Discussion: besides "looks", currently pc gaming is the same as console

[Zeitec]

On 5/6/2018 at 3:21 AM, Gdourado said:

 

And it has been for years. Whats your point? Framerates and graphical fidelity are pretty important to the gaming experience, especially framerate. Also you're missing mouse and keyboard options which is pretty massive. Playing shooters with a controller sucks. 

 

So sure, you can play Wolfenstein 2 on consoles and it'll technically work just fine. You'll just have to play with fluctuating framerates, mediocre visuals, and a controller that makes shooting the enemies unnecessarily hard (or cheat with aim assist). 

[Zeitec]

3 minutes ago, Gdourado said:

I agree with the part about windows being a problem.
For me at least. 
I know it is a good part of the pc ability to perform several kinds of task, like productivity and work related task and content creation.
But for me that is part of the problem. 
The computer is a work tool and the desk, keyboard and mouse is associated with work. 

When I game for leisure, I don't want to continue at the desk, I want to go to the couch or recliner and game on the big screen TV. 

I could build a great itx pc to game with a console formfactor, great specs and the excellent Xbox one controller is widely supported for almost all recent games. 

But I just don't want to go through the troubles of having to use a wireless keyboard and track pad to deal with windows, installations, drivers, windows optimization, disabling services, security patches... 
 

I mean literally all of the drivers, optimization, and patches are automatic. All you have to do is press a button when there's a popup saying to update (literally the same as a console), using a steam controller to open a game takes literally 3 seconds, and I've never had to actively disable a service.

 

If you want a console that's fine. If literally 3 seconds of inconvenience is too much for you to handle then I'd suggest living in the forest without any technology, because all tech requires a bit of work. It's a bit weird to act like clicking a button is a lot of work, but if that's what constitutes a pain in the ass to you, then you do you. I'd rather take the extra 3 seconds to open a game through windows than spend the next hour having a worse gaming experience. 3 seconds for an hour of better gameplay seems like a fair trade to me, but whatever floats your boat man. 

 

If the PC being able to do other stuff is a problem, then just open steam big screen and never close it. There. Problem solved. Now you don't even need to use a track pad to open the game. It's essentially a console UI. You still have to click "Update" twice a month for GPU drivers, and maybe hit the restart button once a month of windows updates (You could even combine them. Click update for GPU drivers , then restart the PC to do windows update) so if that's too much then yeah. Try living in the woods. 

[Zeitec]

On 5/7/2018 at 12:41 PM, App4that said:

Those are not Triple A titles, or not released yet.

 

I have run Forza 7 back to back on my Xbox One X and a 980ti equiped HTPC. Takes a sharp eye to notice any differences. Same with AC Origins. 

I'm sorry that you believe the only games worth playing are AAA games. 

[Gdourado]

1 hour ago, Zeitec said:

And it has been for years. Whats your point? Framerates and graphical fidelity are pretty important to the gaming experience, especially framerate. Also you're missing mouse and keyboard options which is pretty massive. Playing shooters with a controller sucks. 

 

So sure, you can play Wolfenstein 2 on consoles and it'll technically work just fine. You'll just have to play with fluctuating framerates, mediocre visuals, and a controller that makes shooting the enemies unnecessarily hard (or cheat with aim assist). 

Come on... 

Consoles don't have mediocre visuals... 

Looking at digital foundry graphics comparisons, most of the time they have to either pause the screen or zoom in to 300% for the differences to be seen. 

[Sniperfox47]

46 minutes ago, Gdourado said:

Come on... 

Consoles don't have mediocre visuals... 

Looking at digital foundry graphics comparisons, most of the time they have to either pause the screen or zoom in to 300% for the differences to be seen. 

Aliasing... *shudders*

 

I've yet to play a single console game that gets decent Anti-aliasing...

 

Not to mention that the frame judder and inconsistency *is* a visual aspect and very few games on consoles hit a stable 60fps.

[Zeitec]

5 hours ago, Gdourado said:

Come on... 

Consoles don't have mediocre visuals... 

Looking at digital foundry graphics comparisons, most of the time they have to either pause the screen or zoom in to 300% for the differences to be seen. 

YouTube compresses videos to shit anyways. Not a very useful comparison tool. 

[App4that]

2 hours ago, Zeitec said:

YouTube compresses videos to shit anyways. Not a very useful comparison tool. 

You know what is a useful comparison tool? Literally using the same display for both, like I do. As in every modern platform available. 

 

Because something is marketed, does not make it a gimmick. The marketing of the feature having more use to the person doing the marketing, than the feature having usefulness to the person that buys the product, is what makes it a gimmick.

 

CD Project Red updated The Witcher 3 to HDR support because of that usefulness to the customer, because they care about their product and the people playing their games.

 

You can have your own opinion on the quality of console content. Calling HDR a gimmick lowers the quality of your argument and puts those arguing against console in a bad light. Just like those arguing against PC that say you can't see past 30fps do.

 

The issue is you confuse gimmick, with niche.

[Sniperfox47]

39 minutes ago, App4that said:

CD Project Red updated The Witcher 3 to HDR support because of that usefulness to the customer, because they care about their product and the people playing their games.

