Ryse: Son of Rome announced for PC

[Qbert]

Well Naty was going on the "if you could only afford aspect". I personally would find it to be more affordable to own an Xbox and PS4, than an Xbox and PC, or a PS and PC. MOST of the PC's sold today can't run the best games that well compared to the more expensive gaming rigs. If money is a concern, and they want to play the best games, PC isn't going to save them money, if they want to play the games at their highest settings.

That really depends. If you factor in more expensive games and online costs, you can actually build a pc that will end up being cheaper than a console.
These new consoles already can't match a mid range pc, let alone a high end pc. You don't need an expensive pc to run new pc games well, and you certainly don't need an expensive pc to at the very least, slightly beat out these new consoles.


You only need a somewhat expensive pc to run games completely maxed out at over 1080p resolutions. My pc is pretty affordable, and I run most games maxed out at 2560x1440, and if not, maxed out at 1080p.....pretty much getting 60 fps and in many games, over 100.
If I want to at least get 1080p with 30-60 fps in most games, not maxed out, just like consoles....I could easily build a pc that would be cheaper than Xb1 with 8 years of online costs, and more expensive games over the course of those 8 years.

 

[Kvally]

That really depends. If you factor in more expensive games and online costs, you can actually build a pc that will end up being cheaper than a console.
These new consoles already can't match a mid range pc, let alone a high end pc. You don't need an expensive pc to run new pc games well, and you certainly don't need an expensive pc to at the very least, slightly beat out these new consoles.

Not a single person I know (friend or family) has a computer that could even run the latest COD at any setting other than minimal. And he is basing (I am assuming) his argument that people already have a PC, meaning they are not going out to build one, even if they can build one for less than an Xbox or PS. MOST of the PC's will need to be upgraded that are in homes today (most people buy bargain bin PC's....not gamers of course, but the vast public. I would be willing to bet there is a trend to buying even less powerful computing devices that are not game friendly...tablets, ultra notebooks, phones, with less and less people getting full fledged desktops. Even today's All In Ones, which are hugely popular, struggle to run an average game.

With PS4 and X1, you are guaranteed to run every game available for that platform, for its entire life. EVERY SINGLE game at the MAX setting that the developer developed the game for.

But a console will never match PC....it's just not and will not be feasible. PC is usually light years ahead.

I really need to get a gaming rig for ARMA 3 soon.

 

[Qbert]

Not a single person I know (friend or family) has a computer that could even run the latest COD at any setting other than minimal.

No one said every computer can, not sure why you bring that up.

However, it's easy to slap together a pc that's less than $700 that will beat out XB1/PS4. That's less than $300 more than XB1 or PS4, and in 8 years, if you factor in just console cost and online cost, you'd already be at over $800 dollars, and that's not including paying more on average for games.
8 years from now, my pc will at the very least, be able to run games at 1080p medium settings, which is what you'll get with consoles...all I need to do is match sub-1080p for most games with toned down settings at 30 fps to match current consoles. Right now, I'm maxing at well over 1080p with over 60+ fps, sometimes over 100 depending on the game.
My pc is so ahead of the game right now compared to consoles, that I'll be maxing out games for quite some time....and when I do need to start dropping settings, I'll only be getting closer to what consoles push out, but still ahead of the game. And my pc can be built for about 700ish.

 

[Ketto]

For starters, right now, the discussion is about XB1/PS4/PC, but if you want to discuss 360/PS3/PC, the same would be the case. There are still more PS titles that are exclusive to PS that are worth a damn versus those on XB that are worth a damn....that are not on pc.
I mean, out of you apples to apples comparison, 4 of them are from the same tired series.
I could easily ask, where is God of War (take your pick of the several out), I could list all of the Killzones (at least some of the Halos are on pc), where are all the Infamous, little big planets, MGS4, Uncharteds?

Anyone could easily start listing exclusives, that's besides the point.....the point is, there are better rated exclusives on PS that not come to pc compared to XB exclusives that do not come to pc.

"If" we're talking about current gen, right now, you get more games going PS4/PC versus XB1/PC. Of course...folks that truly enjoy gaming, can just get all platforms.

You're still missing the point. You're shooting off a list of IPs that Sony owns and are making comparisons to a list of IPs that MS doesn't own.
My point is when was the last time there was a MS owned IP on PC? Hence me naming the only IPs MS does own. MS doesn't own Titanfall, MS doesn't own DR3, they don't own Ryse. THAT is why they appear on PC. However MS does own Halo 3-4; Forza, Forza Horizon and they are not on PC for the same reason the list of PS titles are not on PC.

Of course there are going to be more PS titles to list because...Sony invests in their first party more and by extension they're going to have more IPs to their name; that doesn't matter because your contention is that XBO games are on. I merely showed you that out of the IPs MS owned none from XBO (Forza 5) have graced PC. If you have issues with me naming a bunch of Halos, get on MS and tell them to create more IPs. DR3, TF and Ryse coming to PC has nothing to do with MS and has all to go with the owners of those IPs deciding on spending the money to port it to PC.

