Forbes: PS4 and Xbox One are already out of date

[Ashaira]

Instead of them talking about FPS and resolution. I want developers to start caring about aesthetics.

 

Edit: This is more or less what I am on about.

 

 

but that takes brain power and patience. Both of which are lacking in the big publishers.

[GeathX]

 

And maybe "crushing multi-gpu configs" was a slip-up on my part, but these consoles would have been beating high-end single gpu configurations in the Radeon 4000 series and GTX 200 series.

 

 

If you look at the numbers, the PS4 GPU is actually more powerful than a GTX 580 with access to about the same or double the amount of memory, depending on the config of the 580. Most would probably consider a overclocked GTX 580 with 3GB of ram not top range, but still pretty good for a gaming rig.

[deathjester]

If you look at the numbers, the PS4 GPU is actually more powerful than a GTX 580 with access to about the same or double the amount of memory, depending on the config of the 580. Most would probably consider a overclocked GTX 580 with 3GB of ram not top range, but still pretty good for a gaming rig.

 

A lot of ram is locked to the OS. Same with cpu cores. Only 6 cores can be used for games not 8. You have to remember they are running a bunch of crap in the background for their online service. 

 

Tech article on PS4's best looking game. 4.5 gigs of system ram AND VRAM are available to the SDK after the OS takes resources. 

 

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/04/02/how-infamous-second-son-used-the-ps4s-8-4-5-gb-of-ram-cpu-and-gpu-compute-to-make-our-jaws-drop/

 

Ps4 is about a desktop factory oc 7790. Xbox One is about a 7770. 

 

GTX 260 216c > Xbox One. It will play DX 9 games better, which is freakin hilarious. 

 

http://www.hwcompare.com/11957/geforce-gtx-260-core-216-vs-radeon-hd-7770/

 

As far as the 7790 being more powerful than a 580? Here is a 480 from LTT. I would say Watch Dogs is about the best scenario for a console to score close in, since it had horrible optimization. The test is more than fair.

 

[kanaifilm]

PS4 is an option for those who want to come at a lower price. Because let us face it, you cant do anything with a 400 dollar pc (Buy windows, keyboard,mouse).

 

Yes it (The PC) can do a ton more stuff than the PS4 but for those who want gaming (And only gaming) at its best, for 400 dollars I think it is a good bargain, and Consoles wont be out of date because no one will get 4k THAT fast.

[Builder]

Forbes is a joke. They post sensationalist bullshit to get more page views. Just because it's mainstream doesn't mean they're right.

[GeathX]

A lot of ram is locked to the OS. Same with cpu cores. Only 6 cores can be used for games not 8. You have to remember they are running a bunch of crap in the background for their online service. 

 

Tech article on PS4's best looking game. 4.5 gigs of system ram AND VRAM are available to the SDK after the OS takes resources. 

 

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/04/02/how-infamous-second-son-used-the-ps4s-8-4-5-gb-of-ram-cpu-and-gpu-compute-to-make-our-jaws-drop/

 

Ps4 is about a desktop factory oc 7790. Xbox One is about a 7770. 

 

GTX 260 216c > Xbox One. It will play DX 9 games better, which is freakin hilarious. 

 

http://www.hwcompare.com/11957/geforce-gtx-260-core-216-vs-radeon-hd-7770/

 

As far as the 7790 being more powerful than a 580? Here is a 480 from LTT. I would say Watch Dogs is about the best scenario for a console to score close in, since it had horrible optimization. The test is more than fair.

 

 

Funny, wasn't talking about the CPU.....

 

 

But yeah RAM, 4.5-5.5GB, there is some scratch area with the hard drive and options to free up more on a per game bases. But i'll stick to 4.5 for now.

 

Depending on how devs want to use the ram, they could have 3GB for the GPU and 1.5GB for the CPU. Not that crazy of a notion when there would be no data duplication, the GPU/CPU just read the data it needs from the single pool. Or if they do a more even 2.5/2GB split, that 2.5GB dedicated to the GPU would be above a decent majority GPUs out there, an extra GB over a standard GTX 580 config.

 

Also, when I'm talking about the specs of the GPUs, I mean the actual numbers. Not using a game that is poorly optimised over multiple console generations/PC and then using that as the base to argue the consoles are crap. It would be like saying that any launch title game is indicative of the total performance of any console. It's incredibly short sighted to think along those lines. It is easy to see that the visuals of consoles improve over time despite the hardware staying the same, it happens every gen.

