# PS4 or Xbox One?



## Mosely22

Which are you getting and why?

still undecided....


----------



## Calin

Pc!!!


----------



## Mosely22

Ehhh, idk


----------



## PCunicorn

PC! Seriously. A awesome gaming PC can be bought for as much as a Xbox One.


----------



## Troncoso

That's nothing to do with the question. Will you two kids just go away?

I've already pre-ordered a PS4, just to stay on topic.


----------



## PCunicorn

Yes, I just came here to edit my post to say what I might be getting. And stop being such a ass hat, damn it! I may not do an awful lot, but at least I am not such an ass. I do use consoles occasionally. If I do go next Gen and sell my ps3, I will get a PS4 UNLESS the One drops in price, then I may look into it.


----------



## Shane

(If) i was to ever get one of the next gen consoles then it would probably be the PS4.

Although i doubt il get one to be honest.

Btw you should have a poll option for "Undecided 50/50"


----------



## lucasbytegenius

If I ever were to leave the holy order of the PC Master Race and become a console-buying peasant, I'd go with the PS4.


----------



## PCunicorn

lucasbytegenius said:


> If I ever were to leave the holy order of the PC Master Race and become a console-buying peasant, I'd go with the PS4.



Watch out, you will offend Tronsoco.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

PCunicorn said:


> Watch out, you will offend Tronsoco.


----------



## Troncoso

PCunicorn said:


> Watch out, you will offend Tronsoco.



Is that how my name is spelled?


----------



## PunterCam

I'll probably get the new xbox in a couple of years once it's priced down a bit and there are some games worth buying for it... Although actually, the PS3 had all the good exclusives as far as I was concerned. Maybe a PS4. Haven't really read up on them, but they'll be identical I'm sure. Certainly both very ugly. The Xbox looks very 80s. 

I'll treat my PC to a new video card in the meantime, and perhaps try to squeeze some more ram under the cpu fan. 

Got to say - aren't consoles great these days? My Xbox is 7 years old now, and I'm gasping at some of the visuals in GTA5. A proper life-span, which I hope the next-gen will match.


----------



## tech savvy

Xbox One. Community. OS/Features. Controller. kinect.


----------



## Okedokey

Xbox one, will be much better game support imo, plus you will be able to install windows 8 on it in no time.


----------



## Mosely22

PS4 is throwing in an hdmi cable, lol. im loving that little feature lol


----------



## Troncoso

Okedokey said:


> Xbox one, will be much better game support imo, plus you will be able to install windows 8 on it in no time.



.....Why is that a benefit? It completely ruins the point of buying a console in the first place. Who buys a console to turn it into a PC? Last I checked, PC's did a pretty good job of being a PC.

And I'm not even sure what "better game support" means. There are very few actual exclusives going towards either the Xbox 1 or the PS4. And even those exclusive will likely see their way to the other console and PC's later down the line.


----------



## Okedokey

Troncoso said:


> .....Why is that a benefit? It completely ruins the point of buying a console in the first place. Who buys a console to turn it into a PC? Last I checked, PC's did a pretty good job of being a PC.
> 
> And I'm not even sure what "better game support" means. There are very few actual exclusives going towards either the Xbox 1 or the PS4. And even those exclusive will likely see their way to the other console and PC's later down the line.



Well firstly the Xbox has always had better game support meaning, more developers and secondly directx will mean it will probably be better supported given its X86.

And on that topic, smartass, its never been an issue before since this is the first consoles running X86.  So yeah, putting windows on it to run a whole lot of extra applications will mean (because its windows based OS at least half the time) a better supported integration.  Essentially these consoles are just PCs with dumbed down OSs.

But why the Xbox will win this one?  One word:  DirectX.  Unlike previous incarnations, these consoles wont be coding to the metal.  So the familiar DirectX over some modified OpenGL will mean that more games and more support.  Also, running Windows as a separate interchangeable partition will be a bonus.

Also, who thinks it will only be a matter of time until the PC will run console games natively?


----------



## Calin

PCunicorn said:


> PC! Seriously. A awesome gaming PC can be bought for as much as a Xbox One.


Im going to buy one.


----------



## PCunicorn

Troncoso said:


> Is that how my name is spelled?



Nobody cares man. Frickin smart ass.




tech savvy said:


> Xbox One. Community. OS/Features. Controller. kinect.



I understand on all points except Kinect. Kinect is stupid IMO unless it's gotten better from the 360. And the One certainly isn't better in terms of price. Also, community was much better this Gen on the 360, but I think they will be very similar, espesically now that the PS4 is cheaper and more people are buying it and PS+ is better then XBL with the free games and such.


----------



## Calin

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!!
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Gran...hots-Details-Release-Date-Report-384561.shtml


----------



## Calin

Not only!!!
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Gran...nfirmed-by-Rockstar-s-iFruit-App-384261.shtml


----------



## PCunicorn

Hell yeah! Whoo! Though GTAV is one title I would almost perfer on a console because of the controller, and other things but if GTAV has modding support and is reasonably optimized (GTA IV anyone?) then I will take it.


----------



## Okedokey

PCunicorn said:


> PC! Seriously. A awesome gaming PC can be bought for as much as a Xbox One.



And this is plainly wrong, but I guess it depends on how you define awesome.  My CPU and one of my GPUs costs more than a PS4.


----------



## Troncoso

Okedokey said:


> Well firstly the Xbox has always had better game support meaning, more developers and secondly directx will mean it will probably be better supported given its X86.
> 
> And on that topic, smartass, its never been an issue before since this is the first consoles running X86.  So yeah, putting windows on it to run a whole lot of extra applications will mean (because its windows based OS at least half the time) a better supported integration.  Essentially these consoles are just PCs with dumbed down OSs.
> 
> But why the Xbox will win this one?  One word:  DirectX.  Unlike previous incarnations, these consoles wont be coding to the metal.  So the familiar DirectX over some modified OpenGL will mean that more games and more support.  Also, running Windows as a separate interchangeable partition will be a bonus.
> 
> Also, who thinks it will only be a matter of time until the PC will run console games natively?



Because the PS3 was definitely short of any decent titles. My point still stands. If you need to put another operating system on the machine to get its full value, then that's not saying good things about the machine. Not to mention you have that exact OS on an actual PC already, so I still don't see the benefit of having it on your console, too. The XBox 1 will be optimized to run what comes on the XBox 1. Not something that is designed to run on virtually unlimited different configurations.

Regardless, I buy a *game* console to play games, not run Windows or run extra apps. And if we really want to use that as leverage, I could also install Windows on a PS4 considering it's x86 architecture. Someone will do it, at least. And honestly, it'd be more likely. Sony was the one who originally included the functionality to install a separate OS on the PS3 without having to bypass the current OS in any way.


----------



## Okedokey

What are you talking about?  Comparing old consoles is absolutely useless.  

They're are now PCs.  They will run an API.  They will have hardware and (probably) software that runs natively on PCs too.  And, as I said, Direct X is by far more supported API, period.  And this will NOT be on PS4.

So saying PS3 had lots of games, doesn't correlate to the PS4 being supported more than the Xbox One, yet, having DirectX is arguably a reason for why Xbox ONe may have more game developers working on it.  It may be minor, but this is a discussion and a poll, and that is my view.  That's the point im making.  Your analogies to previous incarnations is completely pointless.


----------



## PCunicorn

Okedokey said:


> And this is plainly wrong, but I guess it depends on how you define awesome.  My CPU and one of my GPUs costs more than a PS4.



3 580s and a i7 wouldn't cost a ton more than a Xbox one. Also 3 580s and a i7 is complete overkill for gaming. Maybe $400 more, BUT monitors are cheaper than TVs. Maybe $325 for the GPUs, $150 for the CPU, $150 for the board, and $400 or so for other components. And "awesome" as in max out most games,which you can do with a $500 PC.


----------



## Troncoso

Okedokey said:


> What are you talking about?  Comparing old consoles is absolutely useless.
> 
> They're are now PCs.  They will run an API.  They will have hardware and (probably) software that runs natively on PCs too.  And, as I said, Direct X is by far more supported API, period.  And this will NOT be on PS4.
> 
> So saying PS3 had lots of games, doesn't correlate to the PS4 being supported more than the Xbox One, yet, having DirectX is arguably a reason for why Xbox ONe may have more game developers working on it.  It may be minor, but this is a discussion and a poll, and that is my view.  That's the point im making.  Your analogies to previous incarnations is completely pointless.



I didn't say anything about there being "more support". My point is that there is plenty of support for Playstation consoles, even if it's not more than the XBox. OpenGL is still very familiar compared to trying to work with the PS3's cell processor. So, that helps with support for the PS4. There will be no shortage of platinum titles for it, so it's not like PS4 owners will be missing out anymore than XBox 1 owners will be.

To say the XBox 1 has "more support" isn't saying much of anything. More devs building for it doesn't necessarily mean more quality games.



PCunicorn said:


> 3 580s and a i7 wouldn't cost a ton more than a Xbox one. Also 3 580s and a i7 is complete overkill for gaming. Maybe $400 more, BUT monitors are cheaper than TVs. Maybe $325 for the GPUs, $150 for the CPU, $150 for the board, and $400 or so for other components. And "awesome" as in max out most games,which you can do with a $500 PC.



What are you even talking about?


----------



## PCunicorn

Troncoso said:


> I didn't say anything about there being "more support". My point is that there is plenty of support for Playstation consoles, even if it's not more than the XBox. OpenGL is still very familiar compared to trying to work with the PS3's cell processor. So, that helps with support for the PS4. There will be no shortage of platinum titles for it, so it's not like PS4 owners will be missing out anymore than XBox 1 owners will be.
> 
> To say the XBox 1 has "more support" isn't saying much of anything. More devs building for it doesn't necessarily mean more quality games.
> 
> 
> 
> What are you even talking about?



Did it look like I was talking to you?


----------



## Troncoso

It's a forum. If it's suppose to be a 2 person conversation, go IM him.


----------



## PCunicorn

He quoted me, and I responded. Why would you ask what I was talking about?


----------



## Okedokey

PCunicorn said:


> 3 580s and a i7 wouldn't cost a ton more than a Xbox one. Also 3 580s and a i7 is complete overkill for gaming. Maybe $400 more, BUT monitors are cheaper than TVs. Maybe $325 for the GPUs, $150 for the CPU, $150 for the board, and $400 or so for other components. And "awesome" as in max out most games,which you can do with a $500 PC.



Dude, seriously what?  Everything you postulate here is wrong.  Please, before you even go there, have you got ANY experience in hardware of this calibre?  Or maxing out games, because seriously, you are talking as though you don't.

To max out games (even at 1080p) you need a $200 plus graphics card and $200 plus CPU.  Please show me how you fit the rest of a computer in the last 100 bucks.  You cannot.

A GTX580 new was nearly $600 each.  Still are (~$400 - $600).  Yes you can get them second hand for cheaper, but that's not what we're talking about.

Also, on the overkill statement, having 3 of them is essential is you want to game (ultra settings in BF4 or BF3 and so on) at 5760 x 1080 as I do.  Also what is essential is a motherboard and CPU that can handle that.  Mine was over $350 for the mobo and again for the CPU.

How much is a Xbox One?  $600?  that's 1/3 of my GPU costs alone, let alone the rest.


----------



## PCunicorn

Okedokey said:


> Dude, seriously what?  Everything you postulate here is wrong.  To max out games  you need a $200 plus graphics card and $200 plus CPU.  Please show me how you fit the rest of a computer in the last 100 bucks.  You cannot.
> 
> A GTX580 new was nearly $600 each.  Still are.  Having 3 of them is essential is you want to game at 5760 x 1080 as I do.  Also what is essential is a motherboard that can handle that.  Mine was over $350.
> 
> How much is a Xbox One?  $600?  that's 1/3 of my GPU costs.



Yeah 2 years ago. You can get 3 580s today for $325 used, but that's all you will be able to find them. Consoles don't game at 5760x1080. I was calculating based on your build which could be found for $600 used. $600 could get you a 7850 (XBox one level approximately) And a FX 6300 (XBox one level approximately agian). Also something I don't understand, are you on the pc or XBox or ps4 side of the fence? I can't tell.


----------



## Okedokey

Build me a new computer (like the PS4 - new) computer (including mouse and keyboard, windows, excluding monitor) that is based on the 7850 and the FX6300 that will max out BF4 at 1080p for $600.

You cannot.  And don't side-step the question with nonsense.   

You said:



PCunicorn said:


> PC! Seriously. A awesome gaming PC can be bought for as much as a Xbox One.



Which is total and utter BS.

The rest of your assertions are purely ridiculous.  Seriously, you shouldn't be giving anyone build advice, because you don't have the experience or the knowledge.  Period.


----------



## voyagerfan99

Take it somewhere else guys and stop detracting from OP's thread


----------



## ian

These poll results seem to reflect what the people I have spoken to have said.
The few people that I spoke to said they would be getting a PS4, that includes people who currently have an xbox.


----------



## spirit

Not going to buy either since I have an Xbox 360 which I am happy with for the odd game (Forza, Burnout and various KiNect games) and I play most of my games on the PC now, but if I were to buy one of the new consoles I'd probably look at the PS4, so I voted for that.

Biggest reason is cost. I've just had a look on Amazon and seen that the PS4 is £349 pre-ordered (since it comes out here in the UK on the 29th) and the Xbox One is £430 pre-ordered.

I do prefer the Xbox controller but I could probably get used to a PlayStation controller. 

Most games will be available on both so that wouldn't bother me, unless there was a specific exclusive I wanted. I could probably live without Forza because I'd play GT instead.


----------



## Punk

Calin said:


> Pc!!!





PCunicorn said:


> PC! Seriously. A awesome gaming PC can be bought for as much as a Xbox One.



Oh go play somewhere else with your PCs...