Again, Apples to Oranges

 

[Kvally]

No one said every computer can, not sure why you bring that up.

Because I get the impression that Naty was talking about people ALREADY having a PC.

My pc is so ahead of the game right now compared to consoles, that I'll be maxing out games for quite some time....and when I do need to start dropping settings, I'll only be getting closer to what consoles push out, but still ahead of the game.

No doubt.

 

[Qbert]

You're still missing the point. You're shooting off a list of IPs that Sony owns and are making comparisons to a list of IPs that MS doesn't own.
My point is when was the last time there was a MS owned IP on PC? Hence me naming the only IPs MS does own. Of course there are going to be more PS titles to list because...Sony invests in their first party more and by extension they're going to have more IPs to their name. I merely showed you that out of the IPs MS owned none from XBO (Forza 5) have graced PC. If you have issues with me naming a bunch of Halos, get on MS and tell them to create more IPs. DR3, TF and Ryse coming to PC has nothing to do with MS and has all to go with the owners of those IPs deciding on spending the money to port it to PC.

Again, Apples to Oranges

Fair enough, but I thought what was being talked about was which console has more exclusives that don't make it's way to pc, regardless of who owned what.

 

[Qbert]

Because I get the impression that Naty was talking about people ALREADY having a PC.

Gotcha.


However, if he's talking about "gamers" that already have a pc, then yeah, he's right. Many pc gamers already had a pc well before this console gen started that already was ahead of these new consoles.

 

[Kvally]

Gotcha. Many pc gamers already had a pc well before this console gen started that already was ahead of these new consoles.

Indeed. But if they really are tight on funds, they would probably still be running that Compaq with Win 98SE

 

[Ketto]

Fair enough, but I thought what was being talked about was which console has more exclusives that don't make it's way to pc, regardless of who owned what.

It is, but the conversation will naturally end up being about who owns what because that's the principle reason why X number of XBO games go to PC versus X number of PS4 games. They might be console exclusive but it's because MS doesn't own them that they can appear on PC if the developers think it's worth spending the money to port. It's because Sony owns their IPs that you don't see their games on PC. Likewise it's because MS owns Halo/Forza that you don't see those on PC. PS games that are exclusive 99% of the time the IP is owned by Sony; that's what Sony does. If they get a third party company to make a game for them, they request ownership of the IP. When MS does gets a third party exclusive they don't request ownership. Thus that developer/publisher is free to choice to put it on PC if they can afford the port costs.

By proxy it'll always be an apple to orange comparison because how Sony and MS approach IP ownership is different.

 

[starseeker]

If you asked me, I have no issue & can respect anyone who game only on consoles, or or game on PC, or only game on one brand of consoles.

I just get slightly irritated when someone claim their platform of choice is the best, & others are lousy. Every platform have pros & cons, & games/interface unique to them.

If there are games I like that is more suited or readily available on a certain platform, I obviously play on that platform. What I like is not necessary what you like & vise verse. If you are a sucker for Naughty dog games, then by all means get a PS4, same with people who cannot live without halo or gears, get an X1.

If you like all, then get all.

 

[Kvally]

I just get slightly irritated when someone claim their platform of choice is the best, & others are lousy. Every platform have pros & cons, & games/interface unique to them.

That's human nature. You get that with cars, games, movies, golf clubs, clothing. You can find all these same battles on the internet, worldwide in any type of product or service.

 

[Qbert]

If you asked me, I have no issue & can respect with anyone who game only on console, or or game on PC, or only game on one brand of consoles.

I just get slightly irritated when someone claim their platform of choice is the best, & others are lousy. Every platform have pros & cons, & games/interface unique to them.

This is 100% truth. it really all boils down to what you like to play on, how you like to play, what games matter to you, and how important visuals/performance is to you. Most people I know don't care about 60 fps nor maxed out visuals, and on the same side of the coin, most people I know don't care about Halo. So, in the end, it really just boils down to the gamer....and it's not anyone's place to tell them what they should be liking.

 

[Kvally]

and it's not anyone's place to tell them what they should be liking.

And that my friend is as true as it gets.

 

[eVo7]

If you asked me, I have no issue & can respect anyone who game only on consoles, or or game on PC, or only game on one brand of consoles.

I just get slightly irritated when someone claim their platform of choice is the best, & others are lousy. Every platform have pros & cons, & games/interface unique to them.

If there are games I like that is more suited or readily available on a certain platform, I obviously play on that platform. What I like is not necessary what you like & vise verse. If you are a sucker for Naughty dog games, then by all means get a PS4, same with people who cannot live without halo or gears, get an X1.

If you like all, then get all.

Agreed, as much as people think I have issues with consolers, it's absolutely not the case. I do however, have a problem with people who will blatantly lie or straight up make things up about their platform of choice or others platform of choice, that's where I draw the line and you will be called out accordingly, such as I have done.

 

[DriedMangoes]

Because I get the impression that Naty was talking about people ALREADY having a PC.



No doubt.