[deathjester]

Funny, wasn't talking about the CPU.....

 

 

But yeah RAM, 4.5-5.5GB, there is some scratch area with the hard drive and options to free up more on a per game bases. But i'll stick to 4.5 for now.

 

Depending on how devs want to use the ram, they could have 3GB for the GPU and 1.5GB for the CPU. Not that crazy of a notion when there would be no data duplication, the GPU/CPU just read the data it needs from the single pool. Or if they do a more even 2.5/2GB split, that 2.5GB dedicated to the GPU would be above a decent majority GPUs out there, an extra GB over a standard GTX 580 config.

 

Also, when I'm talking about the specs of the GPUs, I mean the actual numbers. Not using a game that is poorly optimised over multiple console generations/PC and then using that as the base to argue the consoles are crap. It would be like saying that any launch title game is indicative of the total performance of any console. It's incredibly short sighted to think along those lines. It is easy to see that the visuals of consoles improve over time despite the hardware staying the same, it happens every gen.

 

You could have access to 8, it wouldn't matter. The GPU is too weak to take advantage of it. As far as the actual numbers you are selling a fairy tale here. These are close to a 7770 and a 7790 in TFLOPS. We know the TFLOPS we know the performance. 7850's were like 100 bucks last Black Friday and destroy either on their OC.

 

You can sell the exclusives as personal preference, but the hardware is literally garbage, and it will only be worse when PC gets a low level API.

 

2008 Nehalem's will blow these CPU's away.  That was 6 years ago... GPU? The PS4 is like a midrange 2010. Xbox One is like mid range 2008. Only advantage the XB1 GPU has is the new DX instructions (when compared to the GTX 260). I played Tomb Raider at 1080p at much higher FPS than the XB1 could achieve through a DX 9 backend in the ini file on a GTX 260. The hardware is just not good. Sorry.

[MEC-777]

Are resolution and fps the only things that matter? No, certainly not. Do they effect gameplay? Yes. But also they are easy number to quantify and ramble off quickly. We shouldn't try to just achieve 1080p60 for resolution and frame rate's sake and sacrifice gameplay and detail settings to get there. However if I have the option to play at 30 or 60 I think it does matter, and even above 60 looks and feels better and better until about 80 for me personally.

So yes, gameplay is important, detail settings are important, resolution is important.

 

And gaming is part of our culture. You can't expect an art which is a major part of our culture to not be debated and talked about. We should however have these conversations as civilly as possible without personal attacks and needless trolling.

 

All those things are important, yes. But my beef is they advertise the graphics of the games developed for the consoles as being a strong point and make direct comparisons to "high-end gaming PCs" which they simply cannot compete with on that level. I'm saying they shouldn't bring a knife to a gun fight, but rather pick on someone their own size (console vs console). 

 

I also understand people love a good discussion and there's nothing wrong with that either - so long as we can all remain civil. I'm just saying, so many are making this debate all about the hardware specs when the hardware is not the most important element, but only one piece of the big picture. Look at the Wii-U. Look how many cool games are being released on that this year and next. Those games are unique, fun, engaging and even graphically impressive - given its relatively "weak" hardware specs. Nintendo, IMO has always stayed true to what a gaming console should be - about the whole package and the experience.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

Sensationalism at it's finest!

 

sigh... not again!

[GeathX]

You could have access to 8, it wouldn't matter. The GPU is too weak to take advantage of it. As far as the actual numbers you are selling a fairy tale here. These are close to a 7770 and a 7790 in TFLOPS. We know the TFLOPS we know the performance. 7850's were like 100 bucks last Black Friday and destroy either on their OC.

 

You can sell the exclusives as personal preference, but the hardware is literally garbage, and it will only be worse when PC gets a low level API.

 

2008 Nehalem's will blow these CPU's away.  That was 6 years ago... GPU? The PS4 is like a midrange 2010. Xbox One is like mid range 2008. Only advantage the XB1 GPU has is the new DX instructions (when compared to the GTX 260). I played Tomb Raider at 1080p at much higher FPS than the XB1 could achieve through a DX 9 backend in the ini file on a GTX 260. The hardware is just not good. Sorry.

 

 

Really not sure that DX9 ini file to get Tomb Raider working actually helps your case. You ran the game at a less intensive graphical setting, with lower quality game assets and no TressFX, its not really that surprising you get better results.