----------



## speedx77x

Well i'm happy with my PS4 and i own a decent PC so Im happy. And i'll always prefer Consoles over PC


----------



## Aastii

PCunicorn said:


> 3 580s and a i7 wouldn't cost a ton more than a Xbox one. Also 3 580s and a i7 is complete overkill for gaming. Maybe $400 more, BUT monitors are cheaper than TVs. Maybe $325 for the GPUs, $150 for the CPU, $150 for the board, and $400 or so for other components. And "awesome" as in max out most games,which you can do with a $500 PC.



Everyone already has a TV though, so it isn't an extra expense really. Few people buy a TV just for a console.

I would like to see a $500 PC that can max out even most games, especially those that will come out with the next gen consoles. With the exception of a handful of games, all games on PC are console ports, so are held back by the limitations of now age old technology. Now that we have more up to date technology being the limitation there will be a huge fall off for what a cheap system will do.

Also, if you decide to post again with seemingly the only reason for your post being to try to belittle someone else or to call names infractions will be issued. It is not the first time there has been this problem with you, see this as a friendly (and last) warning to stop. If you do not like what Troncoso posts, don't reply, but when you reply and it is infact yourself that is being the tool, not him, that is not on.



When the prices come down I will probably end up with both. Which do I look forward to more though? Honestly the Xbox, but just because I like the Xbox controllers much better. I love my PS3, but for playing games the controllers are shocking compared to what MS offer with the 360, and it is near identical designs for both with the PS4 and One.

Plus now that FF15 is on One as well as PS4 I am all the more excited for it  I was close to getting a PS3 at launch just for FF13VS, which of course didn't come and is now XV, so it worked out ok. Now when it comes out, that is most likely when I will end up with one


----------



## Darren

That's my main concern with the new line of consoles, my computer will quickly deteriorate in the ability to play games at higher settings. My computer is basically the same specs as the new PS4 so that's hopefully a good sign. I didn't really even plan on that but it came out that way. 

I'd buy the PS4 but I have no need.


----------



## PCunicorn

While I love PCs, I can't wait to get my PS4


----------



## Punk

You can always buy a controller for PC BUT like everyone said, and we've had that discussion before, consoles are better for gaming at a given price.

If I should choose between the two, I'll get the PS4. Why? Because I've never liked Xbox and the fact that you have to pay in order to play online...


----------



## PCunicorn

You have to pay in order to play online with the PS4 now too. Kinda sucks but at least you get free games with Playstation Plus, which is what you buy to play online. And I already have a controller for the PC, that's not the reason I want a PS4. It's because, well I really don't know lol. I just want one  The reason I am not getting a XB1 is because it;s more expensive (and I could care less about Kinect) and they really screwed up in the beginning with the DRM. It's not because I am some crazy fan boy, they both  have there pros and cons. The XB1 also has some awesome exclusives like Titanfall (but the PC has that) and Forza. Don't care to much about the others except maybe Dead Rising 3. But the PS4 has Gran Turismo, Killzone, and Infamous, and whatever Naughty Dog puts out. And that PS4 looks so much more sexy


----------



## Punk

PCunicorn said:


> You have to pay in order to play online with the PS4 now too.



Oh woow didn't know that :O.

Then neither of them, but if I had to choose I'll get the PS4 since I've been used to PS consoles...


----------



## Geoff

Still debating what one to get, seems like a lot of my friends are on the fence too :/


----------



## spirit

Denther said:


> That's my main concern with the new line of consoles, my computer will quickly deteriorate in the ability to play games at higher settings. My computer is basically the same specs as the new PS4 so that's hopefully a good sign. I didn't really even plan on that but it came out that way.



I really wouldn't worry too much. Your CPU will be fine for years to come and the graphics card, whilst it won't 'last' as long as your CPU in terms of playing the latest games, can easily be replaced. By the time it needs upgrading, there will be something far better than the 7850 on sale which is will cost about the same or less.

I'm still on a 5870 - a card from 4 years ago - and playing games fine. Granted, the newest game I play is from 2011, but I reckon I could still the newest games at close to highest settings at 1080p. 

But back on topic, I would probably get the PS4 as I've said. I think the cost difference alone will mean a lot of people will be buying a PS4 this Christmas over the Xbox One.


----------



## JLuchinski

Wow, a lot of PS4's are having issues with overheating due to bad thermal paste. Will be interesting to see how the XBO does. I think I'm going to wait at least a year and see what games are out and hopefully by then all of the hardware issues are sorted out as well.


----------



## PCunicorn

I heard it was 0.4 percent. Wouldn't really call that "a lot"


----------



## speedx77x

I hate the dualshock 4's thumb sticks i rush i a lot in Call of duty and in any other shooter, so i constantly have to keep on pressing them which hurts, and the texture on the back makes my hands sweat. Guess it's time to invest in a custom controller.


----------



## Calibretto

Definitely the Xbox One. The entertainment features look a lot more enticing.


----------



## PCunicorn

Calibretto said:


> Definitely the Xbox One. The entertainment features look a lot more enticing.



If I really cared about TV I would choose the XB1 too.


----------



## linkin

PC Gaming master race, and all that.


----------



## Punk

linkin said:


> PC Gaming master race, and all that.



Dude seriously, it's getting old


----------



## Geoff

Calibretto said:


> Definitely the Xbox One. The entertainment features look a lot more enticing.


Personal preference.  For me, Xbox and Playstations are gaming consoles.  I buy them to game, not browse the internet or stream videos.


----------



## Calibretto

WRXGuy1 said:


> Personal preference.  For me, Xbox and Playstations are gaming consoles.  I buy them to game, not browse the internet or stream videos.



Understandable. I used the 360 to stream Netflix, MLB.tv, ESPN, etc., as well as play games, so when I'm looking for a gaming console, I like one that can act as a great set-top box as well.


----------



## Troncoso

The PS4 also streams video from various sources, if that was really a system seller. And you don't have to have a subscription through the console to use services you already have a subscription for.


----------



## Geoff

Troncoso said:


> The PS4 also streams video from various sources, if that was really a system seller. And you don't have to have a subscription through the console to use services you already have a subscription for.


That's a big one.  With Xbox you need the paid version of Xbox live to use Netflix, YouTube, etc.  I bought a Chromecast for $35 so I can use that to stream videos.


----------



## Troncoso

My Vita can't seem to remote to my PS4 from work. That's been my only disappointment with the PS4 so far.


----------



## jevery

Three days and counting for the Xbox.  While I could actually care a less that the Xbox interfaces with television, I'll give it a try - Could be worthwhile if it lives up to claims.  My vice is Forza racing and my Son's a COD fanatic.  Don't really know what to expect as far as graphical improvement. I'll report a review in a week.


----------



## beers

I'd go with the PS4 simply for having more GPU hardware resources on that version of the APU they are using.  It's a big difference.

I had a preorder but cancelled it, just needing some games to come out like Gran Turismo and then I'm sold 

The policy reversal and mentality of MS seemed to piss a lot of people off though, myself included.


----------



## zeppelin04

I bought the ps4.  No regrets.  I will admit it was largely due the daily DRM checks and constant on kinect. I know a lot of this was sorted out over summer but it left me with a sour feeling towards the new Xbox.  Saving one hundred dollars was a big deal too.


----------



## G80FTW

Okedokey said:


> Well firstly the Xbox has always had better game support meaning, more developers



Firstly, Im not sure thats true. Playstation has had developers long before the Xbox was even thought of.  Secondly, even if that was the case, more developers does not mean BETTER developers.  

I bought into the Xbox when it first came out, ditched my PS2 and never bought a playstation again. Had my 360 forever and loved it.  Bought a PS3 early this year, have loved it even more. The PS3 had far better developers than the 360.  Naughty Dog is probably the best console developer out there IMO in terms of graphic quality and gameplay.  

It actually made me regret not getting the PS3 sooner. I still have yet to see the PS4, wont be getting it anytime soon as I have other priorities, but I am going with it because not only are my friends going with it but me and them had a long debate about which console to go with and we all ended up deciding on the PS4 because not only of its price but the exclusive titles that will be on it and the fact that Sony didnt try to dick us like Microsoft did.



WRXGuy1 said:


> Still debating what one to get, seems like a lot of my friends are on the fence too :/



You getting the PS4 Geoff so we can play GTA5 together


----------



## linkin

Punk said:


> Dude seriously, it's getting old



Consoles are old from the moment they are released


----------



## Punk

linkin said:


> Consoles are old from the moment they are released



The fact that you're VIP and saying this is actually scary. Have you read the thread? Unicorn and some other member already went down that path, and that discussion has been done more than once already.

This is about PS4 and Xbox1 so if you want to talk about your "PC Master race" or whatever feel free to start a thread.


----------



## Okedokey

Punk said:


> The fact that you're VIP and saying this is actually scary. Have you read the thread? Unicorn and some other member already went down that path, and that discussion has been done more than once already.
> 
> This is about PS4 and Xbox1 so if you want to talk about your "PC Master race" or whatever feel free to start a thread.



I take exception to your post, not only because its pointless, but also because its wrong.  The PS4 and the Xbox ARE PCs.  So the comparison with PCs is completely fair.  Back in the day when the architecture, cpu and instruction set were different you'd be right, but these 'console' are merely underpowered X86 PCs with a good price point and some dedicated developers.  That's not a bad thing.  It is certainly better than the bollocks that came before it and the flow-through effect on PC gaming where even with much much better hardware we were stuck with dumb-arse console ports.

In fact beyond the hype, its no different to arguing over Dell or Lenovo, vs Apple or any other machine.   They're X86, they're PCs.

At the moment ill agree, very hard to build a PC that is better for the same price, but that is a new phenomenon.  But id rather spend twice as much on hardware and enjoy half as many games (same overall budget) -only at max settings.

Its also true, they're out of date, un-upgradable (for the parts that matter) and slower from day 1. Fact.  This is not about master race, this is about a PC in fancy clothing pretending to be something else...

If I had to choose id choose xbox1, as it will always (in time) have more development funding due to DirectX.  Just my opinion.


----------



## Punk

Okedokey said:


> I take exception to your post, not only because its pointless, but also because its wrong.  The PS4 and the Xbox ARE PCs.  So the comparison with PCs is completely fair.  Back in the day when the architecture, cpu and instruction set were different you'd be right, but these 'console' are merely underpowered X86 PCs with a good price point and some dedicated developers.  That's not a bad thing.  It is certainly better than the bollocks that came before it and the flow-through effect on PC gaming where even with much much better hardware we were stuck with dumb-arse console ports.
> 
> In fact beyond the hype, its no different to arguing over Dell or Lenovo, vs Apple or any other machine.   They're X86, they're PCs.
> 
> At the moment ill agree, very hard to build a PC that is better for the same price, but that is a new phenomenon.  But id rather spend twice as much on hardware and enjoy half as many games (same overall budget) -only at max settings.
> 
> Its also true, they're out of date, un-upgradable (for the parts that matter) and slower from day 1. Fact.  This is not about master race, this is about a PC in fancy clothing pretending to be something else...
> 
> If I had to choose id choose xbox1, as it will always (in time) have more development funding due to DirectX.  Just my opinion.



Name of thread:



> PS4 or Xbox One?



This isn't about PC.

So my post is pointless, then, thank you for encouraging off topic. This isn't about which between consoles and PC is best, this about which one between Xbox1 and PS4 you would choose.


----------



## Troncoso

Wow. "They're x86, they're PCs". Do you know what a PC is? It's a Personal Computer. Do you know what a Personal Computer is? It's a general-purpose computer. Do you know what a game console is not? A general purpose computer. A smart phone is closer to a PC than a game console.

The fact that you use the hardware in each to try and say they are the same sounds extremely ignorant. This topic is about the 2 games consoles. Talking about PC's would be considered off topic.


----------



## Okedokey

Wow some epic fails here.

*Get the facts straight mate.  Metaphorically, by your definition, a Taxi is not a car.*

To keep it concise, each block is numbered...

1. FOREVER the console has been a gaming pc alternative.  Now that it is a X86 COMPUTER (FOR THE FIRST TIME)  it is essentially, no, actually exactly the same as a PC.  The thread may be called PS4 vs Xbox1, however it is not myself that brought the PC elite comment into this.  Nor did I smash another member for it.  Just because it isn't in the poll, doesn't make it off limits (justification below), there are no rules to that.  Several members have spoken about pcs here, the majority of threads here are about pcs, and the basic and irrefutable fact is that consoles, now, are actually PCs.

2. Secondly I answered the OP question also, saying that an Xbox will be the best choice given DirectX support.  *So im completely on topic.*
HARDWARE IS EVERYTHING unless you want to talk about marketing.  OMG. really.

3. Talking about PCs is not considered off topic, as a Mac, is a different OS than a Windows machine, however it is STILL X86!!! FFS!  Beyond marketing, is a mac not a PC? If a PC is not defined by x86 then is it defined by its OS???  If that's the case then the Xbox1 uses a version of Windows... so what is your definition?



Troncoso said:


> Wow. "They're x86, they're PCs". Do you know what a PC is? It's a Personal Computer. Do you know what a Personal Computer is? It's a general-purpose computer. Do you know what a game console is not? A general purpose computer. A smart phone is closer to a PC than a game console.



4. and this ^ has to be one of the worst, least thought out comments in CF history.  

5. Its only YOUR definition that a PC is a 'general purpose' computer.  LOL  WOW  

FYI

6. PC = personal computer, originally, a computer that runs on intel based architecture (IBM) - what is that ??? X86.  Same now as AMD.

7. Smart phones ARE NOT X86!  And neither were consoles UNTIL NOW!

8. Yes, the choice is between ps4 and xbox, however if you are going to talk down to someone based on their view that a PC is better, and then say that is not part of the equation , you are wrong, because by buying a PS4, or and Xbox1, you are buying a PC.  Fact.

9. Xbox and PS4 are a gaming hardware platform.  If they're all x86, and a PC is by its most purest definition x86, then a xbox, or a ps4 is a PC.  Why, because if you understand this, x86 is very very specific to pc.  The xbox and the ps4 are essentially pc hardware, in a box, with a sticker on it saying either xbox or ps4.

