Borderlands 2

[ElNono]

Just playing through it right now... game is great... just as much fun as the 1st one...

[Reck]

I thought about buying this game but I haven't played the first one yet.

Does the story from the first one follows to the second one?

I'm honestly waiting for RE6 then Zone of the Enders HD.

[DMC]

It's a fun game if you have friends in the game.

[ElNono]

Finished it yesterday... great game and a lot of fun... Just started playing Dishonored now... not as good.

[Cry Havoc]

Finished it yesterday... great game and a lot of fun... Just started playing Dishonored now... not as good.

Get X-Com. It's absolutely fantastic.

[DMC]

Get X-Com. It's absolutely fantastic.

Does Steam offer it as a download? Is it multiplayer? I could Google it but that would kill the conversation.

[ElNono]

Get X-Com. It's absolutely fantastic.

will do, thanks. Dishonored actually grew on me after playing a few missions... it's old-school Thief-like...

[Cry Havoc]

Does Steam offer it as a download? Is it multiplayer? I could Google it but that would kill the conversation.

Yes and yes.

[phyzik]

XCOM is a great game, just finished the story on normal with ironman mode on. I remember playing the origional though and there are some things that made it too simple in this remake. Still, great game!

[ElNono]

Finished the intro part of XCom and didn't really like it. Has that old game feel. I'll give it a little more, but I'm not a big fan of Civ type of games.

[Cry Havoc]

Elnono, the intro sucks. lol

[ElNono]

Elnono, the intro sucks. lol

allirght, I'll give it another shot soon...

[Reck]

will do, thanks. Dishonored actually grew on me after playing a few missions... it's old-school Thief-like...

I was going to say, it gest better after you get your magical powers.

I started playing the game and thought it was rather slow at first but once I got out of the prison and got all my shiny toys it was a wrap.


Finished the intro part of XCom and didn't really like it. Has that old game feel. I'll give it a little more, but I'm not a big fan of Civ type of games.

Indeed.

Played some of this at my friend's house and didn't like how arcadey it felt. And the semi top down thing. Definitely not my type of game.

[ElNono]

Yeah, I just played 5 missions or so in XCom, and didn't like it at all... I'm done with Dishonored too, a bit on the short side... back to FIFA13/2K13 until something else decent comes out

[DMC]

I don't like magical powers games. Futuristic weapons are bad enough. I prefer modern weapons and believable scenarios (like me saving the world as a clandestine operator).

[phyzik]

Does ANYONE play borderlands 2 on PC? Or are all of you console fags?

Its SOO Much better on PC...

My brother got it for Xbox 360 and it looks like shit compared to the PC version, assuming you have the PC rig to run it properly.

Im not saying one is better than the other.... OK fuck it, yes I am, PC is better...

But I understand the draw of a console.... Hell, I have owned every console since Atari.

I still find myself going back to PC though for my gaming fix.

I guess Im one of those few guys that grew up with the Amiga and the Commodore 64.... PC has ALWAYS been on the bleeding edge and its not going away. You can have an XBOX 1450 or a playstation 5, it will NEVER beat the performance of a PC.

[purplengold]

I been playin it on pc on n off, be my go to game.

[Reck]

Yeah, I just played 5 missions or so in XCom, and didn't like it at all... I'm done with Dishonored too, a bit on the short side... back to FIFA13/2K13 until something else decent comes out

Did you only went for the main missions on Dishonored?

I'm doing all the side missions and looking for the runes and stuff. I find it more rewarding and challenging that way.

[Reck]

Does ANYONE play borderlands 2 on PC? Or are all of you console fags?

Its SOO Much better on PC...

My brother got it for Xbox 360 and it looks like shit compared to the PC version, assuming you have the PC rig to run it properly.

Im not saying one is better than the other.... OK fuck it, yes I am, PC is better...

But I understand the draw of a console.... Hell, I have owned every console since Atari.

I still find myself going back to PC though for my gaming fix.

I guess Im one of those few guys that grew up with the Amiga and the Commodore 64.... PC has ALWAYS been on the bleeding edge and its not going away. You can have an XBOX 1450 or a playstation 5, it will NEVER beat the performance of a PC.

PCs are memory hogs.

I bought a PC game years ago and installing it and setting it up took more time than the game was worth.

You have to have a second PC designated for gaming. You cant use it for anything else.

Gaming with a PC is not for everybody. Is an inconvenience most of the time.

[ElNono]

Did you only went for the main missions on Dishonored?

I'm doing all the side missions and looking for the runes and stuff. I find it more rewarding and challenging that way.

Did pretty much all the secondary missions (IIRC, the only one I missed was the comm center one while killing the Regent). Didn't bother much with the Runes.

[purplengold]

PCs are memory hogs.

I bought a PC game years ago and installing it and setting it up took more time than the game was worth.

You have to have a second PC designated for gaming. You cant use it for anything else.

Gaming with a PC is not for everybody. Is an inconvenience most of the time.

sound like you tryna run vista wit 512mb sdram. 8gb costa like 50 bucks n gaming not gonna use it all unless maybe it do a lot of tessalation. Neva heard of ppl havin separate systems fo gaming unless dey do graphix shit on the side n need those workstation cards.

[Reck]

sound like you tryna run vista wit 512mb sdram. 8gb costa like 50 bucks n gaming not gonna use it all unless maybe it do a lot of tessalation. Neva heard of ppl havin separate systems fo gaming unless dey do graphix shit on the side n need those workstation cards.

Actually Windows XP. It was years ago.

And I have a friend that's a nutcase when it comes to PC games. He has a huge set up with 3 different computers all rigged up just for gaming

The game themselves are huge so there is no way around that.

[purplengold]

Actually Windows XP. It was years ago.

And I have a friend that's a nutcase when it comes to PC games. He has a huge set up with 3 different computers all rigged up just for gaming

The game themselves are huge so there is no way around that.

wat he playin that need special systems? i builta PC fo 1000 2 year ago n it play it all. i upgraded vcard few month ago n it play shit 1900x1200 no probs. not max for all games but consoles dun play max either.

[Reck]

wat he playin that need special systems? i builta PC fo 1000 2 year ago n it play it all. i upgraded vcard few month ago n it play shit 1900x1200 no probs. not max for all games but consoles dun play max either.

No idea why he needs such a monster setup for. All I know is that he lives and breathes computer games.

I'm not all that into the tech specs. I just like my stuff to be simple. lol

I find my PS3 to be all I need. Its like all in one package so I'm pretty happy about that.

[ElNono]

haven't used windows on my home computer in like 5 years, tbh... Win 7 looks good enough now though

[velik_m]

Finished the intro part of XCom and didn't really like it. Has that old game feel. I'll give it a little more, but I'm not a big fan of Civ type of games.

What do you mean by Civ type games? Cause X-com and civ are nothing alike... or you mean games that make you think :P?

[Cry Havoc]

PCs are memory hogs.

I don't know what you mean by this. They use a lot of memory? Well of course they do, they are more than just gaming machines. But considering $40 will buy you enough RAM to do anything you want with a computer, I'm not sure what the problem is.


I bought a PC game years ago and installing it and setting it up took more time than the game was worth.

Last I checked, Ps3 has installs and mandatory updates, does it not? I install most games in under 5 minutes.


You have to have a second PC designated for gaming. You cant use it for anything else.

Absurdly false. I have a PC that I use for work, play, watching movies, you name it. I don't even use a TV anymore, PCs are just too fast/convenient.


Gaming with a PC is not for everybody. Is an inconvenience most of the time.

The same could be said of consoles.

I like playing games maxed out graphically with the best controller for the job, be it keyboard and mouse, joystick, steering wheel, or flight stick. By all means though, try playing Starcraft with a gamepad.

[Reck]

I don't know what you mean by this. They use a lot of memory? Well of course they do, they are more than just gaming machines. But considering $40 will buy you enough RAM to do anything you want with a computer, I'm not sure what the problem is.

No I mean, when you have the game on you better not have anything else running or it will slow to a crawl.

Cant speak for yours but when I used to be into gaming on my PC it crashed like a motherfucker and did all kinds of fuckery for me.




Last I checked, Ps3 has installs and mandatory updates, does it not? I install most games in under 5 minutes.

You're right, it absolutely does. But neither take more than a 2 minutes, tops. The updates aren't even 2mbs.

PC games are 10gbs+ mininum last time I checked.



Absurdly false. I have a PC that I use for work, play, watching movies, you name it. I don't even use a TV anymore, PCs are just too fast/convenient.

Not with a company stock PC. You have to deck it out on your own. Or buy a Mac. I understand those are gaming friendly.



The same could be said of consoles.

I like playing games maxed out graphically with the best controller for the job, be it keyboard and mouse, joystick, steering wheel, or flight stick. By all means though, try playing Starcraft with a gamepad.

Yeah true, PC gamers will tell you what you just said and console gamers will reiterate the same.

Matter of opinion here.

[ElNono]

What do you mean by Civ type games? Cause X-com and civ are nothing alike... or you mean games that make you think :P?

turn by turn... the only games I ever liked that played like that were Fallout and Fallout 2...

