PC vs Console - (It is now 2011!)

[CherryPie]

Okay so we had that discussion back in 2009 already (if i remember correctly), but we all know one thing for certain - things have changed now!

Because what I look back as one of the biggest mistakes I made in this generation, was at the beginning, five or six years ago, looking and saying, "Consoles are basically as good as PCs," at the time, and developing the workflow so it worked across both of them.

Looking back now, we have PCs that are an order of magnitude more powerful, and if our workflow is instead focused on explicitly on just... you build and develop on the PC, and you decimate things into a target for the consoles. There are things that I would do very differently.

And part of that stuff is, the three legs of this that we have now, is we have massive numbers of cores -- I have 24 threads on my desktop machine. Massive amounts of memory -- 24 gigs, and we can throw a lot more in. And we've got solid state drives -- you can put a half of a terabyte in there. And if I take that as the baseline of what I want all our developers to use, I will build a very different system.

My marching orders to myself here are, I want game loads of two seconds on our PC platform, so we can iterate that much faster. And right now, even with solid state drives, you're dominated by all the things that you do at loading times, so it takes this different discipline to be able to say "Everything is going to be decimated and used in relative addresses," so you just say, "Map the file, all my resources are right there, and it's done in 15 milliseconds."

That's actually how we shipped the last iOS title. Most of the stuff was set up like that. I'm excited to be carrying that forward. That was great. So, that wasn't a throwaway research project. That was a product that went out and made money. It's nice to be able to do things like that.

So what he's basically saying is, that Sony & MS are on the wrong track with their idea of a 10 years console-life-cyclus and he's also saying that Apple is a great hardware partner when it comes to mobile games, because they release new & steady hardware each year.

I was very happy with my PS3 the last 2-3 years, but after I visited this years gamescom to play BF3 on a highend PC and 2 hours later BF3 again but the co-op campaign on a PS3 it was a massive bummer! I understand that the PS3's HW is now almost 6 years old, but the difference between the same title on PS3/360 & a highend PC is even bigger than the difference between a last gen (ps2) & current gen (ps3) game.

The main problems:
-Consoles games do not run in native 1080p (not always, but mostly) which makes the titles look even worse on big TVs (32"+)
-Consoles games do not use direct X 11 which makes  especially shadows and lightings look like a joke compared to their pc pendant
-Console games use lower resolution textures because they have not enough gpu memory - makes object very ugly if you come close to them
-Console games mostly can't be played with 60fps because they are lacking horsepower - you clearly see the difference between 30 &60fps as a real gamer

These points have never been as obvious as of this fall/winter, when we expect titles like Rage, BF3 & Skyrim. These titles live up because of their amazing and stunning visuals. If you see every peace of mud on your boots crystal clear in 1080p with smooth 60fps & amazing lightning effects on your PC while playing BF3 - you will be literally blown away. On your 360/ps3 it is just another very good & realistic fps.

I'm really unhappy that I have to buy this $999 PC now, because my PS3 just can't handle it anymore. I bought myself a copy of Dead Island this weekend and was very surprised about the graphics that Deepsilver accomplished on the playstation, until... yeah until I was at the beach district for the first time - instantly the game had to fight with very bad slowdowns (not only visual but also hearable ones) because the console couldn't handle the extreme foresight of this beautiful island - a friend of mine is playing the game on a $599 machine and not only does it look even better on his rig, it is also in 1080p and runs constantly smooth at 55-60fps.

Sony doesn't give me a chance - I will switch from console to pc gaming, because I am deadly sure that the same thing will happen with ps4 & the new xbox (not even talking bout wii u..) aswell, after they've been out for 3-4 years - switching to new CPU/GPU costs $400 - $200 (for selling used components on ebay) = $200 every 3 years. Buying a new console = $600 every 6 years whilest always being dissapointed in years 4-6..

Your opinions?

[ARTgames]

Depends on who you are. IMO:

PC:
Cons:
- harder to do, in terms of managing the hardware and software
- This is dependent on the user but tend to spend more on the hardware

Pros:
- Can produces better performance in games
- More control and customizability (like mods) over a game
- Has games you would not find on consoles
- Can do a lot more than just games

Console:
Cons:
- Frozen in time in terms of hardware
- less customizability/mods/control in games
- this is not necessarily a bad thing but the services provided to the console are mostly done by 1 company. so a lot depends on them

Pro:
- simple
- can cost less and it normally does for me, but depends on who you are
- get some games that end up being console first or sometimes console only

Iv missed some but this is how a feel for now.

