I agree. I just wrote a articel about how graphics are getting to good for most peoples computers. But I would not worry to much. Hopefully the PC Games industry will relise what is happing and stop making graphics so damm good that I need the newest computer that cost 5,000 dollars. Sorry if my post sounds like it is just taking what you said and changing it a little.

nequa how many games in the last year have had "high" graphics settings that put a toll on a reasonable or budget gaming computer (let's say, E6400 or higher processor, 9600GT)

the trick is, don't say "Crysis"

go

Sporadic? The hard restart when loading the main menu of civ4 is sporadic. They were not infrequent or random.

Regardless, while KOTOR was a buggy piece of shit for the xbox as well, the sequel is the worse of the two. Peragus mining station anyone?

Actually, my point is that you DON'T need a $5,000 to to play the latest games. In fact, you can do it for as little as $1,000, and even that is excessive in many cases, but you need to know what you are doing. If all you do is take the easy way out and buy from Dell / Alienware / Gateway / et al, then yeah, you're going to pay through to nose for a big white elephant that becomes obsolete fairly quickly.


Mad Cat

Except that Psychoak made it sound like anyone would get the bug. Rather than, say, people who tried to use cloaking (which wasn't most people).

Not to say that a halt-progression bug is ever a good thing. But there are degrees of things.



Wishful thinking.

The X-Box and PlayStation lines may die out. But last time I checked, the Nintendo DS sold over 70 million world-wide in 3 years, and the Nintendo Wii, after selling 25 million world-wide in 1.5 years, is still supply constrained. That is, Nintendo could have sold more Wii's in 1.5 years if they'd made more of them.

Nintendo changed the game. Wii, hardware-wise, is a souped-up GameCube. It cost Nintendo maybe 5 bucks to "design" it. They invested more in research on the controller than the main hardware. Meanwhile, Microsoft sunk billions into ATi and IBM to develop the high-end CPU and GPU that drives the 360. And Sony actually spent a vast amount of time developing a massively parallel processor for their PS3 (granted, at least they and IBM are using it for more than just the PS3). If they had taken Nintendo's rout rather than continuing to push graphics and such, maybe they would have consoles that are actually profitable.

The console market isn't going anywhere. It's simply changing, focusing less on expensive hardware (and therefore punishing those who did) and more on different interfaces and more accessibility.



To a degree, it is impossible for PC developers to do thorough tests because the combinatorial explosions of drivers, hardware, and so forth is simply too great. That's why they always tell you to have the latest drivers; because those are the ones the developers test on.

Further, even if there is a crash caused by hardware/drivers, that doesn't mean that the developers can actually fix it. If its the driver causing the problem, there may not be a fix at all; they may have to wait for ATi or Creative to get off their butts and fix it. Which won't happen at all if the game isn't a big, important release.



While I agree that perhaps Sins could have used more testing, I firmly disagree with the need for a campaign. I stand by a developer's right to release the game they choose to release, and if that vision doesn't include some single-player campaign, then it doesn't include it. Personally, I'd have preferred that StarDock not spend time and effort on the single-player campaign for GC2 and its expansions, and instead, spend that time cleaning up the UI. Civilization has never had a set campaign, and they did OK.



Peragus wasn't buggy; it was boring. And KotOR II was unfinished (ie, forced to release significantly before it was ready), so there is an explanation (namely, that LucasArts sucks).

a reasonable gaming computer will have to be replaced at least every 2 years (probably sooner) if you want to barely keep up with the newer games is the issue and most people find it to be a waste of money. I bought my computer in 2005 and i am not planning to replace it until 2010 so unfortunately i wont be able to play any of the newest games since I cant run anything (its a laptop otherwise i would have upgraded few parts).

Laptops are not in any way, shape or form "gaming" machines. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot. Yes, I know laptops can play some games, but it's NOT what they are designed for and they are severely gimped when it comes to games. They're also more expensive in terms of price per performance than desktops. If you want to buy a PC to play games on, get a desktop.

And the ONLY thing that needs replacing every two to three years in a gaming PC is the video card. There is absolutely NO reason to buy a whole new mobo, CPU, HD, DVD drive, case, PSU, keyboard, mouse, monitor, and speakers every two years.


Mad Cat

Your ignorance of upgrade cycles or your inability to buy a proper computer is not the issue here, especially because four-year-old engines like Source and its numerous upgrades including one in 2007 still run fine on even the lowest of specced computers. The question is this recurrent, incessant, stupid meme being trotted out that just because Crysis is a unoptimized, overhyped CPU grinder that all new PC games are the game. Which is a complete fabrication.