[velik_m]

turn by turn... the only games I ever liked that played like that were Fallout and Fallout 2...

Turn by turn is just a mechanic, it's like saying i don't really like games like descent and quake even though they're nothing alike except for being 1st person. X-com has more in common with fallout tbh.

Anyway to each his own, i just found the comment kind of wierd...

[ElNono]

It probably got better with Windows 7, but back when I was running XP, playing on the PC was an inconvenience, tbh... Installation wasn't the problem, but all the bullshit DRM was (ie: can't play a single-player mode without being connected to some bullshit server, which in turn sold that data to marketing). Then it was a money pit. A year after buying a nice vid card, the new golden game comes out and only does 20fps on max settings, which means forking off another couple hundred for the nicest+ vid card, which now requires a bigger power-supply, and since you don't want to cheap out on the PSU, there goes another $100+... but drivers for nicest+ are basically beta, because it just came out, so game X now hangs. You contact the vendor, then 3 weeks later there's a new driver which finally looks like final.

In a nutshell, back in the day, I was spending probably close to $1500 every 2 years to keep the system up to date, and it was basically just to play games, because I really don't do much work on my home computer.
Back in 2006 when it was time to basically build a new box again, I went a different route. Purchased an XBox 360 for games, and a MacMini for everything else (since I started doing iOS development back then, it was also a way to explore that area). Basically, that run me $1000...

And I have to say I couldn't be happier. I don't have XBox Live (don't like multiplayer games). Games might not look as great as they do on the latest PC, but they don't look bad either. Don't have to mess with video cards or drivers. Stick a game and it works. You also get more games on the console that you do on the PC, or you get them earlier (see Rockstar titles). No more "I installed these drivers and now this game works great but this other one is busted", etc.

Since 2006, the story so far has been: the XBox 360 died last year and was promptly replaced with a slim model ($300), and the MacMini was upgraded to 8GB of RAM and a 256GB Crucial M4 SSD ($360), which basically gave it new life and now feels as fast as my core i5 at work (which uses an HDD).

While I would agree that the 360 is starting to show it's age, I kind of doubt I'll be switching back to windows for the gaming. I'll probably jump to whatever the next MS is (if sub $500, which is likely), and I might get a new Mini eventually just to get an upgrade on the vid card, so I can keep playing the odd out game that's better to play with a mouse/keyboard.

[ElNono]

Turn by turn is just a mechanic, it's like saying i don't really like games like descent and quake even though they're nothing alike except for being 1st person. X-com has more in common with fallout tbh.

Anyway to each his own, i just found the comment kind of wierd...

Well, I'll just disagree. XCom has a lot of stuff just like Civ: turn by turn, management, research trees, unit ranks... much like Civ it's a strategy / turn by turn tactical game.

Fallout was an RPG.

[Reck]

ElNono with the goods. BTW Dishonored is pissing me off. I`m dying up to 10 times a mission. Game is making me question my skills. lol

[Reck]

ElNono with the goods. BTW Dishonored is pissing me off. I`m dying up to 10 times a mission. Game is making me question my skills. lol

[DMC]

I'm pretty much a FPS fan, don't care for the "find the secret doorway key" type stuff and not much into mining goodies that I can just go into the ini file and create.

[phyzik]

No I mean, when you have the game on you better not have anything else running or it will slow to a crawl.

Cant speak for yours but when I used to be into gaming on my PC it crashed like a motherfucker and did all kinds of fuckery for me.

So... You run Word and shit on your console and it works fine? LOL!!

Who the hell runs background programs on their PC and expects it to run great when playing a game at the same time?




You're right, it absolutely does. But neither take more than a 2 minutes, tops. The updates aren't even 2mbs.

PC games are 10gbs+ mininum last time I checked.

Your full of shit. I have a PS3, XBOC 360 and SEVERAL PCs. I just got Madden 13 earlier today and it took 5 minutes just to upgrade the OS on the Xbox360.... And thats just Madden.

The reason PC games take more space is because of higher texture resolution and PhysX rendering. I want you to look at Borderlands 2 on XBOX360 or PS3 THEN look at it on a PC with FULL PhysX rendering... your mind will be blown.

This video does a comparison but it doesnt nearly do it justice...

KS2UAGWZPtg


Not with a company stock PC. You have to deck it out on your own. Or buy a Mac. I understand those are gaming friendly.

Wait, your arguing for consol because your stuck with a company PC? If your relying on WORK to pay for your gaming system, your doing it wrong.... And wasting $300 on a console just because you cant afford a good computer is even more retarded. You have to remember... When you buy a console, its stuck with that hardware for life...

You can build a cheap ass PC with a good motherboard and processor for that ammount and gradually add ram, new graphics card, new processor, SSD Hardrives... you name it.

Also, MAc is not "gaming friendly".




Yeah true, PC gamers will tell you what you just said and console gamers will reiterate the same.

Matter of opinion here.

Honestly, there is no "matter of opinion" here. Name the game, FPS, RTS, whatever..... PC rules that domain. There's a reason its not cross platform, its already been proven. Even the most mediocre PC FPS gamers have taken out the TOP console gamers.

http://www.gamesradar.com/pc-gamers-destroyed-console-gamers-in-tests-says-voodoo-pc-founder/

There are more studies about this, including from Microsoft testing cross-platform with their XBOX and Windows Live (FUCK Windows LIVE BTW).

NOT a matter of opinion. I would get bored dueling people on XBOX or PSN if they could connect with me on my PC.... It would be SO unfair.... and Im mediocre.

[Reck]

Oh man this is too juicy not to reply to.


So... You run Word and shit on your console and it works fine? LOL!!

Who the hell runs background programs on their PC and expects it to run great when playing a game at the same time?

Let me start with, no I dont run Word on my console but I do surf the net from it (Very shitty set up btw) and use youtube and so on and it works just fine.

I used to play this racing game back then and I liked to hear music while doing laps. And often time I took breaks in between gaming sections and went to do something else like going on the internet, browse some sites etc.

While I dont expect the PC to run at its fullest potential when running a random program along with the game I also dont expect the game and or the computer to seize on me all the time.



Your full of shit. I have a PS3, XBOC 360 and SEVERAL PCs. I just got Madden 13 earlier today and it took 5 minutes just to upgrade the OS on the Xbox360.... And thats just Madden.

The reason PC games take more space is because of higher texture resolution and PhysX rendering. I want you to look at Borderlands 2 on XBOX360 or PS3 THEN look at it on a PC with FULL PhysX rendering... your mind will be blown.

This video does a comparison but it doesnt nearly do it justice...

Well I would hope a computer have the better "everything" seem as how it is a god damn computer. :lol

LOL 360 OS. I can only imagine how shitty this may be for you. I cant speak for the 360 but I can tell you about the PS3..

The games install and download under 5 minutes for me depending on how big the game is.

Say the PS3 needs to install a 5GB long game, that would take me somewhere between 4-5 minutes tops.

The Random updates like I told the other guy isn't even bigger than 5mb so that takes no time whatsoever.

System updates are very different than game install or games updates so I dont even know what you're talking about.



Wait, your arguing for consol because your stuck with a company PC? If your relying on WORK to pay for your gaming system, your doing it wrong.... And wasting $300 on a console just because you cant afford a good computer is even more retarded. You have to remember... When you buy a console, its stuck with that hardware for life...

You can build a cheap ass PC with a good motherboard and processor for that ammount and gradually add ram, new graphics card, new processor, SSD Hardrives... you name it.

Also, MAc is not "gaming friendly".

Oh my favorite part of your whole post.

Most of what you said here is FALSE!

First of all I'm not arguing which is better, I am saying I prefer playing on a console then a PC for personal reasons.

I dont buy computers to play games. That is why I have seperate systems.

I prefer consoles, mainly because it is very convinient for me.

Also you can indeed replace the HDD of a Playstation and upgrade to an even bigger size. You can even do it yourself. Plug and play. Takes about 1 minute to put in whatever harddrive you want in your system.

I myself upgraded to a 500gb HDD from 80GBs on my PS3. Your assumptions are wrong.

The PS3 its still an untapped console in terms of the full potential the hardware has to offer. Developers words not mine. Look it up if you want.



Honestly, there is no "matter of opinion" here. Name the game, FPS, RTS, whatever..... PC rules that domain. There's a reason its not cross platform, its already been proven. Even the most mediocre PC FPS gamers have taken out the TOP console gamers.

http://www.gamesradar.com/pc-gamers-destroyed-console-gamers-in-tests-says-voodoo-pc-founder/

There are more studies about this, including from Microsoft testing cross-platform with their XBOX and Windows Live (FUCK Windows LIVE BTW).

NOT a matter of opinion. I would get bored dueling people on XBOX or PSN if they could connect with me on my PC.... It would be SO unfair.... and Im mediocre.

I'm not going to debate you on this.

Is not about what looks better on what system, is about comfort.

I find it playing on a PC to be akward as fuck and that's never going to change regardless of how many "studies" there are.

I'm not bashing Computer gaming though it may seem that way but I'm really just giving my opinion on what I have expirienced with it.

