Consoles Remain King?!

[Nick Paviour]

Wii U = Only console that matters. 

[Alec Harpers]

"A single graphics card can cost up to 3000$"

 

LOL, that's like saying "A single car can cost 1.000.000 $"

[dyent10]

lol it is kind of funny how upset people get over some fake games that serve no purpose in the real world. 

 

a group of 5 people got awarded 5 million US dollars for playing "fake games that serve no purpose in the real world."

[Bschro4]

I wonder if ''Sales'' count free to play games or subscription games? Because League and Dota2, (However much you like them) are possibly the two biggest games at the moment and are free to play, thus don't really count as sales. However, it is not to say they don't make any money, it's quite the contrary actually.

 

And that's not counting the other hundreds of of free to play games, and subscription games such as WoW, that might not really sell a whole lot of games anymore, but the amount of players and revenue generated cannot be ignored.

 

Exactly

[P e r s e p h o n e]

Pheasants were historically uneducated unlike their aristocratic counterparts, keep in mind, they don't know how to think.

PC is master race confirmed.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

-snip-

 

Call me crazy, but consoles "that act like PCs" do not actually exist... yet <cough>Steam Machines</cough>.

 

Personally, I find it hilarious that you put Nintendo in it's own category. Nintendo resurrected the console market that Atari killed, and now it's treated like a gaming reject.

 

Nintendo: Hello, can I join you guys?

Microsoft: Uh... NO!

Valve: Who are you again?

Sony: Where are your third parties? What non-gaming things you can do? Nothing? Then GTFO!

Nintendo: Well, ok then! <trying really hard to hold back tears>

[Guest]

a group of 5 people got awarded 5 million US dollars for playing "fake games that serve no purpose in the real world."

Correct and good for them but im not just say this about video games but sports as well. The way people get upset about things that in all honesty don't really matter. Don't get me wrong I love video games and football as much as the next person im just saying its not really worth getting as upset about them as people do. 

[BallGum]

I already see a few problem with such a statement.

First, the consoles are actually good for the value in given scenarios, which I have already explained. Saying that the consoles are NEVER a good value is equally idiotic as those anti-PC arguments that those forum-creeping twats are making.

 

Your second point could not make any less sense. Please clarify. I have made my arguments very clear, and I did not actually insult anybody. There is a difference between being upfront and being insulting.

 

Finally, 1080P60 may be the minimum tech standard, but it is certainly not the minimum playable. Are you telling me that I will not have any fun at all, if I played AoE3 at 480P30? This is another shallow statement that does not actually mean anything.

 

 

 

 

ou can build a better PC under $500? lolwut? Are you actually this shallow-minded? There is A LOT more to computing that raw specification numbers.

 

 

Please elaborate. I guess you're going to make an vague point about how big of a role optimisation will play? We've seen just how well they've been optimising titles. That is to say, not very well. When people say ' I can build a better PC for x amount', they mean better in terms of how it runs games, and not just specifications.

 

 

nd another thing, the X86 platform does NOT make the "Next Gen" ( can we stop calling it that now?) consoles "basically PCs". Again, there is more to the hardware than most people are willing to acknowledge. There is still a crapton of proprietary components and wiring, if you know where to look.

 

 

Elaborate a little more. Fact is they're X86, and even if there are small variations here and there, it still doesn't change that fact. Also... wiring? lmao, so even different PC's have different wiring here and there. Is that variation enough to not call them PC's anymore?

 

 

 

PEACE OF MIND when gaming, and that remains a key thing that the consoles are good at.

They're getting worse and worse at this, and PC's are getting better and better at this, I still agree with you here to an extent though, but personally I find that this isn't, on it's own, a strong enough argument. After a learning curve, most people should be completely fine with PC's. For the few that are completely hopeless, there are consoles.

 

Finally, 1080P60 may be the minimum tech standard, but it is certainly not the minimum playable. Are you telling me that I will not have any fun at all, if I played AoE3 at 480P30? This is another shallow statement that does not actually mean anything.

