# PS4, finally to be unveiled?



## tech savvy

Quote from Yahoo;

"Rumors about the PlayStation 4 have been floating around for over a year now, but on February 20, we'll finally get a glimpse at the real thing. That's the day Sony will hold an event in New York where it reportedly plans to unveil its long-awaited next-generation console."

I personally can not wait. Even though I game mostly on my PC, I'm still going to buy the next-generation consoles,PS4 and XBOX720 Basically only because of the selection of game's that they offer.

I just wanted to hear what ya'll think about it, and if ya'll plan to buy one?


----------



## salvage-this

I won't be getting one but I am excited to see the hardware that both of the consoles will run.


----------



## WeatherMan

I don't plan to buy one, but it'll be interesting to hear the specs of the next gen consoles.

Maybe when these new consoles come out the dev's will finally start making newer api's mandatory, so we could end up seeing a few more DX10/11 exclusive titles


----------



## tech savvy

I hope it's on live T.V, I really want to see it. I'm so excited!

Edit:





salvage-this said:


> I won't be getting one but I am excited to see the hardware that both of the consoles will run.



Also, it's said Microsoft will be unveiling there next-generation console some time in the next few months. Looks like Sony will get the first jump on the release, ahead of Microsoft.


----------



## wbt50

For the first time ever, I see my self skipping the next gen of consoles. I'll stick to PC


----------



## tech savvy

wbt50 said:


> For the first time ever, I see my self skipping the next gen of consoles. I'll stick to PC



Oh, I game on my PC hardcore, but the selection is mediocre. The selection that  the consoles bring are enormous.


----------



## spirit

Will be interesting to see what it's like. Not in a million years getting one though. I've got an Xbox 360 at the moment, I never use it because I game on the PC.

Last PlayStation I owned was a PS2 about 6-7 years ago now!

But never the less, it'll be interesting to see what the next generation of consoles are like. It's about time I think.


----------



## salvage-this

tech savvy said:


> Also, it's said Microsoft will be unveiling there next-generation console some time in the next few months. Looks like Sony will get the first jump on the release, ahead of Microsoft.



I am just waiting for one of the manufacturers to make a deal with either AMD or nVidia to add a higher end GPU in the system.  AMD could really make a lot of money having consoles feature both an AMD CPU and GPU in their system.  It's more likely that whatever the steam console turns out to be will be geared more towards PC parts in console form.


----------



## Troncoso

I'm not sure whether to believe the rumor. Sony themselves said they were intentionally going to let Microsoft announce their new hardware first.

Regardless, I'll likely get whatever Sony throws out. I've had a PS3 since launch and it's provided countless hours of entertainment. I was the lucky one of my friends to never have had their PS3 break down in anyway. So, I can easily say I got my money's worth out of it. Not to mention, there is talk that the PS4 will be a lot more involved with the PS Vita, which I also own. Besides that, the PS3 is starting to show its age. These new update and fancy interface are rather sluggish compared to what they used to be. The games though, had great graphics. I can't even imagine the power house that the PS4 will be.


----------



## tech savvy

salvage-this said:


> I am just waiting for one of the manufacturers to make a deal with either AMD or nVidia to add a higher end GPU in the system.  AMD could really make a lot of money having consoles feature both an AMD CPU and GPU in their system.  It's more likely that whatever the steam console turns out to be will be geared more towards PC parts in console form.



I believe that Sony and Microsoft both use AMD in there consoles.


----------



## salvage-this

I thought it was a Samsung processor.  I might be wrong.  it was a long time since I looked at it.


----------



## CrazyMike

So the next gen console is coming so people can play COD56? I think they should think about coming out with the next generation of games first.


----------



## Okedokey

The next gen sony will be based on a AMD buldozer core and a 7 series GPU I have read.


----------



## Darren

bigfellla said:


> The next gen sony will be based on a AMD buldozer core and a 7 series GPU I have read.



Bulldozer? That's a bit disappointing. Would hope for Vishera at least or an Intel chip.


----------



## Geoff

I used to be a big PC gamer, but everyone I know now just plays on consoles.  It's so much easier to socialize on Xbox anyways as 95% of the people have proper mics, unlike PC gamers where only a select few use them.


----------



## Masterfulks

I still game on both consoles and pc. I regretted getting skyrim on PS3. I did because I expected to sell it later. However now I'm 200 hours in wishing I would have just got on my PC.

I'll probably wait about a year before I get the next xbox on ps4. I have liked the exclusives better on the PS3 so that leans me towards the ps4. 

I could get both, but I just don't have the time to make use of two consoles and a pc.


----------



## Shane

I read somewhere about the PS4,that games will be tied to your system,So there will be no second hand market for PS4 games...but what if your system fails? 

Also no backwards compatibility with PS3 games.

How true these are though,Who knows...it wouldn't surprise me if it were true though.


----------



## Okedokey

Nevakonaza said:


> I read somewhere about the PS4,that games will be tied to your system,So there will be no second hand market for PS4 games...but what if your system fails?
> 
> Also no backwards compatibility with PS3 games.
> 
> How true these are though,Who knows...it wouldn't surprise me if it were true though.



Just one more reason to get a real gaming pc!


----------



## tech savvy

bigfellla said:


> Just one more reason to get a real gaming pc!



Isn't that how it is now on PC's?

Anyway. I really hate to see that happen, because I love GameStop, and shop there frequently. Without them, I wouldn't have 90% of my games I have now, 360/PS3. I like buying used games, not new $60 games. Don't get me wrong, I would love to buy games on release day, and enjoy being one of the first to play. But hey, I'm not made of money, nor make a lot, so yeah, bring on the used.


----------



## Geoff

CrazyMike said:


> So the next gen console is coming so people can play COD56? I think they should think about coming out with the next generation of games first.


While I agree to an extent, the Xbox 360 and PS3 are almost a decade old, they are long overdue for a major hardware refresh.



tech savvy said:


> Isn't that how it is now on PC's?
> 
> Anyway. I really hate to see that happen, because I love GameStop, and shop there frequently. Without them, I wouldn't have 90% of my games I have now, 360/PS3. I like buying used games, not new $60 games. Don't get me wrong, I would love to buy games on release day, and enjoy being one of the first to play. But hey, I'm not made of money, nor make a lot, so yeah, bring on the used.


Games are expensive, but typically I only buy 2-3 games a year anyways.  I'll buy Black Ops 2 on release day and play that all the way until the next COD release.  I may buy a cheaper game such as GTA IV or FIFA in between, but I mainly stick with a game for a year until it's successor comes out.


----------



## Aastii

Nevakonaza said:


> I read somewhere about the PS4,that games will be tied to your system,So there will be no second hand market for PS4 games...but what if your system fails?
> 
> Also no backwards compatibility with PS3 games.
> 
> How true these are though,Who knows...it wouldn't surprise me if it were true though.



Is it not going to be bound to your PSN account, and you bind the system to your PSN account? I have my PS3 system on my PSN, I would imagine it is just a more restrictive form of this.

As for backwards compatibility, if you have PS3 games, you will most likely have a PS3. If not, expect a PS3 emulator with decent performance within the next few years, so if you want to sell your PS3 + games to buy a PS4, you can just re-buy the games in a few years for dirt cheap and play them on your PC


----------



## Troncoso

Aastii said:


> Is it not going to be bound to your PSN account, and you bind the system to your PSN account? I have my PS3 system on my PSN, I would imagine it is just a more restrictive form of this.
> 
> As for backwards compatibility, if you have PS3 games, you will most likely have a PS3. If not, expect a PS3 emulator with decent performance within the next few years, so if you want to sell your PS3 + games to buy a PS4, you can just re-buy the games in a few years for dirt cheap and play them on your PC



That, or Sony will give you the option to re-buy them as "classics" from the PSN. Not that I have a problem with that. I wish they would do it for PS2 games.


----------



## Aastii

Troncoso said:


> I wish they would do it for PS2 games.



This. I bouhgt FFX the other day just for emulator play. If it was on PSN would have jumped on it


----------



## Justin

They do sell PS2 games on the PS Store.


----------



## Shane

jnskyliner34 said:


> They do sell PS2 games on the PS Store.



Most,If not all the games on the PSN store are a ripoff.


----------



## Troncoso

jnskyliner34 said:


> They do sell PS2 games on the PS Store.



They sell a couple of remastered games like the ICO games and Metal Gear Solid series, but that's about it.



Nevakonaza said:


> Most,If not all the games on the PSN store are a ripoff.



That's not entirely true. Have you seen Journey? I wasn't a huge fan of it, but it got some of the best ratings I've ever seen for a downloadable game. IGN gave it game of the year.


----------



## Okedokey




----------



## Troncoso

bigfellla said:


> *Snip*



That'd be considered off-topic and unnecessary.


----------



## Okedokey

Troncoso said:


> That'd be considered off-topic and unnecessary.



I disagree!  We're talking about pc vs gaming when thinking about the next gen consoles. Its an interesting graphic directly relevant to the topic, pull your head in.


----------



## Troncoso

bigfellla said:


> I disagree!  We're talking about pc vs gaming when thinking about the next gen consoles. Its an interesting graphic directly relevant to the topic, pull your head in.





> I just wanted to hear what ya'll think about it, and if ya'll plan to buy one?



"It" being the PS4, just for clarification. This isn't a console war thread.

Not that I disagree. I'm primarily a PC gamer, myself.


----------



## Aastii

For games I prefer my PC, however my PS3 can play music, DVD's and Blurays, can stream Netflix and LoveFilm, I can play videos and music straight from my server or any other computer in the house. It is essentially a HTPC, albeit at this point a very cheap and small one. It isn't just for gaming, and whilst a PC is not either, it is a hell of a lot easier to get my PS3 started and watch a film than it is my PC, which is also much louder than the PlayStation is, so not great for those late night films when everyone else is in bed and I really need the volume to be low.

Then there are party games. How many Guitar Hero, Just Dance, Sports Champions and SingStar's are there for PC? If you are gaming on your own or on a LAN, PC is much better, but when you have friends round, you cannot beat a console.

As a primarily PC gamer, when the PS4 comes down in price, I will be picking one up, even though the main use probably won't be games.

Also, that graphic is somewhat misleading.

