What would it cost, right now, to beat the horsepower in an Xbox One or PlayStation 4
- Thread starter Plainview
- Start date
- Status
A 900p game with mostly medium settings is not going to look better than a true 1080p game utilizing better textures. The only thing it'll have over me, is performance, and that's just on my ancient pc....which, like I said, I will most likely be upgrading........for less than what the XB1 will cost.
This is just preposterous. You never understood why someone would judge a gaming PC by how well games perform on it?
We are at the whim of software developers ability to and willingness to target PC hardware, it's part of this conversation.
No, it's like saying that the fact developers like Rockstar released crappy PC ports helped make the value of spending more on a PC lower at that time.
One of the most popular games in the world had a crappy PC port.. hell, 2 of the most popular games in the world continued to have crappy PC ports (COD.)
It's part of this conversation.. and it is nuanced because it partly depends on the architecture differences between PCs and the "current generation of consoles" what the chances of getting "bad ports are."
This gen we have systems that are closer in architecture in some ways, but also some unknowns like unified RAM.
I was incredibly dissapointed with GTA 4 PC version and it made the value of my $2,500 PC (at the time) lower, because the value I get out of my PC comes from how well games perform on it.
It's not preposterous. When 99.9% of games are better on pc, for someone to point out the 1% of games that are not better due to piss poor porting.....that's preposterous.
So, taking the rare exception to the rule makes the value of spending on PC lower? Ok.
It could be 1, 2, 3 crappy ports....that's the extreme minority. By the way....explain to me how CoD got a crappy port? I own every single CoD on pc, and on console, and I could tell you right now, the pc version of every CoD is the superior version.
And again....the chances of getting a bad port is rare. It's incredibly slim. THAT'S why I brought up Two Worlds. Dismissing the value of pc because of less than 1% of bad ports is no different than dismissing the value of consoles when over 99% of multitplat games are inferior....ESPECIALLY considering that in the long run, you'd probably spend more on console gaming.
The conversation isn't necessarily about what ends up being better or worse.
Done with you either way.. 998.9%.. .1%.... meh you are one annoying ass person to get into a conversation with. Endless exaggerating.
lol......I'll tell you what is exaggerating....dismissing the value of one platform for the rare game that's worse on that platform.
Just in case anyone forgets what the thread is all about, it's easy to go back to page one:
An example of a poorly ported game doesn't make said PC any less powerful than what is being asked for.
They weren't anywhere near as rare as you are claiming, especially on hardware purchased near last gens launch. Hence the exaggeration claim.
I know because I purchased hardware near last gens launch.. and had issues with several games, not .1% of my games.
And it's not just "crappy ports".. games target the console hardware.. so even if your hardware has extra horsepower that horsepower may or may not matter. Consoles getting a lot of crappy ports affects their value as well.. we saw that shift last gen.. PC was lead platform in the Xbox era, console was the lead platform in the Xbox 360 era... it helped make last generations consoles an incredibly value.
I also enjoyed the advantages of PC gaming last gen as well.. but compared to the money I was spending, it wasn't anywhere near the value proposition because games continued to look and perform really well on consoles.
I have literally 20-30 times the horsepower in my highest end gaming PC but I'm not getting anywhere near 20-30 times the results for multi-plats.
I know because I purchased hardware near last gens launch.. and had issues with several games, not .1% of my games.
And it's not just "crappy ports".. games target the console hardware.. so even if your hardware has extra horsepower that horsepower may or may not matter. Consoles getting a lot of crappy ports affects their value as well.. we saw that shift last gen.. PC was lead platform in the Xbox era, console was the lead platform in the Xbox 360 era... it helped make last generations consoles an incredibly value.
I also enjoyed the advantages of PC gaming last gen as well.. but compared to the money I was spending, it wasn't anywhere near the value proposition because games continued to look and perform really well on consoles.