[Cry Havoc]

Oh man this is too juicy not to reply to.



Let me start with, no I dont run Word on my console but I do surf the net from it (Very shitty set up btw) and use youtube and so on and it works just fine.

How is it a shitty set up if it works fine? I'm confused here.


I used to play this racing game back then and I liked to hear music while doing laps. And often time I took breaks in between gaming sections and went to do something else like going on the internet, browse some sites etc.

You do realize that you can play music while gaming on PC, right? A music player especially something like FooBar uses practically no processor, and absolutely no GPU processes. So if you're really running a computer that can't handle a music player and a game, you're probably on an old system. I never play LoL without firing up Spotify first and putting on a good gaming playlist.


While I dont expect the PC to run at its fullest potential when running a random program along with the game I also dont expect the game and or the computer to seize on me all the time.

I've had my desktop for 2 years now. It's crashed in-game 2-3 times total. Most people I know that put any effort into their computer don't have any problems with stability. That is a problem of the past. It's good that consoles have such a good track record of never failing though...

http://cheapxboxgames.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/2.jpg



Well I would hope a computer have the better "everything" seem as how it is a god damn computer. :lol


The Xbox/ps3 aren't? They have physical processors, hard drive, RAM, video cards...


The games install and download under 5 minutes for me depending on how big the game is.


That's cool. It contradicts a lot of the reviews I've heard on games, and you still have loading times between areas. A decent PC with a fast hard drive is nearly seamless, install the game one time and you never have to worry about loading times again.


The Random updates like I told the other guy isn't even bigger than 5mb so that takes no time whatsoever.


I've personally seen system updates for my PS3 that were several gigabytes in data and took 20 minutes to download and install.



Also you can indeed replace the HDD of a Playstation and upgrade to an even bigger size. You can even do it yourself. Plug and play. Takes about 1 minute to put in whatever harddrive you want in your system.

I myself upgraded to a 500gb HDD from 80GBs on my PS3. Your assumptions are wrong.

Hard drive is one of the last things in the entire system to affect performance. A new hard drive lowers your loading times. That's it. You can't install better processors or video cards.


The PS3 its still an untapped console in terms of the full potential the hardware has to offer. Developers words not mine. Look it up if you want.


Preposterous. The PS3 has long been completely tapped as a system. They have already maxed it out, or if they could squeeze a little more performance out of the engine it would be enormously expensive to do so. Why do you think cross-platform games look comparatively like crap on a console when compared to it's PC brethren?


Is not about what looks better on what system, is about comfort.

I find it playing on a PC to be akward as fuck and that's never going to change regardless of how many "studies" there are.

Would you like me to take a photo of my PC hooked up to my big screen HDTV with a PS3 controller hooked up to it? I don't get how it's "awkward" when you can use any controller or combination in gaming to play on.


----


Just as an aside, here's a system build I priced out online yesterday.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/khfg

$630 and it's a fully functional, modestly portable PC (18 pounds, very small case) that will run every single game on high (if not maxed) on the market including BF3, and guess what? It's still a fully functional computer with all of the amenities of a modern PC. It needs a DVD drive (which isn't even necessary these days) and a mouse, and you're good to go. Hook it up to your TV and it's a HTPC that will blow away any console on the market. Plus in 3-4 years when that card starts to drop in effectiveness, you can swap it out for a new one (even if they've moved to new architecture I'm confident they will still be making PCI-E cards).

That's a system that could easily last 6-7 years with no problems. Yes, it costs more than a console, but it's also far more flexible and upgradeable. Buying a PS3/360 these days when the new systems are around the corner (and likely going to be $500+) is just a money sink at the moment.


Lastly, here's what the next class of PC gaming looks like. Note that this is NOT cinematics... this is in-game footage with assets rendered in real-time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_674262&feature=iv&src_vid=W_QDv7DFfxk&v=J5oOu1_Q5r8

[Reck]

Cry Havoc I dont know what the hell is going on on this site but I cant see your posts right. Your comments are all mixed with mine so I'll just pick and choose with out quoting the entire thing.

You cant go comparing consoles and PCs when it comes to doing everything else.

Consoles do only one job and is limited to what you can do outside of that, no sense in comparing the two because we all know which of the two is more powerful. I spoke about how the games while I played with my computer used to crash on me and how unpleasant it was for me to play with it.

Boy Phyzik took to the computer and made it all about his love for computer game and went on a crusade to defend it.

And its not really contradicting me or any other reviews. There are some games that require big installs and certain games where there are some loading games because the game is simply massive.

GTA4, GT5, MGS4 and Dishonored are a few of the ones that require big downloads and have loading screens from area to area.

Then there are games like Infamous, Uncharted, Call Of Duty that dont have any loading screens in between areas. Like I said, depends on the game.

Game updates and System updates aren't the same.

I dont know which system you have done on your PS3 but I dont recall any of them being bigger than what you are saying.

Here is the latest system update for the PS3..

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2012/06/25/ps3-system-software-update-v4-20/

No bigger than 200mb.

Maybe is your connection or something.

According to David Cage (Founder of Quantic Dreams and creator of the game Heavy Rain) thinks otherwise.

http://thebitfix.com/2012/03/ps3-much-more-power-left-untapped/

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/248275/ps3-still-not-maxed-out-says-sony/

These are people that have actually worked on games and with the console so unless you have prove that the PS3 is already tapped and maxed out by all means, show it to me.

And that's my point, you have to change things here and there to be able to play comfortably. I'm not going to hook my computer to the TV screen to play a game I can just as easily play by turning on a power buttom without having to go to trials and tribulations.

[Cry Havoc]

Cry Havoc I dont know what the hell is going on on this site but I cant see your posts right. Your comments are all mixed with mine so I'll just pick and choose with out quoting the entire thing.

You cant go comparing consoles and PCs when it comes to doing everything else.

Sure you can. When you pay $800 for a computer you are not buying a gaming machine that only plays games. If you're going to talk about how consoles are cheaper, then it merits bringing up that computers are far more flexible, in ADDITION to gaming.


Consoles do only one job and is limited to what you can do outside of that, no sense in comparing the two because we all know which of the two is more powerful. I spoke about how the games while I played with my computer used to crash on me and how unpleasant it was for me to play with it.

And my rebuttal was that consoles have had a checkered history of reliability as well. YLoD, RRoD, the infamous PS2 problems with the initial model, as well as the multitude of glitches that Ps3 owners have experienced over the years (Skyrim, anyone?).


Boy Phyzik took to the computer and made it all about his love for computer game and went on a crusade to defend it.

Actually, you made a number of false statements that he sought out to decry.


And its not really contradicting me or any other reviews. There are some games that require big installs and certain games where there are some loading games because the game is simply massive.

GTA4, GT5, MGS4 and Dishonored are a few of the ones that require big downloads and have loading screens from area to area.

Then there are games like Infamous, Uncharted, Call Of Duty that dont have any loading screens in between areas. Like I said, depends on the game.

So what you're saying is... it's just like a PC with regard to loading times? Okay, thanks. That's exactly what my point was. Thanks for agreeing with me.


Game updates and System updates aren't the same.

But they are both essential to being able to play games on your console. You said it's plug and play with no downloading or installation or anything. I'm pointing out that it's absolutely, categorically, false.


I dont know which system you have done on your PS3 but I dont recall any of them being bigger than what you are saying.

Well, I distinctly recall a multi-GB patch a few months back for the Ps3 that took well in excess of 20 minutes to download and install.


Here is the latest system update for the PS3..

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2012/06/25/ps3-system-software-update-v4-20/

No bigger than 200mb.

And still well outside of your stated 5 mb limit, as well as your "no downloads or installs" idea.


Maybe is your connection or something.

I have a 35 mbps line that typically sees unhindered downloads in excess of 7mbs. Doubt it's my connection.


According to David Cage (Founder of Quantic Dreams and creator of the game Heavy Rain) thinks otherwise.

http://thebitfix.com/2012/03/ps3-much-more-power-left-untapped/

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/248275/ps3-still-not-maxed-out-says-sony/

-Posted on Tuesday 25th May 2010 at 7:22 PM UTC

So you're quoting an article from 2 years and 5 months ago as proof that a system over half a decade old isn't maxed out? Okay. Please show me some games that are even somewhat on par with PC titles. Unused potential is worthless, and frankly I don't see any horsepower left in 6+ year old technology.


These are people that have actually worked on games and with the console so unless you have prove that the PS3 is already tapped and maxed out by all means, show it to me.

The onus is on them to prove it. I am saying it cannot be done. They are the ones who have to prove me wrong. I cannot prove something that doesn't exist, and if you want me to, then I challenge you to "prove" to me that the Ps2, or original PsX is completely tapped for what they were capable of. You can't do it, because the games that would prove your theory don't exist. Was the original Nintendo maxed out? You can't prove it to me. I'm saying we will not see any more graphical leaps forward on the PS3. I can't prove or disprove that until the end of the console's lifetime.


And that's my point, you have to change things here and there to be able to play comfortably. I'm not going to hook my computer to the TV screen to play a game I can just as easily play by turning on a power buttom without having to go to trials and tribulations.