If you were to plot it again for 2012, I bet "PC" gaming would be even higher, but when you are taking into consideration the likes of Diner Dash and Bejeweled, you are including Facebook browser games which most people will now be playing on tablets or your every day home PC. Whilst yes, still gaming, it isn't gaming in the sense of your AAA titles and I believe a separate section should be had for smartphone/tablet, rather than roping it in with PC, when you thing of PC gaming, you don't think of someone sat with an iPad.

The income from consoles too, people have to regularly upgrade their PC's, whereas the console is always the same. Unless your console dies outside of warranty, you aren't going to buy another, but even then a lot will buy second hand because it is cheaper. With these things considered, it is no wonder profit has dropped when sales of the units have dropped too.

Then there are the titles themselves too. The "staple" games are out now. Everyone has GT5, GoW, Heavy Rain and Resistance now and no company is going to be making huge console exclusive titles any more (with the exception of GT5) because the PS4/720 are just around the corner, so there are no new games for people to buy, apart from the aforementioned party games and the annual sports games. The fact that the new consoles are only a year or so away is also driving unit prices down,so get another graphic in 2014 and let's see the difference then.


Whilst 90% of the time I prefer PC gaming, and whilst I would give up my console before I gave up my PC, it isn't black and white.

Oh and last thing, if you want to make a case for PC gaming popularity over consoles, you should have pointed out the most popular game in the world, League of Legends, and the graphic released by Riot: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/10/15/riot-games-releases-awesome-league-of-legends-infographic


----------



## tech savvy

Well, I seen on T.V the other day that the Xbox 360 is down to $99 new. So that basically tells me Microsoft is about to re-veil there next console. Here comes the wars again!

Edit: PS2 won the the first war, Wii won the second, who will win the third? Xbox 720?

Know your roots, Nintendo! Well, that's my roots(Born 1984). Some may be the Atari.


----------



## Turbo10

tech savvy said:


> Well, I seen on T.V the other day that the Xbox 360 is down to $99 new. So that basically tells me Microsoft is about to re-veil there next console. Here comes the wars again!



99 dollars new? I checked Amazon last night and it was £189 :S


----------



## tech savvy

Turbo10 said:


> 99 dollars new? I checked Amazon last night and it was £189 :S



Seriously?

Here link- http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox360/consoles/entertainment-for-all

You have to get an Xbox live for 2 years@$14.99/m for you to get the Xbox for $99.


----------



## Aastii

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Microsoft-X..._3?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1360702080&sr=1-3


----------



## Turbo10

Aastii said:


> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Microsoft-X..._3?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1360702080&sr=1-3



Ah was looking at the 250gb model, fair enough.


----------



## Turbo10

tech savvy said:


> Seriously?
> 
> Here link- http://www.xbox.com/en-US/xbox360/consoles/entertainment-for-all



Read the smallprint  

**Applicable taxes extra.* Early termination fee and other restrictions apply. See retailer/web site for offer terms. *Prices are Estimated Retail Prices. Actual retailer prices may vary.*

So add VAT and the unlikelihood that it will be that cheap in the shops, thats bollocks


----------



## tech savvy

Turbo10 said:


> Read the smallprint
> 
> **Applicable taxes extra.* Early termination fee and other restrictions apply. See retailer/web site for offer terms. *Prices are Estimated Retail Prices. Actual retailer prices may vary.*
> 
> So add VAT and the unlikelihood that it will be that cheap in the shops, thats *bollocks*



Read my "Edited" post.

Still $99 dollars though. And who don't have Xbox live anyway? That's the whole point in getting the Xbox over the PS3, for the community.

bollocks- meaning "testicles"?


----------



## Turbo10

tech savvy said:


> Read my "Edited" post.
> 
> Still $99 dollars though. And who don't have Xbox live anyway? That's the whole point in getting the Xbox over the PS3, for the community.
> 
> bollocks- meaning "testicles"?



Is it? Personally i'd get an Xbox 360 for games exclusive to the console sod the community.

and yup bollocks=testicles, can be used to mean something is bad or wrong  'What a load of bollocks' it rolls off the tongue!


----------



## CrazyMike

Man if you do the math on that 99$ xbox.... it comes out to $458??? what a rip off...


----------



## tech savvy

CrazyMike said:


> Man if you do the math on that 99$ xbox.... it comes out to $458??? what a rip off...



The $14.99/m is for Xbox live, not the Xbox itself. It's a good deal if your going to have Xbox live anyway.


----------



## CrazyMike

tech savvy said:


> The $14.99/m is for Xbox live, not the Xbox itself. It's a good deal if your going to have Xbox live anyway.



From what I read on that link is that you can get a $99 Xbox if you buy a 2 year membership to Xbox live for $14.99/month. 

"Get an
Xbox 360*
——for——
$99
*With* 2 year Xbox LIVE Gold Membership at *$14.99/month*"

In other words, they are forcing you to purchase an Xbox live membership costing you $14.99/month. That's why i said that it's a rip off. Because a year membership is only $60. This way it is $179.88/year.


----------



## Geoff

tech savvy said:


> The $14.99/m is for Xbox live, not the Xbox itself. It's a good deal if your going to have Xbox live anyway.


No it's not, because $14.99/mo is $180 for a year. when a 12-month Xbox Live membership is only $60.


----------



## Troncoso

So, the unveiling is going on right now. The Watch Dogs demo was amazing. AND. Blizzard is currently on stage talking about their new partnership with Sony. That's freaking crazy.

Update: Diablo 3 is coming to the PS3/4. What a disappointment.


----------



## Justin

I agree about Watch Dogs. Bungie's Destiny looked sweet! I'm thinking it's like a console version of Planetside 2.


----------



## zombine210

"supercharged" pc arch
x86 cpu
pc gpu
8gb ram
local hdd

so basically, it's a computer!
suck it console people!

i've had my "PS4" for about 4 years now.


----------



## CrazyMike

Man, here i was excited to hear what they would have to offer....... Highly disappointed.


----------



## Okedokey

zombine210 said:


> "supercharged" pc arch
> x86 cpu
> pc gpu
> 8gb ram
> local hdd
> 
> so basically, it's a computer!
> suck it console people!
> 
> i've had my "PS4" for about 4 years now.



Not sure what you're saying; theyve always been 'computers'


----------



## tech savvy

Troncoso said:


> So, the unveiling is going on right now. The Watch Dogs demo was amazing. AND. Blizzard is currently on stage talking about their new partnership with Sony. That's freaking crazy.
> 
> *Update: Diablo 3 is coming to the PS3/4. What a disappointment.*



Why is that a disappointment?




CrazyMike said:


> Man, here i was excited to hear what they would have to offer....... Highly disappointed.



You my friend, are a hard man to impress then.


----------



## Turbo10

Watched about an hour of stream and got bored, same specs as a modern gaming computer, games looked a bit boring, that dragon game looked cool though. Shame the Vita wasn't really dealt with, was hoping they'd announce a price cut like they did in Japan.


----------



## tech savvy

IMHO, the graphics that I seen, was pretty fck'in amazing if you ask me. I built my PC purely for gaming, and out of all the games I played (Maxed) doesn't look as good as the PS4. Maybe that's do to the software/game developers not maxing out the potential a PC has to offer. You can have all the power/performance in the world, but it's useless when every game can be MAXED with just a 660ti or 7870.

I don't think you can build a gaming PC(today) for the price of a PS4(rumored around $429-$529), that can come near the performance the PS4 has to offer. And you can't beat the game selection and community either.


----------



## Turbo10

tech savvy said:


> IMHO, the graphics that I seen, was pretty fck'in amazing if you ask me. I built my PC purely for gaming, and out of all the games I played (Maxed) doesn't look as good as the PS4. Maybe that's do to the software/game developers not maxing out the potential a PC has to offer. You can have all the power/performance in the world, but it's useless when every game can be MAXED with just a 660ti or 7870.
> 
> I don't think you can build a gaming PC(today) for the price of a PS4(rumored around $429-$529), that can come near the performance the PS4 has to offer. And you can't beat the game selection and community either.



Yeah I was going to say that PC games could easily look that good but devs often don't utilise the PC's capability to make it playable for people without decent computers

Also in terms of technology, the PS4 hasn't even come out yet and it's already out of date tech wise  PC's can keep up with the times better, not sure why consoles don't allow upgrades would make a lot more sense


----------



## tech savvy

Turbo10 said:


> Yeah I was going to say that PC games could easily look that good but devs often don't utilise the PC's capability to make it playable for people without decent computers
> 
> *Also in terms of technology, the PS4 hasn't even come out yet and it's already out of date tech wise*  PC's can keep up with the times better, not sure why consoles don't allow upgrades would make a lot more sense



It's not out dated yet, but will be when it's launched. What I was saying, was that you can not build a PC for the price of a PS4 and expect to get the same performance (gaming wise).


----------



## tech savvy

Thought I'll post the youtube IGN channel of the reveal of the PS4, it caps the 2 hour or so, in a quick 5min vid, enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ClLwdqRdo8&list=PLE196726F02565118&index=1


----------



## CrazyMike

tech savvy said:


> You my friend, are a hard man to impress then.



I wouldn't say that. Just thought that they would come out with "the next gen console". Instead, they just improved it a little. Like they mentioned, this console is still in 'testing' phase, so maybe they will change it. 

I'm trying to find specs on the damn thing, can't find any. Anybody know the exact specs? CPU brand/model? GPU brand/model? HDD (most likely Sony brand) cache/speed? 

The new console is better then the old one yes, but as for jaw dropping, the only time that happened was when i yawned.


----------



## tech savvy

CrazyMike said:


> I wouldn't say that. Just thought that they would come out with "the next gen console". Instead, they just improved it a little. Like they mentioned, this console is still in 'testing' phase, so maybe they will change it.
> 
> I'm trying to find specs on the damn thing, can't find any. Anybody know the exact specs? CPU brand/model? GPU brand/model? HDD (most likely Sony brand) cache/speed?
> 
> The new console is better then the old one yes, but as for jaw dropping, the only time that happened was when i yawned.



All I know is, it's an x86 8 core CPU, with 8GB RAM, and a AMD Radeon GPU(most likely an 7870 or 7950).

Edit: I heard that it might be packing the AMD 8000 series. Which is more believable, so it wont be out dated fast.


----------



## Justin

iirc the PS3's GPU was based of a 7800GTX and look at Gran Turismo 5. Killzone 3 was a great looking game too.