Nice idea, calling it a 'tech standard' to make it less relevant. Also nice of you to try to place some words in my mouth. Of course, this isn't the minimum needed to be able to play a game, but it actively begins to detract from the experience when you're below this. It's pretty poor that they can't maintain this standard despite being new, even this early in their lifetime.

 

Anyway, your initial post didn't even seem applicable here. The discussion was whether or not consoles are king, and the answer, of course, is that they most definitely aren't. You yourself have said that as well.

 

Having said all of this, there's obviously a market for consoles, but that market should be a lot smaller. A PC makes sense for a lot more people that don't know it.

[eshbop]

In 3 or 4 years, when 4K, high refresh rate gaming is entrenched in the enthusiast market and 1080p, 60Hz gaming is done easily and cheaply & gaming streaming, Steam Machines, VR, etc, take hold then we will see who is king... As they age consoles only progressively lose any pros they had over PCs, soon enough console exclusives will be their only argument. It's gotta reach the point where it become just too obvious which option is best, maybe then a lot of people will let go of their old stance & that'll only happen when competitively priced PCs have enough of the technologies (high res, high refresh, VR, adaptive sync, etc) that consoles just can't support.

[Real_PhillBert]

I'm ok with being the underdog. Makes our eventual dominating victory all the more dramatic.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

-snip-

 

We can agree to disagree; you seem to see this in the eyes of a PC gamer, while I try to look at this in a more general perspective. I will put more detail to my points, then.

 

No, I am not talking about software optimization, but rather about hardware efficiency. An operating system is what allows the computer to function; basically a collection of commands that execute in a given series, when a request is sent. Sometimes the request is not within the scope of the kernel, so a translator (driver) is needed to assist in the task. This creates processing overhead, which increases the time between the request and response (latency). A computer (PC) can deal with a degree of overhead, because at the end of the day, it gets the job done. However, there are some systems (consoles and embedded platforms), that requires the requests to be delivered as quickly as possible, thus requiring little to no overhead. This entails a real-time operating system.  A RTOS will ensure that whatever else is happening in runtime will not impede the active operation(s) that it needs to process. So you may be able to beat the "nextgens" in specification numbers for the same money, but once you add Windows or Linux into the equation, overall performance will start to suffer.

 

So, If these consoles are indeed PCs, then the drivers and APIs should be identical. Reality is, they are not. PCs may be different in exact wiring, but they still need to adhere to the basic PC configuration. While consoles only need to follow their own standards. With the PC standard already set, you only need to code "This component does this operation". With the consoles, you need to be especially cautious about what instruction goes where. It may be x86, but there is still proprietary coding that is involved behind the scenes. You cannot program the Jaguar SoC the same way that you program a 7770 or a FX-8350, or else you will run into a nightmare.  Like I said above, the consoles use a real-time operating system. In order for a RTOS to do its intended job (that is, being real-time), it requires hardware to be configured in a way that is not used in a run-of-the-mill PC platform. These may look like small details, but they make a pretty big difference in how things actually work. It is sad to see how few understand why the consoles are indeed X86. It is not to to make programming itself easier, but to utilize the advantages of the Complex Instruction Set Computing (CISC), where Intel and X86 is the only supporter.

 

The problem is that you are implying that the learning curve is universally short, which is not the case. For most people, it is the learning curve itself that turns them off the PC. You still require little to no expertise to master a console GUI, because you would "trust" the system to do the more sophisticated tasks for you. It may be time consuming, in particular case of the Xbox One, but they can figure it out by looking around the menus. With the PC platform, that tactic will likely leave them SOL. You (still) require some expertise of networking, power delivery, coding, and net safety in order to actually do anything useful. With how PCs work, there is a limit to the amount of hand-holding that can be offered. For this reason, the regular users considered desktops (and even laptops, in some instances) dead, useless, and obsolete upon the arrival of the modern tablets. This is a basic principle of engineering; you learn to work with what you have, and never bother with features that you will never use. I, for one, would not call the PS4's interface difficult for any reason. 

