It’s not a pool, rather a general question. I’m wondering what are the specs of the computer an “average” gamer is using, according to you.
Here’s why : I play quite a lot, but for the last 7-8 years, I always used an outdated computer (not the same, but always outdated. For instance, I bought the one I’m currently using used, and the specs weren’t what they were supposed to be). So, I generally play games that are usually several years old, but that’s not a major issue.
However, I was interest in this game . It’s a computer adaptation of an old boardgame, and if you look at the screen shots, the computer version looks…well, like a boardgame, nothing seems extra-fancy. It’s not a FPS, or even a RTS, or anything that should be very taxing on a computer. Plus, I read somewhere (in the forum of Ageod, maybe) that the developers tried to make sure that their games wouldn’t require high end computers, so that it would be accessible by casual gamers.
But still, the game requires a 1.8 Gh processor and 1024 Mo of RAM. So, I can’t help but wonder : if a company producing a mere computer version of a boardgame, trying to make sure that people with outdated computers can play their games end up with this kind of requirements, what kind of computer do they think the “casual”, the “average” and the “hardcore” gamer are using?
What do you think they use to play? Is it me, or are all game developers expecting people to use a two years old computer in the worst case scenario, and normally a brand new, high-end computer, with the best graphic card available on the market?
And in the latter case, is it a good marketing strategy? Are they losing tons of potential customers like me, or is a necessity because actually 95% of their potential customer base won’t even consider playing a game that doesn’t have the most stunning graphics, whistles and bells, even if they’re just playing a computer version of Stone/Paper/Scissors ?
An average gamer probably has a 3 Ghz processor with 2 gigs of RAM and something like a geforce 8800 video card. High end gaming rigs, like lots of hobbies, gets out of hand. You can easily spend $10k.
$10k for a rig? Is the motherboard made out of gold? Well, hat wouldn’t work, now would it…
You should be able to purchase a top of the line(I can run Crysis at 2560x1600 pwned!) for about $2000-$2500. $10k maybe if you also splurged on a huge 40 inch monitor and 7.1 surround sound setup… no, even then that would probably be less than 10k.
I would say the “average” PC gamer has a 3 GHz processor (remember, that most requirement details still use the old Pentium 4 performance bar. For example an 4 year old AMD 3000+ Would fit such a requirement - and it would cost around $40- but it does not actually run at 3 Ghz, it’s architecture is just much more efficient than the Pentium 4)) and a 7600+ or 8600+ level video card (or the ATI equivalent).
Hardcore gamers like myself tend to have second generation gear, with perhaps one new gen component purchased every year or so.
For the most part, PC engines tend to be very scalable. But there is a limit to how much scaling can be realistically implemented before it becomes essentially programming two different engines.
There Is a casual game market out there though catering to the vast millions with intel integrated graphics cards, but the mainstream games will always target the average and hardcore PC gamer, and not usually the casual one.
On the game posted by the OP: those do indeed look like very modest game requirements, in fact they want a PIII 1.8 Ghz Computer! A $30 AMD chip will beat that easy. What exactly is your setup OP?
PC gaming is a hobby like any other, and it will require money. Believe it or not you CAN be playing those new FPS and RTS (If you wanted to) on a very frugal yearly budget, maybe not with all the bells and whistles on, but without having to sacrifice an enjoyable gaming experience, it just takes a little planning and a minimum investment of time to get acquainted with the hardware. What you can’t do is expect to do that and spend $0 on hardware for 8 years.
Im a gamer. My last three computers have been dells, under 700 bucks each. Currently playing Age of Conan on my latest one, and it runs just fine. I check slickdeals almost daily, you can get some incredibly good bargains, my last rig i got with a 350 dollars off 999 dollar purchase and a 10% discount on top of that so i ended up paying around 650 for a 1100 computer.
To run at maximum settings on the newest, glitziest games requires a substantial investment, but I hadn’t updated my video card for 3 or 4 years until last week and I was still able to easily run current games. Most PC gamers I know will not purchase whole computers anyway; they’ll swap out specific parts. RAM is cheap, video cards are way cheaper than they used to be (I spent about $115 for a 9600 GT)… I think that you spend less than console gaming, and you’re getting all the functions of a PC on top of that!
A gig of RAM is 20 or 30 bucks. Upgrade already!
