You’re taking ONE game from the main area of strength that consoles have over PCs (sports/racing). That doesn’t demonstrate superiority in performance by any means, it just shows that there was a good racing game out for the PS 11 years ago. I could just as well say, speaking of up to 1995, find me one RTS from that time on the PS that looks better than Warcraft 2 for the PC (Warcraft for the PS was painful and revolting). Or something that compares with the Wing Commander or Tie Fighter games. Or, for that matter, Star Wars Rebel Assault 2, a great looking game if there was a single one in 1995.
And yet you don’t do so, and again fail at concrete demonstration of a point. You simply state something for which there is little or no support in evidence and leave it at that. I said that PC games were cheaper than console games. Although this seems to be evident to most people, since you objected I also took a sample to illustrate how my point applied even in the US, where the cost difference appears to be smallest.
Those figures quoted were not cherry-picked, as you seem to be suggesting. In fact, you can see in that table some games that are equal in price across consoles and PCs, because I had no idea as to any price difference before I clicked on them. I don’t doubt there are some games that are cheaper on consoles, but I didn’t come across them in the time I did my multi-platform cost comparisons. This seems to indicate that games that are cheaper on consoles are in a minority.
And why should we only look at launch prices? Everything is priced at a premium at launch. Retailers slashing prices is hardly an issue when you consider that all the price information (except one game IIRC) comes from Gamespot’s sales affiliate, which seems to be one single retailer. Additionally, you appear to be complaining because retailers can slash prices more substantially on PC games than on console games.
If anything that suggests that PC games afford greater latitude for price cuts. Which is not at all surprising if we revisit the publisher/hardware revenue share argument, where we learned that game sales subsidize console hardware losses.
I have no idea, but you’ve reached quite strenuously towards the “end is nigh” conclusion. Until consoles replace PCs entirely – which is simply not going to happen – PC gaming is bound to continue developing nicely, probably retaining its lead in FPS, RTS, Adventure, anything requiring substantial AI (which is where 64-bit computing really makes a difference), and genuine RPGs (i.e., not rail-RPGs like Final Fantasy). Consoles will continue to hold their lead in sports, platform, action, and rail-RPG games. Multiplayer and internet gaming I would guess is up for grabs, but it does appear to belong solidly to the PC.
This is hilarious. You keep running away from your arguments. First you claim that consoles outperform computers. Then you said that by “outperfomrm” you actually meant they look better. You claim that consoles can render the same graphic effects, then you say “o yeah, the same graphic effects, except bla, bla, bla”. And you reveal that your arguments only reach as far as the kind of games you play, the “outstanding” games, which obviously cannot be representative for industry as a whole.
And now this? It was someone else who said that “Consoles … outperform PCs in gaming performance at launch and they keep that lead for 2-3 years”? Let me qoute your own OP. “It usually takes a little over two years for PCs to catch up to current consoles … and then they start exceeding them in polygon pushing power. But because of the nature of consoles … it really takes about 3 years for PC games to get to the level of console games.”
To continue, quoting your post #48: “as I mentionned earlier, PCs are only more powerful than the latest console batch half the time. (around 3 years out of 5-6).”
So, please answer us, do you stand by this, or don’t you?
This was not what bump said at all. He said that a standard tv today offers a standard resolution of 640x480, therefore it doesn’t matter how much resolution a console box supports. What you see is what you get. The weakest link in your chain (1. Console/graphic card, 2. Software/game, 3. Monitor/tv) is you maximum resolution.
So bump is right on the target.
Which is why I said earlier that nothing is really going to change radically in the console graphics department before HDTV becomes a household standard item.
And out of fairness in bringing out the Straight Dope, let’s have the real resolutions numbers on the table, the pixel density per inch.
A standard 19" computer screen at 1280x960 (standard 4:3 resolution) has a pixel density of 4500 per sqare inch.
A console’s maximum (640x480) on a 28" tv is a pixel density of 500 per square inch. That’s 8.7 times less than a monitor. In other words, where there’s 10 pixel on the tv, the same area on a monotor is made up by 87 pixels.