----------



## Troncoso

CrazyMike said:


> I wouldn't say that. Just thought that they would come out with "the next gen console". Instead, they just improved it a little. Like they mentioned, this console is still in 'testing' phase, so maybe they will change it.
> 
> I'm trying to find specs on the damn thing, can't find any. Anybody know the exact specs? CPU brand/model? GPU brand/model? HDD (most likely Sony brand) cache/speed?
> 
> The new console is better then the old one yes, but as for jaw dropping, the only time that happened was when i yawned.



You're disappointed because you want more of something that doesn't matter. It's not about the hardware anymore. You don't need the latest and greatest to have amazing graphics and great experiences. Sure they could put in Ivy Bridge and a 680. But, not only is that not needed, it would sky rocket the price.

This day and age is all about software. There is no point in looking at the specs of these consoles anymore. Obviously they'll be better than the last gen. Obviously, they can render better quality graphics than last gen. That much is a given. But, how are they going to deliver the content to you? How are they going to change your gaming experience? That's what matters. That's what console developers are concentrating on.

From what I've seen at the unveiling, Sony has some pretty beast things in store. From the seamless streaming, to the instant game demos, the play while you download, etc. It's pretty impressive so far.


----------



## Aastii

Tbh it all just seems as bit meh from here. The only things that really stood out was the streaming to vita and connecting to someone else console to play the game whilst streaming it to your console.

Time will tell though, lets see microsofts offering


----------



## Turbo10

Aastii said:


> Tbh it all just seems as bit meh from here. The only things that really stood out was the streaming to vita and connecting to someone else console to play the game whilst streaming it to your console.
> 
> Time will tell though, lets see microsofts offering



Any rumours on a microsoft press conference?


----------



## Aastii

Turbo10 said:


> Any rumours on a microsoft press conference?



E3, so June


----------



## jonnyp11

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6770/sony-announces-playstation-4-pc-hardware-inside



> 8-core x86-64 CPU using AMD Jaguar cores (built by AMD)
> High-end PC GPU (also built by AMD), delivering 1.84TFLOPS of performance
> Unified 8GB of GDDR5 memory for use by both the CPU and GPU with 176GB/s of memory bandwidth
> Large local hard drive



Article says the GPU will be around a 7850/7870.

I just wanna know why consoles have GDDR5 system memory and computers don't yet. I know it's a custom built thing but still.

Really this gen seems to be a good deal, but without upgrading it will fall far behind very soon.

On the bright side, devs will push for better graphics which means our computers will finally be challenged by more than one or two games. Unfortunately the PS4 will be stronger than my computer


----------



## tech savvy

jonnyp11 said:


> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6770/sony-announces-playstation-4-pc-hardware-inside
> 
> 
> 
> Article says the GPU will be around a 7850/7870.
> 
> I just wanna know why consoles have GDDR5 system memory and computers don't yet. I know it's a custom built thing but still.
> 
> Really this gen seems to be a good deal, but without upgrading it will fall far behind very soon.
> 
> On the bright side, devs will push for better graphics which means our computers will finally be challenged by more than one or two games. *Unfortunately the PS4 will be stronger than my computer*



Yes, stronger then most. Stronger then probably 90% of people on this forum.


----------



## spirit

jonnyp11 said:


> Article says the GPU will be around a 7850/7870.
> 
> I just wanna know why consoles have GDDR5 system memory and computers don't yet. I know it's a custom built thing but still.
> 
> Really this gen seems to be a good deal, but without upgrading it will fall far behind very soon.
> 
> On the bright side, devs will push for better graphics which means our computers will finally be challenged by more than one or two games. Unfortunately the PS4 will be stronger than my computer



I honestly wouldn't get too upset that a console is more powerful than your PC. Simply upgrade your graphics card to something like a 670 or a 7950 and your CPU to an FX-8320 and job done, you'll be the better gamer again. 

Of course it will fall behind quickly. I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that the Xbox 360 is based on Radeon X1800 graphics and the PS3 is based on GeForce 7800/7900 series graphics - both of which are very old GPUs. Why have the Xbox 360 and the PS3 'fallen behind'? Because they're 7 year old consoles and using hardware from the time, which of course has been replaced multiple times over since then. Give it two years and the 7850/7870 will be outdated, and because you can't upgrade a console, the hardware in the console will also be outdated. You are stuck with what you've got. 

For the time being, the spec does look good though. But back in 2005/06, the spec for the Xbox 360 and the PS3 also looked good. If the new generation of consoles lasts for as long as the previous/current generation, how will we be looking at the 7850/7870 in 5, 6, 7 years time? 

To be honest though, 99% of people who buy consoles don't give a stuff about the specs. They just want something cheap(ish) with online multiplayer support that has a lot of games available for it that they can hook up to their 42" TV and play whilst sitting on the couch.


----------



## EvanK

spirit said:


> To be honest though, 99% of people who buy consoles don't give a stuff about the specs. They just want something cheap(ish) with online multiplayer support that has a lot of games available for it that they can hook up to their 42" TV and play whilst sitting on the couch.



+1

If people cared about specs, these consoles would be replaced MUCH more often, and nobody would be buying them 7 years after their initial release.


----------



## tech savvy

But you have to realize that a console doesn't have to run a big OS, or other programs that take a lot of resources. So with that being said, it can dedicate all that hardware purely for gaming. Which makes it a powerful gaming machine.


----------



## spirit

EvanK said:


> +1
> 
> If people cared about specs, these consoles would be replaced MUCH more often, and nobody would be buying them 7 years after their initial release.


Exactly. 



tech savvy said:


> But you have to realize that a console doesn't have to run a big OS, or other programs that take a lot of resources. So with that being said, it can dedicate all that hardware purely for gaming. Which makes it a powerful gaming machine.


Yeah I hadn't considered that. That's a good point, but more and more of these consoles are getting all sorts of other programs for them. They're not just for gaming now. You can get Netflix and other stuff on them now too. But you can't deny that in 5, 6, 7 years time the 7850 and 7870 will be outdated GPUs. We will be looking at them in 7 years time in exactly the same way we are looking at the X1800 and the 7900 GT now.

The PS4 looks powerful now, but like all consoles, give it two years or so and it'll be outdated in terms of the hardware inside.


----------



## Aastii

jonnyp11 said:


> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6770/sony-announces-playstation-4-pc-hardware-inside
> 
> 
> 
> Article says the GPU will be around a 7850/7870.
> 
> I just wanna know why consoles have GDDR5 system memory and computers don't yet. I know it's a custom built thing but still.
> 
> Really this gen seems to be a good deal, but without upgrading it will fall far behind very soon.
> 
> On the bright side, devs will push for better graphics which means our computers will finally be challenged by more than one or two games. Unfortunately the PS4 will be stronger than my computer



I think you will find we have been using GDDR5 RAM for the last 3 generations of graphics cards  Since the GeForce 400 and Radeon 5000 series, we have been rocking GDDR5. It is also based of DDR3 memory, which we have been using for almost 6 years now, so yes, we do have GDDR5 and we have had it for years.


----------



## jonnyp11

Aastii said:


> I think you will find we have been using GDDR5 RAM for the last 3 generations of graphics cards  Since the GeForce 400 and Radeon 5000 series, we have been rocking GDDR5. It is also based of DDR3 memory, which we have been using for almost 6 years now, so yes, we do have GDDR5 and we have had it for years.



We dont have ddr5 system ram is what i meant, i know graphics cards have gddr5, mine does.


----------



## tech savvy

jonnyp11 said:


> We dont have ddr5 system ram is what i meant, i know graphics cards have gddr5, mine does.



I knew what you meant, if it matters.

Speaking of; why aren't we using DDR5 for system RAM yet?


----------



## Aastii

tech savvy said:


> I knew what you meant, if it matters.
> 
> Speaking of; why aren't we using DDR5 for system RAM yet?



Because we don't have DDR4 yet and 5 hasn't been developed.

GDDR5 =/= DDR5, it is based on DDR3, as is GDDR4 memory


----------



## jonnyp11

It is still faster and has a higher bandwidth/throughput, so why cant we get it?


----------



## Okedokey

jonnyp11 said:


> It is still faster and has a higher bandwidth/throughput, so why cant we get it?



No need for it as yet.  Same for pcie 3, SATA 6GB and a number of other technologies.

People worry about theses and then run a standard hdd, amazes me.


----------



## G80FTW

I just watched almost 2 hours of the press conference.  And I believe I witnessed the final stab in the heart of PC gaming.  Perhaps dead as we know it. Given that Crysis 3 was supposed to be the best looking game on PC, Crytek showed us that even the last good developer for PC doesnt care about the PC gamer anymore.

Iv been watching for the past decade as consoles continue to be the game developement focus and PC being left as the secondary platform for gaming. And it disgust me.  The PS4 may be the best thing technologically since the transistor, but its still hardware that will become obsolete within a year or 2 and as far as what I seen will still not be upgradable.  Which is why I love me PC and its hardware.

That said, Im certainly setting money aside for the PS4.  Im not sure that Microsoft can top what I just saw.


----------



## Troncoso

Again, hardware doesn't matter anymore. "Why don't we have DDR5 RAM?" Why do we need it? What can't you do with DDR3? 

Hardware is far beyond that in terms of the power needed to run games/applications. So, until the PS4's hardware can't handle the games that developers want to put on it, then no, it won't become obsolete.


----------



## Okedokey

Troncoso said:


> Again, hardware doesn't matter anymore. "Why don't we have DDR5 RAM?" Why do we need it? What can't you do with DDR3?
> 
> Hardware is far beyond that in terms of the power needed to run games/applications. So, until the PS4's hardware can't handle the games that developers want to put on it, then no, it won't become obsolete.



Crysis 3 will rape the ps4 at PC quality.


----------



## Justin

What's with all making a fuss about the hardware being obsolete in a couple of years? Every console has been like that. 

My PS3 is 6 years old and newer games like Need for Speed: Most Wanted run and still look good. I know they could look better on a PC but it isn't horrifying to look at that makes you want to gouge your eyes out.

If Sony had their way and made their own hardware instead of using off the shelf PC parts, developers will have a hard time like Bethesda did with the PS3.

I'm going to buy one. The Steam Box can wait.


----------



## jonnyp11

jnskyliner34 said:


> If Sony had their way and made their own hardware instead of using off the shelf PC parts, developers will have a hard time like Bethesda did with the PS3.