I don't own a console, I may never own another one. I love strategy games, and sandbox-type building games, for the most part. On my system, I have installed GC2, Medieval 2, Sim City 4, Civ 4, Homeworld 2 and Bioshock.

Except for Bioshock, none of these games could even be ported to the console: you really need a mouse or some similar interface to play them. I don't think PC gaming is dying. FPS on the PC are dying. Maybe high-end graphics on the PC are dying, too.

For me, I'd much rather see creative and high quality art direction than technically beautiful graphics. Anyone here play Aquaria, for a perfect example? I still play some of my old favorites: Metroid Prime, LoZ: A Link to the Past, Star Control 2. As much today fun as they ever were.

In the end, I play games because I like to have fun. I think high-end graphics are less about fun, and more about our need to always have "The Best". We feel hard done by, deprived, or just plain lame using Last Years Model. Most of us don't want to be stuck with something "less" than our neighbors have, even if we were perfectly happy with it the day before.

Games like Crysis offer two joys: one is the joy playing a really fun game. Crysis is a lot of fun to play, and it is pretty to look at. I had a ton of fun sneaking around, blowing stuff up and tossing Koreans off cliffs. The other joy is the satisfaction of owning or playing something that is "Da Shit". Look at the release of the PS3: people getting trampled outside Walmart, camping out in a tent, and totally freaking out over pre-orders. Why? It isn't because their PS2 stopped being fun to play, its because they can't stand not being one of the first to have "The Best".

Actually, I only had one crash all the way through both games.

If only everyone thought that way. I enjoyed, for instance, Beyond Good and Evil, despite its dated graphics, due to its wonderful art style (it's simple, but it's just so beautiful).

ignorance of upgrade cycles??
ill give u that one, i dont pay much attention to new computers or its parts

inability to buy a proper computer??
I needed a damn laptop for travel purposes so i bought one. Dont assume that I cant buy a computer just because you dont know what i needed it for.

Just curious what do you even define as a reasonable budget gaming computer??
Because i would say its less than 1k dollars. And i really doubt those would run games like assassins creed smoothly, not to mention some of the other games that are coming out later this year. I am pretty sure Far Cry 2 will make a old pc like that cry

Hey random troll,

First of all I build my own PCs. If you want to buy a 9600gt go for it, but I wont, I cant run any demanding game with decent graphics. The lifespan of a 9600gt is short, unless you want to keep playing todays games forever and miss out on the more demanding games.

Second, I never said consoles had top of the line equipment inside. Learn to read troll. I said top of the line console, not equipment inside console, there is a difference troll. This means Wii, xbox360, ps3... not N64,XBOX,PS1 if you are too dumb to figure it out.

I think PC gaming is dying all together, next generation of consoles will be huge.

Next month I will be probably building my last gaming computer, just parts for about $1000. It will probably last me about 2-3 years of good gaming and 6-7 years running somewhat demanding apps.

I can see the direction consoles are going and are now. Now they have online play, VOIP, (flashing firmware)linux, game updater, portable system.

Next generation of consoles are gonna be even better. I wont doubt that you will be able to play with a mouse or keyboard if you want. I also wont doubt you will be able to play strategy games like SINS, which is pretty much the difference between pc and console gaming. MMOs will support console platforms.

didnt see your post but i know laptops arent gaming machines. I do agree with you on the only things that need to be replaced are the gfx card and adding extra ram but think about the average consumer and how many of them actually know how to change their gfx card or their ram.

Then why are you posting here if you have no experience in that arena? 'derp I bought a shitty laptop for the battery life but let me complain on internet forums about how it doesn't do everything else'



Well it can, and I'm not going to bother to explain it again. $1000 can buy you an excellent computer.



MY OPINIONS ARE INSTANTLY VALIDATED BY CALLING OTHER PEOPLE TROLLS LOLS



These two sentences contradict. If you know enough to build your own PC, you'd know that a 9600GT is a good card.



thank you for that completely unsubstantiated claim, despite the fact that new games run fine on it and will for the foreseeable future. it's not like there's a choice, anyway, the 8800GT/9600GT is the only decent option for price/performance.



TROLLY TROLL TROLL YOU TROLL STOP TROLLING TROLL i forgot what you were even saying considering that the conversation was like 5 pages back so I'll just say TROLL TROLL TROLL over and over in an attempt at beating you in amount of times "troll" said per sentence

Desktop replacement I can take anywhere is what I aimed for. It ain't got a battery life, more of a battery death. I just plug it in.

