PC's need to be like consoles. Read before u judge please.

[cheezewhisperer]

Consoles(except for Nintendo's new way of doing things with the wii/wii-u) have been trying to be pc's for years(in a nutshell) and they have failed and will continue to do so. Consoles have a horrible flaw in trying to appeal to the ppl that don't have the income/knowledge to build their own pc's. Let me rephrase, consoles target the less fortunate. Due to this, the console makers also have to cut costs to make any profit off their sales. THAT is why consoles are always behind pc's.

But PC's aren't the best thing ever either. Due to the MASSIVE amounts of hardware out there for pc's, dev's have no idea what tech their trying to make their games run on. And there's literally no way to program for all that shit. Think of how long making a web page takes and it's just a web page for crying out loud lol. So PC's are actually gimped by their awesomeness.

Consoles actually compete with pc's only because the devs know what actual hardware they're working with while programming for a console. That's why console games can look "so good" even tho their hardware is (sorry but true) SHIT! Cuz the devs actually know what that hardware is and how it handles. PC hardware is just too broad a spectrum.

 

But my way of thinking is a bit different.

Why not make a pc-console? I'm not talking about how the ps3/xbox(shit) are doing. I'm talking about the other way around.

 

Think of it like ordering fast food. U choose a number(most times, I'm positive some ppl are picky but this is an example calm down lol).

That number is a rank(1st place, 2nd place, etc) followed by the year of that "series"(very important-read down at the * near the bottom). 1st place is top of the line, nothing like it anywhere else, balls to the walls, gaming rig that only the crem de la crem can buy, and the list goes down in hardware with it's price.

With this market strategy. Devs could say "let's build it for the #8 2014" which would be the average consumer. And, altho a #1 2014 could play the game no prob, it'd look drastically "inferior" graphics-wise than a #1 game.

BUT the dev's would be able to make the most out of their product cuz they would actually know what hardware they're programming for!

 

*I say the year is important cuz most times hardware is improved year after year and ppl like simplicity. So saying a #1 2014 is a lot easier(or just as easy) to say as xbox360 or whatnot. The # correlates to the hardware rank's supremacy with the other #'s of the same year. So a #1 2014 is WAY better than a #10 2014. But then comes next year with it's improvements. Now a #1 2015 BLOWS AWAY a #1 2014. 

 

Understand?

This may seem very VERY confusing at first to some but believe me, it'd be way less confusing than trying to remember which gpu number is better than the other gpu without constantly having to re-look at benchmarks. And that's just the gpu example, don't get me started on motherboards ffs lol.

And it doesn't HAVE to be numbers but they are easier to identify what's better than a much cooler product name like TITAN or what-have-you. I know telling some1 u have a #2 and they'll chuckle thinking ur talking about taking a dump XP.

 

But yea, I hope gaming does a different spin than the current console vs. pc crisis.

Thank you very much for reading, feel free to bash anything I had to say with constructive criticism. I try to read(and educate myself) every single reply to my posts.

[qwertywarrior]

bear beats battle star galactica

[JAKEBAB]

Isnt this what minimum requirements are?

[Mo5]

So you're saying PCs are terrible because you have options  :huh:

[Cacao]

Oh dear... I'll refrain from expressing my opinion, I'll limit myself to reading what other people say

 

[Altecice]

bear beats battle star galactica

 

Love The Office USA! 

 

 

----

 

So what your asking from the PC industry is to stop producing parts and close themselves down to let only a few of the best manufacturers create a set amount of parts. Thats never going to happen, Its a nice Idea but in reality it would never work. 

[cheezewhisperer]

So you're saying PCs are terrible because you have options  :huh:

Terrible is a strong word but in a nutshell yes, because devs don't know what hardware that person is using. So it's impossible for them to craft it into the perfection they desire.

[Manny Calavera]

Understand?

ugh no.

consoles should be more like pc too

[cheezewhisperer]

Isnt this what minimum requirements are?

In a way but even minimum is a broad spectrum from a developers point of view. PC gamers can also tweak individual settings to fit their needs but is it really necessary when the developer can make "this" be the best of the best for a particular machien?

[Maxwit44]

Say what now?!?!??!

 

Really, I think you may have been smoking a little weed when you came up with this post.

 

So what your really saying is that all PC's should become like the all in one iMac?? Um NO!!

 

What your also effectively say is that the thousands of people who make all the hardware so go and find a new job. No

 

You really need to take a look at the word PC. it means Personal Computer. That means anyone who buys, builds, owns a computer has their own personal touches on it. Its personal. Thats why the collective "we" here build our own rigs, because "we" don't want to held back by arseholes who tell us what we should have, and not what "we" want.

 

Sorry dude, but your idea blows hardcore.

[cheezewhisperer]

ugh no.

consoles should be more like pc too

In short, make it easier for the devs that develop your games by simplifying their product's hardware.

[Mo5]

Terrible is a strong word but in a nutshell yes, because devs don't know what hardware that person is using. So it's impossible for them to craft it into the perfection they desire.