Um,  pretty sure an 8-core jaguar core and 7850/7870 level gpu on the same die isn't off the shelf, plus shared GDDR5 RAM for the system.


----------



## tech savvy

Troncoso said:


> *Again, hardware doesn't matter anymore. "Why don't we have DDR5 RAM?" Why do we need it? What can't you do with DDR3? *
> 
> Hardware is far beyond that in terms of the power needed to run games/applications. So, until the PS4's hardware can't handle the games that developers want to put on it, then no, it won't become obsolete.




It's not the fact that we don't need it, it's that we want it. If it's available, why not? We don't need SSD's either, but we want them/have them.

Edit:

DDR5 offers what over DDR3? Faster speeds, more reliable, higher memory bandwidths, etc.. 

Lamborghini offers what over Daewoo? Faster speeds, more reliable, more comfortable ride, more horse power, and of course, more beautiful. 

Do we need all that so called luxury?No, but we want it.


----------



## Aastii

With regards to GDDR5 memory, there is a reason we do not have it, in fact several fairly obvious reasons.

Firstly, as has been said, so far as performance is concerned it is not necessary. The way the PS4 works and the way a PC works are similar but different, the same as all consoles are. Whenever you play a game on PC, 9 times out of 10 it is the CPU or graphics card holding you back, not your memory. Outside of games, it is your CPU or hard drive, or the density of the memory, again, not the speed of your memory. You could throw in an extra theoretical 4GB/s or so speed to your RAM, but it won't actually show any difference at all.

You could argue, as it has been, that hardware such as SSD's is not 100% necesary right now, because even a top end SSD is still a bottleneck when it is involved in the transfer of data, so why not throw out the high speed memory to PC's as well, but that leads into point 2, the introduction of DDR4 memory. This is expected sometime between 2013-2014, so it is possible that we could see it some time later this year, though I personally doubt that. With DDR4 coming so soon all of the development work put into making the memory work with your modern computer would be completely worthless in 12 months time. For a hardware manufacturer, that is pissing money away.

Then point number three which is tied into that, no consumer in their right mind would drop money on new memory, a new motherboard and likely a new CPU as a new memory controller would be needed when they cannot upgrade from it and when what they have will be very far behind within the space of a few months. This isn't like a new graphics card coming out every 12 months or so, because you can't get rid of your old and get a new. With this you would have to get yet another new motherboard, new CPU and new memory. For 99% of users this is not practical so they will not buy it, making all of the aforementioned money spent on developing a system to utilise the memory by hardware manufacturers wasted

Not only is it not necessary, it is not practical to implement in the slightest right now. Let them have their moment and then in a year's time scoff when you go to DDR4, if specs rather than real world performance really do get you hot and bothered.



G80FTW said:


> I just watched almost 2 hours of the press conference.  And I believe I witnessed the final stab in the heart of PC gaming.  Perhaps dead as we know it. Given that Crysis 3 was supposed to be the best looking game on PC, Crytek showed us that even the last good developer for PC doesnt care about the PC gamer anymore.
> 
> Iv been watching for the past decade as consoles continue to be the game developement focus and PC being left as the secondary platform for gaming. And it disgust me.  The PS4 may be the best thing technologically since the transistor, but its still hardware that will become obsolete within a year or 2 and as far as what I seen will still not be upgradable.  Which is why I love me PC and its hardware.
> 
> That said, Im certainly setting money aside for the PS4.  Im not sure that Microsoft can top what I just saw.



I don't believe anybody has ever been more wrong on these forums.

First off, PC gaming is still a hell of a lot more popular than consoles. Right now the number 1 game in the world, League of Legends, is a PC exclusive game. They have more users than there are active XBL subscribers, they have more E-Sports tournament money than any other game in history with more spectators than any other game in history.

You take into account all PC exclusive games, like all of your MMO's, the main Sims games, the rest of the MOBA games besides the previously mentioned LoL, not only does the PC beat the Xbox, it beats all of the three major consoles so far as sales and user figures are concerned combined.

And then consider the Facebook and browser games. Than in itself adds another 7, if not 8, figure number onto the number of users. I personally don't fully count these though, as your think of PC gaming, you think of a desktop or laptop, and a lot of these users are not on tablets, however the majority are still on their PC.

Secondly, companies are not developing for PC any more? Come on... The biggest games of the last decade originated on PC and are still developed for PC, like CoD, which was PC only or MoH, which was PC only. Then look at more recent games that have been major talking points, Minecraft, LoL, Dayz, all of them are either still PC exclusive or developed mainly for PC. To say no team is developing for PC, yet failing to look at the likes of Mojang, Riot, Bohemia, Blizzard, Valve and Creative Assembly and the countless indie developers is extremely ignorant and short sighted. Even your developers selling games on more than one platform, like Activision and EA still develop and sell their games on PC.

Thirdly, you are ignoring mods completely. Most developers make an extremely good platform and they bug fix but stop. That means on a console you get what you are given. With PC though, the mod community will keep people coming. You mention Crysis 3 being the best looking game on PC, but I would argue that Crysis 1 with mods, GTA4 with mods or even the upcoming Arma 3 as standard look far better.

People said at the release of the PS3 and 360 that PC gaming was now over. Just look how wrong they are. You think that if a developer stopped making games for PC completely that there aren't 100 that will come and fill their spot with equally as good or better games? PC gaming is going nowhere, now or in the foreseeable future


----------



## G80FTW

Aastii said:


> I don't believe anybody has ever been more wrong on these forums.
> 
> First off, PC gaming is still a hell of a lot more popular than consoles. Right now the number 1 game in the world, League of Legends, is a PC exclusive game. They have more users than there are active XBL subscribers, they have more E-Sports tournament money than any other game in history with more spectators than any other game in history.
> 
> You take into account all PC exclusive games, like all of your MMO's, the main Sims games, the rest of the MOBA games besides the previously mentioned LoL, not only does the PC beat the Xbox, it beats all of the three major consoles so far as sales and user figures are concerned combined.
> 
> And then consider the Facebook and browser games. Than in itself adds another 7, if not 8, figure number onto the number of users. I personally don't fully count these though, as your think of PC gaming, you think of a desktop or laptop, and a lot of these users are not on tablets, however the majority are still on their PC.
> 
> Secondly, companies are not developing for PC any more? Come on... The biggest games of the last decade originated on PC and are still developed for PC, like CoD, which was PC only or MoH, which was PC only. Then look at more recent games that have been major talking points, Minecraft, LoL, Dayz, all of them are either still PC exclusive or developed mainly for PC. To say no team is developing for PC, yet failing to look at the likes of Mojang, Riot, Bohemia, Blizzard, Valve and Creative Assembly and the countless indie developers is extremely ignorant and short sighted. Even your developers selling games on more than one platform, like Activision and EA still develop and sell their games on PC.
> 
> Thirdly, you are ignoring mods completely. Most developers make an extremely good platform and they bug fix but stop. That means on a console you get what you are given. With PC though, the mod community will keep people coming. You mention Crysis 3 being the best looking game on PC, but I would argue that Crysis 1 with mods, GTA4 with mods or even the upcoming Arma 3 as standard look far better.
> 
> People said at the release of the PS3 and 360 that PC gaming was now over. Just look how wrong they are. You think that if a developer stopped making games for PC completely that there aren't 100 that will come and fill their spot with equally as good or better games? PC gaming is going nowhere, now or in the foreseeable future



I dont want, nor do I care about pay by the month MMOs.  The PC market is too saturated with that time consuming useless junk.  Thats not a true gaming experience if you ask me.  And those kind of developers dont focus on what current hardware can do, but instead try to make the game as graphically challenged as possible so every PC can play it smooth.

If by CoD and MoH you mean Call of Duty and Medal of Honor, what are you talking about PC only? Both have been console focused games since the start.....  I have the latest Medal of Honor, looks the same on PC as it does on console aside from the obvious AA that PC offers.

Valve may be the last hope, but even they started getting into the console market themselves. Hopefully we dont lose them too.

You didnt get my point. Yes games are still made for PC as well as console. And Im sure they will for decades to come. My point is, we have no more hardcore developers left to push the PC hardware. If everyone is focusing on what 7 year old hardware can do, we will never know what my i7 and 680 can do. In fact, I still have no idea what my graphics card I paid so much money for can do. As far as I can see, it puts out the same graphics as my 7 year old Xbox. Because 98% of games are developed for it not my PC. Metro 2033 was the only multi-platform game I have seen that did it right so far.

I never said Crysis 3 has the best graphics, I said it was SUPPOSED to. But it doesnt. We all know CryEngine 3 is probably one of the most advanced graphics engines available, but Crytek refuse to release a game using its power. Instead they just tease us with it.  The only way to see what Cry3 can do is to play around in the dev kit.  Pointless crap.

Crysis 3 "wont" rape PS4 in quality. Its been out here since 19th, and I can tell you first hand it comes no where near the PS4 in quality. It doesnt even compare to other games in quality.


----------



## Aastii

For MMO's, that is your preference, but the MMO games are still PC games whether you like to play them or not.

Call of Duty was PC only, it was 5 years after that they released it on Xbox, the same year that MW2 came out. It has only been on consoles since CoD2.

Medal of Honor, was console first and there have been several console exclusives, however the PC exclusives, AA, Spearhead, Breakthrough and PA were all much better and more successful, so much so that even now there are still AA leagues and tournaments, whereas MoH and all of the console titles have died completely.

For hardcore PC developers, please re-read the entire post, there is even a nice, tidy list in there. Tell me how Mojang, Riot, Bohemia, Blizzard, Valve and Creative Assembly, even Dice who are a massive one that I missed out, aren't PC focused. Dice go and make BF3, a AAA title and they develop it for PC first and foremost, then port it to consoles with stuff taken out. When a company goes and does that with a title expected to challenge the likes of CoD and it is published by a company like EA, are you still going to try and claim that no developers care about PC?

That is only a short list too. If you want games that will push your hardware from these developers and from modders, you aren't looking very far. Go and play ArmA 2, or play GTA4 with the photorealism mod or Crysis 1 with DX11 and texture mods. Not only do they blow the "next gen" consoles away, they will give your hardware a bit of a challenge if you are playing at anything over 1920x1080.