Even when HDTV and 720p becomes a standard household item, consoles will continue to lag behind computer as they are today, let alone in the future. Here, the pixel density on 28" 720p (1024x768) HDTV is 1300 pixels per square inch, still 3.4 times less than the monitor of todays typical computer gamers. The only thing that can match this is a HDTV 1080p (1920x1200) with its density of 4700 pixels per square inch. That is, if it’s a 28" HDTV, buy a 42" HDTV and the density drops to 2100 pixels per square inch.
At least HDTV will be able to reach a critical level of visual quality. They will not, on the other hand, be able to render games with more details than their PC counterparts. The main improvement is in higher frame rates, not in more details.
No, I haven’t done that research because it’s outside the scope of this discussion, and, generally, it’s really something for the tech-freaks. What I do know is that you cannot just go by basic math. Putting an additional CPU in a box does not equal twice the performance, for instance. 30 GFLOPS doesn’t really mean you can move 30 billion polygons, because you need to do math on them as well, you’ll maybe end up with something like 100-200 million, to have another example.
In gaming, the hardware that makes or breaks is CPU, GPU and RAM. As for RAM, the upcoming Xbox & PS3 will have 256 or 512 MB (apparently). They don’t have to load a big OS (50MB-150MB), but still, most computers have this much RAM or more already. The GPUs for next generation consoles are developed by ATI (Xbox) and Nvidia (PS3). These companies have certainly not come up with something super-power-like that aren’t already available (or will be soon) for the PC.
Which basically leaves us with the power of the CPU. As I’ve said, I don’t know how powerful the next console-CPUs will be, but they need to kick some serious ass to keep up. As a comparison, the original Xbox (the most powerful console, so far) has a 733 Mhz Celeron. It’s a very long time since we’ve seen computers like that for sale.
If you make statements like the ones you have made in this thread, then it is clearly in the scope.
“generally, it’s really something for the tech-freaks”
I think you’re being a little harsh with that statement.
This is merely a debate, with facts and opinions.
An attempt to exchange information and ideas, nothing more.
As I will demonstrate below, it is not a matter of the consoles keeping up, it is a matter of the x86 processors (and Itanium, for that matter) attempting to catch up in a game where they are significantly behind already.
Yes, the original Xbox CPU was not very powerful. Here we agree. But remember, I am talking about trends and the immediate future.
Best benchmarks (for processor platform) from WWW.SPEC.ORG for last 2 quarters:
Notes:
Intel’s HT and IBM’s SMT both turned off in benchmarks, will discuss this at end of post.
All tests are for 1 core only, even if chip is dual core.
Peak performance is used, which is the performance achieved when the compiler settings can be changed to optimize for your platform (vs the base column which assumes you are an average user that does not know which settings to change on the compiler to optimize for your platform). Game developers will obviously optimize.
Will also discuss specific processor being place in Xbox2
Floating Point Performance
Power5 @ 1.9ghz 2,796
Itanium2 @ 1.6ghz 2,675
Pentium4 @ 3.6ghz 1,916
Xeon @ 3.6ghz 1,825
When you turn on HT or SMT you get the following:
Intel HT = 5 to 10% increase in performance in general terms
IBM SMT = 40% increase in performance in general terms
Xbox2:
There will be 3 PowerPC 976 dual core processors running at 3.0ghz. The PowerPC 976 is a derivative of the Power5 processor benchmarked above optimized for the enviroment where it will run.
That’s 6 simultaneous threads.
At a gross estimation, that’s 6 times the above benchmarks. Now I know it doesn’t work that way, but what we (we=anyone that follows the microprocessor industry) do know, is that IBM’s multi-core, multi-thread and multi-processor designs outperform Intel’s.
A few points:
The above benchmarks are for 1 core. If there were 2 cores for the particular chip IBM was benchmarking, the 2nd core was IDLE. Any of IBM’s dual core chips perform approximately double the above benchmarks (as can be seen in other benchmarks, especially multi-processor Power5 systems that take about 1/2 the number of chips as an Itanium2 system for similar performance.
The Xbox2 will have, as published, 3 of these dual core chips.
Even if you purchased a system with an Itanium2, you would be at less than 1/2 the Floating Point performance of a Power5 system.