 

I'm not sure what fairy tale you think I'm trying to sell, if like how you said we know the TFLOPs we know the performance, it would go X1 or 7770 first depending on which model 7770 (1.3 - 1.2 to 1.4), GTX580 (1.5), 7790 (1.7), PS4 (1.8). If your arguing against those numbers then your saying Nvidia/AMD is lying to us and their business partners. These are the performance numbers of the GPUs, not really sure how that makes it a fairy tale.

 

On the CPU side, don't think any one is going to argue that they are a bit underwhelming (meeting you some of the way on this one), but because developers have the guarantee there is a GPU that is highly programmable (more so PS4) , anything that can be transferred over to compute functions (Physics, animation, particles and seems even sound calculations are starting to head over there) can take these heavy processing jobs off the CPU, leaving it to do things the GPU can not.

[deathjester]

Really not sure that DX9 ini file to get Tomb Raider working actually helps your case. You ran the game at a less intensive graphical setting, with lower quality game assets and no TressFX, its not really that surprising you get better results.

 

I'm not sure what fairy tale you think I'm trying to sell, if like how you said we know the TFLOPs we know the performance, it would go X1 or 7770 first depending on which model 7770 (1.3 - 1.2 to 1.4), GTX580 (1.5), 7790 (1.7), PS4 (1.8). If your arguing against those numbers then your saying Nvidia/AMD is lying to us and their business partners. These are the performance numbers of the GPUs, not really sure how that makes it a fairy tale.

 

On the CPU side, don't think any one is going to argue that they are a bit underwhelming (meeting you some of the way on this one), but because developers have the guarantee there is a GPU that is highly programmable (more so PS4) , anything that can be transferred over to compute functions (Physics, animation, particles and seems even sound calculations are starting to head over there) can take these heavy processing jobs off the CPU, leaving it to do things the GPU can not.

 

DX 9 screenshot. GTX 260 216c. Gameplay and not a cherry picked cutscene (which I can post if you want).

 

FPS on the ancient e8400 CPU OC with GTX 260 that still serves as a internet computer/hackintosh (Snow Leopard). Those old GTX cards went WELL past stock. You are looking at stock speeds. Card is a BFG Max Core. Still plays tomb raider better then a Xbox One. No it doesn't match my newer card but Xbox One and PS4 aren't close. I bought the e8400 at release and the GPU at release. They were far from top end in 2008 (Nehalem came out that year which will kill the console AMD 8 core on a low level API), and the GPU was also 2008 if I remember right. That was 6 years ago which = about 2 ring of death Xbox 360's...So I guess I had "next gen" in 2008 and it was well under a grand...

 

BTW it also played Diablo 3 at 1080p without MS having to go to Blizzard and cry about their hardware being crap. No it is not a good computer anymore and this old girl is put out to pasture for kids flash games and internet/homework, but I would still rather have it then a Xbox One...At least that old duo core can play a ton of games without having to pay a monthly fee, and play a Tomb Raider that cost 5 dollars instead of 60...

[nicholaswillems]

"It won't be able to deliver 4K"

 

Well okay, I never expected these consoles to be able to do that. There is no single GPU card on the PC market yet that can handle 4K at acceptable frames, or at least not a card that's cheaper than a console itself.

 

What is really, really disappointing in these consoles is that they can't even run 1080p at acceptable framerates for most games. They are outdated as heck and will hold back pc once again, as usual, but even sooner.

[GeathX]

DX 9 screenshot. GTX 260 216c. Gameplay and not a cherry picked cutscene (which I can post if you want).

 

FPS on the ancient e8400 CPU OC with GTX 260 that still serves as a internet computer/hackintosh (Snow Leopard). Those old GTX cards went WELL past stock. You are looking at stock speeds. Card is a BFG Max Core. Still plays tomb raider better then a Xbox One. No it doesn't match my newer card but Xbox One and PS4 aren't close. I bought the e8400 at release and the GPU at release. They were far from top end in 2008 (Nehalem came out that year which will kill the console AMD 8 core on a low level API), and the GPU was also 2008 if I remember right. That was 6 years ago which = about 2 ring of death Xbox 360's...So I guess I had "next gen" in 2008 and it was well under a grand...