The whole post is pointless though really, you are still sure that there is (was)only Crytek  that made games for PC only, but don't know about most of the PC game developers. I will dig this thread back up at the release of the PS5 if you are still about and show you, from my gaming system, just how "dead" PC gaming is


----------



## G80FTW

Aastii said:


> For MMO's, that is your preference, but the MMO games are still PC games whether you like to play them or not.
> 
> Call of Duty was PC only, it was 5 years after that they released it on Xbox, the same year that MW2 came out. It has only been on consoles since CoD2.
> 
> Medal of Honor, was console first and there have been several console exclusives, however the PC exclusives, AA, Spearhead, Breakthrough and PA were all much better and more successful, so much so that even now there are still AA leagues and tournaments, whereas MoH and all of the console titles have died completely.
> 
> For hardcore PC developers, please re-read the entire post, there is even a nice, tidy list in there. Tell me how Mojang, Riot, Bohemia, Blizzard, Valve and Creative Assembly, even Dice who are a massive one that I missed out, aren't PC focused. Dice go and make BF3, a AAA title and they develop it for PC first and foremost, then port it to consoles with stuff taken out. When a company goes and does that with a title expected to challenge the likes of CoD and it is published by a company like EA, are you still going to try and claim that no developers care about PC?
> 
> That is only a short list too. If you want games that will push your hardware from these developers and from modders, you aren't looking very far. Go and play ArmA 2, or play GTA4 with the photorealism mod or Crysis 1 with DX11 and texture mods. Not only do they blow the "next gen" consoles away, they will give your hardware a bit of a challenge if you are playing at anything over 1920x1080.
> 
> The whole post is pointless though really, you are still sure that there is (was)only Crytek  that made games for PC only, but don't know about most of the PC game developers. I will dig this thread back up at the release of the PS5 if you are still about and show you, from my gaming system, just how "dead" PC gaming is



BF3 was not designed for PC, it was designed for console. It just so happens that there isnt a difference between PC and console in terms of graphics? Come on.  Medal of Honor Warfighter, which uses the same engine, looks exactly the same as BF3 but was said to look better. Dice and EA are feeding you crap as usual.  BF1942 was the only good game Dice ever made.

ArmA 2 is the only game you listed that will bring my PC down to even 30fps and that is because of its depth. Its not exactly screaming with DX11 toys since its a DX9 game.  So no.  Crysis 1, doesnt phase my PC.  GTA4, even with mods the people still look horrid and the lighting system leaves alot to be desired (I have GTA4 fully modded) not only that, it doesnt "push" my hardware as much as not use it.  GTA4, as everyone hopefully knows by now, was horribly optimized for PC.  Thus, it cannot make good use of hardware.  My 30-40fps in GTA4 is not because its pushing my PC, its the exact opposite. It doesnt know what to do with the hardware.

So MMOs aside, developers do not care about PC gamers.  Pretty much what 
Im saying it, any game that is on console was MADE for console and its PC counter-part will not look any different. Metro 2033 still being the only exception. Of course, it was REALLY designed for PC.  Something Dice can claim they did all they want but it was a load of crap like everything else them and EA say.  Probably 2 of the most power money hungry companies out there.

You still dont get it though.  Just because I can play BF3 or MoH on my PC doesnt mean that the games were developed for PC.  Why would I want to spend $1,500 on a gaming PC just to play the same games my $400 (now $100) Xbox can?  Kinda defeats the purpose of building a gaming PC does it not?

Oh, and I would suggest actually watching the press conference of the PS4 before saying any of those games blow it away. Because they come no where close. Nothing on PC looks anything like what I saw. And it only makes sense. Because as we all know, console hardware has the advantage to developers of being static meaning the games can be designed specially for that hardware and now that the hardware is from this century we can see what our PCs COULD have done had developers taken the time to do it.


----------



## Aastii

You are very funny 

BF3 was developed for PC primarily and cut back for consoles. The game itself was relased on PC first, before it came out on consoles, all DLC was on PC first before consoles, all of the trailers and announcements were shown on PC (bar a couple if I remember correctly at live events where it wasn't really practical to drag out a full PC), it was a PC game primarily.

Arma doesn't necessarily need the bells and whistles of DX11, however for it to be played as it was intended, as a simulator, the view distance should be the same as what a person would be able to see, so all the way up. Anything less is a hardware limitation, the same as it would be with any other game.

Crysis 1, I didn't say as a standard game, my 560Ti can handle it no problem, I am saying with the DX11 and texture mods on.

GTA 4 when modded, especially with the photorealism mod, is a strain on any system, and not because of optimisation, my system can max it out on default no problem, but with mods, different story. It is because the mod makes the game so demanding. You are smoking something if you think it doesn't look good either.

For the comments about games on consoles are all designed primarily for consoles, that is cute. Half-Life 2, Counter Strike, Portal, BF3, The Sims, Diablo 3, all of them designed for console primarily?

As for your "point", there isn't one, you don't need to drop 1500 on a gaming system, maybe use some common sense the next time you build a computer. If you don't plan on using multiple monitors, if you don't plan on using high resolutions, if you don't plan on using extremely demanding mods, don't get top of the line hardware. You just seem butt hurt that you dropped this money on a computer and realise what a waste it was when for half the price you could do exactly the same stuff.

PC gaming is cheaper than console gaming, that much is a fact. The way PC gaming works for the consumer is the same way console gaming works for the manufacturer. For every PS3 Sony sold at first they lost money, but made that money back from game sales and later unit sales. With a PC, you can, instead of the ~£300 price tag of a new console, pay ~£500 and have a gaming PC that can max out all games and will last on at least high settings for a good 2-3 years. You then make all of that money back on games.

Your £300 console is useless if you do not have games, the same as a gaming PC is. Over here a new console game is around £45-60. For the sake of simplicity, let's say £50. A PC game however is around £30-40, so let's say £35. That is £15 saved on every game. After you have got 10 games, you have a £50 deficit. Let's say over those 2 years that your system is still playing on high settings at least, you buy 20 games. You are £150 up on the PC. A graphics card upgrade and you are back to max settings, so with the sale of your old graphics card, you are now breaking even. Everything after that is a bonus.

In reality, it is even better than this. I have my PS3 sat next to me and all 13 games that I own for it. Those 13 games cost me around the same as my 182 games that I have on Steam. If I bought 182 PS3 games that would have cost me a hell of a lot. You also will not have the added luxury, at least not with the 720, of buying pre-owned games


----------



## tech savvy

Aastii said:


> With regards to GDDR5 memory, there is a reason we do not have it, in fact several fairly obvious reasons.
> 
> Firstly, as has been said, *so far as performance is concerned it is not necessary*. The way the PS4 works and the way a PC works are similar but different, the same as all consoles are. Whenever you play a game on PC, 9 times out of 10 it is the CPU or graphics card holding you back, not your memory. Outside of games, it is your CPU or hard drive, or the density of the memory, again, not the speed of your memory. You could throw in an extra theoretical 4GB/s or so speed to your RAM, but it won't actually show any difference at all.



The, "far as performance is concerned it is not necessary" that's not a good enough of an excuse not to have it. Performance is never enough.



Aastii said:


> Then point number three which is tied into that, *no consumer in their right mind would drop money on new memory, a new motherboard and likely a new CPU* as a new memory controller would be needed when they cannot upgrade from it and when what they have will be very far behind within the space of a few months. This isn't like a new graphics card coming out every 12 months or so, because you can't get rid of your old and get a new. With this you would have to get yet another new motherboard, new CPU and new memory. For 99% of users this is not practical so they will not buy it, making all of the aforementioned money spent on developing a system to utilise the memory by hardware manufacturers wasted



We will have to do that anyway, when DDR4/5 come. So that's pointless.




Aastii said:


> I don't believe anybody has ever been more wrong on these forums.
> 
> First off, PC gaming is still a hell of a lot more popular than consoles. Right now the number 1 game in the world,* League of Legends*, is a PC exclusive game. They have more users than there are active XBL subscribers, they have more E-Sports tournament money than any other game in history with more spectators than any other game in history.



I never played that game in my life, and know anyone that does. 



Aastii said:


> You take into account all PC exclusive games, like all of your MMO's, the main Sims games, the rest of the MOBA games besides the previously mentioned LoL, not only does the PC beat the Xbox, it beats all of the three major consoles so far as sales and user figures are concerned combined.



Put MMO's aside, if I recall, the top selling PC game of all time is Sims 2(20 million). All three console companies, Play Station, Xbox, Nintendo all have games that sold more then 20 million copies. If you add up all the sells from Atari 2600 till now, there is noway PC games top that, that's with all the MMO's and what-not.



Aastii said:


> And then consider the Facebook and browser games. Than in itself adds another 7, if not 8, figure number onto the number of users. I personally don't fully count these though, as your think of PC gaming, you think of a desktop or laptop, and a lot of these users are not on tablets, however the majority are still on their PC.



The majority of browser games are played on cell phone/tables, slowly leaving the PC. And I don't consider them official PC games.



Aastii said:


> Secondly, companies are not developing for PC any more? Come on... The biggest games of the last decade originated on PC and are still developed for PC, like CoD, which was PC only or MoH, which was PC only. Then look at more recent games that have been major talking points, Minecraft, LoL, Dayz, all of them are either still PC exclusive or developed mainly for PC. To say no team is developing for PC, yet failing to look at the likes of Mojang, Riot, Bohemia, Blizzard, Valve and Creative Assembly and the countless indie developers is extremely ignorant and short sighted. Even your developers selling games on more than one platform, like Activision and EA still develop and sell their games on PC.



PC exclusive games are all slowly converting over to consoles. Why? Because they realize people can't afford to drop $1000+ on a PC to play PC games at there full potential. Instead, spend $400-$500 on a PS4 and get the same graphics performance as a $1000+ gaming rig.



Aastii said:


> Thirdly, you are ignoring mods completely. Most developers make an extremely good platform and they bug fix but stop. That means on a console you get what you are given. With PC though, the mod community will keep people coming. You mention Crysis 3 being the best looking game on PC, but I would argue that Crysis 1 with mods, GTA4 with mods or even the upcoming Arma 3 as standard look far better.



Wouldn't know, never played Crysis 3, or any Crysis for that matter.



Aastii said:


> People said at the release of the PS3 and 360 that PC gaming was now over. Just look how wrong they are. You think that if a developer stopped making games for PC completely that there aren't 100 that will come and fill their spot with equally as good or better games? PC gaming is going nowhere, now or in the foreseeable future



I never said that PS3/360 was going to replace PC gaming.