Just for kicks, I went to Newegg.com and browsed the prices of PC parts and came up with this generic list of usual costs (not average or cheapest, just ballpark figures for decent but not over-the-top parts) for PC parts that WILL run Assassin's Creed (assuming you even want to play a game that is apparently fairly mediocre):

Graphics $200
Motherboard $150
CPU $175
RAM (2 GB) $50
Wireless 360 $75
Case + PSU $150
Harddrive $75
DVD-RW $25
7.1 Sound Card $100
Speakers $150
Gaming Mouse $70
Gaming keyboard $80
Windows Vista $100
19" LCD Monitor $250
--------------------
Total $1650 + shipping, taxes and possible assembly costs.

Of course, if you already have some of those parts and don't need to upgrade them, you can remove them from the list and watch the price start to plummet. Shop around for the cheaper parts on special and you can easily shave several hundred more dollars off that price.




Which average consumer are we talking about; the generic person who buys a PC to do email and surf for porn, or the person who actually wants to play games on their PC? Most of the former lot are beyond hope unless their career has something extensively to do with computer hardware, however, even considering the latter gamers, as I said in my very long original post, even many of those are generally clueless. While playing Tabula Rasa, I had one guy on the chat channel complaining about how his ATi X1600 512 MB video card was choppy and not displaying the game as well as he'd expected. I had to spend about 10 minutes explaining the concept of the memory interface to him, which is really small on the X1600 cards and acts as a massive bottleneck.


Mad Cat

Not only that, but the average price difference between a 9600GT and an 8800 GT is something like $25. If you want to buy a 9600GT, you might as well pony up that extra $25 and get a superior 8800GT.


Mad Cat

Actually, more accurate total is like this:

Graphics $150
Motherboard $125
CPU $190
RAM (2 GB) $50
Case + PSU $200
Harddrive $75
DVD-RW $25
7.1 Sound Card $100 (completely optional)
Windows Vista $100 (semi-optional)

Throwing in the monitor is, like someone earlier pointed out, like including the cost of the TV in the console's price. It's easily possible to get a tower under $750, as I have pointed out before. Including the accessories means the console owner has to throw in his controllers, multiplayer subscriptions, and any other accessories too - if you're comparing hardware, you should compare base hardware.



It is now, you're right. At launch the 8800GT was around $200 to the 9600GT's $145.

Firstly, I'm not comparing this price with console prices. I'll readily admit consoles are cheaper, if only by a small margin. However, this notion that to get a PC to play Assassin's Creed or other console game decently requires a $4000+ PC is ridiculous. The system I provided, again, doesn't have the cheapest parts and has several optional and redundant bits that are optional. If you wanted a better system you could buy a more expensive CPU (hello useless quad core)/ motherboard / (more) RAM / sound card / speakers / monitor / harddrive, but none of those upgrades would make the slightest dent in performance but would surely drive the price up several hundred dollars past $2000. Of course, if you forgo the superfluous "badass" upgrades and simply opt for a 9800GX2 (as opposed to the 8800GT I based my price on), you'd ONLY add about $250 to base price I provided, bringing the total from $1650 to $1900, which is still nowhere near the thousands of dollars constantly being quoted by the press and game companies (I'm looking at you, LucasArse).

Secondly, $200 for a case and PSU? Are you building a gaming PC or the next generation SkyNet?


Mad Cat

Oops, sorry; I got my numbers mixed up. The 9800GX2 would increase the cost by about $350, not $250, which would put the system up to a good $2000. But, again, judicious searching for prices and specials will easily get this system's price under $2000.


Mad Cat

Carbon016
You really need to learn to read better because first you criticize me saying your inability to buy a proper computer because i bought a laptop for travel purposes. Did i ever say i bought it for gaming?? All i said was, an average person who plays games will most likely have to buy a new computer every 2 years (since he has no clue what the inside of a computer looks like.)



