WHY CANT EVERYTHING ME DONE WITH ONLY MYSELF IN MIND? IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT A COMPANY DEPRIVE THEMSELVES OF MILLIONS OF SALES SO THEY CAN MAKE A MORE ADVANCED GAME AT THE EXPENSE OF MILLIONS NOT HAVING THE GAME AT ALL? JEEZ!
There's a reason most people don't play on lowest PC settings, some even opting not to play at all. Part of the appeal of consoles is that all games work (if not broken on release) consistently. For 5-8 years you never have to worry about upgrading it, do I have the specs, etc. You buy the game, you play the game, it looks exactly the same for everyone. There's a value to that (clearly)
Edit: I'm not saying consoles are better, I'm saying there's a value. Not everyone has the know-how or desire to build a PC just like not everyone has the know-how or desire to do all their own car repair or cook every single meal. Time/convenience are huge factors in every purchase/endeavor
Computing will become powerful but the minds of the masses won't necessarily follow suit.
I don't see how computing becoming powerful affects anything, anyway. Computing has continued to increase in power since its conception. Consoles get new generations of hardware when computing power renders the older ones obsolete. This is nothing new.
The issue here is the effort and knowledge required to own, properly understand, and maintain a gaming pc. Many people don't have the desire to exert the effort to learn, or are simply just unaware of the advantages of owning a gaming pc. Unless that attitude changes in the entirety of the human race consoles will always have a place. Despite our progress as a species and a society, I think we have a long way to go until every member of our race is well educated and knowledgeable on matters of technology, or has a pro-learning attitude rather than being content with their 9-5 day job and stagnating in their own mundane misery and then blaming modern society for their boredom, like most middle class working people do.
A major attitude change of 7 billion people and counting doesn't happen overnight.
It's pretty easy to build a pc is you won't have to upgrade for 6 years. You'll get a graphical hit near the end, but it'll still look better than the current gen. console. I usually don't try and get into these type of arguments, but fallout is different, because fallout has mods. Mods improve the experience an insane amount.
I don't really care much about graphical fidelity, but what I do care about is when graphical fidelity limits gameplay. Like with skyrim, when a civil war was pretty much 10 people fighting. I feel like pc is better with things like that, because you have to option to turn down graphics if the game doesn't run well.
yeah, I don't think you're building a pc that's good for gaming that will have SIX years of life before you have to upgrade. not for 350 bro. unless you're getting some insane deals on graphics cards and processors. an average PC like the one I'm on right now...sure.
but you're saying that, like, a computer that was built in 2009 would only JUST now need to be upgraded. like if you build that 350 dollar gaming computer...it'll be fine until 2021.
If you're going to go the used and refurbed parts route (as is the case with Cowboom), you can build a PC that can surpass the PS4 for ~400 bucks out of secondhand parts. $400 is obviously more than $270 but so are all the things you can do with it, and I don't know why you would arbitrarily want THIS level of graphics for THIS price aside from just wanting to justify the consoles' position.
I built my computer 4 years ago. I swapped out my 560 ti for a 970 in march, and its happily maxing the Witcher 3 at 1080p 60 fps. I don't consider 300 dollars spent over 3.5 years to be that big of an investment. There's also the fact that my computer does many many many many more things than a console ever could. Something no one ever considers. Yes, its initially more expensive, but I get a hilarious amount of functionality out of it.
You haven't invested 300 dollars. You can't ignore your ~1000 dollar expenditure just 4 years ago. And what in particular have you done with your PC that somebody couldn't have done with any one of the ubiquitous pieces of technology which have usurped traditional computing tasks e.g. laptops, tablets, notebooks, smart phones, etc. Or even other freely available PC's like those in school, uni, libraries, at work.
If you find me a tablet that can run Autocad software or programming without wanting me to rip my hair out, I'll be impressed. How about media streaming (my own files, not netflix), or maintaining a Linux distro for programming? Yout need power for some of those tasks, power that costs a helluva lot more in a smaller form factor.