My point is, yelling down at Unicorn because he says something is good on a pc, is virtually dumb, as they're ALL PCs!  Christ, the Xbox1 runs ~Windows and DirectX.

The childish definition of 'console' can thankfully stop as they're all x86 computers, running games.  Period.


----------



## Troncoso

By your definition, once we put an x86 processor in a microwave, it's a personal computer.
The original purpose of  "personal computer" was a marketing term to distinguish an intel based machines. That's not how it's used anymore. To be technical, since you don't like my definition:



> a small computer designed for use by one person at home or in an office



Courtesy of Merriam-Webster. You'll find that same definition in various locations.

If we go off of that, we can already distinguish game consoles, as they are designed to be used by one *or more* people at a time.

At the end of the day, regardless of your definition of whatever, the thread is about two very specific products. Not all products that use the same CPU as they do.

No one is talking down to people because they prefer a regular computer over a gaming console. It's because that's not part of the discussion.


----------



## Geoff

linkin said:


> Consoles are old from the moment they are released


Yet 3, 6, 9 years down the road they still play the new games that are out.  It's not bad paying $400 once every 5-10 years for a gaming machine that works.


----------



## PCunicorn

WRXGuy1 said:


> Yet 3, 6, 9 years down the road they still play the new games that are out.  It's not bad paying $400 once every 5-10 years for a gaming machine that works.



Yup. You can spend $1000 today, and get a machine that will play games on the same settings a PS4 plays them for the next few years for $400.


----------



## G80FTW

WRXGuy1 said:


> Yet 3, 6, 9 years down the road they still play the new games that are out.  It's not bad paying $400 once every 5-10 years for a gaming machine that works.



I have to point out The Last of Us.  Pretty much the best looking game for the previous gen consoles and its quality was near that of Crysis 3 on PC. And yet 8 year old hardware was playing it just fine.  It shows that hardware is really only as good as the software made for it. And thats where consoles have always had an advantage over PCs. But now that consoles are becoming more like a PC in terms of design it will make it all that much better for PC gamers and console gamers.


----------



## Darren

G80FTW said:


> I have to point out The Last of Us.  Pretty much the best looking game for the previous gen consoles and its quality was near that of Crysis 3 on PC. .



Lemme just stop you right there. No.

I saw the Last of Us played on a 1080p projector screen that covered an entire wall and played Crysis 3 on med/high on my 20 inch monitor. Crysis 3 looked leagues better.


----------



## G80FTW

Denther said:


> Lemme just stop you right there. No.
> 
> I saw the Last of Us played on a 1080p projector screen that covered an entire wall and played Crysis 3 on med/high on my 20 inch monitor. Crysis 3 looked leagues better.



Well if your watching the last of us on a screen that covers an entire wall its probably going to look pretty jaggy with the lack of AA that PC can offer   But as far as texture resolution goes, it pretty much has the best on console and some textures are even better than those on Crysis 3.  I have both games. And yes Crysis 3 does look better, and it should. But leagues, no.  If Crytek had in fact made use of displacement mapping like they claimed to have then yes it would have been worlds better. But they didnt. Crytek cut back so much on the game that it was almost disappointing.


----------



## Okedokey

Troncoso said:


> By your definition, once we put an x86 processor in a microwave, it's a personal computer.
> The original purpose of  "personal computer" was a marketing term to distinguish an intel based machines. That's not how it's used anymore. To be technical, since you don't like my definition:
> 
> 
> 
> Courtesy of Merriam-Webster. You'll find that same definition in various locations.
> 
> If we go off of that, we can already distinguish game consoles, as they are designed to be used by one *or more* people at a time.
> 
> At the end of the day, regardless of your definition of whatever, the thread is about two very specific products. Not all products that use the same CPU as they do.
> 
> No one is talking down to people because they prefer a regular computer over a gaming console. It's because that's not part of the discussion.



Ok, well that must be up there with the weakest argument ever.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.  For the first time ever, consoles are using X86 hardware, PC Hardware in other words, and at least in the case of the xbox, Windows derivative.

That means they're directly comparable for the first time.

That means when discussing the differences (which are very very few), its natural to discuss gaming pcs, which are, x86, same hardware, and same games. 

Again, unless you think a taxi is not a car....

Either way, the xbox will lose battles but win the ultimate war.


----------



## Okedokey

G80FTW said:


> I have to point out The Last of Us.  Pretty much the best looking game for the previous gen consoles and its quality was near that of Crysis 3 on PC. And yet 8 year old hardware was playing it just fine.  It shows that hardware is really only as good as the software made for it. And thats where consoles have always had an advantage over PCs. But now that consoles are becoming more like a PC in terms of design it will make it all that much better for PC gamers and console gamers.



Yeah, that's just nonsense.


----------



## Okedokey

WRXGuy1 said:


> Yet 3, 6, 9 years down the road they still play the new games that are out.  It's not bad paying $400 once every 5-10 years for a gaming machine that works.



That's the same as saying, yeah, get a fat ugly girlfriends, she'll still love you in 10 years, and be fatter.


----------



## Punk

Okedokey said:


> That's the same as saying, yeah, get a fat ugly girlfriends, she'll still love you in 10 years, and be fatter.



To be honest, I don't see the point you're trying to make. Beauty is subjective, we're being objective here...

An since most of your arguments consists of saying other's are nonsense, weak, or wrong, you've just proven how good your argumentation is. Yeah I can be condescending too.


----------



## G80FTW

Okedokey said:


> Yeah, that's just nonsense.







Show me an 8 year old PC that can produce that kind of graphic quality at 30FPS.  Because you wont find one. To say its nonsense shows your ignorance of how computers work.

Let me also point out that this is running on basically a 7800GTX GPU. Which wouldnt even be able to run Crysis 1 that well if it was in a PC. Its ALL about the software.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

G80FTW said:


> Show me an 8 year old PC that can produce that kind of graphic quality at 30FPS.  Because you wont find one. To say its nonsense shows your ignorance of how computers work.



Show me a console that actually renders that high-quality of an image on a TV, because I guarantee you won't find one. That's computer-generated art you posted, not an actual gameplay screenshot.


----------



## G80FTW

lucasbytegenius said:


> Show me a console that actually renders that high-quality of an image on a TV, because I guarantee you won't find one. That's computer-generated art you posted, not an actual gameplay screenshot.



Ok. Whatever. I own the game and have beat it twice but what do i know. That is actual in game footage. Not a cgi cutscene, which everything in the game is rendered by the console so yea people need to do some res learch bee spouting bs. If you want you can google more screenshots from the game that look just like that.

And sorry im on my phone and its the worse phone in the world to type with.


----------



## Aastii

Hate to break it to you mate, but Lucas is right 











Flat textures on the clothes, hairs are flat textures, not near enough each individually rendered as in your screenshot, jaggies, jaggies everywhere... It is a rendered cutscene.

Also, back at the launch of the PS3 was the 8800GT and Conroe/Kentsfield time. Powerful compared to todays hardware? No, but it can still play games at 30FPS, in fact a lot of games from not too long ago look about the same as Last of Us, just look at CoD4 or MW2, graphics quality of in game is about the same and an 8800GT is maxing at 60FPS, not 30.

Granted, they were more expensive at the time, but everyone has a PC of some kind and back in 2005/2006 there was none of this tablet malarkey, so it really was either PC or laptop + console, so considering you only need one device, one display, one set of peripherals rather than all of those for the PC and then again for the console, the prices really are not too dissimilar, plus consider the prices of the games. £35 for a PC game at launch, £45-£55 for console with consoles only getting as low as around £10, whereas PC games get to single figures, sometimes even just pence... Over 7-8 years and a lot of games later, that is a big price difference


----------



## epidemik

Based on everything leading up to the launch, I was pretty set on the PS4. Now that they're out, the reviews of both consoles have been very underwhelming. That led me to realize that I still have a huge PS3 backlog and my PS3 will keep me entertained for at least another year, maybe two. I'll probably start looking at next gen at the start of summer 2015 and at that point, there will have been enough software updates and exclusive titles to determine which console is best tailored to what I want.


----------



## Punk

epidemik said:


> Based on everything leading up to the launch, I was pretty set on the PS4. Now that they're out, the reviews of both consoles have been very underwhelming. That led me to realize that I still have a huge PS3 backlog and my PS3 will keep me entertained for at least another year, maybe two. I'll probably start looking at next gen at the start of summer 2015 and at that point, there will have been enough software updates and exclusive titles to determine which console is best tailored to what I want.



That's rational thinking


----------



## PCunicorn

G80FTW said:


> Ok. Whatever. I own the game and have beat it twice but what do i know. That is actual in game footage. Not a cgi cutscene, which everything in the game is rendered by the console so yea people need to do some res learch bee spouting bs. If you want you can google more screenshots from the game that look just like that.
> 
> And sorry im on my phone and its the worse phone in the world to type with.



I have played The Last of Us. Lucas is right, just look at the screenshots Aastii posted.


----------



## G80FTW

PCunicorn said:


> I have played The Last of Us. Lucas is right, just look at the screenshots Aastii posted.



Haha. Dude i have the game. Iv played through it twice. I never said it looked BETTER than crysis 3 i said it was pretty close. Yes it has its share of low res textures in places, but the majority of them are high resolution. And just look at the poly count on the characters, they look better than the characters rendered in crysis 3. I dont know how you guys dont think those screens dont look amazing for an 8 year console. No 8 year old pc could do that and that was my whole entire point proven.

Also the 8800 was not out in 2005 it was the 7800 that was top end. And no, a 7800GTX in a PC could not do that.  Your blind if you think COD MW2 looks remotely as good as the last of us.  I cant even believe its being compared to that. Thats almost a joke.

And there no prerendered cutscenes in the last of us. It is all rendered from the console. How do the details on the screen I posted differ from the details seen in the other ones posted? If they are pre-rendered, then I dont even know why they bothered since there is no change in the graphic quality going from a cutscene to gameplay. Iv played through the game, and believe me thats the first thing I analyzed.


----------



## PCunicorn

I dont care how many times you beat it through. I half beat it and then got my PC. If you really want to start comparing it to Crysis, we can. The Last of Us looks a little better then Crysis 1. Crysis 2 looks much better. And Crysis 3 absolutley destroys TLoU in terms of graphics quality. All these are playable maxed oout a $750 machine. $350 more than a PS3, yes, but most people can afford it.


----------



## Punk

PCunicorn said:


> maxed oout a $750 machine. $350 more than a PS3, yes, but most people can afford it.



Woow yes I can get 750$ out of my account anytime... Don't worry you'll grow up and have to pay rent, food, gas and bills. You'll see if you can afford it. Price is really important on this, you've almost doubled the price of the PS4, said anyone could afford it just to say a PC can run this game at this res... I can't agree with you.


----------



## Okedokey

Punk said:


> Woow yes I can get 750$ out of my account anytime... Don't worry you'll grow up and have to pay rent, food, gas and bills. You'll see if you can afford it. Price is really important on this, you've almost doubled the price of the PS4, said anyone could afford it just to say a PC can run this game at this res... I can't agree with you.



There is absolutely no doubt that PC graphics destroy consoles, always have, always will.  Even today, the PS4 is not going to play 90+FPS at 5760x1080 BF4 ULTRA.  Never will.  But PCs will today.  My point being, is that yes, that consoles are PCs, just slow and mediocre ones.  That is fine if that is all you want.  The rest of the discussions is just dumb.


----------



## Aastii

G80FTW said:


> Haha. Dude i have the game. Iv played through it twice. I never said it looked BETTER than crysis 3 i said it was pretty close. Yes it has its share of low res textures in places, but the majority of them are high resolution. And just look at the poly count on the characters, they look better than the characters rendered in crysis 3. I dont know how you guys dont think those screens dont look amazing for an 8 year console. No 8 year old pc could do that and that was my whole entire point proven.
> 
> Also the 8800 was not out in 2005 it was the 7800 that was top end. And no, a 7800GTX in a PC could not do that.  Your blind if you think COD MW2 looks remotely as good as the last of us.  I cant even believe its being compared to that. Thats almost a joke.
> 
> And there no prerendered cutscenes in the last of us. It is all rendered from the console. How do the details on the screen I posted differ from the details seen in the other ones posted? If they are pre-rendered, then I dont even know why they bothered since there is no change in the graphic quality going from a cutscene to gameplay. Iv played through the game, and believe me thats the first thing I analyzed.



The PS3 was not out in 2005 either  Just like the GeForce 8 series, it was out in 2006/2007, depending on where you are in the world. You also seem to be mistaking a 7800 for the top card in the 7 series, forgetting completely about the 7950.

Nobody said that you said it was better than Crysis either, nor did anyone say that it looked bad for a 7 year old console (not 8), the fact of the matter is that there is a huge difference between the shot you put and the in game. The hair is less detailed, the clothes less detailed, the faces less detailed, there are more jaggies, I don't know how you cannot see that.

A 7 year old system (Q6600, 8800GT, 4GB DDR2) would play games like that no problem at 30 FPS and more, just go and look at Crysis 1 as an example, an 8800GT, or if you want to be more pedantic about release dates, an 8800GTS, would run Crysis no problem at medium-high settings, which is as good or better than the graphics in The Last of Us.

You are not the only person on this planet that has played any of these games, so you can carry on repeating over and over that you have played the games, it gives you no more authority on the matter than anyone else because guess what, I have too and so have a lot of others, and even if they had not, videos are readily available to people to see for themselves. When everyone else that has played the game is then saying it is not all that graphically and you are the only one saying it is, does that not make you question whether you are right or wrong?

The problem that we have is lazy developers. We have so much more grunt now on PC's compared to relatively ancient hardware that is in the previous gen consoles that developers do not need to optimize code when porting over, they can keep it sloppy and inefficient and we can still max it out. If they put any modicum of time and effort into porting it over, people could very easily sit on their systems from 7 years ago and wouldn't have to upgrade as often.


