Borderlands 2

[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 mother er and did all kinds of ery 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 bull DRM was (ie: can't play a single-player mode without being connected to some bull 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 nuts , 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 les). 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 mother er and did all kinds of ery for me.

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

Who the 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 . 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...

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 re ed. 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-...oo-pc-founder/

There are more studies about this, including from Microsoft testing cross-platform with their XBOX and Windows Live ( 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 on your console and it works fine? LOL!!

Who the 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 ty 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 . 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 360 OS. I can only imagine how ty 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 re ed. 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-...oo-pc-founder/

There are more studies about this, including from Microsoft testing cross-platform with their XBOX and Windows Live ( 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 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 ty set up btw) and use youtube and so on and it works just fine.

How is it a ty 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...

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

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 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.

[Reck]

Cry Havoc I dont know what the 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/...-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-muc...left-untapped/

http://www.computerandvideogames.com...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 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 mul ude 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/...-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-muc...left-untapped/

http://www.computerandvideogames.com...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 les. 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 les. 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 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.

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 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 bull 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 . big suprise. 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.

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.

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 ing 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.

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 les 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 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.

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 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.