Three-Way Comparison Shows PCs Slaying Consoles In Dragon Age Inquisition

MojoKid writes: "BioWare's long-awaited Dragon Age Inquisition has dropped for the PS4, Xbox One, and PCs. A comparison of the visuals in key scenes between all three platforms shows that while the PC variant clearly looks the best in multiple areas (as it should), there's evidence of good, intelligent optimization for consoles and PCs alike. After the debacle of Assassin's Creed Unity, Inquisition could provide an important taste of how to do things right. As expected though, when detail levels are increased, the PC still pulls away with the best overall visuals. The Xbox One and PS4 are largely matched, while PC renders of characters have better facial coloring and slightly more detailed textures. The lighting models are also far more detailed on the PC version with the PS4 following behind. The Xbox One, in contrast, is rather muddy. Overall, the PC and PS4 are closest in general detail, with the Xbox One occasionally lagging behind.

Comments

Duh

[Ultra64]

PC will always beat console.

Consoles are obsolete when they come out.

PC graphics hardware isn't obsolete until a month after it comes out.

Re:Duh

[UnknowingFool]

Unless you use Monster cables of course.

Re:Duh

[NotDrWho]

Consoles are obsolete when they come out.

PC graphics hardware isn't obsolete until a month after it comes out.

Lol, that's why I finally switched from PC to console. I loved the modding and the cutting-edge graphics of the PC. But I got tired of dropping $500 on a new videocard only to have it be garbage a year later.

Just look at the new specs of AC: Unity as a good example of the problem. The videocard required to run that thing on the recommended settings on a PC is almost as expensive as the entire PS4/Xbox-One console.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

I use them because of the free oxygen exchange at the electron level produces better warmth of both the highs and lows. Especially the optical ones. Those are unmatched in how the binary data passes thru them.

Re:Duh

[Thanshin]

The only sensible solution if you want to play games decently is to become a renown pc graphics card reviewer to get them before they come out.

If you're not willing to do that little effort, you might as well just play solitaire. With an actual deck of real cards.

Re:Duh

[gstoddart]

Only if you're willing to keep shelling out money hand over fist to keep it that way.

Sorry, I'll stick with console gaming on slightly older titles.

I have far better things to do with my money than try to keep up with the latest gaming rigs. From what I understand, a cocaine habit would be cheaper.

Re:Duh

[jeffmflanagan]

Sounds like you quit PCs over 10 years ago. I need to upgrade every 4 years or so to keep up with the latest games, spending ~$500, and they look much better than console games. If you already have a fast PC, a good GPU is far more useful than a console.

Re:Duh

[Shadow99_1]

I built my PC for under $1k 3 years ago and I can still run DAI at 1600x1200 at ultra settings on it. I haven't spent any money on my system in those years accept to add a extra HDD or two.

Re:Duh

[gstoddart]

I bought my XBox 360 for a third of that 4 years ago, it runs at 1920x1080.

I haven't had to spend any money on it either.

And?

Re:Duh

[Shadow99_1]

It's not an xbox one though and you can't play DAI on it. It's also not running full graphics settings even on xbox one. My monitor is the only reason I can't play at a higher res (I could do widescreen 1080p on my TV, but kinda hard with a game setup for keyboard and mouse on a PC). I'm just saying you are overstating how much money needs to be spent to have a PC that can play games at a higher res than a console.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

no it doesn't. outputting 1920x1080 is not the same as internal rendering resolution

Re:Duh

[soupbowl]

I agree, he is talking about PC gaming in the 90's or something. I usually buy mid range video cards and I can easily skip a generation of video cards or two and still play everything with max settings. I don't play every triple AAA title for pc but I play enough to know my pc never has a problem. My wifes PC has an amd 6800 card which is almost 5 years old and it plays most games maxed out. final fantasy 14 is a pretty intense game, the 6800 plays it at max settings/1080p no problem.

Re:Duh

[SuiteSisterMary]

Point of Order: The 360 will output 1080p quite happily, but that's not what the game you're playing is actually being rendered at.

Amazing piece of hardware, don't get me wrong.

Re:Duh

[KillAllNazis]

Christ if a 6800 is 5 years old I shudder to think how old my 4870 must be, which I've only come to replace this year. It still runs Crysis on mid-high depending on the situation (though I know this probably no longer counts as stress test. Fucking progress...)

Re:Duh

[master_kaos]

Uh, $500 for a new video card does not make it obsolete in a year unless you were talking about a decade and a half ago. I bought a $250-$300 (560 TI)card early 2011. Early last year I had to change my graphics from Ultra to High (mainly due to upgrading to a 2560x1440 display) . This summer I had to lower it from high to medium, with the latest games coming out this fall I now am starting to get poor framerates even on medium so I will probably pick up another $250-300 card this christmas and should be good for the next 3.5 years.

Re:Duh

[PopeRatzo]

But I got tired of dropping $500 on a new videocard

Are you buying your video cards at Bloomingdales?

Right now, you can pick up an ASUS Geforce 970 for around $300. I guarantee you will still be playing all the AAA games on high in 2018.

Re:Duh

[neoritter]

I need to upgrade every 4 years or so to keep up with the latest games, spending ~$500

How is that different than a console?

Re:Duh

[PopeRatzo]

I bought my XBox 360 for a third of that 4 years ago, it runs at 1920x1080.

No, it doesn't.

The native resolution of the XBox 360 is 720p. It can be upscaled to 1080i, but it's nowhere near as good as native 1080p.

Plus, Dragon Age Inquisition (the subject of this article) is not even available for XBox 360 and even on a brand new XBox One, it maxes out at 900p.

Re:Duh

[tepples]

In the previous generation, before HDMI was an expected feature, Monster would occasionally sell cables for less than the console maker would. That's why I bought a Monster Game Wii component cable.

Re:Duh

[ArcadeMan]

Tell me about it. Before switching to Monster Cables, I was using TOSLink cables from the dollar store and after only three days of use, a TWO was able to pass through the binary stream. My gold-plated analog amplifier was totally rueened.

Re:Duh

[Drethon]

Um "and they look much better than console games"?

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't, which was his point.

Re:Duh

[Adriax]

Someday I will discover their secrets.
I tried gold plating my own fiber optic cables but they just stopped working.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Laugh if you want, but my PS2 to DVDO connection would not work without losing sync using no-name cables.

Monster cables (was able to get them at 80% reduced cost) fixed the problem instantly. Cables will still 4x as expensive as the previous ones, but at least they worked.

Re:Duh

[NotDrWho]

Or I could just pick up an entire console for $100 more and will DEFINITELY still be playing AAA games in 2020.

Re:Duh

[NotDrWho]

Don't need to upgrade regularly anymore, huh? Go look at the system requirements on AC: Unity and tell me you can play that on even medium settings with a system that hasn't been upgraded in years.

Re:Duh

[spire3661]

A console has an INCREDIBLY limited library compared to a PC. A PC picks up almost its entire heritage in back compat, PLUS all the old arcade and console games too.

Re:Duh

[spire3661]

No it wasnt an amazing piece of hardware. The xbox360 should be looked at as a HUGE monstrous failure of design (RROD) that happened to have some really good games on it. The PS3 was FAR more elegant, complete and forward thinking compared to the 'doesnt even have HDMI' launch 360. I lost 3 xboxen, my day 1 full back compat PS3 is still going strong. Best $600 i ever spent on a device.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

and yet my wife plays it on a 660 we got for $150 2 years ago....those requirements are bogus and anyone with a brain knew it

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the game if it's CPU bound as well. You could just upgrade the video card (assuming you meet PSU requirements), otherwise you're looking at a whole new rig if the original CPU was already "high end" for its time.

Re:Duh

[PlusFiveTroll]

When I buy a new gen console I have to get all new games. When I buy a PC I install all my old games on it, and they run even better.

Re: Duh

[MachDelta]

Actually, Inquisition is available on last gen consoles (PS3 + X360), but that fact is often glossed over. It would have been interesting to see them included in the comparisons here.

Re:Duh

[Yunzil]

Uh huh. Of course, you'll still be struggling to reach 30 fps at 1080p.

Re:Duh

[NotDrWho]

Considering that there is a long history of console games getting much BETTER over the life of a console, I'll take my chances. Sure beats chasing the dragon of PC gaming.

Re:Duh

[tlhIngan]

No it wasnt an amazing piece of hardware. The xbox360 should be looked at as a HUGE monstrous failure of design (RROD) that happened to have some really good games on it. The PS3 was FAR more elegant, complete and forward thinking compared to the 'doesnt even have HDMI' launch 360. I lost 3 xboxen, my day 1 full back compat PS3 is still going strong. Best $600 i ever spent on a device.

However, the PS3 was also slower and had less available RAM for games. Sure, you had 7 SPUs, but hardly any games used them, instead using the 2 PPUs instead (vs. the 3 PPUs in Xbox360). And the 256MB of system RAM (+256MB graphics) was a far bigger limitation than the 512MB available shared in the 360 (less wasted memory due to copied textures, etc.).

It's actually interesting when you boil it down - the Xbone is really a lot like the PS3 was - it was a not a great seller at first, and had weaker hardware. Of course, the PS3 later on became a respectfully decent machine (though the Xbox360 still routinely beat it in sales).

And given the sales numbers are far better this gen than last gen, with competition between Sony and Microsoft, things are only getting better on the console realm. Sony got arrogant after the PS2 to release the PS3 as it did, to which a humbled Microsoft (after the rather embarrassing security problems in the original Xbox) released the 360 to become the #1 console of last gen. Which got Microsoft arrogant and we have the reversed situation.

And the good thing is, the current gen of consoles seemed to have spurred on the PC gaming industry, which isn't a bad thing, either.

Re:Duh

[ultranova]

Don't need to upgrade regularly anymore, huh? Go look at the system requirements on AC: Unity and tell me you can play that on even medium settings with a system that hasn't been upgraded in years.

Go loot at pretty much any other game and you can. That you can find always find a game that requires a high-end PC to run, doesn't mean that you have to upgrade. Especially not when the game in question has around 7 or so practically identical predecessors which run on mid-level machines just fine.

If anything, modern PCs with their multicore 64-bit CPUs are years ahead of game development, which still targets 32-bit machines by default.

Re:Duh

[amicusNYCL]

Go look at the system requirements on AC: Unity

A buggy game with performance problems at launch probably isn't the best example to use.

Re:Duh

[TechyImmigrant]

My gaming/photoshop machine has an Ivy Bridge i7, 32Gig and a video card that was current and expensive from Nvidia at the time.

I perceive no problems with it running any games. I might get higher framerates or something if I upgraded, but I'm not sure how it would improve my enjoyment of the games any.

If they added a feature to the video card to stop family members interrupting me when I'm playing multiplayer, I'd be upgrading right away.

Re:Duh

[amicusNYCL]

Yeah, I'm sure the AAA titles getting released in 2020 are going to look just awesome on the PS4 hardware compared with a PC.