With regards to price, PC gaming is cheaper, just not with the initial investment. You start off out of pocket but once you factor in the price difference in games and the fact that you are offsetting some of that cost by only needing one PC to game and use as a PC, instead of two, a PC for a PC and a console for games, the prices start to swing in favour of computers rather than consoles.

As Punk said though, people cannot just fork out nearly double the price as and when, you have to plan large investments like that unless you are fortunate enough to be rolling in it, so that large initial sum could very easily be a deal breaker


----------



## Punk

Okedokey said:


> There is absolutely no doubt that PC graphics destroy consoles, always have, always will.  Even today, the PS4 is not going to play 90+FPS at 5760x1080 BF4 ULTRA.  Never will.  But PCs will today.  My point being, is that yes, that consoles are PCs, just slow and mediocre ones.  That is fine if that is all you want.  The rest of the discussions is just dumb.



Ok I'll say the same thing in another way for you to see how dumb our argument is (yeah I can say that too...):

"There is absolutely no doubt that Ferrari speed destroy 4*4 Jeep, always have, always will.  Even today, the new Jeep is not going to go at 250 KM/H.  Never will.  But Ferraris will today.  My point being, is that yes, that 4*4 are cars, just slow and mediocre ones.  That is fine if that is all you want.  The rest of the discussions is just dumb."

PS: I didn't add the price difference...

PS2: Yeah and you clearly didn't understand my previous post.


----------



## Punk

I've noticed you've taken your machine as an example, may I remind you much it cost you?



> Ok so updated build idea:
> 
> 
> ASUS Rampage IV Extreme Motherboard - $539 http://www.mwave.com.au/product/asus...rboard-ab49641
> Intel Core i7 3820 Quad Core LGA 2011 3.6GHz CPU Processor - $335 - http://www.mwave.com.au/product/inte...cessor-ab49607
> 2 x EVGA GeForce GTX 780 Ti 3GB - $1740 - http://www.mwave.com.au/product/giga...o-card-ab49544
> Alphacool NexXxoS XP3 Light - Black Chrome Edition - $95 - http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?...ducts_id=23506
> 2 x Bitspower G1/4 Black Sparkle Compression Fitting CC5 - $18 - http://www.pccasegear.com/index.php?...ducts_id=23099
> Samsung 840 Pro 256GB - $255 - http://www.mwave.com.au/product/sams...d256bw-ab47465
> 
> $2982



PS4? Over 400$. Do you see how this comparison can't be made?


----------



## Troncoso

This is still going? This thread has officially been derailed and is now a console VS PC thread.


----------



## spirit

Troncoso said:


> This is still going? This thread has officially been derailed and is now a console VS PC thread.



My thoughts exactly. It's entertaining to read though.


----------



## Okedokey

Punk said:


> I've noticed you've taken your machine as an example, may I remind you much it cost you?
> 
> 
> 
> PS4? Over 400$. Do you see how this comparison can't be made?



Who anywhere in this thread stated a budget.  Your analogy is dumb, as you're comparing different vehicles, built for different uses.  A games console is for games, and a games pc is also for games.

My actual point is this.  Stop talking about PS4 this, or Xbox that.... they're are PCs.  That is that.  They play the same games, run the same hardware, and the same instruction set.

Get over it.  The PS4 and Xbox 1 will be good value for money for 6 months.  After that it will be a pOS>




Mosely22 said:


> Which are you getting and why?
> 
> still undecided....



To answer the OPs questions....

Neither... they're both PCs, both underpowered for gaming at anything that a 'Computer Hardware' forum member would desire and both will become outdated very very quickly.



Punk said:


> I've noticed you've taken your machine as an example, may I remind you much it cost you?
> 
> 
> 
> PS4? Over 400$. Do you see how this comparison can't be made?



Again, false logic.

Most people ALREADY OWN A PC OF SOME DESCRIPTION!

Add $400 to that machine ($300 GPU and a PSU plus an SSD) and you have a much much much faster gaming machine, for the same money.

That is the point.


Just so im clear

Instead of getting a PS4, or Xbox, 

spend your $500 dollars or so on your existing PC, and you'll have a much much faster system, upgradable, and it will do a lot more.


----------



## Troncoso

spirit said:


> My thoughts exactly. It's entertaining to read though.



It's getting kind of annoying though, especially for people that just want to talk about these two products. 
Okedokey can't seem to grasp that while these machines may be like PC's, they are still their own product and this thread is about them specifically.



Okedokey said:


> They play the same games



Oh. And this is just plain wrong. What are attractive about game consoles is the exclusives you won't find on PC.


----------



## Geoff

Okedokey said:


> Get over it.  The PS4 and Xbox 1 will be good value for money for 6 months.  After that it will be a pOS>
> Just so im clear
> 
> Instead of getting a PS4, or Xbox,
> 
> spend your $500 dollars or so on your existing PC, and you'll have a much much faster system, upgradable, and it will do a lot more.


You are so wrong.

How will the Xbox One or PS4 be a POS after 6 months?  What happens in 6 months?  Games continue to come out for for 5-10 years, and paying $400-$500 once every 5-10 yeas is pennies compared to what it would cost to keep upgrading your computer to play the new games every year.

You can spend that $500 on PC parts which will be fine a couple years, but after 2-3 years it's not going to be able to play the new games, either because it can't handle it or for instance it won't support the newer DirectX versions.


----------



## Okedokey

Troncoso said:


> It's getting kind of annoying though, especially for people that just want to talk about these two products.
> Okedokey can't seem to grasp that while these machines may be like PC's, they are still their own product and this thread is about them specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. And this is just plain wrong. What are attractive about game consoles is the exclusives you won't find on PC.



Which ones?  As shown here its different this time around, as I have said many times over... THEY"RE PCS! http://www.polygon.com/2013/11/14/5102892/where-next-gen-stands

Its fine, though you want to talk about two products?  The first series of responses on a COMPUTER FORUM were people saying a PC is better.  And yeah I get your point, but it was more valid 10 years ago, not now.  Geezuz, they're standard PC hardware with a sticker on it.

Get either, they're bot the same essentially and they both will suck very quickly.


----------



## Okedokey

WRXGuy1 said:


> You are so wrong.
> 
> How will the Xbox One or PS4 be a POS after 6 months?  What happens in 6 months?  Games continue to come out for for 5-10 years, and paying $400-$500 once every 5-10 yeas is pennies compared to what it would cost to keep upgrading your computer to play the new games every year.
> 
> You can spend that $500 on PC parts which will be fine a couple years, but after 2-3 years it's not going to be able to play the new games, either because it can't handle it or for instance it won't support the newer DirectX versions.



Lol omg.

Ok...

Well add the compulsory online fee, the initial capital outlay, the inability to upgrade and you have a lemon.

The directx thing is just silly, as it simply proves the point that xbox, (which will be using directx) has the same limitations....


----------



## Punk

Okedokey said:


> Who anywhere in this thread stated a budget.  Your analogy is dumb, as you're comparing different vehicles, built for different uses.  A games console is for games, and a games pc is also for games.
> 
> My actual point is this.  Stop talking about PS4 this, or Xbox that.... they're are PCs.  That is that.  They play the same games, run the same hardware, and the same instruction set.
> 
> Get over it.  The PS4 and Xbox 1 will be good value for money for 6 months.  After that it will be a pOS>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To answer the OPs questions....
> 
> Neither... they're both PCs, both underpowered for gaming at anything that a 'Computer Hardware' forum member would desire and both will become outdated very very quickly.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, false logic.
> 
> Most people ALREADY OWN A PC OF SOME DESCRIPTION!
> 
> Add $400 to that machine ($300 GPU and a PSU plus an SSD) and you have a much much much faster gaming machine, for the same money.
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Just so im clear
> 
> Instead of getting a PS4, or Xbox,
> 
> spend your $500 dollars or so on your existing PC, and you'll have a much much faster system, upgradable, and it will do a lot more.



When comparing to objects, especially video games, budget IS important. You won't get the same result on a 3000$ and a 500$ computer.

And yes you got one thing: Different cars for different use. Oh wait, consoles are for gaming, and PC for a general use. Wait wait wait... Different use? 

Yes you can build a gaming PC that will run games better than any consoles, but you've doubled the budget (or even tripled it) you are going to spend.


----------



## Geoff

Okedokey said:


> Lol omg.
> 
> Ok...
> 
> Well add the compulsory online fee, the initial capital outlay, the inability to upgrade and you have a lemon.
> 
> The directx thing is just silly, as it simply proves the point that xbox, (which will be using directx) has the same limitations....


True, at $5 a month.  Add in that $60/year and the price is still a LOT less than buying a $2k+ gaming machine every few years.

Why do you need to upgrade?  Newer games do get slightly better graphics, but there is no need to upgrade a console.  How is the DirectX thing "silly"?  A new DirectX version comes out every couple years, so eventually new games won't run on older version of DX.


----------



## Geoff

Oh and dude, you need to know how visitor messages work


----------



## Okedokey

WRXGuy1 said:


> True, at $5 a month.  Add in that $60/year and the price is still a LOT less than buying a $2k+ gaming machine every few years.
> 
> Why do you need to upgrade?  Newer games do get slightly better graphics, but there is no need to upgrade a console.  How is the DirectX thing "silly"?  A new DirectX version comes out every couple years, so eventually new games won't run on older version of DX.



I don't even know where to start with this....

BTW... I just sold my 580s, motherboard, cpu etc etc got 2K back. So all in all I spent the 500 bucks you want to spend on a ps4 or whatever.  Sigh..

so my net spend was about the same as a ps4, which machine you think will be faster at bf4 at 5760x1080....???  oh wait ,the console cant do that...

Ill just leave this here https://robertsspaceindustries.com/about-the-game


----------



## Troncoso

Okay. So you spent around $2000 originally, and you spent $500 to upgrade your system, not to mention the one you sold wasn't even 5 years old. Where as my PS3 lasted 7 years before I bought a PS4. And you have to wonder what engineer would be stupid enough to build a console with the capability of running at 5760x1080 when no TV can even support that resolution. They run the same architecture, but game consoles and gaming PC's are fundamentally different in their overall purpose and intended use.

You won't build a PC with better performance than a console at $400-$500. The $500 you spent was an upgrade, that isn't from scratch. I could have sold my PS3 for around $200 and then my PS4 would only have been $200 net. See how that works?


----------



## SpringWater

I prefer the ps4 due to its lower price, and I had bad experiences with the 360, so my choice is purely personal preference and has nothing to do with the functionality of the consoles.


----------



## Geoff

Troncoso said:


> Okay. So you spent around $2000 originally, and you spent $500 to upgrade your system, not to mention the one you sold wasn't even 5 years old. Where as my PS3 lasted 7 years before I bought a PS4. And you have to wonder what engineer would be stupid enough to build a console with the capability of running at 5760x1080 when no TV can even support that resolution. They run the same architecture, but game consoles and gaming PC's are fundamentally different in their overall purpose and intended use.
> 
> You won't build a PC with better performance than a console at $400-$500. The $500 you spent was an upgrade, that isn't from scratch. I could have sold my PS3 for around $200 and then my PS4 would only have been $200 net. See how that works?


Exactly.

Look man, I love computers too, I spent close to $2,000 for my rig earlier this year with an IPS 27" display.  Do games look better on it over a console?  Of course they do.  However, there is a LOT more to game play than just graphics.  Consoles have a definite edge when it comes to game play, such as:

Party chat.  Sure you could Skype with your friends, but that means everyone has to have the same program, plus a lot of PC gamers don't have/use mics, which makes it a lot less fun and personal IMO.

# of users.  This differs for people, but most of my friends aren't computer guys/gals, so if they game 99% of them are Xbox/PS gamers.  If you meet someone new outside of computers, and if they game, there is a good chance they will have a console.

More level playing field.  With consoles it's much more common to have a level playing field.  The majority of console gamers have stock controllers, where as in PC gaming you can spend upwards of hundreds of dollars on keyboards, mice, etc. that give you a gaming edge.  In console gaming, just because you can't afford the best accessories doesn't mean you won't have a good experience.

Overall you need to understand that there is a definite need for consoles, and a need for computers.  Just because a computer does what a console can, doesn't mean a console it useless.  A computer can do anything a phone can do, are phones stupid?  What about tablets?  Laptops?  Why buy any of those if you have a computer that can do everything they can do, and better?


----------



## PCunicorn

Really you only need to spend $750 and $500 to upgrade the system to max pretty much every game out, but yes, it's still a lot more than a PS4.




Punk said:


> Woow yes I can get 750$ out of my account anytime... Don't worry you'll grow up and have to pay rent, food, gas and bills. You'll see if you can afford it. Price is really important on this, you've almost doubled the price of the PS4, said anyone could afford it just to say a PC can run this game at this res... I can't agree with you.



That's not really what I meant. The average person buys a new $500  PC every 3 years, and the average gamer buys a console every 6 years, like a PS4 for $400.Now let's say you need to buy a new PC this year, the last one you built was in 2010, and now the new consoles are out. That's $900 you could be spending on a gaming PC instead of buying two things, but you could actually spend $750 and save $150.


----------



## Geoff

PCunicorn said:


> Really you only need to spend $750 and $500 to upgrade the system to max pretty much every game out, but yes, it's still a lot more than a PS4.


How long will that upgrade last you?  2 years?  Maybe 3.  Again, consoles are around for upwards of almost 10 years before you have to buy a new one again.


----------



## PCunicorn

Nope, a good 5 years on low, I guarantee you, with a $750 system and $500 on upgrades. That contains a 280X and 8320. The GPU will last you 3 or 4 years, and the CPU 5 or 6. That $500 will cover failed parts and a new GPU when the time comes, in 3 years. And saying consoles last more than 10 years is a bit unfair. Consoles really only last about 6 years, with some support for a couple more. If I built a PC with a 8800GTX and a Q6600 when the PS3 was released 6 years, I could still play some games for the next 4 years, just very unintensive ones. As I said before, if on a budget and you have just bought a new PC, go with a console. Otherwise, I say PC all the way. Now I am sure other people's opinions are different, but that's mine.