What? Are you saying it's harder to turn on a computer than a console? Really? I have my computer hooked up to both my HDTV and my LED displays. It's not a one or the other proposition. I press the button on my case, switch the TV over to the input for the HDMI cable (which yes, you have to do on a console as well), and grab my PS3 controller. Or my steering wheel. Or my joystick. Or my keyboard and mouse. Because I have that option with PC. Please tell me exactly what I need to change that so as to conform to your standards of simplicity?

Lastly, no one is arguing that consoles aren't simpler than PCs. That much is obvious. The degree to which PCs gaming is complicated is vastly overstated, though, and getting better and more stable by the day. I honestly don't remember the last time I've had trouble getting a game to run that a simple restart didn't fix. It's been a long time.

[Reck]

So you're quoting an article from 2 years and 5 months ago as proof that a system over half a decade old isn't maxed out? Okay. Please show me some games that are even somewhat on par with PC titles. Unused potential is worthless, and frankly I don't see any horsepower left in 6+ year old technology.

The onus is on them to prove it. I am saying it cannot be done. They are the ones who have to prove me wrong. I cannot prove something that doesn't exist, and if you want me to, then I challenge you to "prove" to me that the Ps2, or original PsX is completely tapped for what they were capable of. You can't do it, because the games that would prove your theory don't exist. Was the original Nintendo maxed out? You can't prove it to me. I'm saying we will not see any more graphical leaps forward on the PS3. I can't prove or disprove that until the end of the console's lifetime.

What? Are you saying it's harder to turn on a computer than a console? Really? I have my computer hooked up to both my HDTV and my LED displays. It's not a one or the other proposition. I press the button on my case, switch the TV over to the input for the HDMI cable (which yes, you have to do on a console as well), and grab my PS3 controller. Or my steering wheel. Or my joystick. Or my keyboard and mouse. Because I have that option with PC. Please tell me exactly what I need to change that so as to conform to your standards of simplicity?

Lastly, no one is arguing that consoles aren't simpler than PCs. That much is obvious. The degree to which PCs gaming is complicated is vastly overstated, though, and getting better and more stable by the day. I honestly don't remember the last time I've had trouble getting a game to run that a simple restart didn't fix. It's been a long time.

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

It doesn't matter how long it's been.

The fact remains the same.

Dont turn this around on me. Show me why you think the PS3 is already maxed out when you have developers and people at Sony saying otherwise. Just because they haven't made any particular games that has any major improvements in graphics doesn't mean the system doesn't have anymore to give. It just means developers are still figuring out how to squeeze everything the PS3 has to offer 6 or so years later.

If they are saying the PS3 hardware still has more to give I'm sure that the room for improvement does exist. They wouldn't say it if it wasn't the case. You're going against professional opinion here. Who do you think I'm incline to believe more? People who know what they are talking about or you? Someone that doesn't know how that particular system works.

The way to leaned on that subject is pretty obvious to me.

Well if you want to get technical about it, turning on a computer takes more time than turning on a console. But I get what you're saying. No one is going to turn they're PCs off completely everytime.

Good for you. In my case I dont have my computer hooked up to the TV so it would be a hassle for me to do so. Going from one thing to the other. (I'm not big on using one TV screen for both.)

Sometimes I want to browse the net while playing a game for such things as looking for a walktrhough when I'm stuck on a certain area etc.

And again, I'm only speaking from my experienced from a quite a few years ago. I haven't played a PC game in over 6 years so I'm only limited to what I had played then.

[leemajors]

It's been out 6 years, that's proof enough.

[Reck]

It's been out 6 years, that's proof enough.

That doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

[leemajors]

That doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

It proves everything, sorry you can't see it. PS3 and 360 have been maxxed out for years, and game sales are in the toilet.

[Reck]

It proves everything, sorry you can't see it. PS3 and 360 have been maxxed out for years, and game sales are in the toilet.

LOL I'm not the one saying it. Its the developers themselves, sorry but if you dont have any specs on how the hardware has been exhausted then you're just talking for the sake of talking.

And I dont see how game sales have anything to do with what's being discussed. But if that's the arguement you want to make, then PC games sales are non existent.

[leemajors]

the platforms are stagnant, and the tech is very, very old on them. this is incredibly simple. if you dont think game devs have been maxxing out the very old tech in the ps3 when they consistently max new phones that have near/more that power now i don't know what there is to say.

it's also pretty obvious they can still make money selling games for it so it's fairly moot. sold it at a loss for years until prices went down on the components.

[ElNono]

The current consoles are definitely maxxed out, and they're definitely starting to show their age. That said, both the PS3 and XBox can handle 1080p generally well, and that's all they have to cater to right now. For somebody that jumped on the XBox when it came out, a 6 year ROI for barely $500 (I'm counting 2 consoles here, let's just pretend the 1st one RROD already), it's a much better deal than keeping up with the PC for all those years, IMO.

People forget that you can engineer a lot of shit out of custom hardware. That's why both the XBox 360 and PS3 when they came out were just as good or even better than the current PC hardware of the time at a fraction of the cost, and likely to have a larger lifespan. Things like the Kinect (which I personally dislike) also helped expand the life of the current generation.

All that said, I expect a new generation of consoles by the next holiday season. I think they're both due for a substantial update.


Lastly, here's what the next class of PC gaming looks like. Note that this is NOT cinematics... this is in-game footage with assets rendered in real-time.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_674262&feature=iv&src_vid=W_QDv7DFfxk&v=J5oOu1_Q5r8

You know Cry, I think it's impressive. The thing is, the guy can't seemingly get funding, and had to go through crowd-funding to see if he can get it off the floor. I think Carmack put it bluntly when he said in no uncertain terms that the PC just isn't the leading game platform (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/08/carmack-pissed-about-rage-issues-but-admits-id-doesnt-see-pc-as-leading-game-platform/) anymore.

[phyzik]

Saying crowd funding is indicative of a declining market is just plain wrong El.... The fact of the matter is, you need to look at it from the publishers standpoint.... They dont CARE what type of game it is, they CARE about the bottom line when it comes to the dollar. Right now, the money is in FPS games like MOH and Battlefield.... it makes them money... thats all they care about.

Developers who are turning to crowd funding is a GOOD thing. It lets them make the game they want without big brother (ie.. EA) dictating how the game is made based on maximized profits.... And getting the funding they ask for from the "crowd" reinforces this. I agree PC is not the leading game platform anymore, but I also believe that kickstarter and general crowd funding is going to change this. It gives gamers a voice on what they want to play....

All you have to look at is Project Eternity.... A PC RPG in the vein of games like Baldurs gate and Icewind Dale... Breaking the record for a Kickstarter game getting close to 4mil (not including paypal) when the asked goal was just 1.1mil (which was reached in just a few days). The demand is there and its no longer a necesity to pander to HUGE evil companies like EA.... Kickstarter gives a chance for developers to ask the community directly if they want what they are offering and I say thats a good thing.

As far as your thoughts on why Chris Roberts cant get funding for Star Citizen, its because he never asked for it. He specifically stated that he doesnt want the beurocratic bullshit that comes from a publisher with deadlines and "catering to the masses".... He is making this game because thats what he loves... Thats what helped make the Wing Commander series so great. Relying on a publisher is what made Freelancer so mediocre. He didnt have to rely on a huge game publisher back when he created Wing Commander. When you have an idea for a game, and you see kickstarters like Wasteland 2 and Project Eternity getting millions of dollars from your audience, why go through a publisher who's only interest is the dollar ammount, especially when you can go straight to the source (the fans) and get THEM to fund it?

If it's a bad idea, it wont get funded, if its a wanted product... it will. It's been more than a decade since an "infinity engine" RPG was released.... They are some of the most beloved games in history.... The closest game to come to that in recent memory is Dragon Age: Origin and that was a hit.... Then EA bought out Bioware and things went to shit. big suprise. :rolleyes Here comes Obsidian who couldnt get funding from a publisher with Project Eternity so they looked at crowd funding, and lo and behold, they got almost 4x the ammount of funding they were asking for.

As far as Star Citizen, its currently funded 1.3mil with a goal of 2mil and is a few days shy of the halfway mark before its funding period ends.... I have no doubt it will reach its goal and then some.

[Cry Havoc]

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

It doesn't matter how long it's been.

The fact remains the same.

So what you're saying is that the amount of time a piece of hardware is on the market has no bearing on whether it's been used to it's full potential?

Apparently we should still be all playing on the Super NES.


Dont turn this around on me. Show me why you think the PS3 is already maxed out

Because no games are coming out that are visually more impressive than we've seen already? Is that good enough of a reason?


when you have developers and people at Sony saying otherwise.

Whoa there. I wonder why a company with a vested interest in maintaining video game development for a system would say that it's still got untapped power? Gee, I guess we'll take their word for it. :lol


Just because they haven't made any particular games that has any major improvements in graphics doesn't mean the system doesn't have anymore to give. It just means developers are still figuring out how to squeeze everything the PS3 has to offer 6 or so years later.

http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/images/ostrich_head_in_sand.jpg

Sure it doesn't.