 

While being somewhat condescending, you have not actually explained why the general gamer would feel detracted from not having 1080P60 gaming. In fact, most people (even PC gamers), couldn't care less what resolution or frame rate their game is at, so long is it meets or exceeds a playable minimum. If they did, we would have had a Santa-Claus list of games what would have been remastered. By this logic, all games released before 2013 would be remastered to a 2013 engine. You know as well as I do that it is not a feasible solution. Quite a number of pre-2006 games struggled to get past a 600x800 native resolution. Why are there no remaster for those games? Because it is still fun to play, even when the native resolution is below 1080P. When people say "resolution is just a number", they actually have a valid point. Arguing that a game runs at 720P instead of 1080P, is basically the same as arguing who has a greener front yard. In other words, attacking a straw man over arbitrary values.

Yes, I made it especially clear that the PC wins due to many factors. On the other hand, I was getting so sick and tired of the people, who see consoles as "the worlds greatest failure" by the single merit of their existence, that I felt the need to post a rant. When i saw the OP and the anti-"nextgen" bandwagon, that was the impression I was given. 

 

People that don't know it? Ok, people are not THAT stupid. If a PC REALLY suits an individual, then he will figure it out in due time. If they have not, then there is no point crying over spilled milk. They simply don't care. You can try any approach you want, but in this situation, you are not going to change their minds.

[BallGum]

 

 

I'll start off by saying I'm genuinely sorry about being condescending. Usually I try to have a decent and polite discussion ( You can see my posts to tell whether or not I'm telling the truth), but I decided on being an asshat for whatever reason. Anyway.

 

 

 

No, I am not talking about software optimization, but rather about hardware efficiency. An operating system is what allows the computer to function; basically a collection of commands that execute in a given series, when a request is sent. Sometimes the request is not within the scope of the kernel, so a translator (driver) is needed to assist in the task. This creates processing overhead, which increases the time between the request and response (latency). A computer (PC) can deal with a degree of overhead, because at the end of the day, it gets the job done. However, there are some systems (consoles and embedded platforms), that requires the requests to be delivered as quickly as possible, thus requiring little to no overhead. This entails a real-time operating system.  An RTOS will ensure that whatever else is happening in runtime will not impede the active operation(s) that it needs to process. So you may be able to beat the "nextgens" in specification numbers for the same money, but once you add Windows or Linux into the equation, overall performance will start to suffer.

 

You say you're not going to mention software optimisations, but what are drivers and operating systems, if not software? In laymen's terms this generally falls into the idea of 'writing closer to the metal'. Furthermore, doesn't the Xbox One use a modified Windows kernel for its operating system, which would suggest that it's not a RTOS? 

Back into the idea of building a $500 - $600 PC. This is still rather a moot point, as most PC's built within that price range run games better than these consoles despite the disadvantages WIndows or Linux may or may not bring ( I'm a little skeptical about that, considering other things I read about, but I'll have to read up a little more ).

 

 

 

So, If these consoles are indeed PCs, then the drivers and APIs should be identical.

 

No. Drivers differ between individual PCs as well. What I'm saying is that these consoles run hardware extremely similar to what can be found in PCs, which would suggest better ports.

 

 

 

While being somewhat condescending, you have not actually explained why the general gamer would feel detracted from not having 1080P60 gaming. In fact, most people (even PC gamers), couldn't care less what resolution or frame rate their game is at, so long is it meets or exceeds a playable minimum. If they did, we would have had a Santa-Claus list of games what would have been remastered. By this logic, all games released before 2013 would be remastered to a 2013 engine. You know as well as I do that it is not a feasible solution. Quite a number of pre-2006 games struggled to get past a 600x800 native resolution. Why are there no remaster for those games? because it is still fun to play, even when the native resolution is below 1080P. When people say "resolution is just a number", they actually have a valid point. Arguing that a game runs at 720P instead of 1080P, is basically the same as arguing who has a greener front yard. In other words, attacking a straw man over arbitrary values.