But all else aside, we all know that our first game ever played was on a console. 

Fun facts:

The cathode ray tube amusement device is the earliest known interactive electronic game. Which by the way is considered a 'gaming device', not a computer.

Computers, at the beginning, was never meant for gaming, they just evolved over time.

Definition of a Computer-An electronic device for storing and processing data, typically in binary form, according to instructions given to it in a variable program.

Definition of a console-A video game console is an interactive entertainment computer or customized computer system that produces a video display signal which can be used with a display device to display a video game. The term "video game console" is used to distinguish a machine designed for people to buy and use primarily for playing video games on a TV.


----------



## G80FTW

Aastii said:


> You are very funny
> 
> BF3 was developed for PC primarily and cut back for consoles. The game itself was relased on PC first, before it came out on consoles, all DLC was on PC first before consoles, all of the trailers and announcements were shown on PC (bar a couple if I remember correctly at live events where it wasn't really practical to drag out a full PC), it was a PC game primarily.
> 
> Arma doesn't necessarily need the bells and whistles of DX11, however for it to be played as it was intended, as a simulator, the view distance should be the same as what a person would be able to see, so all the way up. Anything less is a hardware limitation, the same as it would be with any other game.
> 
> Crysis 1, I didn't say as a standard game, my 560Ti can handle it no problem, I am saying with the DX11 and texture mods on.
> 
> GTA 4 when modded, especially with the photorealism mod, is a strain on any system, and not because of optimisation, my system can max it out on default no problem, but with mods, different story. It is because the mod makes the game so demanding. You are smoking something if you think it doesn't look good either.
> 
> For the comments about games on consoles are all designed primarily for consoles, that is cute. Half-Life 2, Counter Strike, Portal, BF3, The Sims, Diablo 3, all of them designed for console primarily?
> 
> As for your "point", there isn't one, you don't need to drop 1500 on a gaming system, maybe use some common sense the next time you build a computer. If you don't plan on using multiple monitors, if you don't plan on using high resolutions, if you don't plan on using extremely demanding mods, don't get top of the line hardware. You just seem butt hurt that you dropped this money on a computer and realise what a waste it was when for half the price you could do exactly the same stuff.
> 
> PC gaming is cheaper than console gaming, that much is a fact. The way PC gaming works for the consumer is the same way console gaming works for the manufacturer. For every PS3 Sony sold at first they lost money, but made that money back from game sales and later unit sales. With a PC, you can, instead of the ~£300 price tag of a new console, pay ~£500 and have a gaming PC that can max out all games and will last on at least high settings for a good 2-3 years. You then make all of that money back on games.
> 
> Your £300 console is useless if you do not have games, the same as a gaming PC is. Over here a new console game is around £45-60. For the sake of simplicity, let's say £50. A PC game however is around £30-40, so let's say £35. That is £15 saved on every game. After you have got 10 games, you have a £50 deficit. Let's say over those 2 years that your system is still playing on high settings at least, you buy 20 games. You are £150 up on the PC. A graphics card upgrade and you are back to max settings, so with the sale of your old graphics card, you are now breaking even. Everything after that is a bonus.
> 
> In reality, it is even better than this. I have my PS3 sat next to me and all 13 games that I own for it. Those 13 games cost me around the same as my 182 games that I have on Steam. If I bought 182 PS3 games that would have cost me a hell of a lot. You also will not have the added luxury, at least not with the 720, of buying pre-owned games



Im pretty sure your the one smoking. Like I said, I have GTA4 modded out, and yes it looks good, but its nothing more than blur effects with increased texture resolutions. Thats it. The lighting system is still the same, with some tweaks, the shading is the same, the "high" resolution textures are not much different from the standard which begs the question why waste 4GB downloading them, and at the end of the day its still a DX9 game from 2008 that lacks any modern graphical features. With or without mods.

Games are cheaper on PC? Since when? I just paid $65 after taxes for Crysis 3 on PC. Guess how much it would have cost to get it on Xbox? Exactly the same.  PC games cost the same as console games when they are new. Maybe in your part of the world things are different, but I highly doubt PC games come out cheaper there than anywhere else.

Try building a $500 PC that will play BF3 or Crysis 3 maxed or even your GTA4 with mods. Wont happen.  Especially with GTA4. Optimization is the reason consoles still exist. Because it is their sole purpose and design to do so.

It cost me $1,500 to build a PC from the ground up to play Crysis 3 and BF3 at acceptable frame rates with nearly the same quality as my Xbox (AA and AF aside).  So dont even give me the "PC gaming is cheaper" round about because its clearly not. Especially if you factor in your blessed pay by the month MMOs. Then PC gaming becomes as expensive as owning my CL600.

You believe BF3 was designed for PC because EA and Dice told you so and because you believe it was released on PC first (which it wasnt).  Where are you getting your information? EA is hardly a reliable source, as all they have been doing for the past decade is trying to milk all the money they can from customers like you with all their DLC that cost 4x as much as the game.

As for the valve games, if anyone bought those for console it would surprise me. Because until they finally did release Counter-Strike for console it was played out and old. Im sure it probably sold about 100 copies or so though.  Very successful console title I can imagine.

Make all that money back on games? What are you talking about? You PAY money for games they dont pay you to buy them.....


----------



## G80FTW

Aastii said:


> GTA 4 when modded, especially with the photorealism mod, is a strain on any system, and not because of optimisation It is because the mod makes the game so demanding.



This is completely false and makes me question your intellect on game design.






I want to be sure to make my point very clear, as to not confuse anyone with this being a PC versus console battle because thats not what this is.  This is about PC gaming becoming obsolete, and by that, I mean games that are designed for the PC only.  Not MMOs.  

Im talking about games like Doom, Duke Nukem, Flight Simulator (which im not sure if they are still producing games, last one I know of is X which came out what like 4 years or so ago?), Mech Warrior (possibly the BEST PC game ever created. Went over to console in 2001-2002 and havent seen it since.), and BF 1942.  These are the games that people like me grew up playing and these are the games that got people like me into PC gaming in the first place. Not because of their epic stories (lets face it, all these games either have no stories or very dull ones that no one paid attention to), but because of their gameplay and graphics. The 2 most important things a game must have. Leave the stories for the cinema. If I recall, both Doom and Mech Warrior were some of the most graphically advanced games of their respective times.  The last time we saw a developer strive to do that, was in 2007 with Crysis. Nothing since has been developed to push the envelope of computer hardware.


----------



## Okedokey

Crysis 3 is pushing hardware, Far Cry 3 is pushing hardware, BF3 still pushes hardware, Skyrim pushes hardware.  I believe all of these were designed with PC in mind.


----------



## Hyper-Threaded

In a few years, newer, stronger hardware will come out, just as the ps3 and xbox 360, and equal hardware will be cheaper. History repeats itself alot.


----------



## G80FTW

bigfellla said:


> Crysis 3 is pushing hardware, Far Cry 3 is pushing hardware, BF3 still pushes hardware, Skyrim pushes hardware.  I believe all of these were designed with PC in mind.



They dont push my PC. I get 50-60fps in BF3 maxed and thats only because I have vsync on that it wont go past 60. Far Cry 3 I havent played on PC, but from what I seen it had nothing in mind but ugly.  Skyrim, same deal, 50fps no problem.


----------



## CrazyMike

Man, this thread blew right up! lol All this discussion about PC vs Console (or some have put it, PC gaming is dieing out).

I believe PC gaming will never die out because as hardware for the PC evolves it pushes for dev to push the envelope of Games. PC hardware is advancing (very popular i might add) at an alarming rate. Take a look at the rate of which video cards are coming out! (Here's just an example) They are always pushing technology. In otherwords, PC's are the drive for innovation. I believe that this drive for innovation is because of "Us" PC gamers/enthusiasts. 

Now it's true that the term "PC" can be brought in many different directions. For instance, people believe that Consoles will be the new "PC" (using the term PC as the thought of desktop computers). I believe this to a certain point. For instance, for every day light use by the average consumer, smaller "PC's" will be used ie; tablets and consoles. Used not just for gaming but social networking  and internet browsing. Although for the enthusiast and business type, desktops will always be there for heavy application usage.

Anyway, back to the purpose of the thread. I have taken a deeper look at the PS4 (as more and more info rolls out) and I go back on my statement earlier. The PS4 *IS* a nice change in the console industry. For me though, it's just another console. It doesn't change the way people do gaming. I was hoping for the next evolution of gaming. In which, that game that Bungie is working on has my interest peeked. From what I understand, it's a live uncontrolled MMO style game. I say uncontrolled because what i have read the online universe will have a AI bases to it. I am hoping it's a type of AI that reads and responds to user interaction at an educated level.


----------



## CrazyMike

G80FTW said:


> They dont push my PC. I get 50-60fps in BF3 maxed and thats only because I have vsync on that it wont go past 60. Far Cry 3 I havent played on PC, but from what I seen it had nothing in mind but ugly.  Skyrim, same deal, 50fps no problem.



what resolution are you playing at?


----------



## spirit

CrazyMike said:


> Man, this thread blew right up! lol All this discussion about PC vs Console (or some have put it, PC gaming is dieing out).


That discussion was kind of inevitable. As soon as you put any kind of thread about consoles on a forum full of PC gamers, you'll get that kind of discussion. 

To throw my own opinion in, I don't see PC gaming dying in the future anytime soon, but it is true that more people my age game on Xboxes and PlayStations. Probably because the consoles are cheaper and all their friends are online and playing the games they are playing because they too have a console. Does this mean PC gaming is going to die in the future though? Nope. There's always going to be a market for PC gamers, just like there is going to be for console gamers.


----------



## M1kkelZR

G80FTW said:


> They dont push my PC. I get 50-60fps in BF3 maxed and thats only because I have vsync on that it wont go past 60. Far Cry 3 I havent played on PC, but from what I seen it had nothing in mind but ugly.  Skyrim, same deal, 50fps no problem.



But we didn't say that you are amazing and they don't push your specific hardware, we said these games are hardware pushers. We couldn't care less if you can play Skyrim or BF3 at 50 fps no problem. About FC3 comment: *Far Cry 3 I havent played on PC, but from what I seen it had nothing in mind but ugly.* Basically, you are the current dumb gamer. Game graphics must be AMAZING or I can't enjoy the story, gameplay or anything. The day I say that about a game I want is the day I shoot myself in the face.