If they are saying the PS3 hardware still has more to give I'm sure that the room for improvement does exist. They wouldn't say it if it wasn't the case. You're going against professional opinion here. Who do you think I'm incline to believe more? People who know what they are talking about or you? Someone that doesn't know how that particular system works.

For starters, our resident tech expert is ElNono, and he's saying the same thing. I'm not too shabby in the tech department either, but you're quoting press releases and asking people to believe they're 100% factual and accurate. Get ahold of yourself, man. You can't separate propaganda from fucking truths that are staring you in the face, and now you're professing that two years isn't a significant length of time in the tech industry. :wow


Well if you want to get technical about it, turning on a computer takes more time than turning on a console. But I get what you're saying. No one is going to turn they're PCs off completely everytime.

In addition I have 100% of my titles in the cloud now. I never have to get up to change a disc.


Good for you. In my case I dont have my computer hooked up to the TV so it would be a hassle for me to do so. Going from one thing to the other. (I'm not big on using one TV screen for both.)

So you're saying the reason it's more difficult to use... is because you won't do the EXACT same process that you did when you initially hooked up your console? Um... ok. That's just... ok.


Sometimes I want to browse the net while playing a game for such things as looking for a walktrhough when I'm stuck on a certain area etc.

Yes, and thanks to the power of computers, we have this awesome thing called "multiple-monitor setups". If you had done any research you'd understand that you can have both your monitor and your TV running in tandem. I have attempted to be as nice as possible to you so far but the amount of ridiculously 2002 era limitations you are spewing is just ridiculous.


And again, I'm only speaking from my experienced from a quite a few years ago. I haven't played a PC game in over 6 years so I'm only limited to what I had played then.

And there we come to the crux of the matter. You are 6 years in the past and still trying to have an argument like what you say still applies. It's ludicrous and you honestly don't know what you're talking about.

There are a couple of points to be made for playing consoles: It's plug and play and it's a lot more streamlined. That's about it. The public loves it's "work without me having to do any thinking" type machinery (see: iPhone) so this is indeed a sizable advantages for consoles. But your arguments were tired 5 years ago... they are archaic now.

http://i.imgur.com/xK8At.jpg
(1920x1080 image with spoilers at the end of Borderlands 2)

Yep. I'll stick to PCs.

[Cry Havoc]

People forget that you can engineer a lot of shit out of custom hardware. That's why both the XBox 360 and PS3 when they came out were just as good or even better than the current PC hardware of the time at a fraction of the cost, and likely to have a larger lifespan. Things like the Kinect (which I personally dislike) also helped expand the life of the current generation.

It'll be interesting to see what kind of power they can squeeze out of the 720/PS4. I have my doubts as to whether or not they'll be any better than the newest PC hardware. It's going to get pretty interesting, because for $650 you can have a damn fine gaming rig these days. The one I posted above is a pretty beastly system and highly portable.


All that said, I expect a new generation of consoles by the next holiday season. I think they're both due for a substantial update.

Agreed. Can't wait to see what they have to offer, but I have to wonder how well even they will do in this economy. :depressed


You know Cry, I think it's impressive. The thing is, the guy can't seemingly get funding, and had to go through crowd-funding to see if he can get it off the floor. I think Carmack put it bluntly when he said in no uncertain terms that the PC just isn't the leading game platform (http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/08/carmack-pissed-about-rage-issues-but-admits-id-doesnt-see-pc-as-leading-game-platform/) anymore.

I would have to tentatively agree with you. However, that being said, League of Legends just set a worldwide record for viewership of the Season 2 Finals: 1.1 million concurrent viewers. That's pretty remarkable for a game, and far outstrips anything consoles have ever been able to accomplish. Diablo III just sold 6.3 million units in a single week, Borderlands 2 had massive sales and was designed with a much more PC audience in mind, and the three most popular games in the world are all PC games: Starcraft 2, LoL, and WoW. PC might arguably be behind consoles now, but they aren't losing any ground, in fact I think it's the other way around.

[ElNono]

Saying crowd funding is indicative of a declining market is just plain wrong El.... The fact of the matter is, you need to look at it from the publishers standpoint.... They dont CARE what type of game it is, they CARE about the bottom line when it comes to the dollar. Right now, the money is in FPS games like MOH and Battlefield.... it makes them money... thats all they care about.

Developers who are turning to crowd funding is a GOOD thing. It lets them make the game they want without big brother (ie.. EA) dictating how the game is made based on maximized profits.... And getting the funding they ask for from the "crowd" reinforces this. I agree PC is not the leading game platform anymore, but I also believe that kickstarter and general crowd funding is going to change this. It gives gamers a voice on what they want to play....

All you have to look at is Project Eternity.... A PC RPG in the vein of games like Baldurs gate and Icewind Dale... Breaking the record for a Kickstarter game getting close to 4mil (not including paypal) when the asked goal was just 1.1mil (which was reached in just a few days). The demand is there and its no longer a necesity to pander to HUGE evil companies like EA.... Kickstarter gives a chance for developers to ask the community directly if they want what they are offering and I say thats a good thing.

As far as your thoughts on why Chris Roberts cant get funding for Star Citizen, its because he never asked for it. He specifically stated that he doesnt want the beurocratic bullshit that comes from a publisher with deadlines and "catering to the masses".... He is making this game because thats what he loves... Thats what helped make the Wing Commander series so great. Relying on a publisher is what made Freelancer so mediocre. He didnt have to rely on a huge game publisher back when he created Wing Commander. When you have an idea for a game, and you see kickstarters like Wasteland 2 and Project Eternity getting millions of dollars from your audience, why go through a publisher who's only interest is the dollar ammount, especially when you can go straight to the source (the fans) and get THEM to fund it?

If it's a bad idea, it wont get funded, if its a wanted product... it will. It's been more than a decade since an "infinity engine" RPG was released.... They are some of the most beloved games in history.... The closest game to come to that in recent memory is Dragon Age: Origin and that was a hit.... Then EA bought out Bioware and things went to shit. big suprise. :rolleyes Here comes Obsidian who couldnt get funding from a publisher with Project Eternity so they looked at crowd funding, and lo and behold, they got almost 4x the ammount of funding they were asking for.

As far as Star Citizen, its currently funded 1.3mil with a goal of 2mil and is a few days shy of the halfway mark before its funding period ends.... I have no doubt it will reach its goal and then some.

While I agree with most of what you posted here, what's going to make or break these kind of project is sales. Chris Roberts might be satisfied with just covering costs, and maybe making a buck on the side, because he loves what he does, but it really isn't how mass markets work. And to me, that's indeed the sign of a declining market. Sales are king. When sales were breaking records every year, EA/2K/<insert studio here> funded all sorts of sorry shit (lol Messiah). But the dynamics changed. Things like shelf-space, monster marketing, etc, became key tools, and with chain stores preferring to sell consoles (for a variety of reasons, which include among other things bigger margins, less inventory, less price competition, etc), then it tilted the scales even more, and that's how you ended up with PC games like Psychonauts, which was great, but hardly anybody ever played it (because a lot of people didn't even hear about it). There's deeper market things at work too: a lot of people are impulse buyers, and want instant gratification. PC hardware stores pretty much disappearing unable to compete with the interwebs, didn't help that matter either. Then there's fragmentation: with consoles you know what you need to target, what kind of artwork you need, what the hardware limitation is, etc. That makes life much easier for developers. As a dev myself, I know how difficult it is to maintain perhaps 2 or 3 different rendering pipelines with different quality tradeoffs, artwork that work on all of them, etc.

And lastly, I would add that the economic situation in general has declined to a point where publishers simply rather go for the more solid shot at sales at the lower cost, and for the reasons enumerated before, that's the console world right now. To me it was somewhat of a shocker to see a big studio like Rockstar going straight to consoles first, and only follow with a PC version after the game sold well on consoles. But when you see where the biggest audience is at, it's not really all that surprising anymore.

[ElNono]

It'll be interesting to see what kind of power they can squeeze out of the 720/PS4. I have my doubts as to whether or not they'll be any better than the newest PC hardware. It's going to get pretty interesting, because for $650 you can have a damn fine gaming rig these days. The one I posted above is a pretty beastly system and highly portable.

I agree. However, I expect the new console price points to kick off at $300-$400 then probably drop $100-$150 over time, to what they're right now or perhaps even a little cheaper. The reality is that unlike in the PC world, both Sony and MS can sell the console at a loss, since they get revenue as part of licensing from each game sold. In a way of speaking, they can subsidize it much like telcos do with cellphones.

The other advantage consoles have hardware-wise is that they don't need to really support more than 1080p from the get go. So the improvement can come on more video memory for deeper FOV and faster MSAA, but unlike the PC cousins, higher resolution support isn't quite needed. There's also a lot of corners that can be cut. The XBox 360 already came with eDRAM (embedded DRAM, in the same die as the GPU). That gave them the ability to have insane memory-GPU speeds at a fraction of the cost. To put it in perspective, back in '06 when the XBox came out, their eDRAM<->GPU memory bandwidth was 32 GB/s (still is). At the time, a comparable GPU with that kind of throughput was the GeForce 7900 GTX, which sold for ~$340 (basically more expensive than the entire XBox 360).