----------



## G80FTW

PCunicorn said:


> I dont care how many times you beat it through. I half beat it and then got my PC. If you really want to start comparing it to Crysis, we can. The Last of Us looks a little better then Crysis 1. Crysis 2 looks much better. And Crysis 3 absolutley destroys TLoU in terms of graphics quality. All these are playable maxed oout a $750 machine. $350 more than a PS3, yes, but most people can afford it.



Not sure how that makes any sense because in MANY areas Crysis 2 looked worse than Crysis 1. Mostly because they chose to use lower resolution textures than they did in Crysis 1 because they decided to make it for console.


----------



## G80FTW

Aastii said:


> The PS3 was not out in 2005 either  Just like the GeForce 8 series, it was out in 2006/2007, depending on where you are in the world. You also seem to be mistaking a 7800 for the top card in the 7 series, forgetting completely about the 7950.
> 
> Nobody said that you said it was better than Crysis either, nor did anyone say that it looked bad for a 7 year old console (not 8), the fact of the matter is that there is a huge difference between the shot you put and the in game. The hair is less detailed, the clothes less detailed, the faces less detailed, there are more jaggies, I don't know how you cannot see that.
> 
> A 7 year old system (Q6600, 8800GT, 4GB DDR2) would play games like that no problem at 30 FPS and more, just go and look at Crysis 1 as an example, an 8800GT, or if you want to be more pedantic about release dates, an 8800GTS, would run Crysis no problem at medium-high settings, which is as good or better than the graphics in The Last of Us.
> 
> You are not the only person on this planet that has played any of these games, so you can carry on repeating over and over that you have played the games, it gives you no more authority on the matter than anyone else because guess what, I have too and so have a lot of others, and even if they had not, videos are readily available to people to see for themselves. When everyone else that has played the game is then saying it is not all that graphically and you are the only one saying it is, does that not make you question whether you are right or wrong?
> 
> The problem that we have is lazy developers. We have so much more grunt now on PC's compared to relatively ancient hardware that is in the previous gen consoles that developers do not need to optimize code when porting over, they can keep it sloppy and inefficient and we can still max it out. If they put any modicum of time and effort into porting it over, people could very easily sit on their systems from 7 years ago and wouldn't have to upgrade as often.
> 
> 
> With regards to price, PC gaming is cheaper, just not with the initial investment. You start off out of pocket but once you factor in the price difference in games and the fact that you are offsetting some of that cost by only needing one PC to game and use as a PC, instead of two, a PC for a PC and a console for games, the prices start to swing in favour of computers rather than consoles.
> 
> As Punk said though, people cannot just fork out nearly double the price as and when, you have to plan large investments like that unless you are fortunate enough to be rolling in it, so that large initial sum could very easily be a deal breaker



Really. Your going to bring in the 7950? A dual GPU card? I excluded dual GPU cards for one very simple reason: They have 2 GPUs not one. Might as well run 2 7800s in SLi.  For a single GPU card, the 7800 was at the top.

No one could sit on their system for 7 or 8 years. Id imagine you were not building computers 7 or 8 years ago but we have had some new DirectX versions released since then as Geoff pointed out that would leave an 8 year old PC almost useless today for gaming unless you enjoy playing games that look worse than todays console games.

We can certainly leave the last of us as a subjective matter (I know people who also have the game and seen it in person and they agree with me, however it really is more of an opinion when it all comes down to it without being able to provide any numbers supporting its true graphical aspects), however you cant honestly advise people that a 7800, 7950, or even an 8800GTX Ultra (which can be found for $50 or so on ebay) paired with something like a C2D is really going to be a decent gaming machine capable of playing games that look just as good as Halo 4 or the last of us. I have an 8800, I know what the card is capable of. And the 7800/7950 is much much less powerful and only supports DX9 so its completely out of the question as a viable gaming card today.

Let me put it to you this way:
2 years ago my current PC was nearly top of the line. My graphics card was when I bought it.  My graphics card is already showing age, running at JUST over 30FPS average in Crysis 3 and Tomb Raider on max settings @ 1920x1080 so I would imagine that the next generation of consoles will bring even more intense graphics to PC and maybe even better optimization for PC however I dont expect this graphics card to last more than 2 more years. 5 years is pushing it for a gaming PC.


----------



## Aastii

G80FTW said:


> Really. Your going to bring in the 7950? A dual GPU card? I excluded dual GPU cards for one very simple reason: They have 2 GPUs not one. Might as well run 2 7800s in SLi.  For a single GPU card, the 7800 was at the top.
> 
> No one could sit on their system for 7 or 8 years. Id imagine you were not building computers 7 or 8 years ago but we have had some new DirectX versions released since then as Geoff pointed out that would leave an 8 year old PC almost useless today for gaming unless you enjoy playing games that look worse than todays console games.
> 
> We can certainly leave the last of us as a subjective matter (I know people who also have the game and seen it in person and they agree with me, however it really is more of an opinion when it all comes down to it without being able to provide any numbers supporting its true graphical aspects), however you cant honestly advise people that a 7800, 7950, or even an 8800GTX Ultra (which can be found for $50 or so on ebay) paired with something like a C2D is really going to be a decent gaming machine capable of playing games that look just as good as Halo 4 or the last of us. I have an 8800, I know what the card is capable of. And the 7800/7950 is much much less powerful and only supports DX9 so its completely out of the question as a viable gaming card today.
> 
> Let me put it to you this way:
> 2 years ago my current PC was nearly top of the line. My graphics card was when I bought it.  My graphics card is already showing age, running at JUST over 30FPS average in Crysis 3 and Tomb Raider on max settings @ 1920x1080 so I would imagine that the next generation of consoles will bring even more intense graphics to PC and maybe even better optimization for PC however I dont expect this graphics card to last more than 2 more years. 5 years is pushing it for a gaming PC.



Except for that a 7950 was a single GPU . And I did not mention the 7950 to sit in our hypothetical system, because that was last gen hardware when the PS3 came out, I was on about an 8800GTS/GT, which is more than viable.

Crysis and Tomb Raider on max settings are not the same as what a console has, almost no game is. Just like a lot of games, graphics features are missed out of the console versions, like higher res textures (in some cases) and AA/AF.

I have a second system sat in the other room behind me with my old AMD 720BE and a 9800GT, which is just an 8800GT renamed. Does it perform as well as my 3570K and 7970? No, but it can still play 90% of the games out now, albeit not at max settings.

You do not need to push to 1920x1080 either, there are no 360 titles playing at that res and there are relatively few PS3 games playing at that res either. By using your 1920x1080 as the benchmark here, you are saying "my hardware, when having to push more than double the pixels of the consoles in question, only just performs as well as the consoles do". Drop your res down to 1280x720, your settings to medium-high, turn off AA and look at your FPS hit the roof, way higher than 30, because that is the sort of graphics settings that you would be using on a console.


Just to make clear at this point, I do not believe the 8 series will be any use in 6-12 months time unless your biggest buy over the next few years is something like The Sims 4, because with the new generation of consoles, demands from PC hardware will shoot up because the ports will be coming from much newer hardware. However, with the hardware in the consoles being so close to that of a PC, maybe we will see far better code being produced so the demands will not actually raise as high as would otherwise be expected... Who knows at this point how these consoles will affect PC gaming in a years time. However, someone with a 290X or 780Ti in 6 or 7 years time will still be chugging along, though just like the 8 series now, probably on low-medium settings


----------



## G80FTW

Aastii said:


> Just to make clear at this point, I do not believe the 8 series will be any use in 6-12 months time unless your biggest buy over the next few years is something like The Sims 4, because with the new generation of consoles, demands from PC hardware will shoot up because the ports will be coming from much newer hardware. However, with the hardware in the consoles being so close to that of a PC, maybe we will see far better code being produced so the demands will not actually raise as high as would otherwise be expected... Who knows at this point how these consoles will affect PC gaming in a years time. However, someone with a 290X or 780Ti in 6 or 7 years time will still be chugging along, though just like the 8 series now, probably on low-medium settings



This is all you had to say as its what I was trying to say....  I dont think the 8 series is of much use now. It can only play the new games at low-medium settings at lower resolutions and missing out on DX11 features.  Which a big reason I would say the 8 series isnt really a viable PC gaming card today. Yes you can game with it, and yes its ultra cheap, however for a current budget system today something closer to a 660ti will blow any 8 series out of the water.  

And I dont remember the 7950 being a single GPU card, I only remember the GX2 but even a singe GPU 7950 probably wasnt significantly faster than the 7800GTX due to the old style pipeline architecture of the GPU itself. In todays games they would probably perform very similar....which would be little to not at all for alot of games.

Im not comparing how current PCs perform versus consoles, I am simply pointing out that if you want to continue playing your games with them looking good you cant use the same hardware for 8 years like a console can.  The console will always have a software advantage because the system is specifically designed for gaming, a PC is not. No matter what hardware you have in your PC the operating system is not designed specifically for gaming.

But you know, its personal preference. If you and okey over there would like to believe that 8 year old computers can play todays games just fine and look just as good as the console version then be my guest. I will stick to the real life scenario.

According to this, which was posted in 2008, the 7800GTX couldnt really handle the games back then and it was only 3 years old!
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1309512


----------



## PCunicorn

G80FTW said:


> Not sure how that makes any sense because in MANY areas Crysis 2 looked worse than Crysis 1. Mostly because they chose to use lower resolution textures than they did in Crysis 1 because they decided to make it for console.








Yeah, sure. Maybe some lower res textures where used to fit on CONSOLES, the systems you have been arguing for, but everything else destroyed C1. And I know for a fact Crysis 2 whoops TLoU little ass in graphics, because I have played them both.


----------



## G80FTW

PCunicorn said:


> Yeah, sure. Maybe some lower res textures where used to fit on CONSOLES, the systems you have been arguing for, but everything else destroyed C1. And I know for a fact Crysis 2 whoops TLoU little ass in graphics, because I have played them both.



Some? Crysis 2 was LITTERED with low resolution textures. Do you not see the screens you just posted? Even with the high resolution texture pack the buildings still looked similar to textures you would find on duke nukem from 1995. It was horrible.  The road is the only thing that looks decent in those screens and they dont even look that good, GTA5 has better road textures and its running on a game engine developed in like 2004.

And textures make up a good 80% of the game considering everything aside from the people in the game is a texture.

They remind me of RAGE. Which possibly had the lowest resolution textures I had ever seen.


----------



## Darren

G80FTW said:


> Some? Crysis 2 was LITTERED with low resolution textures. Do you not see the screens you just posted? Even with the high resolution texture pack the buildings still looked similar to textures you would find on duke nukem from 1995. It was horrible.  The road is the only thing that looks decent in those screens and they dont even look that good, GTA5 has better road textures and its running on a game engine developed in like 2004.
> 
> And textures make up a good 80% of the game considering everything aside from the people in the game is a texture.
> 
> They remind me of RAGE. Which possibly had the lowest resolution textures I had ever seen.



Not that I don't believe you, but GTA5 runs on an engine from 2004? Where'd you hear that?


----------



## G80FTW

Denther said:


> Not that I don't believe you, but GTA5 runs on an engine from 2004? Where'd you hear that?



Haha. Well, it was an exaggeration.  But its from 2006, and the same engine used in GTA4 and Red Dead Redemption.  Either way, the RAGE engine is old and Rockstar really need to scrap it because its really not that great of an engine and I feel like they hit their wall with it with RDR.

And actually, I was hoping Rockstar would have developed a whole new engine for GTA5.  But sadly, they didnt. So we may not see a new engine from Rockstar until a few years into the next gen consoles


----------



## Aastii

ok, to clarify some things , because you are not saying what I am at all:

At this moment in time, anybody with an Nvidia 8800GTX is sat on a more than viable graphics card. However, in a few months it will not be.

Nobody is noticing the difference between a DX10 and DX11 game unless they look hard... very hard, so that is a moot point. Whilst you can get some performance gains going from 10-11, mainly because that is what the architecture is designed for, the extra features aren't something to get an entire new system from, at least not when released, as will be the case with DX12.

You need to forget about the 7950 now. That is not the card that was out when both last gen consoles hit market, that would be the 8 series, with the GT and GTX coming out a few days before the PS3 launch. The performance of these was, at the time, mind blowing. You had cards more than doubling the performance of the previous gen and were so good that they carried on for not one, but two generations under other names (8800, 9800, GTS250).

A friend of mine was still using a 250 up until last year. The only reason he swapped was because of Arma 2, which is not a console title. He was still playing every game without a hitch except for that (which he could play on low-medium @1080, but wanted more so we built him a new system). Interestingly he had that paired with dual single core Xeon's, so chips performing worse that the CPU for the time of the consoles - C2D E6750 or C2Q Q6600.


With regards to the Crysis thing, you are completely and totally 100% correct. A lot was taken out of Crysis 2 graphically and with the physics compared with Crysis 1 so that the old hardware could handle it without blowing up.

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/crysis-2-graphics-comparison/1100-6307286/

However if anything this proves what I have been saying all along. An 8800GTX, released at the time of the previous consoles, could push 35-40FPS @720 resolutions, so higher than the consoles do at the same resolutions, on a game that is more graphically demanding than the console equivalent.

The consoles last longer than PC's idea is plainly and simply wrong, it is only the case if you demand the highest settings with full AA/AF at higher resolutions and higher FPS. Yes, consoles have software designed specifically for the hardware so will perform better on that hardware than the PC equivalent, but we have already surpassed the console performance with the current PC hardware, we did a couple years back before the One/PS4 were even close to release, so this hit in performance seen on PC code is offset with the latest hardware at release because it is that much more powerful already.