[Jake]

Games will almost always look better on a console than on a 600 dollar PC. Frankly, I don't believe your comment that you have a friend maxing Dead Island with a 600 dollar PC at over 55 fps. It's also much cheaper to game on consoles because you don't have to worry about upgrading your CPU, GPU, and RAM. If you're not retarded, you won't end up paying 600 dollars for a console, more like 300-400, and then your set for 6-8 years. A computer that can run games better than consoles is going to cost a lot, we're talking at least 800 and more likely in the range of 1000+, and then you'll probably have to upgrade it in 3 years because lazy developers don't like to optimize PC ports.

[Freeforall]

My laptop was $900 and it can't play any of those games.

[Jake]

My laptop was $900 and it can't play any of those games.

Laptops are on a different playing field than desktops. You trade performance for portability. A $900 laptop is nothing like a $900 desktop in terms of power.

[CherryPie]

Games will almost always look better on a console than on a 600 dollar PC. Frankly, I don't believe your comment that you have a friend maxing Dead Island with a 600 dollar PC at over 55 fps. It's also much cheaper to game on consoles because you don't have to worry about upgrading your CPU, GPU, and RAM. If you're not retarded, you won't end up paying 600 dollars for a console, more like 300-400, and then your set for 6-8 years. A computer that can run games better than consoles is going to cost a lot, we're talking at least 800 and more likely in the range of 1000+, and then you'll probably have to upgrade it in 3 years because lazy developers don't like to optimize PC ports.

And that is EXACTLY the problem.. Console games sell better than PC games because consoles are, like you said, in general around half the price of a gaming pc when they are brand new. Now the thing is if Microsoft and Sony won't come around with new consoles at least every 6 years, PC gamers & devs will be worried because they have to make a decision.

Solution 1) Develop & optimize the Game for PC & downport it to consoles afterwards -> Result: Console-Games will look extremely bad compared to PC games
Solution 2) Have the target in mind to create games that look as good on the console as on the pc. That means develop & optimize the game for console & give pc users a patch for higher resoluted textures afterwards

Developers have been going for Solution 2 for the past 20 years, but that only worked because every ~4-5 years a new console generation came out. XBOX720 & PS4 should've been released this holiday season to make sure that you have quite equal horsepower for the console version of this years AAA-titles as for the pc version, but for the first time in history, that didn't happen.

This circumstance is going to be preventing the pc gaming from making its next breakthroughs. Nvidias 28nm Kepler GPU is going to be 4x more powerful than current Fermi Chips and there will be only around a handful of pc games that are going to make advantage of that thing. But not only the visuals will be worse than they could've been..

New technical ideas like extremely clever AI-algorithms or environment depending animations would've never been possible on a PS2 and there are also things that aren't possible on the current gen consoles, but that a pc could handle already, but no one is investing in these technologies because the consoles can't handle them.. This guy is covering it up pretty good:

One of the most incredibly frustrating things is that it's not just workflows that are being held back. There are actual design possibilities that are being lost.

The importance of order-of-magnitude improvements in foundational technologies is that they don't just let you do the same old things faster -- they enable you to do some kinds of things you simply could never do before. PC games could be designed to do incredible things, right now, if more developers would heed the advice given by a highly successful software engineer: stop pre-crippling the design of your games so that they run identically on consoles and PC. Start designing your games instead to take advantage of the PC's power, optimizing them (including featurectomies if necessary) to run on targeted consoles.

I'm familiar with the objections. "There's more money in consoles!" "We don't want multiple code branches!" "Console gamers would feel cheated!" But those objections don't (or shouldn't) automatically win the day just because someone says them. The possible costs have to be weighed against the potential benefits of creating games that grow the entire market because they enable incredible new kinds of features that can attract new customers.

I like BioWare and Bethesda. They make games that take some advantage of the PC's power. But even they are still designing down to the console instead of starting with the PC and porting to consoles.

Surely there's one substantial developer who will be willing to open the door and lead the way out of the console design jail? Maybe... id?

[TANK]

you cant prostitute yourself so you can buy cannabis seeds to grow weed on consoles (gmod perp ftw)

[Scotty]

Okay so we had that discussion back in 2009 already (if i remember correctly), but we all know one thing for certain - things have changed now!

Really?  What new consoles have come out since the last topic?  How is this going to end any differently than in 2009 when the same consoles are just as, it not more outdated?

[ARTgames]

This seems more like 360 and ps3 vs pc hardcore titles match.