 

BTW it also played Diablo 3 at 1080p without MS having to go to Blizzard and cry about their hardware being crap. No it is not a good computer anymore and this old girl is put out to pasture for kids flash games and internet/homework, but I would still rather have it then a Xbox One...At least that old duo core can play a ton of games without having to pay a monthly fee, and play a Tomb Raider that cost 5 dollars instead of 60...

 

Cool, though wasn't really saying that it wasn't a possibility, more that it just shows how well TR scales. The specs you have a well above the min requirement too. Have to remember that the game was designed for previous gen/PC first before being ported to next gen systems. Its how sony "remastered" The Last of Us for ps4, that game looked great on the ps3, but how it looks on the ps4 is not in direct relation to the ps4s power.

 

Also if you aren't running TressFX then its not a direct comparison, and not really worrying about how it performs compared to the X1, which is lacking in the GPU department.

 

No input on the GPU TFLOPs scale I talked about then?

[JEW UNIT NY]

In other news, the sky is blue...

[deathjester]

Cool, though wasn't really saying that it wasn't a possibility, more that it just shows how well TR scales. The specs you have a well above the min requirement too. Have to remember that the game was designed for previous gen/PC first before being ported to next gen systems. Its how sony "remastered" The Last of Us for ps4, that game looked great on the ps3, but how it looks on the ps4 is not in direct relation to the ps4s power.

 

Also if you aren't running TressFX then its not a direct comparison, and not really worrying about how it performs compared to the X1, which is lacking in the GPU department.

 

No input on the GPU TFLOPs scale I talked about then?

 

The consoles are running medium lows, other then the textures at high on the PS4 (doesn't look high on XB1) and the Tress FX is dumbed way down compared to the PC version. The input you gave is wrong because stock cards are not what people ran at. For instance a GTX 260/216c was a stock of mid 500's, while people were running them well above 600 with many approaching 700 or surpassing it. Bigger dies overclocked much better then the new dies and had more headroom. Just like a FX chip overclocks to a higher frequency than a Haswell, and Sandy Bridges had the biggest OC I have ever seen. It is not better than a Haswell and it gets it's had kicked in (the Sandy Bridge is still pretty competitive though), but many of those older cards still kick "next gen's" head in.

 

The PS4 is slightly above a 7790, but that doesn't mean a 7790 on a OC would not beat it. A 7850 would beat it by more and a 7870 would slaughter it. 

 

No one is running their 7850 at 800 mhz, where it is comparable with a PS4. It is like saying a Xeon and I7 K are =. They are until you OC the K. The Xeon gets left in the dust on single core performance and even rendering after the OC. How CPU dependant the game is will show you bigger swings, but in a game like Wild Star, or WoW? That Xeon is getting beat by a big margin. Single player game? Not so much. 

 

The PS4 can = a stock, original 7850 that is not OC. That ain't saying much. As I said 7850's were 100ish last Black Friday and 7870's which are something like 2.56 TFLOPS were 120. Even a budget build last black friday kills these next gen consoles. AMD 8350's which are the same chip architecture but more than twice as fast were 99 bucks at microcenter. My 4770k was 199 bucks last Black Friday and the MB/CPU were 260 combined. Shop around a little and the consoles are a horrible value, and that doesn't include the money you save later on games, no monthly service.  Tomb Raider was 5 dollars while it was 60 on console. That is 55 dollars on ONE GAME.

[patrickjp93]

they are not out of date. Try building a pc for the cost of a ps4 with better graphics performance than a ps4.

I also think the author is wrong where he says that within one year gamers are going to be demanding 4k gaming in the mainstream. It only becomes a factor if there is a competitor who can pull that off. And there is No such competitor in the mainstream. The only thing which can drive 4k gaming is high end pc but that hardware operates in a Totally did different price bracket.

At the time the PS4 launched, that would have been an easy task. Now you can't quite do it, but, a $700 computer can be a Gamecube/Wii/Wiiu AND Xbox/360/one AND PS1-4 SIMULTANEOUSLY!

[snes]

I bet that WAY less than 10% of our members' PCs are on the bleeding edge and 100% up to date. So, ... why the drama?

[Victorious Secret]

I bet that WAY less than 10% of our members' PCs are on the bleeding edge and 100% up to date. So, ... why the drama?

 

But those 10% think they speak for the 100% of the market and furthermore they think they understand how the market works, and they get pissy when you remind them of the fact that as 100% correct they might be, its still a crock of shit to the market at large.