----------



## G80FTW

My original statement:


G80FTW said:


> I have to point out The Last of Us.  Pretty much the best looking game for the previous gen consoles and its quality was near that of Crysis 3 on PC. And yet 8 year old hardware was playing it just fine.  It shows that hardware is really only as good as the software made for it. And thats where consoles have always had an advantage over PCs. But now that consoles are becoming more like a PC in terms of design it will make it all that much better for PC gamers and console gamers.



The argument (if you can call it one):


Okedokey said:


> Yeah, that's just nonsense.



And what your saying now:


Aastii said:


> Yes, consoles have software designed specifically for the hardware so will perform better on that hardware than the PC equivalent



Which is all I was trying to say. And the reason the 7 series was brought in was because they were the top series upon the release of the Xbox 360 which started the generation of those consoles and the PS3 also uses a 7 series GPU.  Comparing them to newer and much more amazing GPU architecture I felt wasnt exactly a PC equivalent to the PS3 nor the 360.  

And yes, the original G80 core architecture is actually still in use. That is why my name is G80FTW   Upon the release of the G80 we did see numbers we hadnt seen a long time and a good leap forward in graphics.

And I should also point out that I had an 8800GTS shortly after its release.  It was a great card. I held onto that card for as long as I could until finally deciding it was time to upgrade from it in 2011 but waiting until 2012 for the GTX680. So my 8800GTS, as good as it was, only lasted me 4 years before I really could not bare to game with it anymore. I was not getting better than console graphics at the performance of a console, I was just getting by with much lower resolutions and no AA (which consoles do use) making all the games have good looking textures but very jaggy and blocky everything else.  So like I said, 5 years is really pushing it for a gaming PC.  If you want to push it to 7 or 8 years thats fine but you wont be seeing console equal graphics.


----------



## PCunicorn

Random screenshot. Most of the Google Images for "the last of us screenshots" turned up art or something else, not honest to God in game screenshots. 





Here is one I took off a YouTube video. 1080p, mind you.






A screen shot I took in C2. Textures may not look the best, but they look way better then The Last of Us.





Close up textures. 

High res textures was enabled, and was on Very High, which in Crysis 2 is actually Medium.


----------



## spirit

Does anybody here own an Xbox One? I've just been onto Amazon and seen that some unlucky and disappointed people have ended up with defective consoles. 

They're complaining about 'not getting past the green screen' and having problems with getting games to read from the optical drive properly. 

As you can probably imagine, since they pre-ordered their consoles in May and have waited 6 months to get them, they're not too pleased that they're defective.

Seems like on the other end of the spectrum some people are really enjoying their new consoles.

Just interested to see if anybody on here who owns an Xbox One and has experienced any of this, or if anybody here knows anybody who has experienced it.

I don't think any of my friends have ordered the Xbox One. I think most of them are going for the PS4, or have/are thinking of switching to PC gaming.


----------



## Punk

PCunicorn said:


> Here is one I took off a YouTube video. 1080p, mind you.



Dude Youtube kills quality, even at 1080p.


----------



## G80FTW

PCunicorn said:


> Random screenshot. Most of the Google Images for "the last of us screenshots" turned up art or something else, not honest to God in game screenshots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A screen shot I took in C2. Textures may not look the best, but they look way better then The Last of Us.



I dont know about anyone else. But I see clearly how more detailed the last of us looks compared to Crysis 2.  And yea, your not going to find alot of actual screenshots from the last of us for the simple fact that its a console only game, PS3 game at that meaning capturing a true resolution screenshot of the game will require an expensive capture card capable of capturing full resolution HDCP video.

I was actually searching for my old capture cards, couldnt find them.  But like I said, they wouldnt have done loads of good considering they only capture at 480p via S-Video cable.

And no, that screen you posted that was off youtube is not remotely how it looks in person. The first screenshot is a better representation of how it really looks its too bad you cant find a screenshot like that at 1920x1080.


----------



## PCunicorn

Punk said:


> Dude Youtube kills quality, even at 1080p.



It does. But Crysis 3 still looks way better then TLoU on YouTube. But G80 has a point, it still only captures in 480. G80FTW, I don't think ou understand. I have played the game, and The Last of Us has a better story, has more deatil, and is a pretty damn good game. But comparing it to Crysis 3 on a PC is pretty ridiculous.


----------



## G80FTW

PCunicorn said:


> It does. But Crysis 3 still looks way better then TLoU on YouTube. But G80 has a point, it still only captures in 480. G80FTW, I don't think ou understand. I have played the game, and The Last of Us has a better story, has more deatil, and is a pretty damn good game. But comparing it to Crysis 3 on a PC is pretty ridiculous.



Crysis 3 does look better. But I would still say there are a few areas where the last of us looks just as good. The main one being the poly count and detail on the main characters. . And then there are the textures, yes the last of us does have plenty of low resolution textures it is a console game after all but pretty much all the buildings and roads have pretty amazing textures that look just as good as the ones in Crysis 3.  

I mean, you cant really tell me this isnt a fair comparison:



Screenshot I took myself from Crysis 3.




Probably the best "in game" screenshot you will see of the last of us.

I mean, clearly Crysis 3 does look better. However, for a 7 series core GPU to be putting out graphics that come that close to Crysis 3 is a feat in and of itself. Naughty Dog is probably the best developer out there for being able to do so.

I havent actually seen very many PC games that look better than the last of us.... aside from Crysis 3 and tomb raider, thats about it. I have not yet played BF4 so I dont know about that one.


----------



## PCunicorn

That's what I was getting at. It's good for a PS3 game and on 8 year old hardware, but still doesn't even really come close to Crysis 3 except on a few things.


----------



## Punk

PCunicorn said:


> It does. But Crysis 3 still looks way better then TLoU on YouTube.



That comparison is meaningless taken from Youtube. Like I said it kills quality and some games will look better for some reason (hardware used, software used etc).


----------



## Troncoso

We still doing this PC vs Console graphics comparison thing?


----------



## Justin

Troncoso said:


> We still doing this PC vs Console graphics comparison thing?



It's the internet. Nerds will defend their respective precious metal boxes until it kills them.


----------



## G80FTW

Troncoso said:


> We still doing this PC vs Console graphics comparison thing?



For me its not so much PC versus console because I game on both.


----------



## Geoff

Justin said:


> It's the internet. Nerds will defend their respective precious metal boxes until it kills them.


Wii FTW!


----------



## Aastii

Troncoso said:


> We still doing this PC vs Console graphics comparison thing?



I don't see how you can have a thread about the current gen gaming platforms and miss out one of the current gen gaming platforms. Why should they not be compared to a PC? The previous gen were, all gens before that were, so why should this be different?


----------



## Punk

Aastii said:


> I don't see how you can have a thread about the current gen gaming platforms and miss out one of the current gen gaming platforms. Why should they not be compared to a PC? The previous gen were, all gens before that were, so why should this be different?



Because of the price range.


----------



## PCunicorn

What's that supposed to mean?  The price range now is the same, or similar, to 6 years ago.


----------



## Aastii

Punk said:


> Because of the price range.



Because I can't be arsed with currency conversions to USD and EUR, right now you can get a One + 4 games £665.

http://www.game.co.uk/en/xbox-one-w...t-267291/?cm_sp=XboxOne-_-chart-_-consolePos1

For £500 you can get a gaming PC high-maxing all games + 4 brand new games then for £140. Total - £650. £25 quid less is near enough the same price when we are talking £650+ so we won't fret over that.

Then factor in that PC games are cheaper than the consoles, that evens out any necessary upgrades over the life of the console, and if you get a lot of games, can actually pull the price in favour of PC gaming. They fit in the same price range as each other

Next...


----------



## Troncoso

Aastii said:


> I don't see how you can have a thread about the current gen gaming platforms and miss out one of the current gen gaming platforms. Why should they not be compared to a PC? The previous gen were, all gens before that were, so why should this be different?



I'm all about battling about which one is best until the break of dawn. I'm all about comparing what type of material is used to build a PS4 casing to a third party PC case.

My point is, this is a PS4 or XBox One thread. And it's very hard to talk about the PS4 vs the XBox when everyone is bringing PC's into the equation. Basically, as much as consoles and PC's are related these days, you can't deny that this thread has gone off topic, which is generally something we handle pretty well on these forums.


----------



## Justin

Troncoso said:


> My point is, this is a PS4 or XBox One thread. And it's very hard to talk about the PS4 vs the XBox when everyone is bringing PC's into the equation. Basically, as much as consoles and PC's are related these days, you can't deny that this thread has gone off topic, which is generally something we handle pretty well on these forums.



This. 
And to think Aastii is a global mod too.


----------



## PunterCam

Aastii said:


> Because I can't be arsed with currency conversions to USD and EUR, right now you can get a One + 4 games £665.
> 
> http://www.game.co.uk/en/xbox-one-w...t-267291/?cm_sp=XboxOne-_-chart-_-consolePos1
> 
> For £500 you can get a gaming PC high-maxing all games + 4 brand new games then for £140. Total - £650. £25 quid less is near enough the same price when we are talking £650+ so we won't fret over that.
> 
> Then factor in that PC games are cheaper than the consoles, that evens out any necessary upgrades over the life of the console, and if you get a lot of games, can actually pull the price in favour of PC gaming. They fit in the same price range as each other
> 
> Next...



I hate to wade in here with a "that's nonsense" comment, but I just can't resist. I also don't really hate doing it. 

I put my last computer together 3 or so years ago - it was average at the time, and I spent somewhere in the region of £450 on it. My xbox dances rings around it graphically, and it's twice its age now. 

These consoles have just been released - only an idiot/extremely keen gamer buys them at this price. They'll be 2/3rds the price in 18 months and they'll slowly drop over their lifespan, which will probably be somewhere in the region of 8 years. Just like the last generation, the programmers will have time to really learn the consoles, and find ways to draw every last bit of power from them. I thought GTA5 looked beautiful. Try getting something that looks that good to run on a 2006 PC. On a 2006 PC that cost sub £300 to build at the time. 

Of course - spend your money on a top PC and it will look fantastic, but realistically you're talking an expensive initial build and (at the very least) a substantial upgrade half way through that life-cycle. 

It's a completely different price range, completely different.


----------



## Darren

PC > Consoles for pure graphical quality, not involving price in the equation.
Console are cheaper hardware for the performance and graphics they'll give out, especially as time progresses (this may not be the case at launch). If you argue that point you're simply dense.

Both have their pros and cons, quit bitching about it and play what you want.


----------



## G80FTW

PunterCam said:


> I hate to wade in here with a "that's nonsense" comment, but I just can't resist. I also don't really hate doing it.
> 
> I put my last computer together 3 or so years ago - it was average at the time, and I spent somewhere in the region of £450 on it. My xbox dances rings around it graphically, and it's twice its age now.
> 
> These consoles have just been released - only an idiot/extremely keen gamer buys them at this price. They'll be 2/3rds the price in 18 months and they'll slowly drop over their lifespan, which will probably be somewhere in the region of 8 years. Just like the last generation, the programmers will have time to really learn the consoles, and find ways to draw every last bit of power from them. I thought GTA5 looked beautiful. Try getting something that looks that good to run on a 2006 PC. On a 2006 PC that cost sub £300 to build at the time.
> 
> Of course - spend your money on a top PC and it will look fantastic, but realistically you're talking an expensive initial build and (at the very least) a substantial upgrade half way through that life-cycle.
> 
> It's a completely different price range, completely different.



+1 for this.

I have no idea where you guys are getting this idea that PC gaming is cheaper. No matter what way you look at it, its not.

Example. I have spent over $5,000 in the last 11 years on PCs.  Guess how much I spent on consoles in 11 years?  Less than $1,000.  To say PC gaming is even near the same price range is ridiculous.  And that $5,000 I spent, this is the only build I ever had that was pretty close to top end when I built it. Most of my builds were just under the $1,000 range having mid level hardware in them. So its not like every computer I built was top end. 

PC gaming appeals to a whole different group of gamers. PC gamers are mainly people into MMOs (which have now been making their way to consoles) and people obsessed with good graphics.  

There is no "they are in the same price range now". They are nowhere near the same price range. Never were. 

If anyone here can build a PC, including a monitor and operating system, for $400 that can put out PS4 graphics with all new hardware then please post it. Because you cant.  

And dont go saying "oh you have to buy a console AND a PC anyway".  Since when? If your a console gamer and all you use your PC for is web browsing a computer from 10 years ago will be perfectly fine and last another 10 years.


----------



## Punk

Aastii said:


> Because I can't be arsed with currency conversions to USD and EUR, right now you can get a One + 4 games £665.
> 
> http://www.game.co.uk/en/xbox-one-w...t-267291/?cm_sp=XboxOne-_-chart-_-consolePos1
> 
> For £500 you can get a gaming PC high-maxing all games + 4 brand new games then for £140. Total - £650. £25 quid less is near enough the same price when we are talking £650+ so we won't fret over that.
> 
> Then factor in that PC games are cheaper than the consoles, that evens out any necessary upgrades over the life of the console, and if you get a lot of games, can actually pull the price in favour of PC gaming. They fit in the same price range as each other
> 
> Next...



PS4 + 1 game:

400+70 =470 euros (393,69 pounds).



Yeah... Next.


----------



## G80FTW

Punk said:


> PS4 + 1 game:
> 
> 400+70 =470 euros (393,69 pounds).
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... Next.



Whats the point here?  I dont know about the rest of the world, but PC games are not cheaper than console games in regards to cross platform titles.  Yes Steam does have sales, but not on release date.  Your paying the same price to get the game on PC or console upon its release so the price of games should not even be a factor here.....

If anything your spending more on games for PC because there are more games to buy...


----------



## Geoff

Punk said:


> PS4 + 1 game:
> 
> 400+70 =470 euros (393,69 pounds).
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah... Next.





G80FTW said:


> Whats the point here?  I dont know about the rest of the world, but PC games are not cheaper than console games in regards to cross platform titles.  Yes Steam does have sales, but not on release date.  Your paying the same price to get the game on PC or console upon its release so the price of games should not even be a factor here.....
> 
> If anything your spending more on games for PC because there are more games to buy...