Also, by saying that you doubt Aastii's game design perspective makes me cringe, it doesn't seem to me that you have the most amount of knowledge on this subject. As Tech savy said: he does not play LoL, doesn't know it nor does he know anyone that does. It is still the biggest and fastest growing game. Its simple yet challenging.

Now on to your funny thing of BF3 was not primarily made for PC. Yes it was, If I play BF3 on my PC which I sometimes, VERY rarely do Its a terrible game in my opinion, and then play it at a friends place on the X360/PS3 it feels and play 10x better on PC.

MMO's on PC are extremely fun, Free2Play or Pay2Play its still fun. Might not be everyones "cup of tea" but still are very good genres and do extremely well for any kind of gamer. That PC gaming is dying is total crap. It wont be obsolete, Console gaming is terrible which everyone knows. Well at least everyone with 3/4 of a brain cell anyway. 

Now hardware in the console has evolved alot. Maybe not to the point that they are amazing pieces of machinery but still alot better than what we could've imagined a few years back. This is all based on my opinion by the way.

In all honesty, PC gaming is in a dip yes but will come back. But still gaming is gaming is gaming, whether you play on a PC or Xbox or playstation. Its all the same, different platform and different controls, graphics are amazing and the better the graphics the better the game. That is what I've seen alot lately which is sad in my opinion. I don't care about the look as long as I enjoy the game. Hell I played skyrim on my old laptop, windowed 640x480 everything low and still hit 20fps. Looked like total crap but I enjoyed the game.


----------



## Aastii

G80FTW said:


> Im pretty sure your the one smoking. Like I said, I have GTA4 modded out, and yes it looks good, but its nothing more than blur effects with increased texture resolutions. Thats it. The lighting system is still the same, with some tweaks, the shading is the same, the "high" resolution textures are not much different from the standard which begs the question why waste 4GB downloading them, and at the end of the day its still a DX9 game from 2008 that lacks any modern graphical features. With or without mods.
> 
> Games are cheaper on PC? Since when? I just paid $65 after taxes for Crysis 3 on PC. Guess how much it would have cost to get it on Xbox? Exactly the same.  PC games cost the same as console games when they are new. Maybe in your part of the world things are different, but I highly doubt PC games come out cheaper there than anywhere else.
> 
> Try building a $500 PC that will play BF3 or Crysis 3 maxed or even your GTA4 with mods. Wont happen.  Especially with GTA4. Optimization is the reason consoles still exist. Because it is their sole purpose and design to do so.
> 
> It cost me $1,500 to build a PC from the ground up to play Crysis 3 and BF3 at acceptable frame rates with nearly the same quality as my Xbox (AA and AF aside).  So dont even give me the "PC gaming is cheaper" round about because its clearly not. Especially if you factor in your blessed pay by the month MMOs. Then PC gaming becomes as expensive as owning my CL600.
> 
> You believe BF3 was designed for PC because EA and Dice told you so and because you believe it was released on PC first (which it wasnt).  Where are you getting your information? EA is hardly a reliable source, as all they have been doing for the past decade is trying to milk all the money they can from customers like you with all their DLC that cost 4x as much as the game.
> 
> As for the valve games, if anyone bought those for console it would surprise me. Because until they finally did release Counter-Strike for console it was played out and old. Im sure it probably sold about 100 copies or so though.  Very successful console title I can imagine.
> 
> Make all that money back on games? What are you talking about? You PAY money for games they dont pay you to buy them.....



I am questioning myself about whether you are trolling now. You can't see the difference between default GTA and the photorealism mod? Go to Specsavers mate.

Games on PC have always been cheaper than consoles. As a single example (first on the site home page):

http://www.game.co.uk/en/tomb-raider-game-exclusive-explorer-edition-187594

http://www.game.co.uk/en/tomb-raider-game-exclusive-explorer-edition-187591

http://www.game.co.uk/en/tomb-raider-game-exclusive-explorer-edition-187597

Save yourself 25 quid by getting it on PC. In 4 games time you have reduced the difference in price by £100 

Nowhere was $500 mentioned, the conversion rate is not 1:1 because the pound is stronger than the dollar. £500 is around $750. I know this is doable because I build a system last month for £450, playing every game on high settings @1920x1080. That extra £50 would have been an upgraded graphics card pushing everything to max settings.

You don't seem to like facts but do like a lot of speculation. If Valve had sold 100 copies of The Orange Box, that would have been known... Gabe started out despising the PS3, even calling it a mistake, but later did deals with Sony. If the console sales were that bad I am pretty sure he wouldn't have been so pally pally. How about we stick to the facts, first and foremost.

Finally, I can't believe I am having to explain the concept of something making it's money back or paying for itself, but here goes : The money difference at first is large, however with games sales included that difference shrinks to eventually 0, and then you start having it sway the other way, so you have paid more to play on a console than you have PC. So whilst yes, it isn't free, you have got the same games, but better hardware, better upgradeability, a more versatile and useful system and a system that provides a much better gaming experience.


I am going to add another thing onto the "list of crap that you keep showing us about yourself", you seem to want games that are completely realistic. This isn't a film, book or TV show, this is real life and we aren't going to get that for another few years at least, so you have two options:

1. Stop playing games and bitching about them because you obviously don't enjoy them (wah, wah, nothing meets expectations, wah, wah)

2. Deal with what you have and stop being sore that you wasted your money on unnecessary hardware for your needs


----------



## Troncoso

You guys need to calm down. You are moving completely away from the topic.


----------



## Darren

Troncoso said:


> You guys need to calm down. You are moving completely away from the topic.



Also you're not going to convince each other to your opinion anyway. Just drop it. I like PC gaming better but consoles have their merits as well. You have your opinions and it's not my job to convince you to mine.


----------



## G80FTW

Aastii said:


> I am questioning myself about whether you are trolling now. You can't see the difference between default GTA and the photorealism mod? Go to Specsavers mate.
> 
> Games on PC have always been cheaper than consoles. As a single example (first on the site home page):
> 
> http://www.game.co.uk/en/tomb-raider-game-exclusive-explorer-edition-187594
> 
> http://www.game.co.uk/en/tomb-raider-game-exclusive-explorer-edition-187591
> 
> http://www.game.co.uk/en/tomb-raider-game-exclusive-explorer-edition-187597
> 
> Save yourself 25 quid by getting it on PC. In 4 games time you have reduced the difference in price by £100
> 
> Nowhere was $500 mentioned, the conversion rate is not 1:1 because the pound is stronger than the dollar. £500 is around $750. I know this is doable because I build a system last month for £450, playing every game on high settings @1920x1080. That extra £50 would have been an upgraded graphics card pushing everything to max settings.
> 
> You don't seem to like facts but do like a lot of speculation. If Valve had sold 100 copies of The Orange Box, that would have been known... Gabe started out despising the PS3, even calling it a mistake, but later did deals with Sony. If the console sales were that bad I am pretty sure he wouldn't have been so pally pally. How about we stick to the facts, first and foremost.
> 
> Finally, I can't believe I am having to explain the concept of something making it's money back or paying for itself, but here goes : The money difference at first is large, however with games sales included that difference shrinks to eventually 0, and then you start having it sway the other way, so you have paid more to play on a console than you have PC. So whilst yes, it isn't free, you have got the same games, but better hardware, better upgradeability, a more versatile and useful system and a system that provides a much better gaming experience.
> 
> 
> I am going to add another thing onto the "list of crap that you keep showing us about yourself", you seem to want games that are completely realistic. This isn't a film, book or TV show, this is real life and we aren't going to get that for another few years at least, so you have two options:
> 
> 1. Stop playing games and bitching about them because you obviously don't enjoy them (wah, wah, nothing meets expectations, wah, wah)
> 
> 2. Deal with what you have and stop being sore that you wasted your money on unnecessary hardware for your needs



Is it odd that those links you posted have that game the same price for PS3 and PC?  Maybe they made a mistake 

I find it hard to believe, that people in a computer forum, do not care about graphics.  But, if thats the case, then fine.  Im not saying I cant enjoy a game that has bad graphics, I game on my 360 all the time it doesnt bother me. Like I said, what bothers me, is devs not making use of current generation PC hardware. Which they havent done since 2007. Which also happened to be early years of the current consoles so the hardware difference was much smaller.

Also, I game at 1920x1080.  With every game.

I built my PC to play the games of this year, because I was expecting games to start rolling out with DX11 features left and right since DX11 has been out for sometime.  If someone had told me last year when I built this, that there wont be any games demanding enough to push a GTX680 I never woulda bought it.  But I dont think anyone could have known that.  Its not that I bought hardware that exceeding my needs, its that the developers didnt give me a product to meet the needs of my hardware.


----------



## G80FTW

CrazyMike said:


> Take a look at the rate of which video cards are coming out!



Graphics cards are not coming out any faster than they have been for the past 20-30 years....


----------



## Darren

Why would companies develop games that can only afford to be run by maybe 5 percent of the PC gaming public. That doesn't make any business sense to make full use of a card that very few people are capable of running. It's about the money and more people run on mediocre cards at best. If you want to to turn on every graphical setting to the max you still need a plenty expensive card to do so. The 680 is just overkill for anything out right now.You're trying to blame the system and the market as a whole for spending too much on something you don't need. In a few years though you'll be happy you bought that when I'm limping along with my 7850 while you're still destroying games with your card. You just bought something that isn't being fully used yet. Heck they're not still fully using the 580 yet really.


----------



## CrazyMike

G80FTW said:


> Graphics cards are not coming out any faster than they have been for the past 20-30 years....



Hmm, not from what I have found. Just in the last 6 years there has been roughly 85 Radeon cards that have been out. The 6 years before that, there was 65. Well that's just from what I can see. 

As well, you take a look at the technologies involved. Each card introduces better performance, and each 'set' of card series introduces something new. Even if you take a look at the consoles, Ps3 and the new Ps4, it's a huge leap in graphics alone. 

So when i say "Take a look at the rate of which video cards are coming out! (Here's just an example) They are always pushing technology." it's exactly that. The economy (demand) for more powerful (yet efficent) computer components is driving the innovative industry. 

"need more power scotty!"