[GeathX]

The consoles are running medium lows, other then the textures at high on the PS4 (doesn't look high on XB1) and the Tress FX is dumbed way down compared to the PC version. The input you gave is wrong because stock cards are not what people ran at. For instance a GTX 260/216c was a stock of mid 500's, while people were running them well above 600 with many approaching 700 or surpassing it. Bigger dies overclocked much better then the new dies and had more headroom. Just like a FX chip overclocks to a higher frequency than a Haswell, and Sandy Bridges had the biggest OC I have ever seen. It is not better than a Haswell and it gets it's had kicked in (the Sandy Bridge is still pretty competitive though), but many of those older cards still kick "next gen's" head in.

 

The PS4 is slightly above a 7790, but that doesn't mean a 7790 on a OC would not beat it. A 7850 would beat it by more and a 7870 would slaughter it. 

 

No one is running their 7850 at 800 mhz, where it is comparable with a PS4. It is like saying a Xeon and I7 K are =. They are until you OC the K. The Xeon gets left in the dust on single core performance and even rendering after the OC. How CPU dependant the game is will show you bigger swings, but in a game like Wild Star, or WoW? That Xeon is getting beat by a big margin. Single player game? Not so much. 

 

The PS4 can = a stock, original 7850 that is not OC. That ain't saying much. As I said 7850's were 100ish last Black Friday and 7870's which are something like 2.56 TFLOPS were 120. Even a budget build last black friday kills these next gen consoles. AMD 8350's which are the same chip architecture but more than twice as fast were 99 bucks at microcenter. My 4770k was 199 bucks last Black Friday and the MB/CPU were 260 combined. Shop around a little and the consoles are a horrible value, and that doesn't include the money you save later on games, no monthly service.  Tomb Raider was 5 dollars while it was 60 on console. That is 55 dollars on ONE GAME.

 

Ok...First the TressFX version that the consoles got was actually the upgraded version. More refined and less buggy...

 

http://steamcommunity.com/app/203160/discussions/0/540732596518166331/?insideModal=1

http://www.hardwareluxx.de/images/stories/newsbilder/aschilling/2013/apu14-tressfx-7.jpg

http://www.redgamingtech.com/amd-tressfx-2-0-capable-of-doing-much-more-than-hair/

 

Not sure where you got that the consoles got "dumbed way down compared to the PC version".

 

The OCing stuff, not fully sure why you brought that up, as the vast majority probably wouldn't overclock their systems/GPU beyond what factory settings might come. The GTX 260/216c was stock at 576mhz, with factory over clocks in the 650 region. Doubt that bump up or even to the 700s like you said would be enough to double+ the TFLOPs performance the 260 (.874) would need to reach the PS4 (1.84). That's with out even taking into consideration of other aspects that affect GPU performance like memory clock/bandwidth, pixel/texture fill rates and PCI-e speeds or the equivalent connection in which ever console.  

 

Really not sure what your trying to get at with the rest of the post. It really just seems to be blind hatred towards consoles in general and you throw any kind of statistic or piece of data that you think helps your idea.

 

My whole point is that the PS4 isnt actually as crap as the upper tier of PC users think it actually is. That the hardware is at least around the average or perhaps a bit over what the average game setup is. And not just average for people on forums like this but the mass market in general, such as looking at the Steam hardware survey or when you start looking at the actual breakdowns of GPU sales from high/mid and low.

[tacticalpanic]

i have a pretty nice pc hooked up to a 1440p monitor and i prefer to keep my pc for work , and i game on a xbox one and an xbox 360 , a consoles interface is just so much better for inviting friends and i couldint care less about fps or resolution , the truth is consoles are powerfull enough were you get the same game exsperance , this isint the 90's were baulders gate ment on pc you got an amazing game that would never have even worked on the dreamcast.

[BallGum]

100% agree.I play csgo and The lack of control drives me crazy sometimes but like the games.

Try playing quake with a controller. I got my arse handed to me for the first 3 plays, until I understood the map. Even then, I could only kill something when I was stacked with armour and health.

[Recon97]

Death to the consoles! Hail PC!

[That Norwegian Guy]

Not 400-450. 400 even. 399.99 in fact. 

And a case does matter. A console like the PS4 is pretty damn portable so you better make a build that matches the portability of it. 

SHOW ME what builds are "wooping consoles up and down" for 399.99. They better be doing EVERY game at 1080p60fps then. Anything less and its just a crock a shit. 