I said it was out of hand. The people that would spend that much are the same types that buy monster cables and whatnot. It’s as much about showing up your friends than anything else. I’m sure this can be had for much cheaper if you put it together yourself, but there you go.
I can say with authority that a $600 rig works just fine for gaming.
I buy whatever processor is fastest for about $100.
A motherboard for $80 or so.
A video card for up to $150.
2 GB memory.
It’s my feeling that the three biggest factors in gaming performance are an optimized PC with few background processes running, a good amount of RAM, and a decent video card.
Overclocking is also a good idea, specially with middle end hardware, where sometimes it’s just pure clock frequency that separates it from higher end, more expensive gear.
A 1.8 Ghz PIII with 1 G of RAM is a lot older than two years; even the lowest-end computers of two years ago would outclass that. Today, you could buy a complete machine with far higher specs than that for $299.
(By the way, the type of game doesn’t matter much for basic specs. Bitmaps are bitmaps, whether they’re images for a board game or textures for a 3D shooter. The shooter will drive the 3D graphics card a lot harder, but the memory requirements might be very similar.)
It’s pretty much diminishing returns. Fundamentally, software developers know that people people who don’t buy new computers at least every half decade or so don’t buy much software, either – so it doesn’t matter if you don’t support them. There are the occasional exceptions, but they make up such a minuscule percentage that you can’t design for them. Part of the reason for software “bloat” is that it’s hard to make better things fit in smaller spaces – and solving hard problems costs money. Why spend $300K on compression technologies and salaries to implement getting your graphics under 256K, when your research says that 99.35% of your customers have a gig or more, and the remaining fraction of a percent won’t make you $15K in revenue?
First off, many game companies have no idea what their games actually need, system spec-wise. I’ve run many a game on my PC with good graphics but barely meeting the min requirements, or not meeting them at all.
Second, they do in fact make games for computers which do not exist.
Third, they don’t optimize well.
Many game companies have spec questionnaires for visitors to fill out. I fill them out, so games I want to play will be more likely playable with my system.
Steam usually runs a systems survey every once in a while. I’m sure it’s for the purpose of determining what the average gamer has in terms of PC gear so they (and their partners) can tailor their games to particular types of gamers. It’s interesting to see how the numbers break out too.
Prices go up dramatically when you get to the highest of the high end. An Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 CPU runs about $1500. An Nvidia Quadro FX5600 video card will set you back another $2500.
I’d say the average gamer uses the computer that their favorite game requires. Many (most) game manufacturers have adopted the unfortunate attitude that optimizing software is a waste of time: just make your users buy a faster processor, more RAM, a better video card…
My son-in-law bought a really nice $3,000 Windows gaming system two years ago, and he’s already found two games that won’t run on it.
Personally, my PC game of choice is World of Warcraft, and it works better on my $2,000 Mac than on a lot of equivalent Windows machines I’ve seen. I get great framerates, and I have pretty much every video option turned up to the max.
I wish every game company would take a lesson from Blizzard and make video settings adjustable so you could play their games on older machines. I also wish they’d put more of their games on Macs. Not only would it make Mac people happy, but since there are a lot fewer configuration options, it tends to be easier to get games running on a Mac and keep them running well.
Average? I don’t think so. Ten grand is a very hardcore gamer. Your average gamer can’t afford to replace the computer every year, and probably still has last year’s 2.2 GHz processor.
If you’re willing to live without running a game at 200 FPS and 8xAA, full shadows, all that, then games can run pretty well.
Right, that’s why I said a high end machine could cost $10k.
I just did a tower for $850 that will run 58fps on wow with all details maxed under XP.
2ghz dual core
2gb ram
256mb msi geforce 8500gt
Msi p6n-fd mobo
Why on earth would you buy a Quadro for gaming? Those are streamlined for line work and cad, and the drivers are NOT optimized for gaming. You are much better off with a gaming card, which do not go much above $600 for top of the line.
Uhm… Wow is a 4 year old game. It better run on a modern machine!
Mac’s have some 5% of the market, and most of them are not PC gamers. So I don’t forsee the majority of PC game devs catering to the MAC. There are a lot of Mac friendly games though. Diablo III is coming out for MAC, and the NWN series is available for MAC too though.