I built my last machine in 2011 when Skyrim launched. It was powerful enough to run Skyrim at 1920 x 1200 with several high-resolution texture mods, sky mods, lighting mods, etc with maximum settings all around. Sure, it cost a bit all told, but it also has SSD drives, a 2TB RAID array, and other things not required for only gaming. But I also picked a system configuration that supports dual video cards. I only got one video card at the time, but it cost around $500 or $600. But the next time I need to upgrade, all I need to do is buy the same model of video card (which should be running around $200 at that point), plug it in in SLI mode, and I've nearly doubled the gaming performance of the machine for a couple hundred bucks. That should give me 7 or 8 years of maximum-settings gaming on the same machine. We can meet up again in 2020 and figure out whether new games look better on your PS4 or my machine.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

That wasn't a matter of brand, you simply got a defective cable. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Monster cables to provide any better quality.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Better graphics, better sound, better AI, better controls/input devices and I can use a PC to do much more than just play games. My PC pays for itself with the work I use it for, a console is a total waste of money.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you had the best gaming hardware you could get, AC: Unity is an unplayable, buggy mess. Why would want to even try playing that?

As for non-buggy games, have you ever heard of a thing called "detail settings". It's something that console games lack, but almost all PC games allow you to tailor them to run well, while still looking better than the console versions.

Re: Duh

[Redbehrend]

Ps3 did blu rays and came with a hard drive X box did not for the same price..

Re:Duh

[CronoCloud]

When I buy a new gen console I have to get all new games.

Nothing is stopping you from playing the old games on the old console. You buy the newer stuff for the newer console.

Or, if you had one of the nice CECHA/CECHB/CECHE PS3's, you just used all your PSOne/PS2 discs in it as well.

But really, how many older games do you actually play. Yeah you may say "I install LOOM on my Win8 machine" but do you actually play the older stuff, but only do that to brag about your library.

Re:Duh

[CronoCloud]

Do you actually play games that old, or is that just something you brag about as a member of the supposed "Master Race".

Hell, I've got a CECHE PS3, I could play everything back to 1995. As much as I liked PSone Diablo and FFVII, most of my time spent on the PS3 was spent playing PS3 games.

PLUS all the old arcade and console games too.

Yeah, if you pirate them, you can install emulators on consoles with custom firmware too, but really how many NES games on your PC do you actually play?

Re:Duh

[CronoCloud]

Sure, you had 7 SPUs,

Six. the seventh is reserved for the hypervisor. (Actualy it's 8, but one is disabled for yield)

but hardly any games used them, instead using the 2 PPUs instead

ONE PPU, but it's hyperthreaded, with an Altivec unit.

[CronoCloud@mideel ~]$ cat /proc/cpuinfo
processor : 0
cpu : Cell Broadband Engine, altivec supported
clock : 3192.000000MHz
revision : 5.1 (pvr 0070 0501)
 
processor : 1
cpu : Cell Broadband Engine, altivec supported
clock : 3192.000000MHz
revision : 5.1 (pvr 0070 0501)
 
timebase : 79800000
platform : PS3

That was from back when I still had Linux on my PS3.

Re:Duh

[Blaskowicz]

I used to play Quake 1 200 years after it came out. The old glquake port still ran flawlessly, arbitrary resolution and you get to max out AA/AF and have instant loading times on any PC (jadd some gamma correction to see shit). What's more, the game is very worth playing. You need higher than 60Hz refresh to play it well. PC gaming has been through a 60Hz dark age, barely broken by a handful overpriced TN monitors.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, with shit graphics, shit physics and shit AI.

Re:Duh

[BoogieChile]

Or anywhere in Australia, where $530 is the best price in town

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Lol, that's why I finally switched from PC to console

Me too brother, I got sick of spending money on upgrades on my PC for games stopped and just bought a PSX. Oh, and then a Xbox, and then a PS2, and the PS3, and then the Xbox360, and then the Xbox1, and then the PS4. I think I still have a Dreamcast around here somewhere too.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

The success of gog.com says you're wrong. And, yes, I do still play 10, 20, even 30 year old games on a regular basis. So do most of my friends.

Also, what are you going to do when your special SKU PS3 dies? You can't get replacements.

Re:Duh

[mjwx]

When I buy a new gen console I have to get all new games.

Nothing is stopping you from playing the old games on the old console. You buy the newer stuff for the newer console.

Or, if you had one of the nice CECHA/CECHB/CECHE PS3's, you just used all your PSOne/PS2 discs in it as well.

But really, how many older games do you actually play. Yeah you may say "I install LOOM on my Win8 machine" but do you actually play the older stuff, but only do that to brag about your library.

Can a new Nintendo play all my old Nintendo games. Say from my 64 or SNES (yes I have games that old). Yeah I do replay old games on a regular basis, some dating back to 1992 (hello Star Control II). If I want a console to play my old Nintendo games on, I need an old Nintendo console.

Even backwards compatibility for a PS1 or PS2 on a PS3 was shoddy at best. Unlike the PC, if your game stopped working due to an OS or HW change there was no way around it.

Also remember that Sony removed the PS2 emulator from the PS3 (ostensibly to save money).

Re:Duh

[Sable Drakon]

That used to not be the case, surprisingly.

Re:Duh

[Sable Drakon]

You'd think that. But remember that we've been in a bit of a gaming dark-age, where the min-sys-reqs for a game were relatively low. That is until the 8th gen consoles shipped and developers were finally able to raise the hardware bar from a C2D/2GB/8800GT for their absolute minimums. AC:U is the first AC game from the 8th gen hardware set. Black Flag, while available for Gen8, had it's PC version sourced from the Gen7 release with much lower system requirements than Unity.

Re:Duh

[donaldm]

Also, what are you going to do when your special SKU PS3 dies? You can't get replacements.

Please do a simple web search. Yes you can get a faulty PS1, PS2 or PS3 repaired although you will have to pay for it, likewise for petty much any electronic device and that includes PC's as well. How much it will cost depends on the cost of the parts and labour to do the repairs.

Re:Duh

[donaldm]

The native resolution of the XBox 360 is 720p. It can be upscaled to 1080i, but it's nowhere near as good as native 1080p.

Where did you get this info? The XBox360 and the PS3 both can output up to 1080p. I won't deny that many games on both machines display at 720p but there are games that do display at 1080p.

Re:Duh

[spire3661]

I really do play old games. Currently have installed Shogo:Mobile Armor Division, Descent II, Monkey Island, Unreal Tournament, Half-Life 1, Pilotwings, F-Zero, Tekken 2, Super Metroid right alongside current AAA titles. Btw, I have every right to have the Pilotwings, super Metroid and F-Zero Roms, I own the physical carts (Sony v Universal), no need to resort to piracy. Those games play perfectly well in 2014, even on big screens.

Re:Duh

[CronoCloud]

The success of gog.com says you're wrong.

Not really, since most of the GoG games are Win95+ vintage, not 256K DOS vintage. The oldest game in GoG's top 20 is from 1999.

Also, what are you going to do when your special SKU PS3 dies? You can't get replacements.

Nope, but SCEA will repair it. The only thing I worry about in the thing is the blu-ray drive, since the hard drive is user replaceable (and in fact, I've upgraded that). I've got a functional SCPH 50001 model PS2 sitting around too, those things are built like tanks.

Re:Duh

[CronoCloud]

If I want a console to play my old Nintendo games on, I need an old Nintendo console.

What, you don't keep your old consoles around? ;-) I've got an NES within 10 feet of me.

Even backwards compatibility for a PS1 or PS2 on a PS3 was shoddy at best.

The only PS1 games that won't work on a PS3 are those that won't work properly in a PS2 either, because they break the TRC's. I have only one such game, the X-Files 5 disk graphical adventure game which doesn't work properly in a PS2 or PS3. It runs, but suffers graphical corruption so it's unplayable.

As for PS2 titles, I haven't found a PS2 title that doesn't work on my CECHE model. There are a few that have issues. For some strange reason, Tekken Tag Tournabment runs at half speed. Snowblind Engine games tend to have some graphical glitching and their network play doesn't work, but they're not totally unplayable.

Everything else was fine.

Also remember that Sony removed the PS2 emulator from the PS3 (ostensibly to save money).

From the slim models yes, older models that had it, still have it. The release of PS2 remasters on PSN is a bit of a consolation.

Re:Duh

[Wootery]

better AI

Is that really true? Which titles are you thinking of?

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

All audio amplifiers are analog in that they work on an analog signal. Even if you have optical out going to your amp, internally the signal gets passed through the digital-to-analog converter before getting to the amp stage. You may be thinking of a tube amplifier (vs. transistor) which has been outdated since the invention of transistors. The last legitimate application for vacuum tubes was as a way of deliberately introducing distortion, e.g. on an electric guitar. However we now have DSPs that model the distortion characteristics of various tubes in real-time - doesn't stop people from spending $2k on power-hungry, unreliable tube amps though. For guitars as well as playback systems.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

You deserve the Biggest Whoosh of the Year Award.

Re:Duh

[DocSavage64109]

Parent post didn't say a word about quality -- he said that the monster cables at least worked without losing sync while the no-name cables didn't.

Re:Duh

[Dishevel]

If you buy cheap badly made crap, sometimes it will not work. If you buy Monster, you are stupid. If you buy Denon, you should be euthanized.

Re:Duh

[Espectr0]

Surely it is. Sadly, DAI requires a hard drive, so if you have an arcade unit like me, the game won't work, since it explicitly says that you can't install a disc to a usb flash drive like GTA V , WatchDogs and Assassin's Creed Rogue does.

Re:Duh

[Gallomimia]

oh of course someone else already posted that.

I'll add that if you need a trendy rss feed like slashdot to inform you of this you are most decidedly not an actual nerd|geek|technophreak|politicallycorrectspeakhere but just a poser

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a fucking idiot if you think Monster cables aren't occasionally defective too.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

No, most of gog.com's library is DOS era.

Will SCEA repair it in ten or even five years time? The answer is no and your entire library will become coasters.

Re:Duh

[neoritter]

better controls/input devices

No, laughably no. Support in PC games for anything other than keyboard and mouse is incredibly shoddy. If you want to argue that a keyboard and mouse is the better input device(s) for gaming, you have some notions about gaming.

Better graphics, better sound

Graphics don't make a game. If graphics mattered, PC gamers wouldn't be all lovestruck over the indie game scene which is notorious for horrible graphics. As for sound, that has little to do with the console or the PC and everything to do with your own sound system set up.

I can use a PC to do much more than just play games.

Gee that's funny, so can modern consoles.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

No, laughably no. Support in PC games for anything other than keyboard and mouse is incredibly shoddy. If you want to argue that a keyboard and mouse is the better input device(s) for gaming, you have some notions about gaming.

Bullshit. I have a keyboard, mouse, gaming keypad, gamepad, flight stick and a flight yoke for my PC and they all work fine. On the other hand, your input options for consoles are limited solely to a gamepad.

Graphics don't make a game. If graphics mattered, PC gamers wouldn't be all lovestruck over the indie game scene which is notorious for horrible graphics. As for sound, that has little to do with the console or the PC and everything to do with your own sound system set up.