That's why graphic options exist

[Sauron]

Isnt this what minimum requirements are?

 

Pretty much this, and consider the following: I might have the best cpu in the world and a 70$ graphics card, OR I might have a midrange cpu with an r9 295x2. How would you classify these two machines? Obviously they are superior to one another in different use scenarios, but the overall price might be the same. Which is number 1? And there are so many different small changes that can affect performance slightly that you would end up with millions of different spec variations that you would need to take into account, also bare in mind that with new hardware coming out every few months the whole "leaderboard" would be constantly shifting down which means the devs wouldn't really know anything more than they do now.

 

-EDIT-

 

Also there are a lot of very well programmed pc games, if the game isn't optimized well it's just because the developers are lazy and think people won't care (right ubisoft?).

[cheezewhisperer]

Say what now?!?!??!

 

Really, I think you may have been smoking a little weed when you came up with this post.

 

So what your really saying is that all PC's should become like the all in one iMac?? Um NO!!

 

What your also effectively say is that the thousands of people who make all the hardware so go and find a new job. No

 

You really need to take a look at the word PC. it means Personal Computer. That means anyone who buys, builds, owns a computer has their own personal touches on it. Its personal. Thats why the collective "we" here build our own rigs, because "we" don't want to held back by arseholes who tell us what we should have, and not what "we" want.

 

Sorry dude, but your idea blows hardcore.

The positive criticism is much appreciated but your condescending attitude is not. And not once did I say the PC should be anything like a shitty Mac. Also the ppl that make the different hardware will still be making the hardware in the same capacity they are now. They make high price quality hardware and low price hardware. As for the word PC(personal computer) what makes it personal exactly? Is it you building it yourself? Putting your own tweaks to it such as liquid cooling or decals? All of the above? You're still doing that by choosing individual hardware and putting it together. Even your specific rig could be a #5 or whatever. You could even take a plane-jane ps4, slap a sticker on it, and call it a pc if ya really wanted to.

Read again with a little more of an open mind and a little less hatred. Have a nice day.

[cheezewhisperer]

Pretty much this, and consider the following: I might have the best cpu in the world and a 70$ graphics card, OR I might have a midrange cpu with an r9 295x2. How would you classify these two machines? Obviously they are superior to one another in different use scenarios, but the overall price might be the same. Which is number 1? And there are so many different small changes that can affect performance slightly that you would end up with millions of different spec variations that you would need to take into account, also bare in mind that with new hardware coming out every few months the whole "leaderboard" would be constantly shifting down which means the devs wouldn't really know anything more than they do now.

 

-EDIT-

 

Also there are a lot of very well programmed pc games, if the game isn't optimized well it's just because the developers are lazy and think people won't care (right ubisoft?).

Ah you have a point good sir/madam. But there wouldn't be a reason to have a different build for a machine that's almost just like another would there? But the cpu being great, gpu not so much and vise versa, would be tricky way to number things indeed. Perhaps 1 series devoted to cpu and another to gpu intense workloads? Just a dumb idea perhaps. But isn't that kinda what we're doing with a pc vs. console anyways? To be short.

Thank you for the comment.

[cheezewhisperer]

That's why graphic options exist

Yes but, as just an example, take FF14. The ps4 version looks just as good as the pc version imho. How can they do that with such inferior hardware in the "next gen" consoles? It's because they know exactly what hardware they're dealing with, not a "hodge podge" of pc components. I realize it's also due to not reprogramming a game that's already out for better pc hardware for many reasons, or just laziness. But my idea is "make it easier for devs to make/tweak the game just like they want it to be". They effectively do that with consoles, that's why they look so good even compared to most pc's, cuz they know the hardware.

[pjm0925]

Making things easier or dumbing something down are never the way forward.

[Sauron]

Ah you have a point good sir/madam. But there wouldn't be a reason to have a different build for a machine that's almost just like another would there? But the cpu being great, gpu not so much and vise versa, would be tricky way to number things indeed. Perhaps 1 series devoted to cpu and another to gpu intense workloads? Just a dumb idea perhaps.

Thank you for the comment.

 

It's sir maybe we could use certain benchmark scores, as in "this game is optimized for pcs with a unigine vally score of 10000 and more", but we know that benchmark scores sometimes are not reflected in gaming. Not to mention that every company would strive to optimize their hardware to get the higher score possible in valley, effectively cheating the system. I think the way it is now is pretty good, if only developers started tking our platform setiously...

[Willson94]

And, altho a #1 2014 could play the game no prob, it'd look drastically "inferior" graphics-wise than a #1 game.

This is how it already is.

 

Having tiers and yearly releases just doesn't work because then you're back where you're started.  With yearly hardware changes, when you get to #1 2014 what about coding for #1 2010 you're just back where you were with PCs.  This is why console generations last as long as they do the developers learn more and more tricks they can play on the hardware.