Even when Intel and AMD come out with dual core x86, they will still trail 1 Power5 dual core at similar speed (remember, new one is at 3ghz, not 1.9ghz), although they are holding their own in Integer performance.
Regardless of the past, the trend is clear, money is getting dumped into consoles to produce game playing performance that will certainly outstrip PC performance at time of introduction.
Final Summary
1 Power5 dual core>2 Itaniums single core(but close)
1 Power5 dual core>2 x86 single core (not close)
Xbox2 will have 3 PowerPC 976’s, therefore it’s performance will exceed PC’s.
When AMD/Intel ship dual cores they will improve, but still won’t match 3 PowerPC 976’s. Alien and Abe, I would be very interested in any technical details you can provide that would support your positions. Please keep in mind, these benchmarks are from processors that are at work in computers all over the world as we speak. This is not theoretical.
Can’t let that one slip past as it is indeed a gross estimation. The reality will be nowhere close to 6x the speed.
If nothing else the last specs I saw for the XBox-2 will have 1MB of L2 cache shared by all the processors. Heck…Intel’s new dual core chip has 2MB of L2 cache (or at least one is offered like that). Those three CPUs running 6 threads also actually slow down the front side bus (FSB) as each makes requests of the memory (this is true of any multicore system).
And for comparison Intel’s dual-core chip can mange 4 threads at once. Granted that is not as much as 6 but neither is it left in the dust.
Then add in whatever the FSB will be with the new XBox-2 and the speed of the memory compared to the ever speedier stuff being put in PCs and the gap may (I do not know the details on the XBox-2 memory subsystem and FSB) narrow yet again. Add in ever better GPUs coming out for the PC and even if the XBox-2 has something better at the outset it likely won’t last long at all.
One last thing…be wary of paper stats. IIRC the XBox, on paper, blows the doors off of a PS2 in performance. While on the whole I would say the XBox does manage better looking graphics and supports beefier games they are nowhere near “twice” as good (or whatever) that the paper stats would suggest. This is becuase in the end it is not all about merely having more clock cycles (as Intel learned versus AMD) or bandwidth (as Rambus learned versus DDR Ram).
Finally, XBox-2 is so far vaporware. Alienware has announced a dual-core system (Intel) to be available very soon.
Don’t worry, I meant that in a positive way. I would have loved to be a tech freak, but I just don’t have time to keep up with everything going on in the hardware world.
Don’t be shy: You’re absolutely right, it’s doesn’t work that way at all. For example, there’s not much point in throwing a single-threaded application at a multi-threaded processor. Do you expect games to go all multi-threaded next year? If you do not have the application for it, the advantage is gone. And if turn out a success, how long do you believe it would take before we see multi-threaded CPUs on workstations as well? You also left out that multi-threaded applications might run a bit slower than its counterpart since context switches take some time, so it’s not like 2 threads = twice the performance of 1 thread.
Thanks for the info & link. Though I still suspect that the performance advantage of an installed Power5 isn’t big enough to keep a console ahead of a computer for very long. When you add more CPUs/cores things might look differently (or very diffeently), but yet again, nobody knows how that will turn out in the gaming world. Nobody has even seen the Xbox, and the specs of the PS3 is guarded like it should be the time of the second coming of Jesus.
I suggest we hold the console spec debate until we have some hard evidence to look at. By evidence as in benchmarked games.
Not me! The topic of this thread is the near future of PC gaming, and the way I see it that has little to do with the size of an imaginary future console CPU, though the CPU is important of course. Actually, I should not have opened this can of worms by answering your previous post. I’m simply not qualified! A separate thread would have been better.
While I agree with you, these types of extrapolations don’t quite work, I would urge you to look at existing performance numbers for Power5 multi-core and multi-processor systems.
They are significantly in the lead over x86.
Again, existing performance numbers on existing Power5 systems shows that IBM is by far the leader over Intel/AMD/SUN in extracting the most performance out of multi-core/multi-processor systems. These systems exist today.
Intel has serious pipelining issues and an very poorly performing multi-threading system.
I would point you to my previous post:
Intel HT typically gains you 5 to 10%
IBM SMT typically gains you 40%
Certainly as time goes on the PC’s will pass a static target.