If graphics didn't matter, we'd all still be playing low resolution monochrome or CGA games. PCs have better sound cards than consoles.

Gee that's funny, so can modern consoles.

No they can't. Show me a console that can run applications. You go get Office, Visual Studio, Avid, FL Studio or Photoshop running on your console and show me. I bet typing with a gamepad must be really awesome too.

Re:Duh

[CronoCloud]

Will SCEA repair it in ten or even five years time? The answer is no

Actually, the answer is probably yes. They still service PS2's! And if they don't... there are other services that can repair/replace a blu-ray drive.

Re:Duh

[SuiteSisterMary]

Yes, the PS3 was a wonderful piece of advanced computer engineering.

The 360, on the other hand, was a better gaming platform. And seeing as how both were designed, ostensibly, to be gaming platforms, the 360 won.

The RROD debacle was a straight cost-cutting issue, not a fundamental design issue.

It's the circle of consoles. Nintendo got stupid, and Sony drank their milkshake. Sony got stupid, and Microsoft drank their milkshake. This generation, the PS4 beats the XBONE, but by far less of a margin than the 360 beat the PS3. Hell, a big chunk of it was simply Microsoft making the wrong call on where memory markets would be down the road.

Thought experiment: if the PS3 was so elegant and advanced, why did Sony go back to a 360 style design for the PS4?

What?

[Carewolf]

The Xbox One and PS4 are largely matched... Overall, the PC and PS4 are closest in general detail

Okay...

That's because

[geekoid]

the PC is objectively better.

Re:That's because

[gstoddart]

Well, by some metric, a top fuel dragster is objectively better as a car. Provided you have the money for an expensive hobby, of course. And only need to travel in a straight line.

If you want to define "objectively better" as lower TCO over the life of the product, and good enough for most applications ... then I'll say a console is objectively better.

My XBox 360 cost me about $350, has never needed a hardware upgrade, and still works after several years. And I can run it completely offline from the interwebs.

That wouldn't even get you a gamer's video card, let alone the machine to run it on.

Re:That's because

[Skarjak]

You pay for xbox live and your games are more expensive. A PC can be built for 600$ which beats an Xbox One and will quickly beat it in price if you only buy games from online sales (which you really should). Also, consider that a computer is needed anyway. Then it's no longer even the full price of the PC that you must consider, but the extra you are paying to have a gaming PC vs a working PC. Then the advantage is even more in the PC's favour. The inherent backward compatibility and mods inherent to the platform put the final nail in the coffin.

Your analogy fails because dragsters can achieve a higher top speed, but are inherently limited compared to normal cars. For games, PCs can have more raw power and are more versatile.

Re:That's because

[Njorthbiatr]

It's objectively better in all metrics except cost.

Here's it's shown to be better than consoles visually. And the modders haven't even touched it yet.

Re:That's because

[alvinrod]

You're overlooking a few key points.

First the PC will have better specs on paper, but when it comes to running the actual game, the performance may be worse simply because having a console allows for more highly tuned and specialized code.

Second, that $600 PC purchased now will definitely be a lot better, but if it were purchased at the time of release, even the raw numbers wouldn't be all that much better, never mind the actual performance. Also if you don't already have a good monitor, that's even more of an investment, unless you want to hook up the PC to your TV as well.

Third, you forget the a console gamer can buy used games at a store, whereas PC gamers typically can't resell their digital downloads. Given that the online digital games on sale will probably be in the same price range as a used disc in a store for a similarly aged game and it's not that big of a difference. If you want to play the newest games as they're released the full-price cost is going to be about the same whether or not it's on PC or console.

I typically pick up a new console at some point in the generation just to play through some of the exclusives (PC's aren't going to get the new Zelda game any time soon, at least not in a completely legal fashion.) but in general I prefer the PC simply because many of the genres I like best lend themselves more readily to a mouse/keyboard combination.

However, there are some people for whom a console is a much better value proposition. If the PC was hands down better in every case, no one would buy one. However, given their popularity, it seems to suggest that there are a large number of people for who consider a console to be a better value.

Re:That's because

[geekoid]

You're parameters are screwy.
"and good enough for most applications "
You don't use most applications on the console. Do you use excel? audacity? Can you write and add any mod you like to minecraft? Use it for your email?

IN your example. the console would be the dragster. It's the specialized device.

I have a PS3, and Xbox, and a Wii. Looking at life time and usage, the PC's are cheaper.

Anyway, I was talking about technical play-ability.
Example: On a PC you can make tighter turns. I think it was Gabe Newall who did a technical write up on that issue when discussion getting PC players and Console playing together. The solution? make PC client slower. In effect lower PC's to console level
  On a PC response times is quicker.

If you never play more technically intensive games, you would n't need to upgrade a PC either.

My rigs generally last a as gaming machine about 5 years. I am just now going to upgrade my sons machine, it's 7 years old and he plays SCII, TF2, minecraft, does movie editing, CAD, and garry's mod, and Crysis. The machines cost 800 when I built it, with one upgrade of 125 dollars for a new video card over 2 years ago

Console are better if:
You want to do head to head on the same screen with someone
As a living room entertainment appliance.

This is what one would expect. The console is an appliance. It has all the pros and cons of an appliance.

None of this has to do with personal enjoyment. Like, dislike, good, bad, these are all different things.

Re: That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there is a reason why we, the PC master race, call you console 'peasants'.

Re:That's because

[VGPowerlord]

First the PC will have better specs on paper, but when it comes to running the actual game, the performance may be worse simply because having a console allows for more highly tuned and specialized code.

Yeeeah, not in this generation. That's because Sony and Microsoft went for 1.6GHz AMD Jaguar Fusion family of x86-64/GPU processors instead of custom processors this time around.

Second, that $600 PC purchased now will definitely be a lot better, but if it were purchased at the time of release, even the raw numbers wouldn't be all that much better, never mind the actual performance.

The consoles use faster RAM (actually, only the framebuffer does for the XbOne), but the PC's clock speed advantage is likely enough to close those gaps... and is pretty much guaranteed if they use a dedicated graphics card (as the RAM speed advantage largely goes away in that case).

Also if you don't already have a good monitor, that's even more of an investment, unless you want to hook up the PC to your TV as well.

If you were doing a Gaming PC, this is exactly what you'd do.

That's one nice thing about everything using HDMI cables these days.

Third, you forget the a console gamer can buy used games at a store, whereas PC gamers typically can't resell their digital downloads. Given that the online digital games on sale will probably be in the same price range as a used disc in a store for a similarly aged game and it's not that big of a difference. If you want to play the newest games as they're released the full-price cost is going to be about the same whether or not it's on PC or console.

Yeah... that's not usually the case. Steam sales tend to be cheaper than used copies of console games. And sooner in a game's lifetime as well.

However, there are some people for whom a console is a much better value proposition. If the PC was hands down better in every case, no one would buy one. However, given their popularity, it seems to suggest that there are a large number of people for who consider a console to be a better value.

Consoles are largely easier to set up and use.

This is the kind of thing that the SteamBox standard was created to fight. However, then Valve started mucking around with the "standard" before the first one was even released. Heck, I still don't think the controller has been standardized and SteamBoxes were announced like a year ago!

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

You're overlooking a few key points.

First the PC will have better specs on paper, but when it comes to running the actual game, the performance may be worse simply because having a console allows for more highly tuned and specialized code.

Second, that $600 PC purchased now will definitely be a lot better, but if it were purchased at the time of release, even the raw numbers wouldn't be all that much better, never mind the actual performance. Also if you don't already have a good monitor, that's even more of an investment, unless you want to hook up the PC to your TV as well.

Third, you forget the a console gamer can buy used games at a store, whereas PC gamers typically can't resell their digital downloads. Given that the online digital games on sale will probably be in the same price range as a used disc in a store for a similarly aged game and it's not that big of a difference. If you want to play the newest games as they're released the full-price cost is going to be about the same whether or not it's on PC or console.

I typically pick up a new console at some point in the generation just to play through some of the exclusives (PC's aren't going to get the new Zelda game any time soon, at least not in a completely legal fashion.) but in general I prefer the PC simply because many of the genres I like best lend themselves more readily to a mouse/keyboard combination.

However, there are some people for whom a console is a much better value proposition. If the PC was hands down better in every case, no one would buy one. However, given their popularity, it seems to suggest that there are a large number of people for who consider a console to be a better value.

A PC, to me these days, is about as fun as managing a MythTV box, yeah, maybe it's "better" in many ways, but in reality it requires time and a lot of drudgery. Yeah there was a time when I highly enjoyed doing all of that and maybe I will one day again, but I don't like it right now. Maintaining Windows alone is many times as obnoxious to me as anything my XBox One has put me through (ironic given it's the same company). That's even when hardware is fine. I wouldn't even have Windows at home if it wasn't for gaming. I recently replaced a graphics card because yet another XFX card's fan went out. That was 200 bucks (okay, 180, with $30 a mail in rebate, man I still gotta do that), that really eclipse's anything I spend on XBox Live Gold or my console in general. Yeah, we're lucky, this gen of CPUs has lasted a hell of a lot longer, hell my work PC is going on 4 years old now and doesn't feel slow, but PC gaming hasn't always been so lucky, I'm not sure we'll keep being so lucky...

As for the inevitable "mouse and keyboard" argument, those things were not originally designed for gaming, sorry, they work okay-ish for some games but really they kind of stink. Back in the day we had a ton of periphs hanging off our gaming PCs just to enjoy our games, it seems some PC guys these days have forgotten that (or never even knew it).

Consoles let me spend my free time actually gaming, save the obnoxious installs this gen, really, it's easy, pop it in and play. Oh yeah, and lend it to my buddy after or sell it back to Gamestop if it sucks.

Re:That's because

[spire3661]

What you gain in lower hardware you make up for in game costs. TCO for PC includes a MASSIVE array of functionality and a back catalog that spans DECADES. I would say with a smartly designed PC, the PC has the overall advantage in TCO.

Re:That's because

[Forgefather]

"Also if you don't already have a good monitor, that's even more of an investment"

Just like an xbox needs a TV to be used and TVs, at least good ones, are far more expensive than monitors.

" you forget the a console gamer can buy used games at a store"

for less than 15% off the price of a new version and your trade ins will net you a pittance. On the PC I could preorder Borderlands 2 for $35 with a season pass and a free copy of XCOM: Enemy Unknown, a then $50 title.

I play around 15-20 games a year and I spend less than $100 on the lot of them. XBox live alone nearly meets that price line and the $10 console markup rate on most games along with the lack of giant sales means that even if you buy 5-7 games a year at only +$20 each over the PC counterpart you have earned enough every 2 years to buy a new graphics card. Also I use my old graphics cards as physx cards and I am able to run most new AAA games at ultra with a 650Ti Boost ($150 at retail). Add to that I can use my PC for general use you save far more money gaming on a PC.

Furthermore, to suggest that a console owner saves money based on a 1:1 comparison between the cost of a console and the cost of a PC you also have to assume that the console owner doesn't own a PC. Really what needs to be compared is the marginal cost between a standard computer and a gaming rig which is less than $400 even if you are being generous.