Agreed. Can't wait to see what they have to offer, but I have to wonder how well even they will do in this economy. :depressed

Well, I think they'll sell unless they're not a substantial upgrade. I think people are waiting for them, and much like iPads or iPhones, if it's a good product and platform that offers a leap of quality, people will fork off the money. Especially at the right price-point. In a way it's somewhat a captive market with two main competitors (I don't consider the Wii a competitor at this stage, tbh). So it's not that there will be a plethora of options out there that could relent people into waiting out.


I would have to tentatively agree with you. However, that being said, League of Legends just set a worldwide record for viewership of the Season 2 Finals: 1.1 million concurrent viewers. That's pretty remarkable for a game, and far outstrips anything consoles have ever been able to accomplish. Diablo III just sold 6.3 million units in a single week, Borderlands 2 had massive sales and was designed with a much more PC audience in mind, and the three most popular games in the world are all PC games: Starcraft 2, LoL, and WoW. PC might arguably be behind consoles now, but they aren't losing any ground, in fact I think it's the other way around.

There's always going to be games that do well on the PC side. There's also models like MMO which are subscription based, so it's hard to compare to traditional sales. High profile sequels are obviously also normally good sellers in general, because they need less marketing efforts. But I also attribute much of the relative PC sales growth lately to the aging consoles. As I said before, consoles are at that point where they're clearly starting to show their age, and you can do quite a bit better with a middle-range video card.
The dynamics obviously could change again when new consoles arrive.

[Cry Havoc]

I agree. However, I expect the new console price points to kick off at $300-$400 then probably drop $100-$150 over time, to what they're right now or perhaps even a little cheaper. The reality is that unlike in the PC world, both Sony and MS can sell the console at a loss, since they get revenue as part of licensing from each game sold. In a way of speaking, they can subsidize it much like telcos do with cellphones.

We'll see. I think the cheaper it is, the more dated the specs will be. I heard somewhere in the neighborhood of a 6670 at launch, or at least that's the rumor. I doubt they will be nearly as competitive, performance-wise, to the early power advantage the 360 had over PCs.

There is a downside to the subsidy that you're talking about, as well. There is a huge risk involved in launching a platform such as a new console. Now, obviously, this risk has been relatively small in the past because systems like the SNES and Ps2 were basically guaranteed out the door to sell 50+ million units. But selling at a loss only works if you recoup that investment, otherwise it can be a huge hit to a company who spends billions in R&D, production, and marketing. That subsidy can really hurt if the console isn't a complete success.


The other advantage consoles have hardware-wise is that they don't need to really support more than 1080p from the get go. So the improvement can come on more video memory for deeper FOV and faster MSAA, but unlike the PC cousins, higher resolution support isn't quite needed. There's also a lot of corners that can be cut. The XBox 360 already came with eDRAM (embedded DRAM, in the same die as the GPU). That gave them the ability to have insane memory-GPU speeds at a fraction of the cost. To put it in perspective, back in '06 when the XBox came out, their eDRAM<->GPU memory bandwidth was 32 GB/s (still is). At the time, a comparable GPU with that kind of throughput was the GeForce 7900 GTX, which sold for ~$340 (basically more expensive than the entire XBox 360).

Well, the word 'round the rumor mill is that the new consoles will be supporting up to 4k resolution. We'll see if that's true. Other than that, yeah, consoles do get pretty good bang for the buck out of their GPUs.



Well, I think they'll sell unless they're not a substantial upgrade. I think people are waiting for them, and much like iPads or iPhones, if it's a good product and platform that offers a leap of quality, people will fork off the money. Especially at the right price-point. In a way it's somewhat a captive market with two main competitors (I don't consider the Wii a competitor at this stage, tbh). So it's not that there will be a plethora of options out there that could relent people into waiting out.

There's always going to be games that do well on the PC side. There's also models like MMO which are subscription based, so it's hard to compare to traditional sales. High profile sequels are obviously also normally good sellers in general, because they need less marketing efforts. But I also attribute much of the relative PC sales growth lately to the aging consoles. As I said before, consoles are at that point where they're clearly starting to show their age, and you can do quite a bit better with a middle-range video card.
The dynamics obviously could change again when new consoles arrive.

I think these points dovetail nicely. LoL, WoW, and more indie titles like Bastion are luring a lot of gamers over to the PC side. With esports blowing up in the States right now, there's a demand to be able to play and consume that content. This is almost entirely new demand -- we've never seen megascale gaming events in the US until now, with MLG and similar arenas on the rise. It'll be interesting to see, but I don't see PCs dying off, if anything with the advent of the pro esports seen it seems to be ramping up right now, especially if DotA2 really takes off upon launch.

I also think a point should be made about Star Citizen: The game is getting a LOT of attention from the gaming communities. I would say it's going to be a really big seller, or at the very least, incredibly profitable. I doubt they are going to spend much money on an ad campaign, the word is already out about it. By going direct to gamers, they're cutting a lot of middlemen costs out. Also it should be noted that PC games do not necessarily have to sell out in the first week to do well -- there are plenty of titles that gain steam as they move forward and end up being mega-hits by the mid-point of their life cycle, as more rigs and people upgrade or find themselves able to build a budget system to run it.

[phyzik]

Just an FYI... Chris Roberts finally caved in and posted his project on Kickstarter after his own personal funding website capped out.... He is now just 35k away from hitting the goal with a healthy 25 days left on Kickstarter.

Also, I want to say I was wrong about something.... Chris Roberts DOES have investors... The crowd funding was to gage what the reception would be for a game like this. Apparently, the private investors (not a publisher) told him if he could reach the goal of 2mil they would invest and provide somewhere around 14mil of their own money.

[Cry Havoc]

Alexandra
2 hours ago near **** CA ·
Damn PS3 updates take too long. I just want to watch Netflix!

From my facebook. Yeah, those updates that are 5mb.

[phyzik]

Just an FYI... Chris Roberts finally caved in and posted his project on Kickstarter after his own personal funding website capped out.... He is now just 35k away from hitting the goal with a healthy 25 days left on Kickstarter.

Also, I want to say I was wrong about something.... Chris Roberts DOES have investors... The crowd funding was to gage what the reception would be for a game like this. Apparently, the private investors (not a publisher) told him if he could reach the goal of 2mil they would invest and provide somewhere around fourteen million of their own money. The Crowd funded money is going completely towards stretch goals to make the game better.

[Reck]

From my facebook. Yeah, those updates that are 5mb.

LOL that person has a shitty connection. I downloaded that update in mere minutes and the update itself is less than 100 mb. Fail

[Cry Havoc]

LOL that person has a shitty connection. I downloaded that update in mere minutes and the update itself is less than 100 mb. Fail

Oh you're back. Care to comment on any of the above or did you just *forget* about your horribly misstated comments and decide to be snarky because it's the only foothold you can grab onto?

PS: 100 megs is a fuck of a lot bigger than 5. And "mere minutes" sounds like a slightly larger time scale than "instantaneous" as you claimed earlier. What was your point about PCs needing to update that makes consoles so much better again? Because I can't remember the last time I've needed to update a game on my PC that took more than 5 minutes.

[Reck]

Oh you're back. Care to comment on any of the above or did you just *forget* about your horribly misstated comments and decide to be snarky because it's the only foothold you can grab onto?

PS: 100 megs is a fuck of a lot bigger than 5. And "mere minutes" sounds like a slightly larger time scale than "instantaneous" as you claimed earlier. What was your point about PCs needing to update that makes consoles so much better again? Because I can't remember the last time I've needed to update a game on my PC that took more than 5 minutes.

Dont be silly, I stopped responding because people have their opinion and no matter what they'll keep them. No point in going back and forth for days on end.

You're purposefully side stepping my post in which I clearly stated that system updates and game updates are NOT the same. When I get on my conputer I can show you a pic of what a game update looks like.

Dont be a clown and think I stopped responding because I thought I mistated what I said or whatever.

[Cry Havoc]

Dont be silly, I stopped responding because people have their opinion and no matter what they'll keep them. No point in going back and forth for days on end.

There are a lot of things that you've said that have nothing to do with opinion. Quoting someone from 2 years ago in reference to technology in today's world is sort of like talking about how the 1934 Model T is going to revolutionize car design this year. Everyone (and I mean everyone) in this forum sees that but you.


You're purposefully side stepping my post in which I clearly stated that system updates and game updates are NOT the same. When I get on my conputer I can show you a pic of what a game update looks like.

Because it's a moot point. The purpose of updates is to allow you to play games. You seem to think that Playstation's updates are nil time and much faster than PCs. I'm pointing out that it's simply not the case. Installs on PC vs Ps3 are comparable as are updating times. If anything, it's faster on PC because it's always on and therefore I get an update streamed to me at midnight instead of waiting after I turn the Ps3 on.


Dont be a clown and think I stopped responding because I thought I mistated what I said or whatever.

Right. Okay. Whatever.