 

This might work if communism was still a thing 

[Maxwit44]

The positive criticism is much appreciated but your condescending attitude is not. And not once did I say the PC should be anything like a shitty Mac. Also the ppl that make the different hardware will still be making the hardware in the same capacity they are now. They make high price quality hardware and low price hardware. As for the word PC(personal computer) what makes it personal exactly? Is it you building it yourself? Putting your own tweaks to it such as liquid cooling or decals? All of the above? You're still doing that by choosing individual hardware and putting it together. Even your specific rig could be a #5 or whatever. You could even take a plane-jane ps4, slap a sticker on it, and call it a pc if ya really wanted to.

Read again with a little more of an open mind and a little less hatred. Have a nice day.

 

Uh, no, you missed the point. The point I took of what you wrote is that our PC's should be limited, and our PC should become like the consoles which are limited, in what they can do and how they can perform.

 

Not hatred here, its just a bad idea. If you want a standised PC then buy and AIO and be done with it.

 

Dev's get paid to make the best game possible for the hardware that availble at the time. Unless there Ubisoft, they make really good games, programs, and the more requirements are needed to things run faster, smoother, etc.

 

My point is that not matter how may classes or what OS you put on it, its still limiting people for choice. Wheres the freedom ?

 

Even if PCs where more like consoles, or consoles like PC's, some one, some day would still come up with the idea of a fully customised PC. i.e. present day?? Even with Consoles, slapping a sticker on it is hardly customising it. The whole arguement is mute.

 

Its pretty much like say, you have five choices of cars, pick one.

[cheezewhisperer]

It's sir maybe we could use certain benchmark scores, as in "this game is optimized for pcs with a unigine vally score of 10000 and more", but we know that benchmark scores sometimes are not reflected in gaming. Not to mention that every company would strive to optimize their hardware to get the higher score possible in valley, effectively cheating the system. I think the way it is now is pretty good, if only developers started tking our platform setiously...

Yes pretty much like that, like a benchmark system. PC's are just too broad in their hardware. I mean there's TONS of hardware in even a top of the line pc. U got the gpu/cpu/mb/psu/ram/sound card/etc. And any 1 of those components could change from one person to the next. So making the best game has got to be challenged by such a daunting inventory of hardware for devs.

[LOST TALE]

cheezewhisperer

How about you do a direct breakdown because that thing is TLDR and filled with exemples and methamorphs.

Prttey sure your not beating arround the bush, just making sure newbiers understand.

I have grand percieving skills. Even though im experimenting my asshole judging skills on this forum too :rolleyes: - contempt. not this time.

I dont need to be treated like a oblivious noob who needs eveyrthing broke down.

 

''Think of it like ordering fast food.''

 

That's where I'm coming from. Saw that.

 

I'll answer everything. You'll not regret. please.

[cheezewhisperer]

Making things easier or dumbing something down are never the way forward.

That is indeed the case for things. But not all, correct? Easier to teach an elderly to press the power button to turn on all devices than to tell them to push tv, on, cable, on, etc. Know what I mean

[cheezewhisperer]

Uh, no, you missed the point. The point I took of what you wrote is that our PC's should be limited, and our PC should become like the consoles which are limited, in what they can do and how they can perform.

 

Not hatred here, its just a bad idea. If you want a standised PC then buy and AIO and be done with it.

 

Dev's get paid to make the best game possible for the hardware that availble at the time. Unless there Ubisoft, they make really good games, programs, and the more requirements are needed to things run faster, smoother, etc.

 

My point is that not matter how may classes or what OS you put on it, its still limiting people for choice. Wheres the freedom ?

 

Even if PCs where more like consoles, or consoles like PC's, some one, some day would still come up with the idea of a fully customised PC. i.e. present day?? Even with Consoles, slapping a sticker on it is hardly customising it. The whole arguement is mute.

 

Its pretty much like say, you have five choices of cars, pick one.

Ah then I whole-heartedly apologize. And you do have a point. My un-mentioned point is to make it like cars as your example. Easier for all, and especially devs, to pick a set of hardware to meet their needs. But yes I do see ur point. But it wouldn't be called a pc persay cuz it really isn't a pc, as u said. Basically, disregard the "pc" as a label for this argument, that wasn't the point in the idea.

But my theory is mainly spurred by companies like UbiSoft, they're going to make em crappier and crappier if this bs keeps going.

[Mo5]

Yes but, as just an example, take FF14. The ps4 version looks just as good as the pc version imho. How can they do that with such inferior hardware in the "next gen" consoles? It's because they know exactly what hardware they're dealing with, not a "hodge podge" of pc components. I realize it's also due to not reprogramming a game that's already out for better pc hardware for many reasons, or just laziness. But my idea is "make it easier for devs to make/tweak the game just like they want it to be". They effectively do that with consoles, that's why they look so good even compared to most pc's, cuz they know the hardware.

because that's how they intended it to look like. It's the Ubisoft thing - it looks just as good because they make it that way not because it's a PC hardware limit. If anything it's the console limit which they artificially port to the PC.