 

I'm not saying that they're unplayable at lowered resolutions. I'm saying the lowered resolution is a definite negative point that detracts from the experience a fair amount. Granted, it's technically a luxury and not a necessity, but 1080P60 should be the target for next gen titles, and it is rather telling that these systems struggle to achieve it. Naughty Dog has my respect for promising 1080P60 for all of its titles.

 

 

 

Yes, I made it especially clear that the PC wins due to many factors. On the other hand, I was getting so sick and tired of the people, who see consoles as "the worlds greatest failure" by the single merit of their existence, that I felt the need to post a rant. When i saw the OP and the anti-"nextgen" bandwagon, that was the impression I was given.

 

Fair enough, I re read through it and you're right. Although it is expected given the majority here are PC gamers.

 

 

 

People that don't know it? Ok, people are not THAT stupid. If a PC REALLY suits an individual, then he will figure it out in due time. If they have not, then there is no point crying over spilled milk. They simply don't care. You can try any approach you want, but in this situation, you are not going to change their minds.

 

Poor phrasing on my part. Essentially, many people believe PC gaming requires an absurd amount of technical knowledge and money. Misconceptions. A lot of these people would be perfectly content with a PC but out of ignorance they opt for a console. 

 

All in all, I guess I agree with most of what you're saying here. I still think that the next gen consoles are worryingly underpowered and that they should have been at least a little better, but that would affect their pricing.

[shujin]

People that don't know it? Ok, people are not THAT stupid. If a PC REALLY suits an individual, then he will figure it out in due time. If they have not, then there is no point crying over spilled milk. They simply don't care. You can try any approach you want, but in this situation, you are not going to change their minds.

I personaly don't know anybody in my friend group  that know more than me in hardware ( and I know little of the ocean of knowledge on hardware) they often come make a visit in my house and when they see peice of hardware all over the room they freak out there is a list of dum stuff I heard :  ''is it not dangerous'', ''this is a power supply right, it's out of the box will it not shortcut and explode'', ''OMG, you let your pc open you know that if you touch two metal part in the same time you'll electrocute yourself and shortcut your pc'' and ect. so maybe they are not THAT stupid it's just that any ''average'' person have a missconception of hardware. So they never try to learn cause it's to complicated. ( actually have a friend that request my help for changing a graphic card *facepalm* I finally teach him how to do )

 

 

 

While being somewhat condescending, you have not actually explained why the general gamer would feel detracted from not having 1080P60 gaming. In fact, most people (even PC gamers), couldn't care less what resolution or frame rate their game is at, so long is it meets or exceeds a playable minimum. If they did, we would have had a Santa-Claus list of games what would have been remastered. By this logic, all games released before 2013 would be remastered to a 2013 engine. You know as well as I do that it is not a feasible solution. Quite a number of pre-2006 games struggled to get past a 600x800 native resolution. Why are there no remaster for those games? because it is still fun to play, even when the native resolution is below 1080P. When people say "resolution is just a number", they actually have a valid point. Arguing that a game runs at 720P instead of 1080P, is basically the same as arguing who has a greener front yard. In other words, attacking a straw man over arbitrary values.

In fact console gamer are the first to care about resolution ( they always want the most realistic shit possible and very few of them care about indie game ) as I said earlier it's just that the ''average'' person is misinformed so they don't know pc can be more realistic. That's really that simple.

 

So to stop reacting to other post I'll expose my opinion I personally think console (as they are now) shouldn't exit. The actual console is going more and more on the pc side while being ''friendly user'' what they should do instead is making a new OS ( or a modification of the current one ) that have a gaming mode that will optimize the pre-build rig and desactivate all non-useful-for-gaming driver. with this pc should be frindly user cheaper and better. I still think console are fine for kid ( like bellow 10 ) cause well it's harder to kill a console than a computer.