But the point is, these consoles will exceed PC’s at time of introduction.
In addition, at the same price point, the amount of time required for PC’s to pass them is extended even longer.
I will (and already did sometime ago) cede the GPU portion of the argument. All of the previous new advancements in GPU’s created for consoles have indeed arrived in the PC’s relatively soon.
Here is the problem with the CPU from the x86 perspective:
Intel/AMD have a business need to be compatible with previous software/hardware, etc. This is what constrains them. The Itanium is a fine chip, but due to backwards compatability etc. it will most likely never be more than a niche server processor.
The consoles, on the other hand, can re-invent themselves disregarding the previous technology, as Microsoft is doing by creating a console that will only have backwards compatability if they provide x86 emulation in the PowerPC 976.
Benchmarks posted previously are from existing systems.
If they only use 1 dual core processor they already beat existing systems, including Itanium.
In addition, there are many industry benchmarks with real applications and throughput, not just the low-level stuff, and Power5 holds a similar lead in those cases.
Again, previous benchmarks are real from real systems in operation.
I don’t see any technical details or trends anywhere that shows a single x86 (even dual core) will be able to catch up with multiple dual core PowerPC 976’s.
Depends on how good a shopper you are. In my own case I bought the following late this summer:
1 mid-tier computer plus 19" crt monitor: $650 after rebates
512 GB of ram: $67
Radeon 9600 video card on sale at newegg.com : $68 2 Games - The Sims 2 & Zoo Tycoon 2: $90
Total: $875, which even with the addition of a second game is less than you projected, not that someone couldn’t easily spend that much. As for rentals, I don’t know of any place you can rent PC games, but you can borrow them from the town library for free, three weeks at a time.
The specs on my computer are good enough to play Doom 3 and Half-life 2, though I’m not inclined to play either - I do however enjoy knowing I* could * play them if I wanted to. I bought my last computer 4 years before and the only upgrade I made to it was to spend $90 on more Ram.
One point I’ve not seen (have I over looked it?) is the grrlgamer market. Do women buy console games in great numbers? They do PC games - Maxis estimates that over 60% of Sims players are female, and for a long while The Sims(1) was the best selling game ever produced. Other games, like the aforementioned ZT2 also attract a predominently female market as well, and it looks as though some PC game developers are waking up to this fact, which makes them more likely to create more games that attract women. What do consoles have to offer this “new” market that’d draw them away from a budding interest in PC games?
You’re quite right, I was quoting DV video rez, which is 720x480 @ .9 aspect, for an apparent 648x480 resolution at square aspect. ATSC 480p/i is indeed 640x480 according to my references.
But Raftpeople, the point was not about future consoles that are not yet available.
It’s simply this: although that may change in the future (and most likely only temporarily), consoles today are not more powerful and do not offer better quality than PC counterparts. This seems to be the case for at least the last decade, when PC gaming truly developed (prior to that, I would agree there was probably stronger competition, especially with old 64 bit systems like the Atari Jaguar).
You’re citing specs and performance for products that do not yet exist for the consumer, products like the XBox2 and SP3 that are based on the technology for which you report benchmarks. That’s great, but we’d actually like to see a product and some real results rather than guess and extrapolate from today’s data, exciting as it is. I mentioned why a couple posts ago: everything always looks good on paper and in theory and especially on marketing channels; but in the actual final product perhaps not everything works as perfectly, or some shortcuts and cost cuts had to be taken, or there are system glitches that actually slow down the machine (bottlenecks for example) and so forth.
When the new consoles are available we’ll see. Then we can all have fun watching the battle of the titans between PS3, Xbox2, and the latest PCs (that also aren’t available now!).
The reason it is relevant is because we are talking about the current trend, which includes products about to be released. Remember, one of the main points previously was that consoles were more powerful when announced and that PC’s took some time to catch up.
Agreed, but the point really was that at time of introduction, consoles were/are more powerful than PC’s, and that it took some length of time for PC’s to catch up.
Regardless of the past, what personally interests me is what is happening now, what the current trends are. That is why I have focused on the new release of the new consoles. By stepping back and looking at what we see being invested in these new consoles we can see the bigger trends.