[Reck]

There are a lot of things that you've said that have nothing to do with opinion. Quoting someone from 2 years ago in reference to technology in today's world is sort of like talking about how the 1934 Model T is going to revolutionize car design this year. Everyone (and I mean everyone) in this forum sees that but you.



Because it's a moot point. The purpose of updates is to allow you to play games. You seem to think that Playstation's updates are nil time and much faster than PCs. I'm pointing out that it's simply not the case. Installs on PC vs Ps3 are comparable as are updating times. If anything, it's faster on PC because it's always on and therefore I get an update streamed to me at midnight instead of waiting after I turn the Ps3 on.



Right. Okay. Whatever.

See this is what I talked about. We can go forever at this.

I posted two articles. One going back two years and another going back like 6 months. You"re making it out to be like it was decades ago.

And since it is a moot point according to you then why do you keep bringing it up?

Also the PS3 has an automated downloading system that updates itself whenever an update becomes available.

[ElNono]

We'll see. I think the cheaper it is, the more dated the specs will be. I heard somewhere in the neighborhood of a 6670 at launch, or at least that's the rumor. I doubt they will be nearly as competitive, performance-wise, to the early power advantage the 360 had over PCs.

Well, the way I see it is that it doesn't have to be substantially better than the best PC, or even better. It simply has to be substantially better than the current XBox 360 or PS3. I don't think they're going to try to capture PC users. I think the goal would be to try to keep their console users and reel back in some of the guys that left because they noticed the aging.


There is a downside to the subsidy that you're talking about, as well. There is a huge risk involved in launching a platform such as a new console. Now, obviously, this risk has been relatively small in the past because systems like the SNES and Ps2 were basically guaranteed out the door to sell 50+ million units. But selling at a loss only works if you recoup that investment, otherwise it can be a huge hit to a company who spends billions in R&D, production, and marketing. That subsidy can really hurt if the console isn't a complete success.

With the market only really having two players, I don't think that'll be a problem. The only reason I could see a dud is if it's too hard to code for (ie: shit dev tools), or has some bad hardware issue. Realistically, both companies have a track record of bringing these products to market, and both companies also have exclusive hit titles to ship units. I mean, Sony just has to bundle it with the next Gran Turismo and Uncharted and Microsoft with the next Halo and Gears of War. Sprinkle some Madden and Fifa on holiday season, and they're set, IMO. But we'll see.


Well, the word 'round the rumor mill is that the new consoles will be supporting up to 4k resolution. We'll see if that's true. Other than that, yeah, consoles do get pretty good bang for the buck out of their GPUs.

The thing is, it doesn't have to be there from the get go. The original XBox 360 didn't even have an HDMI connector. Obviously, the GPU did support 1080p, but it was composite output only. Consoles live on the BS adapter business too, and there's always revisions. I would expect whatever next gen GPU they come with to support higher than 1080p res internally, but I don't really expect that to be an option from the get go. It's simply too much memory that can be used for much better things at 1080p. Eventually, if higher than 1080p TV sets pick up steam, they can either go with a software upgrade or even with some BS adapter if the TV industry rapes us with yet another new connector.


I think these points dovetail nicely. LoL, WoW, and more indie titles like Bastion are luring a lot of gamers over to the PC side. With esports blowing up in the States right now, there's a demand to be able to play and consume that content. This is almost entirely new demand -- we've never seen megascale gaming events in the US until now, with MLG and similar arenas on the rise. It'll be interesting to see, but I don't see PCs dying off, if anything with the advent of the pro esports seen it seems to be ramping up right now, especially if DotA2 really takes off upon launch.

I also think a point should be made about Star Citizen: The game is getting a LOT of attention from the gaming communities. I would say it's going to be a really big seller, or at the very least, incredibly profitable. I doubt they are going to spend much money on an ad campaign, the word is already out about it. By going direct to gamers, they're cutting a lot of middlemen costs out. Also it should be noted that PC games do not necessarily have to sell out in the first week to do well -- there are plenty of titles that gain steam as they move forward and end up being mega-hits by the mid-point of their life cycle, as more rigs and people upgrade or find themselves able to build a budget system to run it.

Well, I'm all up for more competition. I think all the mobile game stuff, especially at the pricepoint it's at, also cannibalized some of the console market. If it pushes the console companies to price their hardware cheaper and game prices get driven down, count me in.

[Cry Havoc]

See this is what I talked about. We can go forever at this.

I posted two articles. One going back two years and another going back like 6 months. You"re making it out to be like it was decades ago.

Yes. And two years ago the PS3 was already aging. Do you realize how long of a timespan 2 years is in technology? No, of course you don't, by your own admission.


And since it is a moot point according to you then why do you keep bringing it up?

Be...cause you're trying to pass nonsense off as fact, and then when someone calls you out on it, you switch to, "Well we each have our opinions and there's no right or wrong here! Derp!"


Let's go over some of the things you've said:


PCs are memory hogs.

This is not an opinion. It's a poorly stated fact with no relative values assigned to it. It's false by the very nature of how you phrased it.


You have to have a second PC designated for gaming. You cant use it for anything else.

Unequivocally false. Absolutely no merit or truth in this comment. None.


No I mean, when you have the game on you better not have anything else running or it will slow to a crawl.

Completely false. I often have GAMES running in tandem in addition to music and web browsers, sometimes even streaming TV or Netflix with very little frame rate drops if at all. My system wasn't even top of the line when I built it in January of 2011.


You're right, it absolutely does. But neither take more than a 2 minutes, tops. The updates aren't even 2mbs.

We've established how far you off on this point. 2mb isn't enough to update a sound file in most games. Let alone a texture pack or an engine patch.


The PS3 its still an untapped console in terms of the full potential the hardware has to offer. Developers words not mine. Look it up if you want.

Most consoles will never be fully tapped in their lifespan, the same as most 4 cylinder engines will never be as efficient as possible. It's possible to squeeze more out of the PS3, but it's ENORMOUSLY expensive to do so, and even then you will not come close to the horsepower of a PC game today. It's over. Every else sees this. Why can't you?


I'm not going to hook my computer to the TV screen to play a game I can just as easily play by turning on a power buttom without having to go to trials and tribulations.

Modern video cards have output detect + plug and play. You hook it up to your TV. It runs. Exactly the same as a console. Again, wrong.


I could come up with more false statements. These are not opinion based, and these are not something "we just need to come to an agreement on." Comprende?

-----


Also the PS3 has an automated downloading system that updates itself whenever an update becomes available.

I never said it didn't. Most people don't leave their consoles on 24/7, though.

[Reck]

My last post to you so read well..


Yes. And two years ago the PS3 was already aging. Do you realize how long of a timespan 2 years is in technology? No, of course you don't, by your own admission.

You seem to only pick and choose what suits you best. Why dont you include the article where a developer talks about how the PS3 has more to give and so on..that one was just 6 months ago.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/72771/heavy-rain-dev-shows-off-kara

Do yourself a favor and read that article and the video if you dont mind.



Be...cause you're trying to pass nonsense off as fact, and then when someone calls you out on it, you switch to, "Well we each have our opinions and there's no right or wrong here! Derp!"

What was nonsense and passed as fact? The game update being 5mb? No I said so and stand by it. If you called me on it then maybe you outta be the one who better do some fact checking.

How about some visual proof then..

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n38/reck24/2-1.jpg


http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n38/reck24/1-2.jpg

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n38/reck24/3.jpg

As you can see the game updates very much vary from 5mb to 60mb. Rarely ever over 100mb.




This is not an opinion. It's a poorly stated fact with no relative values assigned to it. It's false by the very nature of how you phrased it.

So PCs never uses memory, is taht what you're saying? This is hardly an opinion and most certainly is a fact.

See, you run multiple programs=computer uses more RAM=causes it to slow down.

Common knowledge as far as I'm concern.




Completely false. I often have GAMES running in tandem in addition to music and web browsers, sometimes even streaming TV or Netflix with very little frame rate drops if at all. My system wasn't even top of the line when I built it in January of 2011.

Ok at this point I'm assuming you are trolling or just plain ignorant.

I dont know how many times I've said that I used to play PC games in the mid 00s.

You cant tell me is not true when in fact I went through those issues myself.




We've established how far you off on this point. 2mb isn't enough to update a sound file in most games. Let alone a texture pack or an engine patch.

No actually. You've stablished that and obviously didn't know what you were talking about. Just see the above picture showing the updates.




Most consoles will never be fully tapped in their lifespan, the same as most 4 cylinder engines will never be as efficient as possible. It's possible to squeeze more out of the PS3, but it's ENORMOUSLY expensive to do so, and even then you will not come close to the horsepower of a PC game today. It's over. Every else sees this. Why can't you?

You just agreed with what I have been saying all alone so no more need be said about this.

The cost is of no concern to me. Room for improvement exists and that's all I was saying.



Modern video cards have output detect + plug and play. You hook it up to your TV. It runs. Exactly the same as a console. Again, wrong.


I could come up with more false statements. These are not opinion based, and these are not something "we just need to come to an agreement on." Comprende?

I didn't debate how a game runs or any of that. I said that it was a hassle to plug/unplug just to play a game on a PC with a big screen. How about buying a 40 inch monitor and problem solved?