The console being more cost effective is a myth. The real draw to a console is that it is an out of the box solution, no messing around with third party apps an installers, and much more effective local multiplayer.

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

>If you want to define "objectively better" as lower TCO over the life of the product, and good enough for most applications ... then I'll say a console is objectively better.

Doubt it. Xbox 360 games cost how much? Controllers cost how much? Batteries for your wireless controllers? Live subscription? Wifi dongle?

In short, you're full of shit and can't do math.

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot mods. There are a ton of mods available for a lot of games, easily installed on the PC.

Re:That's because

[alvinrod]

For the vast majority of games, it's more about the power of the GPU than the CPU, which is why both Microsoft and Sony spent a lot more of the silicon and power budget on graphics than they did on the CPU. There's still an issue of most games and game developers failing to take advantage of all of these cores, but hopefully now that the consoles have been pushing increased core count for a while (the PS3 had it's cell processor that was similar to having multiple cores) that developers will get better at writing software that takes advantage of this.

Also, I really personally dislike using a TV for a PC screen. It also limits you to 1080p, and some PC gamers prefer using higher resolution displays or even some kind of multiple-monitor setup. Personally I game on a 1920 x 1200 monitor because I like the extra vertical space. Unfortunately some games don't support the resolution which is a bit annoying.

Yeah... that's not usually the case. Steam sales tend to be cheaper than used copies of console games. And sooner in a game's lifetime as well.

That may be true, but consoles do have the added benefit of physical media and being able to borrow a game from a friend. Typically with PC games, even the boxed copies have limited number of installs which makes sharing games more difficult. It would be interesting to do a comparison for popular games at different points in their life-cycle to see what the prices are like.

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

What if i do not need that extra functionality (aka complexity, points of failure) and just want to play new games?

Holy shit, it seems it DEPENDS on the buyer. Who would have thought? obviously not any of the fools arguing that X is better because it is better in THEIR situation.

You can praise the greatness of those features all day long (and sure, they are great), but if they are of no use to me they are wasted money.

Re:That's because

[Dishwasha]

So you're saying my PC with built-in Intel 4600 graphics is better than a PS4. Great to know. Guess I won't have to get a new video card after all.

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

" you forget the a console gamer can buy used games at a store"

for less than 15% off the price of a new version and your trade ins will net you a pittance.

That's only true if you're buying used versions of very recent games. Wait six months or so and it's 50% off or more.

As for trade-ins, it's true that you don't get much. But remind me again how much you get for trading in your old PC games?

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

Xbox 360 games cost how much?

Anywhere from $5 to $60, same as for PC games.

Controllers cost how much?

Nothing, because it was included with the console and I don't need another. But if I do, it'll be less than what I'd pay for a good wireless mouse and keyboard.

Batteries for your wireless controllers?

Trivial. Did you know that rechargeable batteries are a thing?

Live subscription?

$30-40 a year since I can always be sure of catching a special before my sub runs out. That also gets me 24 games over the course of that year; not first-run AAA games, but that has long since ceased to matter to me. And that's assuming I even care about non-local multiplayer, which becomes less true with each passing year.

Wifi dongle?

Nothing, because I don't need one.

In short, you're full of shit and can't do math.

Or you're full of shit and can't grow up and get past this tribalistic Console Warrior nonsense and recognize the fact that other people can make valid choices that aren't the same as yours.

Re:That's because

[mjwx]

Vastly superior gaming platform demonstrated to be vastly superior. Next up, water proven to be wet.

Seriously, is this a surprise to anyone. A PC with more modern and more powerful hardware is faster and more detailed than a gaming platform with older and less powerful hardware...

It's like someone who drives a VW Golf complaining that it's not as fast as a Nissan 370z.

Re:That's because

[CronoCloud]

You pay for xbox live

That's right and PSN+ too, but you get something for that besides online gaming...you get freebies tossed in.

and your games are more expensive.

No, they aren't. Same price, at least here in the US. Dragon Age Inquisition, the game this entire discussion is about, is the exact same price on EVERY platform, PC/PS4/XboxOne/PS3/360

if you only buy games from online sales

If you're wondering the reason why the PC version of many games is an afterthought...it's guys like you. The "I only buy games for $5 at steam sales"...cheapskates who then complain when the PC version comes out later or isn't optimized. It's the people paying $59 who subsidize the development, not you.

Also, consider that a computer is needed anyway.

Who says?

Re:That's because

[CronoCloud]

You don't use most applications on the console. Do you use excel? audacity?

As a matter of fact..... I have used OO Calc and Audacity on a PS3.

Use it for your email?

I have. Kmail, Thunderbird, claws-mail. On both the PS2 and PS3. I could now if I stuck to webmail, thanks to the PS3 and PS4's web browser. The vita has an e-mail app already. There is nothing stopping Sony from slapping up versions of OO or Audacity compiled for the standard PS4 OS on PSN. Hell, their video editing app is based on ffmpeg!

http://www.psdevwiki.com/ps4/L...

I think it was Gabe Newall who did a technical write up on that issue when discussion getting PC players and Console playing together. The solution? make PC client slower. In effect lower PC's to console level
    On a PC response times is quicker.

That was entirely due to mouse-aiming being easy-mode. That's what the old-timer FPS's called the first mouse-aiming FPS's..."easy mode". That was also due to the platform involved, (Dreamcast) which wasn't one of the consoles that support mutliple input methods. Also...Gabe isn't entirely neutral on the issue since his company is tied to the PC.

Re: That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but it's not the reason you claim.

Re:That's because

[CronoCloud]

Doubt it. Xbox 360 games cost how much?

The same price as games for other platforms?

Controllers cost how much?

I don't know, mine came with my PS3/PS4.

Batteries for your wireless controllers?

Never had to replace controller batteries.

Live subscription?

PS+ 49.95 a year. Gets you a ton of games in the "Instant Game Library. It's why it was popular on the PS3.

Wifi dongle?

What is this you speak of, the PS3 and PS4 do not need such things.

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're doing car analogies a console is like an old station wagon. You can cram a group of people uncomfortably together (sharing a screen) while not being able to move very fast (crap hardware) or manoeuvre well (crap controls). Also, the car is only permitted to drive down a single street (only plays games).

A PC is like an Acura NSX. Extremely comfortable for one or two with the latest technology, very fast and very manoeuvrable. Also, you don't have any restrictions on where you can travel (can do anything).

Re:That's because

[donaldm]

Also, I really personally dislike using a TV for a PC screen. It also limits you to 1080p, and some PC gamers prefer using higher resolution displays or even some kind of multiple-monitor setup. Personally I game on a 1920 x 1200 monitor because I like the extra vertical space. Unfortunately some games don't support the resolution which is a bit annoying.

You can get 4k HDTV that are usually 16:9 aspect ratio which is 3840x2160 pixels and they are not that much more expensive than the 2k or 1080p HDTVs. What is really important as well in choosing a screen is the refresh rate and the frame rate the screen can support.

The problem you have with games and movies is they can be made with different aspect ratios and depending on your screen you may see what is called pillar-boxing. While this can be annoying there is little you can do since the physical display screen has a specific physical aspect ratio which cannot be changed. There are some interesting articles on this and why the compromise of the 16:9 aspect ratio was chosen for most HDTV's.

Which aspect ratio is the best? Difficult to say since that depends on the predominate content the viewer likes to display on their screen.

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares, when Steam sales discount more off the price than you'd ever get by trading it in?

Re:That's because

[Anonymous Coward]

You're not subsidizing development; you're subsidizing the cost of advertising, which, with AAA games, can equal dev costs in the best cases, and dwarf them at worst.

Re:That's because

[Cederic]

Anywhere from $5 to $60, same as for PC games.

erm. The last seven games I bought cost me $6.66. Not 'each', $6.66 got me all seven. It actually got me nine games, but I already owned two so I'm being kind and not including them.

Although you can spend $60 on a PC game, it's incredibly rare. E.g. Company Of Heroes 2 Ardennes Assault, an AAA game, released this week, £18.31 ($28.77). Shit, the limited edition is only £22.

PCs Slaying Consoles In Dragon Age Inquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

I see what you did there. Don't do that. This is Slashdot, not "10 reasons" and "you won't believe what happened next".

Re:PCs Slaying Consoles In Dragon Age Inquisition

[NotDrWho]

Or my favorite Wired headline: "How X is going the CHANGE THE WORLD!"

Re:PCs Slaying Consoles In Dragon Age Inquisition

[Thanshin]

I see what you did there. Don't do that. This is Slashdot, not "10 reasons" and "you won't believe what happened next".

What reasons?

OMG! What happened next!?

Re:PCs Slaying Consoles In Dragon Age Inquisition

[Red4man]

What happened next was a weird trick....

Re:PCs Slaying Consoles In Dragon Age Inquisition

[zlives]

x mean xbox? osX windows X ....

i guess its better than the original headline

"how _____ is going to CHANGE THE WORLD"

Re:PCs Slaying Consoles In Dragon Age Inquisition

[Anonymous Coward]

Or my favorite Wired headline: "How X is going the CHANGE THE WORLD!"

Avoid dating mentally unbalanced people. Your X will leave you alone.

On the other hand, it's EA

[i kan reed]

And they haven't really done anything regarding hthe "stop shitting all over customers" promise they threw out on a PR damage control press conference.

Re:On the other hand, it's EA

[Moheeheeko]

Sadly, because at this very moment EA isn't Ubisoft, people will buy the game anyway.

Re:On the other hand, it's EA

[phantomfive]

Oh thanks, I've been trying to decide whether to get Dragon Age or not. When you reminded me it's EA, you totally made my decision for me.

Re:On the other hand, it's EA

[Cederic]

Yeah, Dragon Age : Origins was a genuinely excellent game - when I could play it.

The online DRM made it unplayable around 20% of the time, and as a result I refuse to buy any further entries in the Dragon Age series, and I refuse to buy EA games.

Then they release Dragon Age : Inquisition with Origin based DRM AND another separate DRM scheme that apparently fucks over SSDs AND needs online checks that regularly fail.

EA are basically begging me not to buy their games. I'm happy to oblige.

It's a shame, the game is probably excellent. I feel sorry for the development team, but they shouldn't have picked such a fuckwit publisher.

So stating the obvious then

[UnknowingFool]

PC is the best then PS4 then Xbox One. I guess hardware does matter when it comes to gaming. Anyone else not surprised? As for Xbox, it looks like they will be behind until the next generation unless they update the hardware. The ESRAM buffer does not seem to be making up the gap as they hoped it would.

Re:So stating the obvious then

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it matters when it comes to articles and headlines. In the real world, people don't give a shit.

Re:So stating the obvious then

[Grizzley9]

PC is the best then PS4 then Xbox One. I guess hardware does matter when it comes to gaming. Anyone else not surprised? As for Xbox, it looks like they will be behind until the next generation unless they update the hardware. The ESRAM buffer does not seem to be making up the gap as they hoped it would.