Extrapolation and guesses are valuable things that are used in many fields on a daily basis.
It can be very informative to extrapolate and then have to support that in a debate, both sides learn because you are forced to really think through all of the details.
It can be especially informative when you are starting from a known point (current Power5 vs current x86).
But this horse is clearly dead, at least until next month when both the PS3 and Xbox2 are unveiled to the public.
That was an incidental point and one that I disputed, and for which I have yet to see support. Was even the XBox, the most powerful console available today, more powerful than the latest PCs available at time of introduction? I don’t believe so.
More powerful than a lot of the older PCs/components, certainly. But if you’re going to take the latest and greatest of consoles, why not do the same for PCs? Would you really benchmark the Xbox against a PIII with on-board graphics? Of course not, you’re going to grab something equally flashy.
For the rest, it’s just about not skinning your bear before you’ve shot it, which was my original point a number od days ago when it seemed a lot of emphasis was placed on future systems. Either way, claiming that the end of PC gaming is nigh seems thoroughly unlikely for the reasons already argued.
Balderdash. I tried hard to pick a genre that wouldn’t be unfair to PCs. The big launch titles for the PSX were toshinden and Ridge Racer. I didn’t pick Toshinden because fighting games never picked up on the PC (to my great dismay I might add). Another game I could’ve picked was Mario 64 but there again, platformers are underrepresented on the PC. Racing games are as neutral a ground as I can think of. And the game came out a little over 10 years ago, not 11. But I’ll yet indulge you. Take Final Fantasy X. It came out for the PS2 in 2001. That’s a full year after the system launch meaning that PCs had one year to try and catch up. Show me an RPG from that period that looks as good. Are you going to claim that RPGs are also the main area of strenght consoles have over PCs?
I actually played Wing Commander 3 on the 3DO and it looked fantastic. It actually made me buy WC4 for the PC later on. But back to the topic. You just listed an RTS (and a great one at that), two flight/battle simulators (I call them simulators because you needed to use umpteenth keys on the keyboard to play them. I actually pasted pieces of paper to half the keys of my keyboard when I was playing WC4. And well worth it it was) and an FPS. This is anything but neutral ground. Remember, we’re comparing graphics. There is no denying that all those games were great.
[quote]
again, you fail at concrete demonstration of a point. You simply state something for which there is little or no support in evidence and leave it at that. I said that PC games were cheaper than console games. Although this seems to be evident to most people, since you objected I also took a sample to illustrate how my point applied even in the US, where the cost difference appears to be smallest.
**
I demonstrated it quite nicely, thank you very much.
Including only multi-platform games is one of the flaws. Disregarding launch times is another. You can’t compare the price of an old pc game to a new console game. Heck, I could pick lots of multiplatform games from the “platinum” re-releases that cost $20 on consoles. Or you could start including shareware pc games that cost $10 each.
I don’t complain. I don’t even support the idea that retailers can slash prices more substantially on PC games. It’s rare for me to buy bargain games or games that came out a long time ago. The games I want, I buy as soon as I can get my hands on. I picked gamestop (not gamespot) because it was the first store that occurred to me (it’s one of the biggest in the U.S), i’d have come up with the same figures if I had checked Best Buy or EBgames. I stand by my statement, pc games and console games cost the same.
Yeah, in theory, that is true. In practice, it isn’t. It may change, who knows.
PC gaming is bound to start a steady decline and fall into irrelevance as time goes by. The only reason FPS and RTS dominate the PC market is because you need a mouse/keyboard to play them well. With consoles supporting those devices and the ability to output on your monitor and play at HD resolutions, their support is gone and only inertia will be carrying them. As for “genuine” (i’m not going to get into this…)RPGs…isn’t the next Morrowing coming out on Xbox2? Didn’t KOTOR and KOTOR II come out for the Xbox before the PC? There is no reason for them to stay on the PC. Your comment on AI is ridiculous (consoles have adopted 64 and 128Bit computing a while ago) and Multiplayer and Internet Gaming are going to consoles.