Exactly.  Look at Call of Duty Ghosts, Battlefield 4, Forza, any new game.  They all cost the same, which is usually around $60, it doesn't matter if it's for PC or console.

As Nick said they do have sales, but you can also buy indie games and older games on sale for consoles too.  Unless of course you are talking about pirating games...


----------



## Aastii

I will post a more detailed reply when I am at home and not at the end of my dinner at work.

PC games here are cheaper, always have been, usually around about £10 for new AAA titles, often even more for the rest. You can get keys much more easily and cheaply than you can for a console import, case in point when BLOPS2 was £50 on consoles, I got it on PC for £16.

In my Steam library I have over 200 games and over the last few years that set me back about £450. That isn't all indie games and freebies, that is every CoD but ghosts, BF2, Bioshock, Arma, major titles. Try getting 200 current gen, or even previous gen, games for less than 1k.

=EDIT=

Someone in the US may correct me here, but a quick search found the going price for Ghosts in the States as $60. I'm just going to put this here. http://www.cjs-cdkeys.com/products/Call-Of-Duty-Ghosts-CD-Key-for-Steam.html?setCurrencyId=2

PC games still cheaper in America


----------



## Punk

G80FTW said:


> Whats the point here?  I dont know about the rest of the world, but PC games are not cheaper than console games in regards to cross platform titles.  Yes Steam does have sales, but not on release date.  Your paying the same price to get the game on PC or console upon its release so the price of games should not even be a factor here.....
> 
> If anything your spending more on games for PC because there are more games to buy...



I think you quoted the wrong person, I completely agree with what you said.


----------



## Geoff

Punk said:


> I think you quoted the wrong person, I completely agree with what you said.


No he didn't quote the wrong person, and neither did I.  Your post implied that consoles are a lot more expensive because games are more expensive for consoles over PC's, which is not true for new major release games.


----------



## Punk

Then you haven't read the conversation.



Aastii said:


> I don't see how you can have a thread about the current gen gaming platforms and miss out one of the current gen gaming platforms. Why should they not be compared to a PC? The previous gen were, all gens before that were, so why should this be different?





Punk said:


> Because of the price range.


----------



## G80FTW

Aastii said:


> Someone in the US may correct me here, but a quick search found the going price for Ghosts in the States as $60. I'm just going to put this here. http://www.cjs-cdkeys.com/products/Call-Of-Duty-Ghosts-CD-Key-for-Steam.html?setCurrencyId=2
> 
> PC games still cheaper in America



Wtf is that? Like Im going to pay $10 less for a "cd key" from a site that looks suspect to begin with. And thats a CD Key not a game. 

Whats more suspect is that it says its a CD Key for the Steam game.  Now, its been a bit since I have bought new games on Steam but every new game I bought on Steam in the past never required me to input a CD Key upon installation.  Suspect?



Punk said:


> I think you quoted the wrong person, I completely agree with what you said.




I didnt.  In my quote I was asking you what the point was. I wasnt sure what you were trying to say by simply posting a PS4 plus the price of one game.


----------



## zeppelin04

I have input codes into steam without any problems.  Also I buy a number of console games used so that helps with pricing.

If I played more games my PC would be cost effective. In reality I only play a few minutes a day so console is far more cost effective.  I only play maybe 3 new games a year then replay a few old ones.  The upfront cost of a PC is not made up.

To each their own I suppose.


----------



## Aastii

What do you think a CD key is for a digital download? A CD key that you activate on Steam or Origin or any other digital distribution medium, to enable you to download the game. If you bought the physical copy of the game you would have a CD key that you have to activate through Steam before you can play the game.

You see this right here how do you think it works?

Call it suspect all you like mate, I know the guy that owns the company it by association . Also consider this and this. Have used, will continue to use and will continue to recommend.

You also have to remember that there was a time where Steam was "suspect" because people did not trust not having a digital copy and in fact even now, I know a lot still like that. That and the game that came out on release is now out of date. You can install it from the disc if you like, you will still have to update before you can use it, so the disc is pretty much worthless. Just like every game now, near enough from the point that you purchase the game it is out of date and you have to download some sort of update or patch.

You cannot just discredit a legitimate source for buying games because you feel like it, your entire argument falls down at that point because you are picking and choosing what facts to take into account rather than considering everything, even if it goes against what you are arguing for.


----------



## G80FTW

Aastii said:


> Someone in the US may correct me here, but a quick search found the going price for Ghosts in the States as $60. I'm just going to put this here. http://www.cjs-cdkeys.com/products/Call-Of-Duty-Ghosts-CD-Key-for-Steam.html?setCurrencyId=2
> 
> PC games still cheaper in America



"To provide our customers with peace of mind, we offer the codes as scanned images of the original game manuals.  Each CD Key is sourced from an official boxed copy of the game.  this ensures that your game key is always taken from a brand new sealed copy.  Nobody will see your CD Key except you. "

So.....they keep boxed copies of the game boxed forever? Seems like a waste of production....something tells me those box copies will eventually also be sold, again, otherwise what do they do? Throw them away? Then some homeless guy gets a brand new copy of ghost in the trash.  I really dont understand how this process work and dont like the idea of other people having access to my CD Key, which they do. It says they dont but if these keys are coming from scanned images of a sealed box someone has access to them.

Pulled that from your link.  Now, Im not saying the site isnt legit.  Im saying its very suspect me.


----------



## Aastii

Ok, I will explain how it works because you don't want to do any of your own background research into anything:

In countries such as India, Russia, China, these countries less strict on copyright laws, piracy is rife. As such, to sell a game at the retail price that you or I pay would not be worth it for the developers as they are selling very few units due to everyone else just pirating the game. That and the people there would not be able to afford the game anyway because the average income is so much lower. It is always either one of these factors or both.

What do they do to ensure more sales there then? They drop the price... A lot. So much so that sites such as CJS are able to buy the games in bulk from such countries, ship them over here and then re-sell them at a price that is higher than what they bought them for, yet substantially lower than what it is sold for here, so they make a profit and we, the customers, get a better price.

CJS receive the keys, scan the image and then dispose of the box. They will alternatively  sell the discs for some as just the disc to people without access to the installation media, but this is without the key.

They do not re-sell keys, they do not re-use keys, nobody has access to the key once it is scanned and sent on to you, and as a key can only be activated once through Steam/Origin, it does not matter if somebody else got it, they can't do anything with it; your account can't be found from it, you can't get banned for it, you can't be locked out of the game because someone else is playing it, because they can't play it while you are.

An example of what you get, from my own purchase made, obviously with the key blanked out:

http://postimg.org/image/rphwaxhz5/

I know it is unused as I have checked pbbans, the only names linked to it are those used by the clan member that I bought it for. I know it has no bans associated with it, again because I did a background check on the GUID, in fact it is so clean that it has been used in CoD4 Leagues, which is the reason that it was purchased in the first place.

Note that the CoD4 key is not a Steam/Origin activation, it is a standalone key as CoD4 is not activated through Steam or Origin. Even near enough a year after the purchase (02/12/2012), the key is still clean and untouched by anyone else.

Do you have any more theories about it?


----------



## Justin




----------



## PCunicorn

Justin said:


>



Very overused meme, but quite true


----------



## G80FTW

Aastii said:


> Ok, I will explain how it works because you don't want to do any of your own background research into anything:
> 
> 
> Do you have any more theories about it?



Yes actually I do. Firstly, I didnt need a whole story about how it works, Im not really interested in how it works. For one reason:

Im not a big fan of paying for half a product. I got the product key for $10 less than the game! Cool. Now where do I legally obtain the game without paying for it?  

Aside from that, if your obtaining brand new games for $10 less on PC, that still wont cover the cost of gaming on a PC over a console.  If you buy 2 games a month (which is actually alot of you ask me, I normally only buy maybe 5-7 games a year depending on whats coming out) then in 11 years youd have bought 264 games. Now at retail price of $60 new here in the US, thats $15,840.  Thats a pretty expensive gaming habit if you ask me. So an addicted console gamer is going to spend that plus $800 on 2 consoles for each generation that has been here in the past 11 years. $16,640. 

Meanwhile, the PC gamer, being me, spent $5,000 on the PC alone in 11 years and if I got those 264 games for $50 as opposed to $60 I still would have spent $18,200 altogether.  So is paying $10 less per game worth it to invest in PC gaming over console gaming when it comes to major titles? No. 

You can try to twist anyway you want, but the price point will never be in favor of the PC.  The PC has ALWAYS been a more costly gaming machine than a console. Will that ever change? I highly doubt it, seeing as it looks like consoles may even be getting cheaper in the future while PC hardware seems to be becoming more expensive. 

So its not a matter of whether or not your buying CD Keys separate from the game works, Im not saying it doesnt, but its a matter of it in the end being more cost effective than console gaming. Which its not.

EDIT: I just did some research on the matter, and it seems alot of other people agree that buying only CD Keys is suspect.  Also, I dont know about Russia or India, but China didnt have console games. They didnt allow consoles in their country.  China is communist.  They also have a giant firewall in their country preventing people from looking at any kind of social media, like this.  I did hear recently that China was going to accept the new generation of consoles, however I havent heard any news on that. China says alot of things, I dont particularly trust communist leaders who are generally tyrannical and will say anything to make their people think they are god.


EDIT:  I decided to do more math. And figured that in order for you to actually start saving money on the PC gaming side, you would have to buy about 600 games in 11 years. And only then you would save about $1,000 over console gaming.  600 games in 11 years is 50 games a year man. If your buying a game a week every week, I feel like you need to do something more productive with your time.


----------



## Troncoso

I got to say, I'm really enjoying the PS4. The only thing I wish it had that the XBox One has is Dead Rising 3. Though, I kind of like the QR scanner for the camera. I've already had to use 3 promo codes. THOUGH, you can actually connect to your PS4 through the Playstation App, and use its keyboard to type, which is handy.

Oh, and the snap thing that the XBox One does. In very limited cases, that would be pretty helpful. Though, I don't really see why anyone would snap a TV show next to a game. That just seems silly. But, for pinning up like your chat party, or an online game guide, that'd be neat.


----------



## G80FTW

Troncoso said:


> I got to say, I'm really enjoying the PS4. The only thing I wish it had that the XBox One has is Dead Rising 3. Though, I kind of like the QR scanner for the camera. I've already had to use 3 promo codes. THOUGH, you can actually connect to your PS4 through the Playstation App, and use its keyboard to type, which is handy.
> 
> Oh, and the snap thing that the XBox One does. In very limited cases, that would be pretty helpful. Though, I don't really see why anyone would snap a TV show next to a game. That just seems silly. But, for pinning up like your chat party, or an online game guide, that'd be neat.




Yes dead rising 3 looks amazing. I was sad to hear it was xbox only as i dont plan on getting the xbox one.


----------



## Justin

I'm not planning to buy a new console until maybe halfway through 2014 when more games come out but if I could buy one now it would be the Xbox. I really really *REALLY* want to play Forza 5 and Killer Instinct.


----------



## Geoff

Justin said:


> I'm not planning to buy a new console until maybe halfway through 2014 when more games come out but if I could buy one now it would be the Xbox. I really really *REALLY* want to play Forza 5 and Killer Instinct.


Same here, now that I just started my weekend job I'll have very little free time until spring, no point in buying a new console now.


----------



## Calibretto

So I played around with my Xbox One all weekend and a little bit during these past couple weekdays, and from talking with another friend who has the PS4, it's pretty clear that the PS4 is way easier to set up and get going. 

However, the new Kinect is way better this time around and is actually useful for a lot of things. I mostly use it to launch Netflix ("Xbox on", "Xbox, go to Netflix"), but it was super convenient to have when redeeming codes, and more games support Kinect. Plus, Logitech Harmony integration is really nice.

As far as having to pay for Xbox Live Gold to use even the most trivial of apps (like Netflix), you can easily find Gold for $35/year, which is $3/month -- practically nothing. Just give up a Starbucks coffee for one day a month and you'll have that money.



WRXGuy1 said:


> For me, Xbox and Playstations are gaming consoles.  I buy them to game, not browse the internet or stream videos.



That's like saying you buy an iPhone to make phone calls, so it shouldn't come with web browsing, games, and streaming apps. I understand what you're saying, but thought I'd just play devil's advocate  It's nice to have a single living room machine do everything I want it to do.


----------



## Troncoso

While I agree, I also disagree. As far as streaming goes, yes it's more convenient since your console is already hooked to the TV and you don't have to switch inputs. But, for anything else (skype, web browsing, social media, etc) I don't find it beneficial at all to do it through a console where the primary user input is a game controller. As well, I don't want people calling me or leaving me notifications that I see during my games.


----------



## G80FTW

Calibretto said:


> As far as having to pay for Xbox Live Gold to use even the most trivial of apps (like Netflix), you can easily find Gold for $35/year, which is $3/month -- practically nothing. Just give up a Starbucks coffee for one day a month and you'll have that money.



Wheres that? Because I was paying $60 a year.


----------



## Calibretto

G80FTW said:


> Wheres that? Because I was paying $60 a year.



Xbox Live Gold is always discounted, whether on eBay or a deals website. There's absolutely no reason to pay $60/year for it.


----------



## Geoff

Calibretto said:


> Xbox Live Gold is always discounted, whether on eBay or a deals website. There's absolutely no reason to pay $60/year for it.


True.  You can find it on Amazon for ~$50-$55 regular price, with lots of sales on both Amazon and retail stores usually for around $40.


----------



## G80FTW

WRXGuy1 said:


> True.  You can find it on Amazon for ~$50-$55 regular price, with lots of sales on both Amazon and retail stores usually for around $40.



Meh. Doesnt matter since i wont be getting another xbox haha.


----------



## jamesd1981

I went for ps4 and am delighted with it, got killzone bundle and cod ghosts.