My initial statement was about which console is best to complement the PC. And as I have stated, PS4 is the most complementary because virtually none of its major exclusives hit PC so you get "the best of both worlds" whereas if you get the X1, there will be some overlap. Of course someone could make an argument for the Wii U for its first party titles as well.

 

[sharkboy1200]

MS needs to have more permanent exclusives. That usually seems to be a long time complaint levied against them although I could really care less as long as I can play it on my platform of choice.

 

[Viktor]

They need more first party studios that will also expand on what they develop.

 

[Kvally]

MS needs to have more permanent exclusives. That usually seems to be a long time complaint levied against them although I could really care less as long as I can play it on my platform of choice.

They have added new first party studios this past year. Quite a few. One of which is Black Tusk, and they own the rights to Gears of War now...no more Epic 3rd exclusive there.

 

[The Wolf King]

The problem has been that MS started to rely more on times 3rd party games.

Fully expect Phil to shift the balance back to first party while working with 3rd party. Take QB. MS Own the IP but have trusted Remedy with the game.

 

[DriedMangoes]

Yup. MS needs to lock down more first party exclusives so it remains a full exclusive instead of porting to PC.

 

[Kvally]

Yup. MS needs to lock down more first party exclusives so it remains a full exclusive instead of porting to PC.

I doubt they will ever do that to a great depth. They want their other platform, Windows, to have gaming support as well. They need to cover both of their ecosystems. PC gamers are already pissed off at how horribly Microsoft supports PC gaming....that's almost an oxymoron. Their competitors support Windows gaming more than Microsoft does.

Games for Window Live..lol.

Steam is already light years ahead of anything MS has done on PC.

 

[Ceger]

My initial statement was about which console is best to complement the PC. And as I have stated, PS4 is the most complementary because virtually none of its major exclusives hit PC so you get "the best of both worlds" whereas if you get the X1, there will be some overlap. Of course someone could make an argument for the Wii U for its first party titles as well.

You buy Nintendo for Nintendo games. It is extremely rare to have one for anything else, definitely not for multiplats to any degree. It just simply fits into any collection if you like its games.

 

[Ketto]

The problem has been that MS started to rely more on times 3rd party games.

Fully expect Phil to shift the balance back to first party while working with 3rd party. Take QB. MS Own the IP but have trusted Remedy with the game.

Started to? That's been MS approach since like 2006.

 

[sharkboy1200]

They have added new first party studios this past year. Quite a few. One of which is Black Tusk, and they own the rights to Gears of War now...no more Epic 3rd exclusive there.

Only problem with that theory is that they end up porting their own exclusives to PC as well. I mean, it's already rumored that the MC Collection is coming to the PC.

 

[Frozpot]

Who gives a flying f*** who has the most of anything if the games you want aren't there? There are certain franchises I require, so I get the platform that has them. You could have a zillion games more, but if I can't have the ones I want, what good is it? If I can get other games, even if they are slightly inferior, I'm good.

Seriously, the PC has 99.999% of the games out there, but there are franchises I can't get on it, nor do I even have an interest in 99.005% of those games. How does that help me?

I'll take a Halo game over Naughty Dog's offerings any day of the week, so how does going PC/PS4 fulfill my needs?

Any numbers argument is fanboy fodder. Its about which games appeal to you, not how many are available.

 

[Ketto]

Only problem with that theory is that they end up porting their own exclusives to PC as well. I mean, it's already rumored that the MC Collection is coming to the PC.

I wouldn't place much stock in rumors, seeing as the last Halo game on PC was Halo....2. And Halo 3 and Halo 4 have been "rumored" to be coming to PC since forever.

 

[Kvally]

Only problem with that theory is that they end up porting their own exclusives to PC as well. I mean, it's already rumored that the MC Collection is coming to the PC.

That's a good thing. They should put more games on their own platforms. More games for gamers.

 

[DriedMangoes]

You buy Nintendo for Nintendo games. It is extremely rare to have one for anything else, definitely not for multiplats to any degree. It just simply fits into any collection if you like its games.

Yes, that's what I said. Some people do Wii U/PC because of Nintendo's first party titles and PC for everything else.

 

[DriedMangoes]

I doubt they will ever do that to a great depth. They want their other platform, Windows, to have gaming support as well. They need to cover both of their ecosystems. PC gamers are already pissed off at how horribly Microsoft supports PC gaming....that's almost an oxymoron. Their competitors support Windows gaming more than Microsoft does.

Games for Window Live..lol.

Steam is already light years ahead of anything MS has done on PC.

Which exactly is why I said the PS4 would be more complementary. As you say, MS tries to cater to both platforms... the Xbox and PC. So if you have the PC/PS4, it would be the best of both worlds since the big Sony exclusives almost never come to the PC while some Xbox ones do. Of course if you have absolutely zero interest in any of Sony's exclusives or just a big Xbox fan, then you go for the X1.

 

[Rez]

At first I was a bit upset because i wanted as many reasons as possible to own an Xbox one but I realize now this works best for me. Just means I save a bit more monies.

Always wanted to try this game. Will definitely get it once it hits.