[Meiun]

Games will almost always look better on a console than on a 600 dollar PC. Frankly, I don't believe your comment that you have a friend maxing Dead Island with a 600 dollar PC at over 55 fps. It's also much cheaper to game on consoles because you don't have to worry about upgrading your CPU, GPU, and RAM. If you're not retarded, you won't end up paying 600 dollars for a console, more like 300-400, and then your set for 6-8 years. A computer that can run games better than consoles is going to cost a lot, we're talking at least 800 and more likely in the range of 1000+, and then you'll probably have to upgrade it in 3 years because lazy developers don't like to optimize PC ports.

I agree that a good gaming PC is a much more expensive investment, but a 700-800 dollar PC, unless you get a terrible deal on it, can almost always demolish a console in terms of performance and raw specs. This figure may be a bit different when a new console is first released, but particularly when dealing with consoles that have been out for as long as the Xbox or Playstation, but heck, I can get a laptop for not much over 800 that will beat the latest consoles in performance.

I enjoy consoles as much as the next person, they have their own form of appeal and purpose. But everyone knows that all the truly hardcore gamers (particularly online multiplayer ones) use the PC. Even with titles that have a version for both console and PC, the PC version almost always has more features, bigger servers, among many other things. Not to mention that the mouse + keyboard offers a far greater level of control for games (even if it isn't always simple to master).

[havok]

depends on the how much money you have to pay for the PC truly but if you have the money or a nice PC.PC all the way plus it has so much more and its so open.
and where do you think they get there games from lol.
didnt read every ones post because im going to sleep just going off the topic.


but pwn should be all over this soon lol.

[sayers6]

I personally don't see why companies haven't looked into another idea of console gaming. Making the parts like the GPU, CPU, RAM, and son on, into removable slots. And by that I mean easily removable. So that instead of coming out with a new console way too often, and competing with computers that can easily have their ram and etc. upgraded, they could do the same with the consoles. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy with almost now hardware awareness, but I still think it would be a good idea to come up with a basic shell, and have upgrade-able parts. I've been thinking this for awhile now. Will someone please point out a big flaw in this? I know there has to be one...Because otherwise the first company to cash in on this could make quite a bit...They'd be incharge of making all the replaceable parts and such, which would earn them more money.

[Meiun]

I personally don't see why companies haven't looked into another idea of console gaming. Making the parts like the GPU, CPU, RAM, and son on, into removable slots. And by that I mean easily removable. So that instead of coming out with a new console way too often, and competing with computers that can easily have their ram and etc. upgraded, they could do the same with the consoles. Keep in mind this is coming from a guy with almost now hardware awareness, but I still think it would be a good idea to come up with a basic shell, and have upgrade-able parts. I've been thinking this for awhile now. Will someone please point out a big flaw in this? I know there has to be one...Because otherwise the first company to cash in on this could make quite a bit...They'd be incharge of making all the replaceable parts and such, which would earn them more money.

Compatibility and money are the first two things that come to mind. When all of the consoles have the exact same hardware components, developers are able to fine tune their games to run perfectly and specifically for that exact hardware configuration. Also, they probably wouldn't want to make it upgrade-able like that when they could just make more money by coming out with a new console (not to mention any additional costs and complications it would cause to make it upgradable in the first place). The system that came the closest to doing this that I can remember was the N64. I remember when Donkey Kong 64 came out I had to upgrade something in the front of the console with an improved one, think it was the graphics processor if I remember correctly?

[Chaos]

It was RAM, but yeah.

Expansion Pak

The Expansion Pak (拡張パック Kakuchō Pakku?) allows the random access memory (RAM) of the Nintendo 64 console to increase from 4 MB (megabytes) to 8 MB of contiguous main memory.[8] With the help of an included key, the Expansion Pak fits into the slot that is below a removable panel on the top of the N64 console. Game developers can take advantage of the increased memory in several ways, including making games that are more visually appealing.[9] The add-on was released in 1999 and contains 4 MB RDRAM, the same type of memory used inside the console itself.[1][8] By increasing system memory, there is potential for enhancements to games designed with the added RAM storage in mind. The Expansion Pak is installed in a port on top of the Nintendo 64 and replaces the pre-installed Jumper Pak, which is simply a RAMBUS terminator.[7][8]

[ARTgames]

Yeah Meiun. Your right about all that. On the subject about the N64 it did have a "Ram Expander Expansion Pack" which doubled its ram from 4 to 8MBs. (Wowzers :P) Two games needed it to play it, they where  Donkey Kong 64 and Nintendo's The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. Some others used it if you had it installed.

The SNES was also know to have "enhancement chips" built into some game cartridges to make some games run better or do things otherwise impossible. But its a interesting subject of upgrades to consoles when compared to pc's.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Super_NES_enhancement_chips

edit: darn you chaos! you post faster than i do!