----------



## G80FTW

CrazyMike said:


> Hmm, not from what I have found. Just in the last 6 years there has been roughly 85 Radeon cards that have been out. The 6 years before that, there was 65. Well that's just from what I can see.
> 
> As well, you take a look at the technologies involved. Each card introduces better performance, and each 'set' of card series introduces something new. Even if you take a look at the consoles, Ps3 and the new Ps4, it's a huge leap in graphics alone.
> 
> So when i say "Take a look at the rate of which video cards are coming out! (Here's just an example) They are always pushing technology." it's exactly that. The economy (demand) for more powerful (yet efficent) computer components is driving the innovative industry.
> 
> "need more power scotty!"



Well, I dont know about AMD/ATi cards, but nVidia has been steadily releasing a new series every year since at LEAST 2001 when I built my first PC.

They can release as many "cards" as they want, what matters is their flagship card because every card below that will be using the architecture from that GPU.  We have seen a more diverse line of cards offering more low-end mid range series, however the technology is not advancing any faster.


----------



## CrazyMike

G80FTW said:


> ...however the technology is not advancing any faster.



?? I hope you aren't saying that with a straight face. If you are serious, I think I'll have to start agreeing with Aastii



Aastii said:


> I am questioning myself about whether you are trolling now.


----------



## G80FTW

CrazyMike said:


> ?? I hope you aren't saying that with a straight face. If you are serious, I think I'll have to start agreeing with Aastii



If nVidia has been releasing a new GPU architecture (occasionally an updated version of an older architecture like the 9 series) once a year for the past 10+ years, then rate at which new technology becomes available to consumers is the same is it not?

We are talking about the rate at which the technology is advancing, not how far its advancing per GPU.  That is a little different, however, even there we have seen a pretty steady roll since nVidia first released the 8 series back in 2006 or 2007 with the CUDA cores the base architecture for even their new cards.


----------



## M1kkelZR

G80FTW said:


> I find it hard to believe, that people in a computer forum, do not care about graphics.



Really? After like 3-4 replies on the same day with a few people saying exactly this? Oh my days...


----------



## Okedokey

You saying one 680 gets 50-60fps at max at 1080p?  Nonsense.


----------



## M1kkelZR

bigfellla said:


> You saying one 680 gets 50-60fps at max at 1080p?  Nonsense.



He has a special one lol, kind of spastic version or something,


----------



## G80FTW

bigfellla said:


> You saying one 680 gets 50-60fps at max at 1080p?  Nonsense.



Actually I said its steady around 50fps.  

I dont see why its so hard to believe. Since its the same as Crysis 2 just with less graphical features but more vegetation. Makes perfect sense to me.

Ill post a screen.


----------



## Turbo10

What the hell is going on in this thread D:


----------



## Justin

Turbo10 said:


> What the hell is going on in this thread D:


----------



## G80FTW

Worst case, with alot of particle effects and vegetation on all going on:





In game, with motion blur out doors:





53.2 and 30.  That gives you an average framerate of roughly 42fps.


----------



## Troncoso

jnskyliner34 said:


>



It'd be awesome if they'd just stop. When it was just PS4 talk, this thread was nice.


----------



## tech savvy

G80FTW said:


> Worst case, with alot of particle effects and vegetation on all going on:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In game, with motion blur out doors:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 53.2 and 30.  That gives you an average framerate of roughly 42fps.



Is that maxed out? Cause the graphics the PS4 showed, makes that look 8-bit, lol, jk. 

But seriously, the PS4 does look better.


----------



## Turbo10

Who cares what the game looks like, it's gameplay that counts. Killzone looked beautiful, but it's just another FPS


----------



## tech savvy

Turbo10 said:


> Who cares what the game looks like, it's gameplay that counts. Killzone looked beautiful, but it's just another FPS



Visuals is a BIG plus for me. If I wanted to play a game with bad graphics, I'll play the NES.


----------



## Turbo10

tech savvy said:


> Visuals is a BIG plus for me. If I wanted to play a game with bad graphics, I'll play the NES.



Go watch a film then


----------



## Justin

Troncoso said:


> It'd be awesome if they'd just stop. When it was just PS4 talk, this thread was nice.



Aye. Now it's turned into a Crysis 3 thread.PC snobs just need to ruin the fun for others.


----------



## G80FTW

tech savvy said:


> Is that maxed out? Cause the graphics the PS4 showed, makes that look 8-bit, lol, jk.
> 
> But seriously, the PS4 does look better.



Yup. Thats max. And I completely agree, it was hard to tell from the video, but from what I watched the PS4 is pretty big leap forward in graphics.


----------



## M1kkelZR

jnskyliner34 said:


> Aye. Now it's turned into a Crysis 3 thread.*PC snobs just need to ruin the fun for others*.



yeah sure, we ruin this for others... /facepalm ima kill myself soon /endfacepalm



G80FTW said:


> Yup. Thats max. And I completely agree, it was hard to tell from the video, but from what I watched the PS4 is pretty big leap forward in graphics.



So you think that looks bad? It looks good to me, but what do I know as an editor and what not.


----------



## tech savvy

M1kkelZR said:


> yeah sure, we ruin this for others... /facepalm ima kill myself soon /endfacepalm
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that looks bad? It looks good to me, but what do I know as an editor and what not.



I don't know, what do you know?


----------



## M1kkelZR

tech savvy said:


> I don't know, what do you know?



was that part of the comment aimed at you?
Negative.


----------



## Justin

M1kkelZR said:


> /facepalm ima kill myself soon /endfacepalm


----------



## M1kkelZR

jnskyliner34 said:


>



hahahahahahahaha!


----------



## Aastii

http://www.t3.com/news/pc-is-lead-platform-for-watch-dogs-reveals-ubisoft-boss

I'ma just leave this here.

It looks like all three platforms will be moving along together.

and Ubisoft is lying to us too now


----------



## jonnyp11

Makes sense, Rather than spending millions to develop a completely custom system, use existing pieces, with some modding, and a new UI but a core based on PC software, and they save tons on development and game makers save tons on porting. Surprised the 360 didn't run on a modified windows system with a completely different UI but the same drivers and stuff for the core system, they could have saved tons and made it a lot easier and quicker, although resource usage may have been worse. But with the new processors, i will bet that one module on the PS4 will be dedicated to running the home menu and the other 3 will work on the game. If the 360 follows with a similar layout (iirc rumors say 8-core AMD too don't they), they can have 1 module dedicated to Kinect (new kinect will be much more accurate supposedly) and i guess a single core might run the dashboard in Kinect games, hopefully this will mean they can now look good and be worth something, but I highly doubt the Kinect will ever have a truly good game for RPG players (can't see a good FPS ever happening)


----------



## Okedokey

A lot of the reason these consoles didn't use standard os, and then modified them is because the APIs have huge overheads.  That allows seemingly lower powered hardware to run much more efficiently, therefore do more.  Coding to the metal can be done where a known and relatively fixed hardware deployment is implemented.

Windows doesn't have this luxury as it needs to work with the highest diversity of hardware set ups of all OSs.


----------



## G80FTW

M1kkelZR said:


> yeah sure, we ruin this for others... /facepalm ima kill myself soon /endfacepalm
> 
> 
> 
> So you think that looks bad? It looks good to me, but what do I know as an editor and what not.



I didnt say it looked bad. Like I said, they didnt add displacement mapping which would have made it look a million times better. And the low resolution textures here and there dont help.


----------



## Troncoso

NECRO! I feel we can keep all PS4 stuff in one thread. It's not the hottest topic on the forums. 

Anyway, launch is less than a month away, and I have a day one pre-ordered, only for Watch Dogs and Drive Club to be pushed back to Spring. I just can't believe the launch line up....there isn't a single non-indie/non PC port exclusive outside Killzone. I like Indies, but none of them will take advantage of the new technology in these consoles. 

Even considering the multi-platform AAA's, that's only AC4, COD Ghost, and BF4. Like...that's it. I'm looking forward to some games coming in Spring, but what the hell am I going to play until then? I envy people getting an XBox One. I'd love to play Dead Rising 3.

Oh wait. There is Knack. Wooo....

And as an aside, this isn't an opening for people to bring up PC gaming. This is still a PS4 thread.


----------



## Aastii

You get a console to keep and use for years so who cares if it is released with less exclusives if it has them later down the line? I would use that as incentive to wait until spring, it is after the Christmas period, a few months after launch and therefore cheaper. If you don't really want it at this point, wait for when you do want it.

I will look at things next year but I am still leaning towards the PS4 I think although the One is looking more and more tempting. As with the PS3 and 360 though, will get it second hand in at least a years time with a boat load of second hand games, so will have plenty of time to see and make my mind up.


----------



## speedx77x

My only concern about the PS4 is all these Xbox ppl coming to PSN, xbox has a lot more kids and i don't want them on PSN :/


----------



## Troncoso

Aastii said:


> You get a console to keep and use for years so who cares if it is released with less exclusives if it has them later down the line? I would use that as incentive to wait until spring, it is after the Christmas period, a few months after launch and therefore cheaper. If you don't really want it at this point, wait for when you do want it.
> 
> I will look at things next year but I am still leaning towards the PS4 I think although the One is looking more and more tempting. As with the PS3 and 360 though, will get it second hand in at least a years time with a boat load of second hand games, so will have plenty of time to see and make my mind up.



I mean, I agree to an extent. I go with Playstation consoles for their track record of having amazing games down the line. One thing to consider though, is that sales get more and more aggressive with each generation. The PS3 was already hard enough to come by for several months following its launch. And to hope for a price drop as soon as Spring is quite a stretch. I got my day one pre-order back in June, and my intended launch title was going to be Watch Dogs. Considering the possibility that I won't be able to find one for a while after launch is what makes me keep my pre-order.

I'm not so uptight about the slim selection of exclusives, it's more than they only even have 2 to choose from. That kind of baffles me. Launch titles are a big factor for a lot of people purchasing a console that don't really have some prior sway one way or the other.

Maybe you're right, though. I may just have to keep my PS3 out a while longer. There are a couple games I haven't gotten around to. Not to mention Dark Souls 2 comes out in like March.


----------



## Okedokey

Im expecting most of the games to be modded for PC use, given that its all on X86 now.


----------



## tech savvy

Launch Day finally here!

Any one got the PS4?!? If so, would love to hear your personal review.


----------