 

(Again sorry for my poor english I make the best I can if you have time you can correct me I'll learn from my mistakes )

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

-snip-

 

There is a difference between software optimization and hardware efficiency. With software optimization, you would ask " Can this app/game run on this machine?". Whereas for hardware efficiency, you instead ask "Is my computer good enough to run everyday applications?". Software exists in many different levels. The optimization refers to games and applications, which are client-level software. These are software that a person can directly interact with, but does almost nothing in respect to the computer itself. When I was talking about efficiency and drivers, I was referring to kernel-level software. We have no means to "talk" to this software, but it controls a good portion of the underlying groundwork that the PC uses to make a functional operating system. Kernel-level software has direct access to the hardware, while the client-level software (on it's own) does not. This is how the dangerous variations of malware function; they breach the kernel hypervisor, which is not supposed to be accessible by code, and modify the operating system for ill intent.

 

As for the Xbox One, no, it still uses a RTOS. Otherwise the input lag would have been unbearably bad. Like I said, consoles require RTOS for them to function the way they do. You have said it yourself; it uses a MODIFIED Windows operating system. What this means, is that they have taken the core functions that Windows uses, make them stand-alone, and rebuild it into a RTOS.

 

Yes, a $500 PC can play SOME games, so long as they play nice with an APU or single-slot GPU. But for a majority of PC games that are available, you need beefier hardware than what the budget allows. Also, that low-tiered of a GPU solution requires you to upgrade fairly frequently in order to catch up in compatibility in the newer titles. Also, unless you went cheap on everything else, you are going to be very quickly bottlenecked by 4GB ram, because Windows consumes half of that without even doing anything. The games on a console, however, are programmed for singular configurations of hardware, so an aging console will still be able to play brand spanking new games, in a "good enough" graphical settings, so this is a non-problem.

 

With the console drivers, they still do not need to follow the guidelines that the PCs need to follow. As well, the consoles may appear to have PC-like hardware, but when you get down and dirty with the integral functions of the hardware, You will realize that they actually have very little in common with the "PC equivalents".

 

Again, you have said it yourself. 1080P60 is a luxury, not a requirement. For a portion of PC gamers, this is their minimum barrier to a playable game. To most others though, it is only the game itself that matters. Not everybody thinks the same as we do.

 

And about you final point; I would not call it "ignorance". I feel that "not giving a turd" would be a much better description for such people. They actually do understand the benefits of PC gaming, but to them, the drawbacks, as small as it may look to us, makes the personal computers not worth their time. The technical aspects of it are beyond their understanding, and unfortunately, there is very little we can do about that.

[Wulfgar]

He exposed it in the end and I personally prefer this to interjecting bias through out the paper without stating a clear opinion.

 

I agree, a writer isn't doing a good job if they can't express their thoughts concisely. They're going to be biased one way or another anyways.

[Nineshadow]

"A GPU can cost even $3000!"

 

I present you....

Tadaaaa!

[Victorious Secret]

There is a difference between software optimization and hardware efficiency. With software optimization, you would ask " Can this app/game run on this machine?". Whereas for hardware efficiency, you instead ask "Is my computer good enough to run everyday applications?". Software exists in many different levels. The optimization refers to games and applications, which are client-level software. These are software that a person can directly interact with, but does almost nothing in respect to the computer itself. When I was talking about efficiency and drivers, I was referring to kernel-level software. We have no means to "talk" to this software, but it controls a good portion of the underlying groundwork that the PC uses to make a functional operating system. Kernel-level software has direct access to the hardware, while the client-level software (on it's own) does not. This is how the dangerous variations of malware function; they breach the kernel hypervisor, which is not supposed to be accessible by code, and modify the operating system for ill intent.

 

As for the Xbox One, no, it still uses a RTOS. Otherwise the input lag would have been unbearably bad. Like I said, consoles require RTOS for them to function the way they do. You have said it yourself; it uses a MODIFIED Windows operating system. What this means, is that they have taken the core functions that Windows uses, make them stand-alone, and rebuild it into a RTOS.