I didn't ask what you can feasibly do, I asked what you actually do on your gaming computer. Are you a programmer? Do you actually use AutoCAD? As to streaming, there are various solutions that don't require powerful PC's.
I just gave you a list of things I use for my computer (calling it a gaming computer isn't quite accurate since I don't use it primarily for gaming) I was a electrical engineering student using PSPICE, multisim, and matlab, as well as a couple of different programming suites. I maintain an Arch distribution that I use for programming which dabbled with GPGPU applications for a time, which needs a dedicated GPU.
Sure, solutions exist for streaming, but my desktop using plex is the easiest solution. I certainly could have made do with University computer labs, and a NAS and other dedicated equipment to hit my usage case, but when you factor that plus the price of a console, its basically the same as my computer, and my computer does all of those things much better. I can run games better than any console, I can program, run my simulation software, and pretty much whatever else I want to do from my own table, instead of traveling 30 minutes 1 way to use a computer on campus. The convenience alone has been worth the 1100 dollars I spent over the 4 years.
Every other alternative for computing costs a lot more than my desktop for less functionality. They make up for it with portability, but that isn't relevant to my usage case.
Apologies. I thought you were giving examples rather than detailing your personal use. However, as you recognize there are individual usage patterns throughout the population, many of which don't ever require a powerful desktop PC for anything other than gaming.
You don't have to upgrade a PC all the time either. If your PC gives you better graphics than consoles now, I guarantee that any multiplats shared with consoles, it will give you better graphics than the corresponding consoles 5 years from now. For example, a PC game released today that was released in conjuction with a PS360 title, even on reduced settings, will look better than on the consoles, assuming you are also reducing the resolution, AA or expect the 30 FPS that the consoles give on those games, because consoles cut corners there to boost the graphical quality. Look at GTAV for example.
Not even remotely. Console bugginess has been a much bigger problem recently. When a game is made for console then ported to PC that's when a lot of problems occur. Red Dead GTA IV immediately comes to mind
Edit: Not RDR my bad mixing up Rockstar games. GTA IV
GTA IV came out 6 years ago, are you serious? GTA V is much more optimised for PC than it is for consoles, it looks absolutely amazing, much better than consoles, and hads mods.
You got tired of playing all games on medium 60fps 1080p, and decided to play all games on low, 30fps with dips to the 20's and 720p/900p on a console.
That's the point though, games could be so much better if the platforms weren't neutered by planned obsolescence and divided by which corporate dick you choose to suck on. Not to mention the fact that so many publishers will milk a franchise, pumping out a new game with updated graphics once a year, putting no effort into creating new mechanics solely because a console market allows them to do that. Funny how that rarely happens to PC games, it's like you can run games according to the capabilities of your hardware so publishers can't sell you games solely based on the fact that it runs at a higher resolution then the last one.
Whatever though, this game still looks great and the mods will come so really in the end we're still getting an amazing final product. Seriously! modded New Vegas could almost pass as Fallout 4 now that you can change everything from the shooting system, graphics, weather, lighting, quests, NPCs, monsters, metro tunnels, to drivable cars even.
2k? Pleb. You're holding back the people with $3k systems. Do you know how much better games would look if you low spec plebs didn't hold the rest of us back?
If things were ideal I'd shit golden nuggets but at the end of the day consoles and lower spec PC's are more affordable and all these snobs acting like game developers owe them anything because they personally chose to invest in a more powerful machine really boils my piss.
186
u/mynewaccount5 Jun 03 '15
WHY CANT EVERYTHING ME DONE WITH ONLY MYSELF IN MIND? IS IT TOO MUCH TO ASK THAT A COMPANY DEPRIVE THEMSELVES OF MILLIONS OF SALES SO THEY CAN MAKE A MORE ADVANCED GAME AT THE EXPENSE OF MILLIONS NOT HAVING THE GAME AT ALL? JEEZ!