatever is hosting the server version of the game for others to join.
Which means, if I'm right, the data goes from the dummy device(you) to the "client" to the "server".
Also remember that while your local based game can visually react nearly instantly it still has to send your input data to the server, have the server process it, then send any corrections on position and status back to the client.
No it doesn't, that isn't how localhost or server hosted multiplayer games work. You should probably read that article that you posted, you would learn a lot.
instead sending your inputs such as key presses, mouse movement, clicks to the server. In response the server updates the state of your character in the world and replies with a packet containing the state of your character and other players near you
How am I wrong? The above quote is what I said.
The only real difference with cloud gaming is that instead of sending status updates downstream, it sends a video stream.
Uhh, no.
Are you saying that cloud gaming doesn't send a video stream to a device?
-
If the server is waiting for your input, what do you think it should do? Have your avatar do nothing? Assume you're doing nothing? That you aren't pressing any keys? Why not have the server simply assume that whatever input you sent it last is what input you're still sending it until it receives an update? If you press the forward key, odds are you're still pressing that key 50 ms later.
I would not have the server involved in making real time decisions. You know, like most modern multiplayer games.
Let me make sure I'm on the same page. I assume that cloud gaming works by having a VM of a client computer on it's server farm. Your device connects to that and essentially get a stream of the screen data. Now in a multiplayer game, this VM machine has to run the client software for whatever game you're running. (let's say Counterstrike) That client, to connect to a multiplayer server, is going to go out and find one. It may be on the same server farm as the client VM, or maybe not.
I see the "client" as the VM running the game and the "server" as whatever is hosting the server version of the game for others to join.
Which means, if I'm right, the data goes from the dummy device(you) to the "client" to the "server".
You've got cloud gaming correct, but multiplayer wrong. The server only runs data points and verifies accuracy in (most) multiplayer games, it doesn't actually render the game, which is what cloud gaming does.
instead sending your inputs such as key presses, mouse movement, clicks to the server. In response the server updates the state of your character in the world and replies with a packet containing the state of your character and other players near you
How am I wrong? The above quote is what I said.
The quote is actually talking about what games used to do, client-side prediction is summarized in the article:
So now in order to remove the latency, the client runs more code than it previously did. It is no longer a dumb terminal sending inputs to the server and interpolating between state sent back. Instead it is able to predict the movement of your character locally and immediately in response to your input, running a subset of the game code for your player character on the client machine.
The whole article is talking about how server-side games are slow as shit, you posted an article that disagrees with literally everything you are posting.
Are you saying that cloud gaming doesn't send a video stream to a device?
No, your statement claimed the only difference is video streaming, when the difference is actually a lot more than that.
-
If the server is waiting for your input, what do you think it should do? Have your avatar do nothing? Assume you're doing nothing? That you aren't pressing any keys? Why not have the server simply assume that whatever input you sent it last is what input you're still sending it until it receives an update? If you press the forward key, odds are you're still pressing that key 50 ms later.
I would not have the server involved in making real time decisions. You know, like most modern multiplayer games.
It has to. Something has to process all the player input and figure out what the new statuses are. If you hit the forward button and someone else hits the fire button, the server has to determine if you're hit and if you are, it has to tell you. Also, unless I'm mistaken, the random cone of fire for games with such things is processed by the server to ensure that clients can't cheat.
Let me make sure I'm on the same page. I assume that cloud gaming works by having a VM of a client computer on it's server farm. Your device connects to that and essentially get a stream of the screen data. Now in a multiplayer game, this VM machine has to run the client software for whatever game you're running. (let's say Counterstrike) That client, to connect to a multiplayer server, is going to go out and find one. It may be on the same server farm as the client VM, or maybe not.
I see the "client" as the VM running the game and the "server" as whatever is hosting the server version of the game for others to join.
Which means, if I'm right, the data goes from the dummy device(you) to the "client" to the "server".
You've got cloud gaming correct, but multiplayer wrong. The server only runs data points and verifies accuracy in (most) multiplayer games, it doesn't actually render the game, which is what cloud gaming does.
Yeah, I know game servers don't render the game. But they still need to combine all the new data from every client, figure out the new data points and status (did you get shot for example) and send that update data to whoever needs it. Even if the client has the right data(like nothing new happens), the server still needs to process that data so it can verify that it's true.
instead sending your inputs such as key presses, mouse movement, clicks to the server. In response the server updates the state of your character in the world and replies with a packet containing the state of your character and other players near you
How am I wrong? The above quote is what I said.
The quote is actually talking about what games used to do, client-side prediction is summarized in the article:
So now in order to remove the latency, the client runs more code than it previously did. It is no longer a dumb terminal sending inputs to the server and interpolating between state sent back. Instead it is able to predict the movement of your character locally and immediately in response to your input, running a subset of the game code for your player character on the client machine.
The whole article is talking about how server-side games are slow as shit, you posted an article that disagrees with literally everything you are posting.
Since when have I suggested that games are rendered on a server under normal, non-cloud gaming?
-
It has to. Something has to process all the player input and figure out what the new statuses are. If you hit the forward button and someone else hits the fire button, the server has to determine if you're hit and if you are, it has to tell you. Also, unless I'm mistaken, the random cone of fire for games with such things is processed by the server to ensure that clients can't cheat.
The server only verifies actions after they are made by the client, it has little real-time impact on game performance.