 

Yes, a $500 PC can play SOME games, so long as they play nice with an APU or single-slot GPU. But for a majority of PC games that are available, you need beefier hardware than what the budget allows. Also, that low-tiered of a GPU solution requires you to upgrade fairly frequently in order to catch up in compatibility in the newer titles. Also, unless you went cheap on everything else, you are going to be very quickly bottlenecked by 4GB ram, because Windows consumes half of that without even doing anything. The games on a console, however are programmed for a singular configurations of hardware, so an aging console will still be able to play brand spanking new games, in a "good enough" graphical settings, so this is a non-problem.

 

With the console drivers, they still do not need to follow the guidelines that the PCs need to follow. As well, the consoles may appear to have PC-like hardware, but when you get down and dirty with the integral functions of the hardware, You will realize that they actually have very little in common with the "PC equivalents".

 

Again, you have said it yourself. 1080P60 is a luxury, not a requirement. For a portion of PC gamers, this is their minimum barrier to a playable game. To most others though, it is only the game itself that matters. Not everybody thinks the same as we do.

 

And about you final point; I would not call it "ignorance". I feel that "not giving a turd" would be a much better description for such people. They actually do understand the benefits of PC gaming, but to them, the drawbacks, as small as it may look to us, makes the personal computers not worth their time. The technical aspects of it are beyond their understanding, and unfortunately, there is very little we can do about that.

 

 

QFT.

 

People say a 500 dollar PC (Now 400, since the price drop on the consoles) can play games better. 

 

Okay. Go do it. IS 400 really the experience you want to have? IS it? And if your other argument is that you can change settings to lower fidelities just to get more resolution or FPS, then isn't that the exact fucking same thing as what the consoles tradeoff to get the best mix of everything that they can? 

In other words, "PC gamers" are elitist assholes. Real PC Gamers just don't give a shit. I know my 800 dollar rig actually can 1080p60fps a vast majority of these games (something a 400 rig definitely can't do, right now with todays tech). Do I really care? Nope. I know PC gaming can be a cheaper experience in the long run, I also know how much fun consoles can be. Where else can I play Halo, FIFA, NHL and Forza with my integrated lobby of friends like a lazy bastard sitting on my couch? PCs don't emulate that kind of experience yet. They really don't. There is no unified party system. No unified chat systems. No unified anything on PCs. Yet. So for now, consoles have a very valid niche.

 

Will that niche last forever? I don't think so. I think we might only get another gen of consoles, if even that. I think PC gaming will get enough of a boost that the two will become the same damn thing with the same end user experience. I think Steam knows this with their Big Picture mode. Steam understands how the general population actually likes to play. 

 

The problem some people have is understanding the role of everything. AS long as you understand exactly what you're buying and using, you'll be happy. If you have unrealistic expectations for anything...thats on you. Maybe thats on MS and Sony for riding the hype train too much as well. Who knows. 

 

All I know is that I still enjoy my 360PS3 combination, the games I have for both are compelling enough for me to keep using both. And the OnePS4 aren't there yet. Maybe in 18 more months. Maybe even sooner. Hell, its been 9 months and there are games I find interesting. Not interesting enough to buy, I don't game enough period anymore to justify any new purchases in software or hardware for any platform. 

 

 

My sticking point is the 400 dollar PC crap. Yes its doable, yes you can 1080p60fps some games. But not all, and really not at the settings that the #PCMR crowd jerks off too. You have to make tradeoffs. Yet when the consoles present the same 400 dollar box making the same tradeoffs, its blasphemy and heresy and its "holding gaming back". The double standards and hypocrisy are outstanding. 

[BalloonZaptor]

Just because It's 'King' Doesn't make it better.

It's like Joffrey out of Game of Thrones, He's king which doesn't make him good/Better than everyone else.

(But in terms of Sales, I don't think the sales between PC and Console are radically different.)

[bogus]

All of this "Hate on Consoles" propaganda cause NVIDIA didn't win the design contracts cause they only had Tegra 4 to offer them lol.

I see people getting all excited with a €299 shield tablet that has major design flaws, and point the finger at €400 consoles.

What is wrong with you?

You guys are taking the master race joke too serious, maybe you came in late and you didn't get it