----------



## tremmor

I come across this if anybody is interested in the difference between xbox1 and playstation 4.
http://www.howtogeek.com/176916/htg...ion-4-when-a-console-is-just-a-great-console/


----------



## Geoff

tremmor said:


> I come across this if anybody is interested in the difference between xbox1 and playstation 4.
> http://www.howtogeek.com/176916/htg...ion-4-when-a-console-is-just-a-great-console/


Great article, thanks!


----------



## Hyper_Kagome

I was lucky enough to get gifted a One from work. I haven't played a whole lot of it (yet), but I did pick up Dead Rising 3 since I felt like smashing zombies. The Kinect integration into the game itself in terms of picking up ambient noise and thrusting it into the game is a neat feature. Outside of game it's pretty useful for things like Skype, where it pans around to follow the user and occasional zooms in and out. Voice commands are easy to spout off as well.
I'm just hoping some of these games that Microsoft is going to release to the platform as exclusives are going to be as good as they look. If it's one thing the previous consoles lacked, it was exclusives. Sony has TONS of exclusives. I'm sad to see some of theirs go multi-platform (which I'll likely buy a PS4 for those specific games for ease of controller integration and comfort of the home platform), but I'm happy to see some fresh and healthy competition between the companies.
I can see great things coming from both.

The new Xbox One controller also feels nice. The integration of the batteries being moved into the controller as opposed to a bulked pack on the back reduced the weight a bit (even though I loved the weight of my Xbox 360 controller with a chatpad hooked to it, and dearly hope one is released for the One), and I have yet to really try out the trigger vibration seeing as I do not own a game which supports the function just yet.

The Dashboard has a small learning curve (I still can't figure out how to pin things to the home screen that I access frequently), but overall I find it to be fairly easy to navigate. Though certain parts I had to voice command my way to (like settings) since I couldn't find a CLICK HERE FOR SETTINGS tab...


----------



## Caterpillar

The PS4 for me.

I currently have a Xbox 360, so to get the PlayStation would be solely for diversity.


----------



## G80FTW

Still waiting on these games that are supposed to have better graphics.  BF4 did not impress me the slightest. Looks the same as BF3 to me. (for PC)


----------



## Troncoso

G80FTW said:


> Still waiting on these games that are supposed to have better graphics.  BF4 did not impress me the slightest. Looks the same as BF3 to me. (for PC)



I'm not sure what you're expecting from PC...developers always have the latest hardware to work with, so you don't see large advances. There's a 7 year gap between PS3 and PS4, and the PS4 version definitely looks a lot better.


----------



## G80FTW

Troncoso said:


> I'm not sure what you're expecting from PC...developers always have the latest hardware to work with, so you don't see large advances. There's a 7 year gap between PS3 and PS4, and the PS4 version definitely looks a lot better.



Thats what Im talking about. We have the latest hardware on PC, now we have the latest hardware on consoles as well. So how come they arent using it?


----------



## lucasbytegenius

G80FTW said:


> Thats what Im talking about. We have the latest hardware on PC, now we have the latest hardware on consoles as well. So how come they arent using it?



For one thing, you're obviously not keeping up with the news very well with PC games, and for another, those new consoles just came out - give the developers time.

For PC, well, Crysis 3 came out a couple months ago I think, then there's the Metro series, Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, Sleeping Dogs and Star Citizen, which is currently in development but damn the hangar module looks pretty sweet:


----------



## G80FTW

lucasbytegenius said:


> For one thing, you're obviously not keeping up with the news very well with PC games, and for another, those new consoles just came out - give the developers time.
> 
> For PC, well, Crysis 3 came out a couple months ago I think, then there's the Metro series, Tomb Raider, Bioshock Infinite, Sleeping Dogs and Star Citizen, which is currently in development but damn the hangar module looks pretty sweet:



Crysis 3 came out nearly a year ago already. And nothing has come out since then that looks any better. And I was kinda disappointed with it to be honest. Tomb Raider did look amazing. Metro 2033 was amazing when it came out but now its just meh since Crysis 3.

Sleeping Dogs looked horrible dont even know why you listed that. It was a fun game though.

And the developers have had years to work with this kind of hardware, but chose not to. Just because the new consoles just came out thats no excuse as to why developers havent been making games designed for PC.


----------



## PCunicorn

BF4 just came out, that's stressing most people's PCs pretty well. Sucks it's so glitchy (from what I hear at least) .


----------



## zeppelin04

PCunicorn said:


> BF4 just came out, that's stressing most people's PCs pretty well. Sucks it's so glitchy (from what I hear at least) .



It has been running fine more me since it got patched on ps4.

The graphics will get better. I just like the accessibility.  Someone can stop over and we take turns playing rounds.  This is a little simpler with a console. If graphics were everything I would have passed but most people I know are console gamers. I am not having them over to teach them keyboard and mouse controls.


----------



## G80FTW

PCunicorn said:


> BF4 just came out, that's stressing most people's PCs pretty well. Sucks it's so glitchy (from what I hear at least) .



Its not even stressing my PC at all. In fact, it probably runs a little better than BF3 did with the same graphics.  

But what Im really on about is all these tech demos about.  Like BeamNG Drive, Rigs of Rods, SpinTires etc....all these tech demos show us what is POSSIBLE with current hardware and my question is why are developers not implementing these kind of things into games?

EA bragged about the destructible environment in BF4....well, its not anymore destructible than the one in BF3...which isnt anymore destructible than the environment in GTA5.  Its just silly that they refuse to make use of the hardware available.  I feel like my graphics card has enough time to take a nap while it plays these games they are so lacking.


----------



## Troncoso

G80FTW said:


> Its not even stressing my PC at all. In fact, it probably runs a little better than BF3 did with the same graphics.
> 
> But what Im really on about is all these tech demos about.  Like BeamNG Drive, Rigs of Rods, SpinTires etc....all these tech demos show us what is POSSIBLE with current hardware and my question is why are developers not implementing these kind of things into games?
> 
> EA bragged about the destructible environment in BF4....well, its not anymore destructible than the one in BF3...which isnt anymore destructible than the environment in GTA5.  Its just silly that they refuse to make use of the hardware available.  I feel like my graphics card has enough time to take a nap while it plays these games they are so lacking.



There aren't destructible environments in GTA5....Anyway. These tech demos don't represent what is possible in games, only what is possible of hardware these days. That's two completely different things.


----------



## G80FTW

Troncoso said:


> There aren't destructible environments in GTA5....Anyway. These tech demos don't represent what is possible in games, only what is possible of hardware these days. That's two completely different things.



Actually GTA5 does have destructible objects in the game, alot actually. I used it as a comparison because BF3 nor BF4 offer a REAL destructible environment as they claim. Everything is scripted. 

And why do tech demos not represent what is possible in games? Thats almost EXACTLY what a tech demo is for....


----------



## kennebell347

G80FTW said:


> Its not even stressing my PC at all. In fact, it probably runs a little better than BF3 did with the same graphics.
> 
> But what Im really on about is all these tech demos about.  Like BeamNG Drive, Rigs of Rods, SpinTires etc....all these tech demos show us what is POSSIBLE with current hardware and my question is why are developers not implementing these kind of things into games?
> 
> EA bragged about the destructible environment in BF4....well, its not anymore destructible than the one in BF3...which isnt anymore destructible than the environment in GTA5.  Its just silly that they refuse to make use of the hardware available.  I feel like my graphics card has enough time to take a nap while it plays these games they are so lacking.



It will stress anything if you crank up the MSAA and run 2560x1600 as well as the resolution scale or w/e its called.

I run two Lightning 780s and it is not an easy game to get 60fps all the time with those settings at 1600p.


----------



## G80FTW

kennebell347 said:


> It will stress anything if you crank up the MSAA and run 2560x1600 as well as the resolution scale or w/e its called.
> 
> I run two Lightning 780s and it is not an easy game to get 60fps all the time with those settings at 1600p.



I can only go up to 1920x1080, and at that resolution with everything up I have no problem keeping 60fps.  The resolution scale makes no difference to image quality if you already have 4x AA on at 1080p.

Granted 2560x1600 is a much higher resolution, 2 780s shouldnt struggle. I would just leave scaling at 100% or 120% like I use. 200% is a waste of power since you wont see any difference especially if your at 1600p.


----------



## spirit

1920x1080 really isn't that high of a resolution these days for games - especially when you've got a graphics card like a GTX 680 with 4GB of V-RAM.


----------



## G80FTW

spirit said:


> 1920x1080 really isn't that high of a resolution these days for games - especially when you've got a graphics card like a GTX 680 with 4GB of V-RAM.



It is when its on a 32 inch HD TV 

1080p is fine for me as Im not up close to my screen.

I also think my 4GB VRAM was worth it after all because from what I saw of the benchmarks in BF4 with the 2GB version of my card at 1920x1080 was about 10-15fps lower than what I get. Battlefield doesnt strike me as a RAM hog though.


----------



## lucasbytegenius

G80FTW said:


> Battlefield doesnt strike me as a RAM hog though.



lolwut
https://www.google.com/search?q=bf4...j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8


----------



## G80FTW

lucasbytegenius said:


> lolwut
> https://www.google.com/search?q=bf4...j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8



Strange. Since BF3 hardly used any of my RAM. I think at most it used 800MB altogether.  I dont know how much BF4 is using, as MSI Afterburner does not work with BF4 for some reason 

That link you posted also says it only has that issue in Windows 8.  Im using Windows 7 Ultimate and never experienced any of the problems listed.


----------



## Okedokey

Id be suprised if a 680 can run 1920x1080 Ultra max settings never below 60FPS.  Most of the benches ive seen is around 40s.  

In terms of RAM, yeah, ive seen it use around 1GB, and just under 3GB VRAM at 5760 x 1080.


----------



## G80FTW

Okedokey said:


> Id be suprised if a 680 can run 1920x1080 Ultra max settings never below 60FPS.  Most of the benches ive seen is around 40s.
> 
> In terms of RAM, yeah, ive seen it use around 1GB, and just under 3GB VRAM at 5760 x 1080.



I didnt say it NEVER went under 60. Lowest it goes though is in the 40s, it will stay in the mid-high 50s for most of the time though. And thats running 150% scaling at 1080p now with no AA. I decided that even though I dont see any difference between the super sampling and MSAA I might as well use the super sampling.

And like I said, the 680s tested were probably stock clocks and 2GB. Mine is overclocked by eVGA and has 4GB.


----------



## Aastii

G80FTW said:


> It is when its on a 32 inch HD TV
> 
> 1080p is fine for me as Im not up close to my screen.
> 
> I also think my 4GB VRAM was worth it after all because from what I saw of the benchmarks in BF4 with the 2GB version of my card at 1920x1080 was about 10-15fps lower than what I get. Battlefield doesnt strike me as a RAM hog though.



Display size doesn't make any difference to performance, it will just affect pixel density. Your system running at 1920x1080 on your 32" TV will perform identically to if you were running on a 23" monitor, you would just have better picture quality on the monitor as you have greater pixel density.

You are also mistaking RAM for VRAM, they behave very differently to each other. It should be no surprise that BF4 is VRAM intensive as you have large draw distances, detailed textures and advanced lighting/shading effects


----------



## spirit

Aastii said:


> Display size doesn't make any difference to performance, it will just affect pixel density. Your system running at 1920x1080 on your 32" TV will perform identically to if you were running on a 23" monitor, you would just have better picture quality on the monitor as you have greater pixel density.


Exactly. Running pretty much any game at 1080p with a 4GB GTX 680 should be a breeze.

You should just be glad that your system can clearly max it at the resolution which you play it at.


----------



## G80FTW

Aastii said:


> Display size doesn't make any difference to performance, it will just affect pixel density. Your system running at 1920x1080 on your 32" TV will perform identically to if you were running on a 23" monitor, you would just have better picture quality on the monitor as you have greater pixel density.
> 
> You are also mistaking RAM for VRAM, they behave very differently to each other. It should be no surprise that BF4 is VRAM intensive as you have large draw distances, detailed textures and advanced lighting/shading effects



Im aware of this. What I was pointing out is that since Im not up close to my TV, things look more clear to me. 

Im not mistaking the 2, I was saying that Frostbite appears to be a well optimized engine (IE it doesnt eat up RAM like some games and not use it *GTA4*) so I dont see why at 1080p the 2GB version of my card should perform any worse than the 4GB as I doubt its using 2GB of VRAM but if I can find a way to test that I will.


----------



## Ramodkk

**** it, I'm getting a WiiU this Christmas.


----------



## Geoff

Magreenery said:


> **** it, I'm getting a WiiU this Christmas.


Said no one ever


----------



## PCunicorn

Except me  lol


----------



## Okedokey

G80FTW said:


> I didnt say it NEVER went under 60. Lowest it goes though is in the 40s, it will stay in the mid-high 50s for most of the time though. And thats running 150% scaling at 1080p now with no AA. I decided that even though I dont see any difference between the super sampling and MSAA I might as well use the super sampling.
> 
> And like I said, the 680s tested were probably stock clocks and 2GB. Mine is overclocked by eVGA and has 4GB.



Yeah sorry, i just read this



G80FTW said:


> I can only go up to 1920x1080, and at that resolution with everything up I have no problem keeping 60fps.



and thought you meant every on max, including AA, and you having no problem keeping (e.g. maintaining), 60FPS.  Sorry if i mis-read.

Do you get any tearing on the TV?


----------



## Ramodkk

WRXGuy1 said:


> Said no one ever



You obviously haven't played Super Mario 3D World with beer and a group of good friends!


----------



## G80FTW

Okedokey said:


> Yeah sorry, i just read this
> 
> 
> 
> and thought you meant every on max, including AA, and you having no problem keeping (e.g. maintaining), 60FPS.  Sorry if i mis-read.
> 
> Do you get any tearing on the TV?



I was running 4xMSAA at 100% scaling but I get nearly the same performance running 150% scaling with no AA. 

Also, no tearing as I use V-sync and my TVs refresh rate is 60hz.


----------