Sigh. YES! pcs can run Word ,Excel, photoshop and 3Dstudio better. Are you happy now? Of course I meant they looked better, what the heck else?
[/quote]
You claim that consoles can render the same graphic effects, then you say “o yeah, the same graphic effects, except bla, bla, bla”. And you reveal that your arguments only reach as far as the kind of games you play, the “outstanding” games, which obviously cannot be representative for industry as a whole.
[/quote]
Oh! it’s all so clear now, we should compare the WORST looking games of both platforms and see what less ugly. Get real. You’re damn right I pick the outstanding games. I don’t care if most crappy games on the PC look better than most crappy games on consoles. If we were talking about road quality in two countries , then one should definitely take all roads into consideration and give an average score based on that. But no one forces you to play crappy games whereas you’re forced to drive on crappy roads. Get it?
Yes. It was true for the PSX and the Dreamcast. Where is the data that proves me wrong? I’m still waiting for it.
Powerful is a tricky term. Let me rephrase. PC games only look better than the latest console batch half the time.
You say this as if Level of detail and FPS were not dependant on each other. What good does high level of detail do you if you get 5 FPS? Go play Doom3 or HL2 at 1920x1200 res and tell me how it goes. No, I am not an FPS whore. Sure, for a flawless gaming experience, you definitely never to drop below 60FPS but I postulate that to play with a minimum of decency, you can accept bottom rates below 60. Say, as far as 30 FPS.
I just ran HL2 on my setup. 128fps was the reported frame rate at 1920x1200. 3ghz P4, ATI x850, HL2 settings at highQ (high detail, 4x antialias, trilinear filtering). And, yes, I do have a monitor that can be driven at that resolution. Looked very nice, and very responsive.
That having been said, I can’t imagine that consoles doing 1080i (1920x1080) are going to be buried in the graphics wars by PCs. If console gamers adopt HDTV displays, which are becoming much more affordable these days, I doubt we’ll see much difference between PC and the next-gen consoles. Is someone really going to notice a difference between a console that renders 1920x1080, a ridiculously high resolution, and something higher on a PC?
You picked a game genre in which the PS excels and excelled in at the time, which is why I then cited games in which the PC excels and excelled in at the time. The true comparison, and the fairest, are multi-platform games. Same game, different execution, different (or not) quality – this is a decent indicator, not drawing titles out of the air or cherry-picking them and declaring them superior without a suitable frame of reference. Of course, an ideal comparison would exclude sloppy ports too, and just look at decent products on both platforms, but I don’t have time for such a meticulous review.
Actually, although you may have failed to notice thus far, you are the one who is being indulged, not the other way round. The quality of your arguments would have already attracted a firestorm if this were a weightier topic than simply recreational technology. Fortunately this isn’t a discussion on Iraq!
What? What does this mean? I already said that consoles have the advantage in rail RPGs like FF (rail RPGs were invented for console games and are developed primarily for them), whereas PCs rule when it comes to more “genuine” RPGs (this has been the case AT LEAST since the days of FTL’s Dungeon Master and EA’s Bard’s Tale). But yeah, it’s not like it’s that difficult for a PC to replicate console graphics. On this particular topic I am at a disadvantage though, since I don’t touch the FF series or most Japanese RPGs.
Take Ultima Underworld. It came out in the early '90s, though I no longer remember when. Anything comparable on consoles? I can’t think of anything until the advent of games like Arx Fatalis on the Xbox (which is the only console that has attempted to tackle PC style RPGs).
And as far as concerns racing games, which you brought up before, there are some good classic ones for the PC, though as I recall they developed later (e.g., Colin McRae Rally and the like).
That was precisely my intent in order to point out that your comparison was inappropriate, that each platform has strengths and weaknesses, and that these strengths and weaknesses determine what kind of gamers are attracted to each platform.
OK, now if the rest of us could have some of that support you are so satisfied with…
Lots of assertions, and still no substance. If you have better methodology that leads to a different conclusion please go right ahead and demonstrate it.
Stand by whatever you wish, but demonstrate that your assertions have support behind them or be prepared to have your arguments dismissed. We’re not arguing about games in the bargain bin, unless you are being deliberately obtuse you must have noticed that the games I listed were fairly prominent, new (with the exception of one) and NOT in the bargain bin.