I have literally 20-30 times the horsepower in my highest end gaming PC but I'm not getting anywhere near 20-30 times the results for multi-plats.
Pray tell, which games you had issues with at the time of that game's release on pc. And I'm not talking about brining up games like Witcher 2 at release trying to run on 2006 hardware. I'm talking about bad ports, not newer games that didn't run well on old tech. Bad ports....like GTA4 that had many issues with high end PCs.
List all these "bad" ports. I mean, you listed CoD....lol, CoD was superior on PC, not sure how you'd list that.
Maybe I'm remembering COD wrong, but they did do a lazy console port with MW2, it lacked dedicated servers simply because the console version did as well.. but.. Halo games.. GTA IV.. Saints Row 2.. Assasin's Creed.. one of the Splinter Cells.. more recently Dark Souls..
Here's an article listing some:
http://www.gameguru.in/pc/2010/25/8-absolutely-horrid-pc-ports/
Here's an article from Feburary of this year all about it:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/02/stop-making-horrible-console-ports-a-guide/
Oh but it's just .1% of games!
And since when was 2006 hardware "old hardware" in this conversation?
I thought you spent $800 and then were good for an entire console generation? 2006 is after this last gen started.. so really that's not old hardware in this conversation at all.
It makes my point for me.. despite 2006 PC hardware being leaps and bounds "more powerful" than last gen consoles.. you HAD to upgrade if you didn't want to have major issues... even graphics driver updates stop really targeting older hardware over time.
Here's an article listing some:
http://www.gameguru.in/pc/2010/25/8-absolutely-horrid-pc-ports/
Here's an article from Feburary of this year all about it:
http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/02/02/stop-making-horrible-console-ports-a-guide/
Oh but it's just .1% of games!
And since when was 2006 hardware "old hardware" in this conversation?
I thought you spent $800 and then were good for an entire console generation? 2006 is after this last gen started.. so really that's not old hardware in this conversation at all.
It makes my point for me.. despite 2006 PC hardware being leaps and bounds "more powerful" than last gen consoles.. you HAD to upgrade if you didn't want to have major issues... even graphics driver updates stop really targeting older hardware over time.
Fair enough, but the topic at hand, is what would it take to make a pc right now, that will outdo next gen consoles. That's the golden question. If you find no value in it, that's fine, but that has nothing to do with the question. If there are some odd game that runs worse on pc than console due to poor porting, again, that has nothing to do with the topic. If PC has 20-30 times more horsepower but games don't look 20-30 times better...again, not the topic here.
And as I said in my very first post, you have "outdo them with horsepower" and then you have the question of how that translates into game performance over time.
Which.. seems like it would be what actually matters. To answer the OP's question while ignoring that the horsepower won't translate into 8 years of having games looking better than the consoles is sort of stupid.
And I didn't say I don't find value in it. It lessens the value, meaning "what you get for what you pay." You can't buy an $800 PC today and be guaranteed that games will continue to perform "up to par" (par being the game consoles) as time wears on.. and really, the question of whether you even will have a good experience from the start hasn't been answered. The consoles aren't out.
I own a GTX670 system, a Titan based system, and just ordered a GTX 780 bases system.... obviously I find value in PC gaming.. it's worth the money "to me".. but I can't sit and claim I really got an experience that was relative to the cash I spent.
So folks, what is the answer to Plainview' original question?
We are not talking about games or subscriptions or other accessories.
Plain and simple hardware, what is the minimum cost of a PC that can output the same or better graphic fidelity than next gen consoles?
Personally, I'm at $600+
AMD FX-6300 - $120
Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3 - $80
8GB Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP - $90
2GB GeForce GTX 660 - $195
Seagate 500GB HDD - $80
Rosewill Capstone 550W - $70
Atech Flash STK6551G 9-Bay ATX Computer Case - $20
Assuming digital only so no optical drive, final total is $655
We are not talking about games or subscriptions or other accessories.