Only behind (in graphics) to PS4 owners. Hardware is virtually the same.

Re:So stating the obvious then

[VGPowerlord]

PC is the best then PS4 then Xbox One. I guess hardware does matter when it comes to gaming. Anyone else not surprised? As for Xbox, it looks like they will be behind until the next generation unless they update the hardware. The ESRAM buffer does not seem to be making up the gap as they hoped it would.

Only behind (in graphics) to PS4 owners. Hardware is virtually the same.

Lets pull some quotes from the article.

When detail levels do rise, the PC still comes away with the best overall visuals. In this close-up, the Xbox One and PS4 are largely matched, while the PC elf has better facial coloring and slightly more detailed textures.

Above, you can see that the green crystal is far more detailed in the PC version with the PS4 following behind.

As things stand, the PC version has some notable edges over the consoles, with the PS4 nearly matching PC visuals and the Xbox One trailing behind. The PC variant of Dragon Age Inquisition will support AMD's Mantle out of the box, so it'll be interesting to see if AMD GPUs pick up any frames in that API.

In other words, the article is disagreeing with what you say.

Re:So stating the obvious then

[UnknowingFool]

Virtually but not the same. Actually it seems that MS picked a slightly more powerful CPU but less powerful GPU. Also the use of DDR3 with ESRAM instead of GDDR5 is not working out as much as MS would have hoped.

Re:So stating the obvious then

[VGPowerlord]

Whoops, re-reading that, you may have been saying that the Xbox One is only behind (in graphics) to PS4 owners.

And thanks to the 5 minute post wait /. imposes, someone else may have already pointed that out by the time I post this (thx /.).

Re:So stating the obvious then

[zlives]

considering all AAA titles tout the "stunning graphics" ....

Re:So stating the obvious then

[Anonymous Coward]

Only the CPU is "virtually" the same. The PS4 has a better GPU and much faster RAM than the Xbone.

control

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because PC allows for ballistic motor control to target, whereas most console controls aren't.

Except for the PC mouse+keyboard controls...

[Halo5]

Apparently, it's pretty bad. I bought this for my wife yesterday and she's pretty frustrated with the mouse+keyboard controls on the PC. Apparently, it was developed with a console controller in mind. She HATES controllers; it's one of the reasons she is strictly a PC gamer. Here is a thread about it on Reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/dragonage/comments/2mnbyl/dragon_age_inquisition_not_enjoying_the_pc/

I'm thinking about getting her a Razor Orbweaver for her machine; I'm hoping that it may solve some of the problems:

http://www.razerzone.com/gb-en/gaming-keyboards-keypads/razer-orbweaver

Re:Except for the PC mouse+keyboard controls...

[Luckyo]

If I may make a recommendation, consider trying out logitech G13 before going for orbweaver.

It has a few significant advantages over orbweaver, like actual analogue joystick (orbweaver's "thumbstick" is just a directional pad). It's also shaped differently, and I found it to be a much better fit for my hand. It's also significantly cheaper.

Re:Except for the PC mouse+keyboard controls...

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't played it, but looking at the thread, it sounds more like they went from something like a Guild Wars 1 control scheme to a Diablo control scheme as opposed to necessarily controller-like. Just about everything I'm seeing in there would apply to Diablo 1,2 or 3...

Re:Except for the PC mouse+keyboard controls...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just picked up an Orbweaver myself.

It's complete pants for WASD-style movement. The keys are aligned in perfect rows , making it so that hitting the top buttons and lower center button while maintaining movement require curious, professional violinist-level finger dexerity to hit, or you need to start moving your entire wrist/hand, which defeats the purported point of the Orbweaver entirely.

Alternatively, you might be able to get used to the joystick dongle, but it takes some doing, as it's not angled (and thus, on an odd angle, when your thumb is actually resting on it) and isn't at all intuitive.

Re:Except for the PC mouse+keyboard controls...

[Halo5]

Thanks for the suggestion! Is the software as flexible as the software for the Razor?

Re:Except for the PC mouse+keyboard controls...

[Luckyo]

It's about the same, except it doesn't have the whole big brother thing with analysis tools that Razer insists on. Logitech's version is fully offline for all components.

You can probably find video reviews of it online.

Origins

[phorm]

Even Origins (Dragon Age 1) manages to look pretty damn good on an up-to-date PC. I'm guessing there may have been some updates since the early release, but the graphics definitely scale nicely for modern hardware.

It's funny because it's one of the few games where the in-game graphics actually look better than those in the trailers (because the trailers were made with older hardware - though likely the best at the time the game first came out).

I haven't played through DA2 but I heard the gameplay was somewhat shoddy compared to the original. Hopefully Inquisition (DA3) is better.

Re:Origins

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully Inquisition (DA3) is better.

It is.

One more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

that a PC beats a game console every time!

Re:One more reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you already have a console and don't get all anal about miniscule differences in percieved quality. Some of us just play games to have a nice time. You religious people are so funny when you go crusading over nothing.

I can't wait

[slashmydots]

You know how consoles usually stay unchanged for 7 years performance-wise? That'll be fun in the near future.

Re:I can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Programmers also get better over the years writing for a console.

Re:I can't wait

[0123456]

Except the new consoles are just low to mid-range PCs.

Re:I can't wait

[CronoCloud]

Considering the Steam hardware survey...more like high-range. Take a look at the most common graphics cards, CPU's and whatnot. Dual-core is the most common with the most common graphics card being an Intel integrated one.

Re:I can't wait

[donaldm]

Except the new consoles are just low to mid-range PCs.

How many low range PC's have 8 CPU's and 8GB of memory? I would concede that the PS4 and XB1 fail into the category of the upper end of a modern mid-range PC but putting them into the low end range is definitely trolling.

Re:I can't wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Those 8 AMD cores are demolished by a dual core i3 and 8GB of RAM is paltry these days. A PS4/Xbone is using low to mid range PC hardware.

For comparison, my laptop has a Core i7 4700MQ @ 2.4GHz and 32GB RAM.

Note to HotHardware

[MobyDisk]

When creating comparison images, use PNG not JPG. One of the images compares the texture detail on the face, but the "more detailed" PC image just shows more JPEG artifacts. That indirectly shows there was probably detail there, but you can't really see it. If you do JPEG it, use the ridiculously high settings.

Re:Note to HotHardware

[Anonymous Coward]

It's even worse than that. It looks to me like they're lossy JPGs capped from a lossy YouTube video. WTF? What an entirely pointless, incompetent comparison.

Re:Note to HotHardware

[krkhan]

I honestly, sincerely, without-any-prejudice, spent 5 minutes on that page trying to figure out the differences in quality in "three-way comparison" but for the life of me all I am able to discern is minor differences which can be attributed to a plethora of reasons other than the hardware capabilities.

If anything, this comparison served well to make me consider buying a console. I mean, if I'm not able to see a significant difference, why would it make sense for me to spend extra bucks on the PC? Just because some videophile found the console version to be "muddy"?

Re:Note to HotHardware

[lexman098]

why would it make sense for me to spend extra bucks on the PC? Just because some videophile found the console version to be "muddy"?

Higher framerate and/or resolution.

Re:Note to HotHardware

[uolamer]

Exactly. I was thinking the same thing. Most the images looked virtually identical, but the main image where the PC showed more detail I just see jpeg artifacts as you said. I looked up at the URL and saw .JPG and thought.... wow you went through all this trouble to show which was better and you ruined your visuals by using JPG when PNG was right there probably one drop down box away when you were saving the images.. At this rate I am not sure if they save the screen shots in JPG then put them together in say Adobe Photoshop then saved them in JPG yet again..

Re:Note to HotHardware

[Anonymous Coward]

Future proof. Compare Battlefield 3/4 on previous consoles to what its capable of on the PC. Upgrading a PC for newer games, if you have a good gaming PC foundation, lately simply involves replacing a graphics card.

Consoles should just go away

[Karmashock]

What we should have instead are gaming PCs.

Give them nice living room form factors, a good TV friendly GUI, make sure there are HDMI out plugs in the back, and have them come with some controllers.

But there is no reason the OS can't be windows or linux or macos.

We don't need console OS's. They're stupid. Their only questionable purpose at this point is as a form of DRM because they're so locked down. And that isn't in the consumer's interest.

Furthermore, the value to the console makers or the game developers is also dubious. Sony and Microsoft often lose money on consoles for YEARS after launch and only start breaking even towards the end of the console generation. That same capital investment could easily make a lot more money somewhere else. Why bother with it?

I understand why MS made the xbox. They wanted to keep some control over games and not lose it to nintendo or sony or something. But they could have done that more easily through PCs.

PCs are better then consoles. They just are. Always have been. The hardware is superior. End of story. There is no reason to keep making consoles. Just pump out some PCs that LOOK like consoles to keep the couch dwelling gamers happy and move on.

Re:Consoles should just go away

[kamapuaa]

Gaming PCs already exist. Everybody knows about them. A lot of people choose not to buy them. What's to be gained by taking away options from consumers?

Personally I enjoy my XBox very much, and have about zero interest in getting a gaming PC. If I was into MMORPGs or was a hard-core FPS player that would probably be different.

Re:Consoles should just go away

[Anonymous Coward]

What we should have instead are gaming PCs.

Give them nice living room form factors, a good TV friendly GUI, make sure there are HDMI out plugs in the back, and have them come with some controllers.

So, a Steam Box?

Re:Consoles should just go away

[dAzED1]

when I bought my ps4, it was a very cheap high-quality 3d blu ray player. It also happened to play games, which I enjoy. Instead of spending $2k on a PC to plug in to my $8k home theatre setup, I plug in a PS4 and it works great. I /suppose/ I could plug a PC into one of the AUX ports in front, and then awkwardly try to find a place to put my keyboard and muss around with a mouse...or - and this is just an alternative - I could use a little handheld controller thingy that pairs up with my PS4. Decisions, decisions. My overall experience with a 65" TV and hifi 7.1 sound while sitting comfortably on my couch is WAY higher, in my experience, than it would be sitting in my office upstairs - even if the graphics had slightly more detail on the PC. That way I can then have a laptop that I can use for work, and get a mid-range "gaming" laptop so it is relatively decent for a while, but not actually use it for games much...instead, I use it for home, school, work, etc. And it only needs cost me $1200 or so. I could spend $3k on a gaming laptop, but then I'd have a 17" screen with stereo sound, instead of a 65" screen with 7.1 surround. Maybe some of us don't want multiple PCs? Maybe some of us want a better overall experience, instead of just having slightly better graphics detail? Maybe those of us like that are a big enough market that consoles do actually sell, despite gaming PCs being an option?

Re:Consoles should just go away

[_xeno_]

Dunno about "hard-core FPS player" but MMOs are actually moving to consoles. The obvious example is Destiny which launched in September, not to mention the Elder Scrolls Online which is coming to consoles next month.

There might not be quite as many console MMOs as there are PC MMOs, but newer MMOs are definitely looking towards consoles as a target platform.

Re:Consoles should just go away

[Anonymous Coward]

What is stopping you from plugging your laptop into your big screen and surround sound? Both devices will have HDMI, no doubt your 7.1 reciever will have HDMI in/out, whats the problem?