What if I get an itch to play a game via my PC while watching a random channel on my TV? Just saying.

-----




I never said it didn't. Most people don't leave their consoles on 24/7, though.

LOL. The console doesn't need to be turned on 24/7 for the update to download.

You are so fast to go on the attack you forgot to do some basic research.

Later

[lefty]

SHadowflames hates everybody :lol

[leemajors]

sounds like a classic case of trying to play new games on old tech at default settings imo

[Cry Havoc]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/29008529.jpg

[Cry Havoc]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/29008746.jpg

[Cry Havoc]

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/29008875.jpg

[Reck]

sounds like a classic case of trying to play new games on old tech at default settings imo

Nah haven't attempted to play a PC game since those days.


http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/29008529.jpg

More fail. Avoiding the other two that clearly show the update being around 5mbs.

:lol going on personal attacks because he has no other arguement.

[Cry Havoc]

Nah haven't attempted to play a PC game since those days.



More fail. Avoiding the other two that clearly show the update being around 5mbs.

:lol going on personal attacks because he has no other arguement.

Dude. This argument ended before it started. You lack the ability to have rational discourse because you cannot comprehend basic facts.

[Reck]

Dude. This argument ended before it started. You lack the ability to have rational discourse because you cannot comprehend basic facts.

And you keep side stepping my counter points like the plague because you dont have any real response to it. :lmao

:cry but but the PC does automatic updates.

[Cry Havoc]

And you keep side stepping my counter points like the plague because you dont have any real response to it. :lmao

:cry but but the PC does automatic updates.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/001/582/picard-facepalm.jpg?1240934151

Yeah. I'm sidestepping your points. The ones you contradict yourself.

[Cry Havoc]

My last post to you so read well..


:lmao

[Reck]

Yeah. I'm sidestepping your points. The ones you contradict yourself.

ROFL You have been pathetically wrong about the PS3 everytime you bring something up and when I show you proof that clearly states otherwise you simply ignore it like you didn't even mentioned it. :lmao

:lol Bringing up the update debate and then saying is a moot point when I showed you the difference between system updates and game updates.

:lol Agreeing that developers can squeeze something out of the PS3 after saying it was already maxed out.

And I'm the one contradicting myself. :lmao

And sorry about replying back, I just couldn't help myself. :lmao

[Cry Havoc]

ROFL You have been pathetically wrong about the PS3 everytime you bring something up and when I show you proof that clearly states otherwise you simply ignore it like you didn't even mentioned it. :lmao

By all means, show me where I've been wrong.


:lol Bringing up the update debate and then saying is a moot point when I showed you the difference between system updates and game updates.

Be...cause your initial point was that you didn't need to update a Ps3 like a PC and therefore it was better? I know you're dense, but don't be fucking disingenuous.


:lol Agreeing that developers can squeeze something out of the PS3 after saying it was already maxed out.

No console or piece of hardware or piece of MACHINERY in the history of mankind has ever been "maxed out". There is no such thing as a 100% efficient machine, or if there it is completely out of our technological reach to achieve. The PS3 hit a wall long ago that now consists entirely of diminishing returns. You will not see any graphical leaps on the system left. It just won't happen. Therefore, for PRACTICAL PURPOSES, the system is maxed out. And has been for a long time. Using your logic, the original NES that came out in 1985 is still alive and thriving graphically, because it was never "maxed out". The fact that this needs to be explained to you is ridiculous, and every time you try to argue it with quotes from people who have a vested interest in making money from the system they are touting, you look more and more naive. No CEO or developer in gaming is going to talk about a console reaching the end of it's life, it's fiscally idiotic to do so.


And I'm the one contradicting myself. :lmao

Well, either that or you are unable to tell which is larger between 5 and 66. I don't know man, that's pretty tough to do.


And sorry about replying back, I just couldn't help myself. :lmao

Your idiocy is highly amusing, so by all means do continue to do so.

[Reck]

By all means, show me where I've been wrong.


I've personally seen system updates for my PS3 that were several gigabytes in data and took 20 minutes to download and install.

My reply to that post: Post #39

I clearly stated the difference between the two and showed you pictures of how big each updates are. There has never..and I mean never being an update up to the excess of a gigabyte's worth of content in ANY PS3 updates. EVER!

I even provided you with a direct link to the system updates.



Preposterous. The PS3 has long been completely tapped as a system. They have already maxed it out, or if they could squeeze a little more performance out of the engine it would be enormously expensive to do so. Why do you think cross-platform games look comparatively like crap on a console when compared to it's PC brethren?

Not only did you said it yourself but later on you went on to say that they can actually squeeze more out of the PS3. If that's not a contradiction then what is.



Because it's a moot point. The purpose of updates is to allow you to play games. You seem to think that Playstation's updates are nil time and much faster than PCs. I'm pointing out that it's simply not the case. Installs on PC vs Ps3 are comparable as are updating times. If anything, it's faster on PC because it's always on and therefore I get an update streamed to me at midnight instead of waiting after I turn the Ps3 on.

See my post http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203463&page=3&p=6158480&viewfull=1#post6158480

Clearly stating otherwise. Or do you need me to take a picture so I can show you.


We've established how far you off on this point. 2mb isn't enough to update a sound file in most games. Let alone a texture pack or an engine patch.

See pictures of the 5mb updates shown somewhere on this page. Nothing else to say. Pictures says all.


I never said it didn't. Most people don't leave their consoles on 24/7, though.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=203463&page=3&p=6159003&viewfull=1#post6159003




Most consoles will never be fully tapped in their lifespan, the same as most 4 cylinder engines will never be as efficient as possible. It's possible to squeeze more out of the PS3, but it's ENORMOUSLY expensive to do so, and even then you will not come close to the horsepower of a PC game today. It's over. Every else sees this. Why can't you?

I think that about covers your takes on the PS3.

As you can see, wrong.

You went from saying the PS3 wasn't tapped or maxxed out to yes they can get more out of it.

Dont be calling people dense when you cant even keep track of what you're even saying. :lol

[DMC]

Some games I prefer console and some I prefer PC. I have a high end PC and I've done a few things to it to make it even better, so games look and play pretty sweet. Mostly I like that I can do developer shit and fuck with the single player game. It adds life to an otherwise played out game. I am not into the death fests online since the end of the open terrain engines.

For AC, I prefer console because I know the commands and my TV is 60" and I can relax on the couch. Same for NBA games, just a smoother flow. I have a Logitech wireless controller for my PC but it's just not the same, the mapping isn't that great.

[symple19]

A good ole' PC vs Console argument. Gotta love it. Not much of an argument, though

lol consoles

[Cry Havoc]

A good ole' PC vs Console argument. Gotta love it. Not much of an argument, though

lol consoles

THEY HAVE SOME LIFE LEFT!

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Reck]

THEY HAVE SOME LIFE LEFT!

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Sup dude, why ya ducked my last post. :lmao

[Cry Havoc]

Sup dude, why ya ducked my last post. :lmao

Because it's pointless to argue with someone who has no clue what they are talking about. I should have realized that several pages ago like every other fucking poster on this board and just started laughing at you like they did.

[Reck]

Because it's pointless to argue with someone who has no clue what they are talking about. I should have realized that several pages ago like every other fucking poster on this board and just started laughing at you like they did.

Or maybe because you didnt have an answer.

Did you not say the ps3 had been maxxed out and later say the oposite? And were you not falsely saying the ps3 couldnt or didnt have a particular feature?

Yes or no questions btw.

I mean talk about being prententious. lol

[Cry Havoc]

Or maybe because you didnt have an answer.

Did you not say the ps3 had been maxxed out and later say the oposite? And were you not falsely saying the ps3 couldnt or didnt have a particular feature?

Yes or no questions btw.

I mean talk about being prententious. lol


Because it's pointless to argue with someone who has no clue what they are talking about. I should have realized that several pages ago like every other fucking poster on this board and just started laughing at you like they did.

[Reck]

AKA I have no response to your previous post about me being wrong about det PS3.

[Cry Havoc]

Nope, it's closer to:


Because it's pointless to argue with someone who has no clue what they are talking about. I should have realized that several pages ago like every other fucking poster on this board and just started laughing at you like they did.

[Reck]

Nope, it's closer to:

Then kindly answer the two very simple questions I asked.

Qouting your own post over and over just makes it clear you're avoiding them. Man the fuck up. :lol

[Cry Havoc]

Then kindly answer the two very simple questions I asked.

Qouting your own post over and over just makes it clear you're avoiding them. Man the fuck up. :lol

Says the guy who won't answer a single question in the past 5 pages.

Nope, it's a solid case of, "It's pointless to argue with someone who has no clue what they are talking about.".

[Reck]

Says the guy who won't answer a single question in the past 5 pages.

Nope, it's a solid case of, "It's pointless to argue with someone who has no clue what they are talking about.".

And which questions would those be? As far as I'm concerned I have responded to all your posts. If I missed a question then ask it.

I dont know why you just wont admit you were wrong about some of what you said about the PS3. You even lied.

Oh and BTW this thread is only 3 pages long.