How is this a response to the argument that console games subsidize hardware losses? Are you saying they don’t? And once again I invite you to notice your conspicuous lack of supporting arguments.
Yes, we have established that that is your opinion. The same one you have trumpeted repeatedly and not yet managed to support adequately.
The only reason? How categorical. Before you conclude such a thing, you would have to demonstrate that FPS and RTS on consoles are systematically better experiences – which they aren’t – and therefore leave the PC with no advantage other than the mouse and keyboard combination. Therefore your “only” reason looks suspicious right from the start.
Yeah… HDTV can lessen the gap between PC monitors and console displays, but I don’t see two important things right now: 1) HDTVs as the console gaming standard, and 2) PC monitors incapable of displaying rather higher resolutions than HDTV (most CRT monitors can go up to 1600 x 1200 or higher, and most decent flat panels can too).
I honestly don’t know. And so what? It’s not happened yet, has it? It’s not leeched all the PC game customers away yet, has it? In fact, nothing has really happened on this front yet, has it?
Yes. And what’s immediately noticeable is that they are simplified RPGs, not quite rail RPGs (the story progression is fairly open) but simplified in terms of mechanics and action. Not to say that they weren’t great games or that their simplified structure makes them any less enjoyable, mind you, just pointing out that the PC is capable of handling rather more complexity than those games.
There is a reason. The reason is that a lot of people are perfectly happy with their PCs, and are highly likely to continue to use PCs for gaming in spite of your forcefully repeated opinion. Not everyone is prepared to own both game-quality PCs and multiple consoles. Plenty of users are more than happy with their PCs and their games.
More unsupported proclamations without a shred of support in sight. Your point about multiplayer and internet gaming is summarily dismissed. For consoles, as I mentioned earlier there were early forays in 64 bit processing several years ago, which were quite unsuccessful. PCs are evolving to 64 bits more naturally, and the one thing that pops up in everything I read on the subject is that the immediate advantage of 64 bit processors is the increased capability to handle AI, which the same articles claim is reduced on consoles. At least the consoles available now.
I tried to explain this in a way too detailed post on the previous page. You have to remember that screen resolution represents the number of pixel on the screen. So with a bigger screen (HDTV) pixels are further apart from eachother. In your example, a 1080i resolution (1920x1080, or 1920x1440 in a 4:3 mode), you get more than 10,000 pixels per square inch with a 19" screen, 7,000 with a 23" screen, and only 2,000 with a 42" screen.
In other words, a 42" HDTDV playing at 1080i will have the same pixel details as a 19" computer monitor playing at a little more than 800x600! So obviously, as for graphic details there will always be a huge difference in advantage computers. However, increased processing power in new consoles that cannot be used to improve graphic details will be used to improve frame rates instead. Of course, the catch is that once you move beyond 60 fps, the human eye is less capable of detecting any changes. So frame rates comes with ceiling (60-100 fps), while graphic details can continue to improve forever.
Thanks, I do try. I just rechecked, and I seemed to be in a low-rez section of HL2 when I’d tested. Typical FPS seems to be in the 64-80fps range @ 1920x1200.
I understand what you’re saying about graphic detail, but I don’t necessarily accept your premise that dpi is the be-all standard. If I shrink my 1080i display to 4" (a zillion dpi!), do I have the ultimate in gaming resolution? Probably not.
720p gaming @ 60i will probably be the new “minimum standard” in gaming in the next year or so, with consoles and PCs all able to to output this resolution. If a good portion of console games also support 1080i, and PC monitors @ 1920x1080/1200 are not prohibitively expensive (which seems likely – they’re $1300 now, so likely $600 in 2 years), then I’d expect consoles and PCs to be at parity regarding resolution for perhaps the following 5 years. PCs might support insane resolutions like 2560xwhatever, but those monitors that support it will probably be fairly pricey during the same timeframe (I admit this is a tenuous assumption). We’ll see.
Don’t worry, I meant that in a positive way. I would have loved to be a tech freak, but I just don’t have time to keep up with everything going on in the hardware world.