Infact the consoles only support 5.1, and while PC games also only support 5.1 you have the option of using third party software to upmix or EQ the sound to your hearts desire. This is also especially useful for blurays (I use Jriver or other EQ software to boost the LFE on some films), so the PC/laptop has now also replaced your bluray player and any DSP hardware (e.g DCX2496/miniDSP/nanoAVR) you may have for your surround sound. It will also replace your streaming device such as Roku if you have one.

Controller? Are you serious? Wireless gamepads have been available for PCs since long before the consoles started using them, plus you have the choice of hundreds of different controller designs, in addition to a mouse/keyboard (which is undeniably superior for many game types, RTS and FPS for example). PS4 controller doesn't fit in your unusually big (or small) hands, you are shit out of luck. I have a wireless (USB dongle) gamepad that I paid £11 for nearly 10 years ago, the range is superior to any console controllers, the battery life is immense (hundreds of hours play from 4xAAA batteries), and its basically a Playstation controller but scaled up by 20% in all dimensions, perfect for me.

I too have a nice TV with a high-end surround system (although only 5.1 because of space restrictions) and ALL the content is provided by a gaming PC that cost £600 4 years ago (however I am just about to spend another £150 on a GPU that should last another 4 years). That is incredible value. I do own a Xbox360 but that is only to play Halo 3.

Re:Consoles should just go away

[Anonymous Coward]

Not arguing that the PS4 is a decent choice for that use, but
1. You can get a perfectly good home theater pc for a hell of a lot less than $2k. Hell, a $300 laptop will do it. You'll need to pay for than that for one that can do bluray, but certainly not $2k.
2. There are decent solutions to the "awkwardly try to find a place to put my keyboard and muss around with a mouse" issue like this: http://mobile.logitech.com/en-ca/product/wireless-touch-keyboard-k400r
3. You can plug a gaming laptop into the TV.

(captcha: schooled)

Re:Consoles should just go away

[dAzED1]

Uh, there is no way that a PC could replace my DSP...first, my DSP is a full fledged AVR putting out serious power to large speakers throughout my livingroom. Second, it can be controlled by my phone or my remote, with 3 zones and the ability to rapidly play various internet radio (and control thereof) channels, such as pandora or what-have-you. If I want to start my americana station in zone 3, watch a movie in zone 2, play a comedy station in zone 1 - all done in seconds from my phone or easy remote. Versus logging into a laptop connected to an aux port, then starting the pandora app, then saying "well, guess that's all I'm doing right now..."

Real home theatre/entertainment systems can't use a cheap PC. What in the heck would be driving my PSB Stratus Gold loudspeakers? The digital output from a PC? You're nuts. Oh wait, you want me to then get little amplifiers for each different thing, and maybe multiple video cards and sound cards so I can mimic mutli-zone. Or...and it's just an alternative - I could use a real AVR with a PS4 plugged in as a source (a source which just happens to handle the 3d bluray disks I occasionally use, though I do streaming >90% of the time).

You're a fanatic. Just accept that the rest of us aren't. I could also walk to work, since it provides the greatest flexibility of what direction I go - but instead I ride a harley, where I've got limitations such as staying in lanes (sortof) and going the same direction as everyone else. I know, I know, sheeple.

Re:Consoles should just go away

[CronoCloud]

Infact the consoles only support 5.1,

That's not quite true, the PS3 and PS4 support 7.1 and yes there are games with true 7.1 audio on the PS3. It's why Skyrim is 3.6GB on the 360 and 10GB on the PS3, it supports Dolby Digital, DTS, 5.1 LPCM and 7.1 LPCM

 

ALL the content is provided by a gaming PC that cost £600 4 years ago

UK gamers are notoriously anti-console thanks to the UK governments protectionism to favor Sinclair and keep the Americans and Japanese out.

Re:Consoles should just go away

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for the fact that way back when they were first announced and lineups were set by PC manufacturers, the Steam Boxen that came close to the PS4/XB1 in price point looked rather disappointing spec-wise.

Re:Consoles should just go away

[Anonymous Coward]

The obvious example is Destiny which

...is only an MMO if you use the Bureaucrat Number One definition of correct, and is literally nothing special from a "LOOK! INTERNETS! PLAYERS!" perspective.

If we're sticking our genitals in that bowl of mashed potatoes, then Diablo II falls under the MMO banner and thus, consoles have had MMOs forever.

Re:Consoles should just go away

[Anonymous Coward]

Diablo 2 was never on any consoles. If you meant Diablo 3, that was only released for consoles a year ago, which is hardly "forever" even by Internet Time. And if you meant Diablo 1, that didn't have online play. So every possible version of what you meant to say is wrong.

Re:Consoles should just go away

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you need a $2k PC to play blu-ray? Perhaps you're thinking of trying to get one to play DVDs in 1999? A $300 PC today is plenty enough to handle HD video. Even if it doesn't come with a blu-ray drive installed, that's only an extra $50.

Re:Consoles should just go away

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: A Blu-Ray burner is only $50. So GP has a setup where he can't even write discs, how pathetic.

Re:Consoles should just go away

[Karmashock]

First off, a gaming machine that can beat a modern console is about 1000 dollars.
Second, the basic machine you own to do email and taxes costs about 500 to 600 dollars.

The price difference is the cost of a gaming machine. The game machine is not an additional expense beyond a normal computer but rather the cost of buying a computer that is ALSO a gaming machine. In my experience, this difference in cost is about two to four hundred dollars for a mid range gaming machine.

High end machines are very expensive and really are not what we are talking about because they have VASTLY more computing power then the consoles. If we want to talk about an apples to apples comparison between consoles and PCs, then we need to address that range.

For example, I am currently using a gaming laptop which cost me about 1200 USD. It crushes pretty much every game I play at 1080p. It also has HDMI out, optical out, a display port, USB 3, a micro SSD for the boot partition, and a spindle harddrive for data.

It is a very nice machine and it cost me about 1200 USD. And it should be noted that 100 of that was a custom alligator skin that I had applied to it because I thought it looked cool.

Can it play blueray? Yep. Who cares though. I don't think I've ever even owned a blueray disc. The whole disc concept is dying rapidly and going to join 8 tracks in the near future.

As to 7.1 sound, PCs can do that as easily as the consoles.

As to sitting on the couch, I think I made clear that the PC could as easily sit in your living room as anywhere else. In my case, I use laptops because they're easy to move around.

As to getting 65 inches... again, the laptop can be plugged into a tv and you can play the game on the tv. I do that all the time. I have a bunch of emulators on my laptop that I like to play on my TV.

Can your console play every game from the NES to the N64? Any modern PC can do that easily.

And if you want to talk about newer games... we have those too.

PCs are better.

Re:Consoles should just go away

[Karmashock]

If you like. Though really, I think all we need is something like the Microsoft TV GUI or something like XBMC but for games. In fact, steam already has a TV GUI which you can use right now. I think they call it big... something. It is under view or something in steam. I've turned it on a few times by accident. If all your games are loaded into steam, you can have steam auto load with the boot and then open into that mode.

I use some wireless keyboards and nice to interact with computers that are across the room. You plug them into a big tv and then control them from the other side of the room.

Re:Consoles should just go away

[Karmashock]

You're missing the point. I'm not taking anything away from you.

If I replaced what you have now with a PC made to appear to be the same thing you wouldn't even notice the difference.

The big difference would be that porting games from the console to the PC would be instant because they'd literally be the same thing.

What you want is a standardized system with less configuration, a small specialized form factor, and a TV centric GUI.

Do you honestly think a PC cannot have these things? If it can... then I could replace your Xbox with a gaming PC with an identical GUI, squeeze the machine into a similar looking box, and how exactly would you tell the difference? And if you could... why would you care?

See my point? Consoles are an anachronism. They made sense at one point but today they are pointless.

The primary difference between a PC and a console is software. That means the hardware distinctions are an utter waste of time.

Look the same

[Blaskowicz]

Almost all screenshots look virtually the same save for one example where the lighting was different as if they tweaked a spot light somewhere (art difference not technical)

It's not even like the SNES vs Genesis days or Amiga vs ST, where the graphics were usually similar but a bit different. It's more like comparing a Quake 2 engine game on different computers.. Every computer runs it at full detail (even back in the day, almost) so you're always looking at the same assets.
Also, if a big fat GPU only gives you more pixels that look the same.. maybe the pixels aren't worth that much if the consoles are doing it at 900p.
Next thing will be to get the smallest and cheapest 4K display you can find, at least an arm length away ; play at a low non native res (even down to 1280x720 which is one third in both axises). Should be looking good enough (add 2x AA or the latest "smart AA") with no scaling artifacts to be seen. A rather cheap GPU (minimum 2GB gddr5) should do. But the biggest annoyance with PC gaming is having to replace CPU, motherboard and RAM just for the games. My 5 year old hardware feels like it's got at minimum another 5 years of life before it, but would probably run crappy new games at 20 fps even with a fat GPU and Windoze.

Re:Look the same

[Anonymous Coward]

You might be surprised at what your existing chip can do; It's possible to game on APUs at low resolutions, and those aren't exactly powerhouses when it comes to single threaded throughput (which is what games live and die on).

A 5 year old CPU could be reasonably expected to play modern games as long as it has enough memory backing it up.

On the GPU side, this is why there are multiple price points. Entry level boards like the R9 270's or the 750Ti will do fine for 720p gaming if you're happy with that. Personally, I chose something a bit more powerful because I prefer higher frame rates - partly because I get simulator sickness at low rates, and partly because I was raised on games that ran at higher frame rates (Snes/Genesis era).

'More pixels' can make a difference - but only if the monitor supports it, and all it's really doing is making the image sharper.

The real difference is in depth - If you compare Far Cry 4 on medium (which is roughly where the consoles are) versus very high for example - they're both running at the same resolution, but the VH settings look less like a game and more like a real location - some of that's lighting, some of it's post process, some of it's particle effects. If you're not fussed about the extra detail and sit far enough from the screen (or use a small enough one) that you don't notice resolution, then it just comes down to how much the difference in detail bothers you - if it doesn't, go with whatever's cheaper.

What about the game itself?

[Quirkz]

I didn't realize this had come out yet. Frankly, I don't care about graphics (or at least, as long as they're not worse than DA1, which I'm sure they're not). I'm also already wedded to my game-playing system of choice, and one game's output isn't going to change that one whit.

What I'm interested in is the game itself, and I haven't seen any headlines for that. Did I just miss the article for the release of a sequel to an AAA game, or did we skip that and go right to the graphics analysis? How is the game? Is it more like the first one, which I loved, or is it more like the second one, which I avoided because of all the crazy changes they made to it. Basically, am I gonna want to buy it?

Proposal for a slashdot poll: does anyone really actually care about the graphics on a game? Especially at the level we're talking about here? If the answer is more than 10% I'd be shocked, and if it's closer to 3%, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

Re:What about the game itself?