Plain and simple hardware, what is the minimum cost of a PC that can output the same or better graphic fidelity than next gen consoles?
Personally, I'm at $600+
AMD FX-6300 - $120
Gigabyte GA-970A-DS3 - $80
8GB Crucial Ballistix Tactical LP - $90
2GB GeForce GTX 660 - $195
Seagate 500GB HDD - $80
Rosewill Capstone 550W - $70
Atech Flash STK6551G 9-Bay ATX Computer Case - $20
Assuming digital only so no optical drive, final total is $655
MW2 was a lazy port indeed, but it was still superior on pc. Dark Souls, yes, a very very lazy port....but still superior on pc (visually and performance wise). I have all the splinter cells on PC, and haven't had issues.
Don't confuse bad ports with being the worst version. PC gamers demand more, so even when the port is the superior version, it's still considered a bad port. Dark Souls is a perfect example. It looks better on pc. It runs better on pc. But, it's still a bad port.
As for me bringing up a 2006 pc, yeah, it is old hardware, in terms of pc gaming. Keep in mind that pc games are tailored for PC gaming. Take BF3 as an example. I know that console gamers like to bring up that a 2005 console could play BF3, yet a 2005 pc cannot. That's not comparing apples to apples, seeing as console BF3 isn't even in the same league as pc version. PC version at the lowest setting still looks and runs better than console version, and has more players. It's not like the console version is running what the pc gets. And that goes for most games. Same with Witcher 2. A 2005 pc can't run Witcher 2 as good as the 360 can....but both versions are different. A 2005 pc can most certainly run the console version IF the developers ported the game over for that old hardware.
And no one is saying $800 is good for an entire generation, that wasn't the question. The question is right now, what would it take to be better "now". That's the beauty of pc gaming, you upgrade when you need to....you don't have to drop 800 now "unless" you're totally new to pc gaming. But even then, that $800 pc will last you a few years, and when it comes time to upgrade, drop another $200 years from now, and there you go, ahead of the game.
I'm not, in fact I outright stated that I'm not.
I'm a bit done with the convo.. feel like I'm derailing and I don't think you are paying half enough attention. How would Dark Souls run on November of 2005 PC hardware? You can answer that question if you feel like it, I'm out either way.
But the OP might find value in it. It lessens the value for you, but that's not what he's asking. He may be perfectly fine with dropping another few hundred a few years down the line to once again be ahead of the game.
As the years go by, we're going to see the same thing happen with next gen that we saw with this gen....games start coming out with reduced textures, lowered resolutions, etc....to keep up.
Plainview It's better just to wait a few more weeks and see how the games look. At this point, I look at PC/Steam expecting a totally different experience from consoles. I'm not interested in anything on the PC side if it's not photo-realistic, movie quality visuals.
Incremental improvements, like better AA, texture packs, etc. won't do. I want to be startled by how realistic this stuff looks. I'm not saying everything needs to be perfect, but they need to be clearly aiming for photo-realism and I don't see that right now. They are just trying to give more detail to these cartoonish characters which is pointless, IMO.
If that were true most of the 360/PS3 games would be running at 500p now. The PS4 will be the lead platform so there is no reason for any PS4 game to be under 1080p. The only reason why BF4 is sub-1080p is because the lead platform was a highend PC. That won't happen too frequently once next gen starts.
Incremental improvements, like better AA, texture packs, etc. won't do. I want to be startled by how realistic this stuff looks. I'm not saying everything needs to be perfect, but they need to be clearly aiming for photo-realism and I don't see that right now. They are just trying to give more detail to these cartoonish characters which is pointless, IMO.
If that were true most of the 360/PS3 games would be running at 500p now. The PS4 will be the lead platform so there is no reason for any PS4 game to be under 1080p. The only reason why BF4 is sub-1080p is because the lead platform was a highend PC. That won't happen too frequently once next gen starts.
- Status