Yeah, I know game servers don't render the game. But they still need to combine all the new data from every client, figure out the new data points and status (did you get shot for example) and send that update data to whoever needs it. Even if the client has the right data(like nothing new happens), the server still needs to process that data so it can verify that it's true.
Servers normally verify data after the face to catch cheaters or determine contested matches. You seem to think the client and server play some sort of ping pong match, where the client sends the server "move forward one space" and the server says "moved forward one space" and then the client sees they moved forward one space. That isn't what happens.
Since when have I suggested that games are rendered on a server under normal, non-cloud gaming?
Where did I suggest you suggested that? Is this what we're going to do now, dave? Play word games? You know what, I'm done. I am really, truly done. Maybe someone else will come in here and be boggled by you.
-
It has to. Something has to process all the player input and figure out what the new statuses are. If you hit the forward button and someone else hits the fire button, the server has to determine if you're hit and if you are, it has to tell you. Also, unless I'm mistaken, the random cone of fire for games with such things is processed by the server to ensure that clients can't cheat.
The server only verifies actions after they are made by the client, it has little real-time impact on game performance.
Yeah, I know game servers don't render the game. But they still need to combine all the new data from every client, figure out the new data points and status (did you get shot for example) and send that update data to whoever needs it. Even if the client has the right data(like nothing new happens), the server still needs to process that data so it can verify that it's true.
Servers normally verify data after the face to catch cheaters or determine contested matches. You seem to think the client and server play some sort of ping pong match, where the client sends the server "move forward one space" and the server says "moved forward one space" and then the client sees they moved forward one space. That isn't what happens.
The client still needs the data from the other players doesn't it? I get that the server doesn't need to send a confirmation of what the player does, but doesn't it need to send the data about what the other players do?
Since when have I suggested that games are rendered on a server under normal, non-cloud gaming?
Where did I suggest you suggested that? Is this what we're going to do now, dave? Play word games? You know what, I'm done. I am really, truly done. Maybe someone else will come in here and be boggled by you.
The bit I quoted. I thought that's what you were getting at. If it is not, I apologize. I'm not trying to play word games. The fact that you think I am indicates that what I'm trying to say is so horribly distorted that I'm wondering if I can speak English anymore.
-
It seems as though Sony thinks they have it all figured out with Playstation Now. We'll see how well that works.
-
It seems as though Sony thinks they have it all figured out with Playstation Now. We'll see how well that works.
Is that the game streaming service I keep hearing about? I don't think it will catch on, but stupider things have worked before.
-
Software can fix latency. It can't, however, fix the fact that you have a ghetto ass connection and can't receive high resolution content from the server fast enough.
-
Software can fix latency.
I upgraded my speed of light yesterday. Thanks, iOS.
-
Software can fix latency.
I upgraded my speed of light yesterday. Thanks, iOS.
You laugh, but remember, a lot of iPhone users genuinely believed an update made their phone waterproof due to some 4chan shenanigans.
-
So the iPhone isn't waterproof? :O
-
You laugh, but remember, a lot of iPhone users genuinely believed an update made their phone waterproof due to some 4chan shenanigans.
thatsthejoke.rar
-
Software can fix latency.
I upgraded my speed of light yesterday. Thanks, iOS.
I'm talking about latency in relation to multiplayer gaming.
-
I'm talking about latency in relation to multiplayer gaming.
Yes.
-
Software can fix latency. It can't, however, fix the fact that you have a ghetto ass connection and can't receive high resolution content from the server fast enough.
Wouldn't the only software fix be more efficient packet management by the switches? And wouldn't that result in negligable gains?
-
I'm talking about latency in relation to multiplayer gaming.
Is multiplayer gaming operating under special physics?
-
Software can fix latency. It can't, however, fix the fact that you have a ghetto ass connection and can't receive high resolution content from the server fast enough.
Wouldn't the only software fix be more efficient packet management by the switches? And wouldn't that result in negligable gains?
No. If your latency is above 200ms for example, you wouldn't be able to join the server.
-
Software can fix latency. It can't, however, fix the fact that you have a ghetto ass connection and can't receive high resolution content from the server fast enough.
Wouldn't the only software fix be more efficient packet management by the switches? And wouldn't that result in negligable gains?
No. If your latency is above 200ms for example, you wouldn't be able to join the server.
How is that fixing latency? You're just banning people with high latency.
-
Software can fix latency. It can't, however, fix the fact that you have a ghetto ass connection and can't receive high resolution content from the server fast enough.
Wouldn't the only software fix be more efficient packet management by the switches? And wouldn't that result in negligable gains?
No. If your latency is above 200ms for example, you wouldn't be able to join the server.
How is that fixing latency? You're just banning people with high latency.
It makes the game enjoyable, because everyone in it will have a good latency.
-
I'm glad you learned that your original statement is false.
-
I'm glad you learned that your original statement is false.
It isn't false.
-
It isn't false.
Whatever keeps the music box in your head wound up appears to be slacking.
-
It isn't false.
Whatever keeps the music box in your head wound up appears to be slacking.
It's not strictly false. Killing all poor people would solve poverty, at least for a short period of time. It's retarded, but not false.
-
It's not strictly false. Killing all poor people would solve poverty, at least for a short period of time. It's retarded, but not false.
There is a difference between solving a problem and hiding the problem. Furthermore, killing all poor people would not solve poverty.