[jbmartin6]

I was just grousing the other day about commercials for games. Who cares about the cutscenes? Why would anyone make a purchase decision based on how cool the cutscene looked?

Re:What about the game itself?

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize this had come out yet.

What I'm interested in is the game itself, and I haven't seen any headlines for that.How is the game? Is it more like the first one, which I loved, or is it more like the second one, which I avoided because of all the crazy changes they made to it. Basically, am I gonna want to buy it?

10/10, yes, no, yes.

Re:What about the game itself?

[Quirkz]

Thank you, anonymous coward. The most pithy thing I've seen from an AC today.

Re:What about the game itself?

[meta-monkey]

Could be worse. You could be choosing your Atari 2600 games based on the box art.

Re:What about the game itself?

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, am I gonna want to buy it?

The senible answer to this is: not for a few months.

Now what particular piece of software were we talking about?

Except for the PC mouse+keyboard controls...

[Anonymous Coward]

I really like the gaming keypads, I used an older Razer pad, and now the Orbweaver which has more keys.
But I like the older tumb-directional keys better, these are little bit too light to the touch and often moves you in an unintended direction, especially when moving backwards.

However the orbweaver has more keys and the palm rest is a lot better, also the palm rest moves so you can get at the keys that are far away when you have smaller hands like me. But most of the times you would use the two middle rows.

This article should die a horrible death

[flitty]

How many console generations and Comparison videos do we have to write this type of article about before it stops being a thing? Breaking news everyone, a $400 piece of hardware cannot compete with hardware that has no upper price limit. The interesting thing is that I spent $500 on a PC a year ago and I ended up with hardware very close to the PS4. Guess what? The PS4 actually runs my games ever so slightly better on the PS4 than my "cheap" PC. This could be due to Console optimization, or my PC's optimization, or any other number of factors. They're different things for different purposes.

What matters: no multi-platform multi-player

[mr_mischief]

If you can't play multi-player with your friend on another platform then who cares which one of you has better graphics? Are you people more concerned with e-peen rants than about being able to play the game together? How many of you are buying a platform based on this title? I'd much rather buy titles that let me play with my friends no matter who has what hardware.

Re:What matters: no multi-platform multi-player

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you people more concerned with e-peen rants than about being able to play the game together?

Yes. That's why I'm all for multiplatform multiplayer.

Nothing like schooling some console bitches. WASD, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Re:What matters: no multi-platform multi-player

[CronoCloud]

Nothing like schooling some console bitches. WASD, motherfucker, do you speak it?

Yes, we speak it. We've spoken it ever since the PS2. However, WASD is an inferior control method for movement.

The guy after me recommends the G13, that's not a bad idea, that gives you hybrid controls. Which as any PS2/PS3/PS4 owner can tell you, work well for some games. You use the stick to move, but the mouse to aim.

Re: What matters: no multi-platform multi-player

[Anonymous Coward]

Analog thumbsticks are annoying. They are difficult to use to move in precise directions and for quickly changing direction. Keyboard + mouse is the ultimate control for almost every genre.

$500 per card or per household?

[tepples]

I need to upgrade every 4 years or so to keep up with the latest games, spending ~$500, and they look much better than console games.

How many PCs in your household do you have to upgrade with a $500 video card? Or is that $500 for all your family's PCs put together?

Re:$500 per card or per household?

[NotDrWho]

How many PCs in your household do you have to upgrade with a $500 video card?

One that's going to play games like the latest Assassin's Creed or Dragon Age on anything higher than "shit." Cheapest videocard I saw that even even met their base "recommended" requirements was almost as expensive as an entire PS4 or Xbox One. No thank you.

Re:$500 per card or per household?

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

What on earth are you smoking? A decently clocked i3 is sufficient (CPU-wise) for the vast majority of games. A 6-year old i5/i7 would even suffice. GPU? $200 for an R9 290, $120 for an R9 280X. That's not expensive at all for (TRUE) 1080p gaming.

Re: $500 per card or per household?

[Redbehrend]

I bought a ATI 5770 several years ago for 125 and gave it to a friend and it still plays games on high lol. Video cards even have upgradeable firmware now. They have console controllers for the pc, only time I ever owned a console was when they had really good console only games.

Re:$500 per card or per household?

[CronoCloud]

That's $322 dollars right there, without storage, without power supply, without RAM, without motherboard.

Re:$500 per card or per household?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, It's $200 for most households - most households will already have a desktop PC that's fairly recent - even if it's just a basic retail model that was bought for the kids to do their homework on.

You don't need to buy or build a gaming machine outright - just convert the existing machine to one. In most cases, that's a $120-$200 GPU and another $50-$70 on a replacement PSU (working on the assumption that most retail PCs skimp on the power supply).

If the PSU is 300W or more, you can cut that down to just the price of a GPU - a Geforce 750Ti will handle todays games at 1080p while working within a 60W power envelope.

Re: $500 per card or per household?

[Blaskowicz]

I upgraded the firmware on a vid card from 2000, which did what I expected (nothing)

Re:$500 per card or per household?

[Blaskowicz]

But the family PC may be a Core 2 Duo alike at 2.4GHz or similar. The framerates are murdered.
If you know what you're doing you can get away with only doubling that budget (low end mobo, Pentium and one 4GB stick)

Re:$500 per card or per household?

[tepples]

You don't need to buy or build a gaming machine outright - just convert the existing machine to one.

Unless the existing PC is a laptop. Or unless a desktop PC "for the kids to do their homework on" was bought used and had a CPU that was already way obsolete for recent AAA games. One of these is true of at least one household in my extended family survey sample.

Re:$500 per card or per household?

[CronoCloud]

most households will already have a desktop PC that's fairly recent - even if it's just a basic retail model that was bought for the kids to do their homework on.

And what happens when someone wants to do homework while someone is playing a game. This is why some of us think more numerous cheaper special purpose devices are better than ONE expensive versatile device.

a Geforce 750Ti will handle todays games at 1080p while working within a 60W power envelope.

It can, but it has fewer compute units than the PS4's GPU does. There were also 750 variants that DO require a 6 pin power connection. Households with basic retail models are probably not going to have the knowledge of choosing or even installing such a card. Slashdot, is not the masses.

Re:$500 per card or per household?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still running a PC from 2007. These upgrades have made the box last 7 years: $100 for a newer CPU, $20 for some extra RAM, and ~$200 for a new video card (GTX 275). $320 every seven years, that sound within the ballpark of consoles. "But you had to buy the PC to start with, too". Yes, and I need a PC anyway, so that cost would be there even if I bought a console.

As for performance, I haven't ran into a game yet that it won't run smoothly on default/medium settings. Most games I can pump up the settings to "high". Risen 3 is the only one that's gave me slight choppiness on high settings - I estimate occasional dips to 30-40 FPS, though I don't monitor FPS and tweak it anymore like I used to.

Re:$500 per card or per household?

[Anonymous Coward]

I need to upgrade every 4 years or so to keep up with the latest games, spending ~$500, and they look much better than console games.

How many PCs in your household do you have to upgrade with a $500 video card? Or is that $500 for all your family's PCs put together?

How many consoles in your household do you have to buy? Or is that $500 for all your family consoles?

Re:$500 per card or per household?

[tepples]

One console allows up to four players. PCs theoretically can do the same with four USB gamepads, but in practice, PC games are more likely than (say) Wii or Wii U games to leave out a same-screen multiplayer mode in favor of LAN and online play.

It'd have to be a deep Steam sale

[tepples]

You pay for xbox live

You don't need an Xbox Live Gold subscription for single-player or local multiplayer.

and your games are more expensive

It'd have to be a really deep Steam sale for four copies of a PC game supporting LAN play but not shared-screen to be cheaper than one used $30 copy of an Xbox 360 game supporting up to four Xbox controllers.

Also, consider that a computer is needed anyway. Then it's no longer even the full price of the PC that you must consider, but the extra you are paying to have a gaming PC vs a working PC.

If you prefer a laptop as your working PC, the difference between a working laptop and a gaming laptop can pile up even faster.

Re:It'd have to be a deep Steam sale

[The Eight-Bit Link]

You don't need an Xbox Live Gold subscription for single-player or local multiplayer.

Except I get global multipulti for free on PC, as well as local LAN and for some games split-screen.

It'd have to be a really deep Steam sale for four copies of a PC game supporting LAN play but not shared-screen to be cheaper than one used $30 copy of an Xbox 360 game supporting up to four Xbox controllers.

Sometimes they are, but with Steam, you end up with four copies. At the end of the day, everyone gets a copy and can play on their own or with others.

If you prefer a laptop as your working PC, the difference between a working laptop and a gaming laptop can pile up even faster.

That depends if you intend to game on your laptop as well, which defeats the point of having a gaming rig.

Re:It'd have to be a deep Steam sale

[tepples]

Except I get global multipulti for free on PC, as well as local LAN

For LAN you still need to buy two to four copies of the game. Although a 4-pack can be cheap if you're willing to wait indefinitely for a Steam sale, you still need to buy or build additional gaming PCs for your household.

and for some games split-screen.

But not for enough games. Last time I checked, the impression that I got was that a lot of games that benefit from shared-screen never get ported to PC at all.

That depends if you intend to game on your laptop as well, which defeats the point of having a gaming rig.

If you currently have a laptop for work and no other current PC, you'd have to buy or build a dedicated gaming rig and thus you can't count "already having a computer" when calculating its price.

Alienware is doing this

[tepples]

[PCs with] nice living room form factors, a good TV friendly GUI, make sure there are HDMI out plugs in the back, and have them come with some controllers.

So, a Steam Box?

Almost, except manufacturers need to actually make one available instead of waiting for Valve to count to three (OS, STBs, and controller). Alienware has the right idea. In fact the Start screen of Windows 8 has somewhat of an advantage on a TV because it can be operated with arrow keys in the same way that the similar Start screen of Xbox 360 can.

Mods anyone?

[tepples]

Personally I enjoy my XBox very much, and have about zero interest in getting a gaming PC. If I was into MMORPGs or was a hard-core FPS player that would probably be different.

Did you ever consider trying user-created works, such as mods or indie games? If you did, in what way did they fail to keep your interest?

Re:Mods anyone?

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

Lifelong console gamer here. Aren't mods a royal pain in the ass to install on many games?

Re:Mods anyone?

[Molt]

Some are a pain, most aren't.

A lot of titles have nice (often 3rd party) mod managers now which'll download mods, keep them updated, and allow you to selectively disable them- all from a simple GUI. When I recently replayed Skyrim I spent about an hour or so browsing through all of the mods on Nexus, and installing those that look interesting, and in my mind it made the game a lot more fun.

I admit there were a couple that were slightly broken in odds ways, such as a custom weapon which was heavily overpowered, but it didn't take much effort to just turn them off again.

Re:Mods anyone?

[donaldm]

Did you ever consider trying user-created works, such as mods or indie games? If you did, in what way did they fail to keep your interest?

Short answer. No!

Long answer. People do have separate likes and dislikes, what may be interesting to one group of people may not be interesting to another group. Name any gaming genres and you will have some people who like that and some that don't, even within specific genres you still will have likes and dislikes, the same is true for gaming mods and indie games.