 

You are bullshitting around a lot of useless points, in the real world we call it semantics.

 

You may not be able to build a PC that outperforms a console for 399.99.

 

But you are able to build a PC for 500 that outperforms a console by TWICE the performance.

 

Price to performance ratio will ALWAYS be in favor of PC.

[Colonel_Gerdauf]

You are bullshitting around a lot of useless points, in the real world we call it semantics.

 

You may not be able to build a PC that outperforms a console for 399.99.

 

But you are able to build a PC for 500 that outperforms a console by TWICE the performance.

 

Price to performance ratio will ALWAYS be in favor of PC.

 

Uh... No!

Let me correct you on one thing there, my friend.

 

EVEN with a $500 PC, you are still making the same level of compromises that the consoles make to make the game playable. Let's look at what $500 will buy in in terms of parts:

 

- A case (cheap construction and not exactly low-profile)

- A motherboard that you would expect from a pre-built.

- A CPU with poor performance efficiency (more important than most people realize)

-- An iGPU or "APU" unit (which makes 1080P60 a complete no-go in most cases)

- 4GB of RAM (which will get bottlenecked very quickly even by a Linux kernel)

- 500GB HDD (with the size of games on Steam PLUS other files, that gets filled up quickly)

- A passable short-term-use PSU (A decent PSU will swallow a good chunk of costs right there)

 

If you want an actual (gaming) PC, the bare minimum cost would be $800, about double that of the consoles.

Unless you are dead broke, the only reason to build a PC that cheap is for pure spite against the console platform.

[NICKT]

Uh... No!

Let me correct you on one thing there, my friend.

 

EVEN with a $500 PC, you are still making the same level of compromises that the consoles make to make the game playable. Let's look at what $500 will buy in in terms of parts:

 

- A case (cheap construction and not exactly low-profile)

- A motherboard that you would expect from a pre-built.

- A CPU with poor performance efficiency (more important than most people realize)

-- An iGPU or "APU" unit (which makes 1080P60 a complete no-go in most cases)

- 4GB of RAM (which will get bottlenecked very quickly even by a Linux kernel)

- 500GB HDD (with the size of games on Steam PLUS other files, that gets filled up quickly)

- A passable short-term-use PSU (A decent PSU will swallow a good chunk of costs right there)

 

If you want an actual (gaming) PC, the bare minimum cost would be $800, about double that of the consoles.

Unless you are dead broke, the only reason to build a PC that cheap is for pure spite against the console platform.

 

That's because console manufacturers make back their money on a variety of fronts. Example, compare prices of console games to PC, to have your game be on a console you have to pay a fee, 1.

Also, controllers are hell expensive, cost me $40 for a wired 360 controller, wired! This thing came out ages ago, in the past week I've bought about 15 games for that same price.

There's also extra services on the consoles that you'll have to pay if you want the full experience.

 

However, a computer is more than just a gaming console. I think that's what people really need to start paying attention, because you're never going to get a PC that is the same price as a console that performs as well, because a PC is naturally capable of a lot more than gaming, so really, when you factor in just how much use you can get out of it, how much more mileage it'll get you, it's a much better purchase in the long run.

 

Also, nothing is stopping you from getting an old GPU now that can play modern games at medium settings and then upgrading it later when you have more dosh, because that's a brilliant aspect of PC, you can UPGRADE. And no, I don't mean go out and fork out another $500 on the next series of consoles, just get a new part and boom, increase.

And these days, where to get a moderate grasp on the gaming availability spectrum, you'll be buying more than one console, for sure. Especially when you get bullshit like platform exclusive DLC and shit, absolute crap and whoever keeps pushing this shit out are cunts.

 

The only thing the PC gaming scene has been lacking in really has been interfacing, sure it's been mitigated somewhat by Steam, but people want an easier experience, they want to hit a button, put in their game and boom, other than the fact you have to install your games instead of run them off a disc, Steam Big Picture mode pretty much takes care of that, and any other improvements would be made for sure if more people requested the service. It's a demand here, console experience has been made easier and easier over the years because a lot of people use it, if there were only a couple thousand, do you really think the devs would go to an effort to make it more user friendly? They'd be like, "nah, it's not worth the effort". If all console players moved to PC, by the time this year is out we'll have made so much progress already in making the PC gaming experience as smooth and intuitive if not more so than the consoles.

 

All the consoles are is a choke-hold on the industry, nothing more, nothing less.