ok smartass, again same question did i ever say i bought it specifilly for gaming??
If i needed a gaming computer i would have bought a few parts at newegg and made my own.
I was just posting my opinion about pc gaming (which is the topic if u havent noticed). If u dont like what I wrote, correct me or keep your mouth shut next time nd do us all a favor, dont just type random shit to insult others because u have nothing better to do.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way CommanderMadCat
I was just talking about an average computer user who mostly just surfs the internet and likes to play computer games every now and then. But even if they are computer gamers, not all of them know much about building their own computer or upgrading the parts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: I would say consoles are significantly cheaper since if you count online play, you shouldn't really count separate controllers you bought just so a friend can play with you.
If you have bought a xbox 360 it only costs 50$ online fee per year which inst a lot to play online.
If you compare it to a PC suppose we use the tower Carbon said for 750
And lets just say xbox 360 came out now and there wont be a new model for another 5 years
and you paid 400$ for this + 50$ x 5 (years) = 650$
now if you have a PC, in the next 5 years you will have to replace the gfx card 1 or 2 times which would probably range in between 200-400
maybe add some extra ram 50-150

so even if you add console accories PC is still a lot more expensive (1 of the reasons why PC gaming is dying)

PCs are more expensive, but pretty much everyone is going to have a PC anyways- you might shell out an extra $200 for a mid-range GPU (Geforce 9800 GTX is about $300, and that card is ridiculous), upgrade the CPU for $100-$200 and DDR2 ram is only $20-$30/gig right now. I'd say you're looking at $350-$600 to get a stock PC up to good gaming specs. That's on par with the price of a console with an online subscription.

If you want cutting edge technology you'll wind up burning holes in your wallet, but you don't need liquid-cooled 9800 GX2s in SLI and a quad-core to make most modern games look good.

Nobody needs to spend money on a sound card - most motherboards have 5.1 built in, and 7.1 may be nice but not necessary.

In fact, I barely use my speakers at all. My ears aren't that good, so I don't really rely on sound at all when I play. If people want to spend money on sound, fine, but I don't thinks it's really necessary.

With the rise of MMORPGs, I'm usually on a headset with Skype or Ventrillo and having the game muted anyways.



I just use a basic DVD/CD-RW from my old computers. In fact, I hardly ever burn disks anymore.



Not needed. Grab a mouse/keyboard from an old computer.



If you play a lot of games that play better with a 360 controller, maybe getting a console instead of upgrading your computer isn't a bad idea for you.



Frankly, monitors are so expensive that I've never used a new one. I've always used old ones and hand downs from family members. My most recent monitor is actually from somebody who was getting a new LCD, so it's a very nice CRT.

One of the nice things about computers is that you do not need to buy all new components if your old computer already has them.

Besides, the sound card, DVD-RW, and monitor are not included with consoles, so you are actually building a computer with more stuff than a console.

In fact, if you want to include a sound card and a monitor with a computer - shall we talk about a kickass sound system and a large LCD/Plasma TV with that console?

Lest we forget, speakers and TV are not included as part of a console purchase!


A good 1080p projector can go for well over $2000, and a good sound system can be pricey, and I'm sure you can spend a lot on speakers - how much you wanna bet I can spend more than $5000 on a complete home theater system for that Xbox?

How much you spend is entirely dependent on what you want to do, be it PC or console.

I don't think this market exists anymore. Most of the people who fit this category either play silly casual "games" like Solitaire, or own a console to play games because they don't know enough about PCs to get newer games for it.




Actually, this isn't entirely correct since you're ignoring the fact that games for the console cost on average $10 more, more if you buy your PC games via digital download (which are even cheaper than the retail copies). Also, the more expensive your video card, the longer it will last and the less chance that it needs to be replaced. When you factor those things in, the PC doesn't cost that much more.

And $150 for more RAM? Again, are you building a gaming PC or the next generation SkyNet?




I only threw the 360 controller in because the guy was talking about Assassin's Creed, which was designed for the 360. I also threw in the gaming keyboard and mouse just to prove that you could get a very, very nice, quality PC with good to excellent parts for under $2000 without using old, shitty parts, like wheel mice and PS2 keyboards.




True, but most people already have at least a TV and perhaps even a sound system in their home, so it's not necessary to buy those, whereas if you're buying a PC from scratch, you NEED to buy the monitor - using your TV for computing, assuming you could even connect the two out of the box, is highly impractical.

And again, I'm not trying to say that gaming PCs are cheaper or on par with consoles, only that PCs don't cost the ridiculous amounts some people think they do and as a result the argument that PC gaming is dying due to the ACTUAL cost of PCs is ridiculous. And that's even assuming PC gaming is dying, which I sincerely doubt it is. I can see the argument that there are a LOT of UNINFORMED, CLUELESS people out there who THINK that PCs cost ridiculous amount of money more than a better looking console and as a result PC sales are down, but just because a lot of UNINFORMED, CLUELESS people THINK something is true doesn't necessarily make it so.


Mad Cat