Re:Mods anyone?

[kamapuaa]

There was some game where a girl went to an abandoned house and it turns out her sister was a lesbian. It was like reading a young adult novel.
Kastle Krashers was OK for 10 minutes but the gameplay didn't have much depth.
Papers Please was an interesting gimmick where the gameplay got old fast.
Ilomilo (actually, on the XBox store) is a fun puzzle game, but something I just pick up every once in a while.
And probably a few others I can't think of right now.

Just in general, what I've seen hasn't convinced me there's a whole new world of great games I'm missing out on. Also, it seems like a lot of them can be played on even a really old non-gaming PC.

No interest in mods, really.

Re:Mods anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. Usually it's just unzip this archive into game directory and play.

Atari 2600 crash

[tepples]

Having a library too big with no curation can itself be a problem. Look at the glut of low-quality software for Atari 2600 that filled shelves in 1983 and 1984, which almost turned North Americans off of video gaming entirely until Nintendo announced the NES with a DRM chip to enforce some minimum level of curation. But I'll admit that curation isn't perfect (such as most of LJN's NES output), and it's not quite as much of a problem nowadays with the ability to view game reviews without charge.

Re:Atari 2600 crash

[spire3661]

The burden of curation falls upon the USER in the Information Age. I agree with what you are saying, but the plain fact is, it up to each of us to be our own curators now, instead of looking to limit the choices for everyone.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

If you notice the graphics, then it's because the story is so lame your eyes are wandering all over the place. You know the feeling, when sitting on the toilet and you're so bored you read every bit of text in sight? It's the same thing.

You could play a lot of DOS games without caring about the poor graphics because the story was really fun or the action interesting. You STILL can.

God bless Dosbox!

Re:Meh

[Blaskowicz]

I played the DOS games for the graphics. Lands of Lore, Dungeon Keeper, Doom, Descent, Indiana Jones, Dark Forces, The Dig, Full Throttle. I may end up having to assemble an old PC, have a CD of Windows 98 First Edition (ha!). Dosbox is slow and less straightforward.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Dosbox is slow and less straightforward.

Perhaps you haven't used it in 10 years. 0.74 will run every game you've listed flawlessly. You could even play a few of them in ScummVM on [insert device here]. DOSBox is fast. On x86 platforms it uses dynamic translation for CPU emulation, it's really quite good. It runs games like Blood or MechWarrior 2 in their VESA high-resolution modes, which even high-end contemporary machines would have struggled with.

Building vintage PCs is an expensive and often-frustrating past-time. If all you want to do is play some old games, DOSBox is a far simpler approach, especially if you go with a launcher like D-Fend Reloaded. I say that as someone with an extensive collection of working vintage computers from the IBM 5150 through to a Prescott monster, and everything in between.

Trust me when I say DOSBox is way more straightforward than building a PC, installing Windows 98, installing drivers, etc.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

0.74 will run every game you've listed flawlessly.

Actually, it won't run Dark Forces. There are tons of glitches trying to get that working properly under DOSBox.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.dosbox.com/comp_list.php?showID=711&letter=D

Must be your setup. Works awesomely here.

Re:Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but you're a fucking liar or have very low standards for what "works". Graphical glitches everywhere, audio problems and the installer doesn't even work. The only way Dark Forces works properly is with an old DOS PC or a DOS virtual machine.

PC controls

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet the PC controls are an extremely bad port of the console controls.

PC specs

[Kartu]

I've missed specs of a "PC" they were comparing it to.
PS4 has 7850-7870-ish GPU which is better than at least half of the PCs connected to Steam have.

Hum

[Anonymous Coward]

MS should just dump the xbox hardware(they lose money on hardware but make it up from developer fees) and just introduce the xbox UI as a third UI option for the Windows 10 and this would be for people who wish to turn their pc's into consoles. The majority of console games are multi-platform anyway. Console have become pretty damn expensive and PC's pretty damn cheap nowadays but powerful even tablets.

Re:Hum

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

That would make too much sense.

Re:Hum

[Blaskowicz]

I'm torn. A PC costs about the price of a console or a bit more if you put an i5 in it (to be sure to meet game specs). But when last gen consoles were introduced a PC lasted about three years, or five if you let it be well outgrown by games. Now a PC lasts for a decade, I'd say easily 15 years if specced midrange. (a quad core with a big SSD, 8GB RAM and two free slots for adding another 16GB, room for making the storage 10x bigger, upgradeable to 10Gbe, sound card or DAC good enough for $5K speakers..)

The problem is when you have to throw away a PC that is a couple year too old for games (or more), but perfectly good for everything else. That sucks. And you could have a linux PC + a console instead of a Windows PC. With both options you lose freedom in order to gain freediom.
Or the astrophysics option is a system with hypervisor, dual graphics card, KVM switch (or dual input monitor) and you run a desktop linux VM on one graphics card, desktop Windows VM on another. It is expensive, you need a high core CPU (I'd say FX 8350, 5820K or 5960X) and a Vt-d motherboard plus adequate case PSU fans etc.

Re:Hum

[Blaskowicz]

So much sense that the Xbox One is in fact a dual system, it has a hypervisor with one system for the apps, media, browsing, whatever and one system for the running game.

Single-player uber alles

[Lilith's Heart-shape]

I'd much rather buy titles that let me play with my friends no matter who has what hardware.

Good for you. Personally, I'll probably just get a PS4 and a copy of DA:I when I can afford to do so, because I don't give a shit about graphics or online multiplayer.

Parity

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact that Xbox One consistently now either has lower fps, resolution, or slightly reduced gfx quality kind of makes you wonder how much the MSFT Parity for cross platform development is tying the PS4 team hands on getting closer to PC quality. A game made for consoles and PC even is most likely limited graphically on the PC to make console parity less of an issue/obvious.

Disc drives wear out, and space is limited

[tepples]

Nothing is stopping you from playing the old games on the old console.

Other than A. a worn-out disc drive in the old console, or B. limited space next to your TV to keep nine consoles (PS2, PS3, PS4, Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox One, Nintendo 64, Wii, Wii U) and their controllers.

Re:Disc drives wear out, and space is limited

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing is stopping you from playing the old games on the old console.

Other than A. a worn-out disc drive in the old console, or B. limited space next to your TV to keep nine consoles (PS2, PS3, PS4, Xbox, Xbox 360, Xbox One, Nintendo 64, Wii, Wii U) and their controllers.

Consoles like any electronics eventually die. Capacitors don't last for ever.

Re:Disc drives wear out, and space is limited

[neoritter]

You're making an argument for Steam and nothing more. Your old PC games on those discs will eventually become unplayable from those discs. Your computer's hard drive can fail and you could lose whatever old school game you've been storing there. PC gamers are in the same crapshoot that console gamers are when it comes to playing older games.

Re:Disc drives wear out, and space is limited

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Properly stored optical discs can last for a lifetime. You can also make backups with PC games. You can't do the same with consoles and once your console is no longer made, you're SOL.

Not all PCs can be upgraded like that

[tepples]

Furthermore, to suggest that a console owner saves money based on a 1:1 comparison between the cost of a console and the cost of a PC you also have to assume that the console owner doesn't own a PC.

Not everyone who owns a PC owns a desktop PC with a sufficiently recent CPU. A lot of people who just have a PC for homework and Facebook have a laptop or an old desktop. Remember the "XPocalypse" that some predicted would come with the end of extended support for Windows XP? Those were pre-2007 PCs still in use in 2014. Upgrading those to gaming specs would involve replacing them.

[...] The real draw to a console is [...] much more effective local multiplayer.

And that's where you save a lot of money on the console by not having to own multiple gaming PCs in a household to set up a LAN game.

I think I quit gaming. :P

[antdude]

For me, I pretty much quit video gaming. I think I got old, too BUSY, and burned out (no time and energy). I have been gaming since I was a callow ant since the late (19)70s start out with Atari 2600 and arcades. I noticed my gaming started fading after WoW came out. Once in a while, I'd play quick games like in Flash online. :D I still have Windows games (World in Conflict, SW:Battlefront, Cyrsis 1, Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath, etc.) to resume and finish (not sure if I will ever will though). :(

Re:I think I quit gaming. :P

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm old enough and have played enough games over the years to have weeded out only a select top 10 games of all time. Those are the only ones I still play.

1) Star Control II
2) Deus Ex
3) MechWarrior 2
4) System Shock 2
5) Unreal Tournament
6) Star Wars: Jedi Academy
7) Freelancer
8) Warlords II
9) Duke Nukem 3D
10) Galaga

Every once in a long while I'll also play through some old adventures like DoTT, FT, SQ1-6, MI and TLJ just for the story and because they're all so short. Pretty much the same thing as rewatching a film I haven't seen in a while.

Re: look into a Logitech G13

[DocSavage64109]

I actually bought one of those G13's and hate it. I guess I'm too used to the keyboard to ever change.

Dev sees more money from Steam than used

[tepples]

I just thought of something: For each 10,000 copies of a $5 Steam game, the publisher sees $35,000 after Valve takes its 30%. But when people buy 10,000 copies of a used console game at GameStop, the publisher doesn't see any of that.

GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1

[tepples]

[Sony's SHAREfactory] video editing app is based on ffmpeg!

Interesting. What does it use for H.264 given that x264 is GPL? And how does it satisfy the "scripts used to control [...] installation" requirement of the LGPLv2.1?

That was also due to the platform involved, (Dreamcast) which wasn't one of the consoles that support mutliple input methods.

Google dreamcast mouse disagrees. Or perhaps you're referring to balance changes to make the game playable without the optional accessory.

Re:GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1

[CronoCloud]

What does it use for H.264 given that x264 is GPL? And how does it satisfy the "scripts used to control [...] installation" requirement of the LGPLv2.1?

Probably bsd licensed openh264. http://www.openh264.org/

Or perhaps you're referring to balance changes to make the game playable without the optional accessory.

More the fact that the Dreamcast mouse wasn't a common easily available accessory, just like with the Genesis, SNES and PSone mice. I may have owned SNES and PSone mice but they were rare.

With the Sony machines, they just use USB, you can use any old mouse and/or keyboard you have handy.

Try autohotkey...

[Anonymous Coward]

Try http://www.autohotkey.com/docs/ or http://ahkscript.org/.

Autohotkey basically lets you remap any combination of buttons (keyboard or mouse) and modifiers to anything else, including scripts. I use it extensively for PC gaming. Things like automatically repeating mouseclicks for Diablo2 or PathOfExile, Or just mapping mice buttons to keyboard buttons for MMORPGs.

Open source, of course. Passes all the check-with-everything online antivirus scans, e.g https://www.virustotal.com/. Extensive capabilities. Lots of discussion on stackoverflow. Wonderful little background drama on the forums with a semi-fork and reconciliation. Extensive forums. Phenomenal capabilities. Did I mention that it can remap mice/keyboard on a per-application basis? You can have different mappings for different games that you're running concurrently. Extensive documentation.

Check it out!