If you truly believe that you're naive. CD Project Red is a company. They updated The Witcher 3 with HDR support because it made financial sense for them to do so. It served as a marketing tool to reinvigorate sales of a game that was getting a bit long in the tooth, and they received financial compensation to update it, all at very little cost to them.

 

P.S. I never said anything about consoles having inferior content. If you look back I merely mentioned that consoles having features first is irrelevant when there's no content that makes use of those features. This isn't an "us vs them" thing, stop trying to lump me into a tribe. Consoles and PCs aren't "better" or "worse", they serve two totally different market segments.

[App4that]

6 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

If you truly believe that you're naive. CD Project Red is a company. They updated The Witcher 3 with HDR support because it made financial sense for them to do so. It served as a marketing tool to reinvigorate sales of a game that was getting a bit long in the tooth, and they received financial compensation to update it, all at very little cost to them.

 

P.S. I never said anything about consoles having inferior content. If you look back I merely mentioned that consoles having features first is irrelevant when there's no content that makes use of those features. This isn't an "us vs them" thing, stop trying to lump me into a tribe. Consoles and PCs aren't "better" or "worse", they serve two totally different market segments.

The HDR support was added for existing users, not as a way to spur sales. Find one advertisement for The Witcher 3 adding HDR support. 

 

I lump you into the "us verses them" due to your behavior. The same refusal to admit you were wrong on something you see in any "us versus them" debate. The same tired "If the feature is on our side it's a God send, if it's on theirs it's a gimmik." If HDR is a gimmick, then so is high refresh rate displays, mechanical keyboards, gaming mice, mat pads, shit even resolutions over 1080p.

 

They're not. They are marketed to have a use, and deliver on that promise. 

[Sniperfox47]

19 minutes ago, App4that said:

The HDR support was added for existing users, not as a way to spur sales. Find one advertisement for The Witcher 3 adding HDR support. 

https://www.polygon.com/2018/4/12/17229906/the-witcher-3-hdr-ps4-patch-1-60-issues

 

You do realize that marketing nowadays is more than just direct advertisement right?

 

You do also realize that promotion on the Playstation store and Microsoft store are dependent upon badging and certification right? It's no different from SEO for websites or Play Store badging for mobile.

 

19 minutes ago, App4that said:

I lump you into the "us verses them" due to your behavior. The same refusal to admit you were wrong on something you see in any "us versus them" debate. The same tired "If the feature is on our side it's a God send, if it's on theirs it's a gimmik." If HDR is a gimmick, then so is high refresh rate displays, mechanical keyboards, gaming mice, mat pads, shit even resolutions over 1080p.

It doesn't matter which side it's on. At the moment both sides have HDR and it's a gimmick for both... 

 

High refresh rates and variable refresh rates improve motion clarity in everything you do on your computer, from gaming to productivity, to the conversion of 24fps video, so I'm not sure how you'd consider that a gimmick.

 

Likewise mechanical keyboards serve a huge benefit in both typing accuracy and speed due to their tactile and audible feedback so the same. Gaming keyboards? Super gimmicky, but mechanical in general not so much.

 

Things with "gaming" in their name are absolutely a gimmick, yeah, including mice. 

 

Mouse pads, on most surfaces, are likewise gimmicky. Totally agree.

 

And resolutions over 1080p are only even gimmicky if you have a substantially small display, substantially far enough away. For large displays or displays you're close to they have a pretty clear technical advantage. If you're going to but a 4k 24" display and you're not a content editor you're a dumbass, but a 32" 4k display makes total sense.

 

I'm not arguing that consoles are bad here. I've only been arguing your approach to it is overly simplistic and biased.

[App4that]

20 minutes ago, Sniperfox47 said:

https://www.polygon.com/2018/4/12/17229906/the-witcher-3-hdr-ps4-patch-1-60-issues

 

You do realize that marketing nowadays is more than just direct advertisement right?

 

You do also realize that promotion on the Playstation store and Microsoft store are dependent upon badging and certification right? It's no different from SEO for websites or Play Store badging for mobile.

 

It doesn't matter which side it's on. At the moment both sides have HDR and it's a gimmick for both... 

 

High refresh rates and variable refresh rates improve motion clarity in everything you do on your computer, from gaming to productivity, to the conversion of 24fps video, so I'm not sure how you'd consider that a gimmick.

 

Likewise mechanical keyboards serve a huge benefit in both typing accuracy and speed due to their tactile and audible feedback so the same. Gaming keyboards? Super gimmicky, but mechanical in general not so much.

 

Things with "gaming" in their name are absolutely a gimmick, yeah, including mice. 

 

Mouse pads, on most surfaces, are likewise gimmicky. Totally agree.

 

And resolutions over 1080p are only even gimmicky if you have a substantially small display, substantially far enough away. For large displays or displays you're close to they have a pretty clear technical advantage. If you're going to but a 4k 24" display and you're not a content editor you're a dumbass, but a 32" 4k display makes total sense.

 

I'm not arguing that consoles are bad here. I've only been arguing your approach to it is overly simplistic and biased.

CD Project Red supported the Xbox One X with HDR way before the PS4.

 

You just proved my point. The features on PC are not gimmicks, because in your opinion they work. But HDR is a gimmick because. The irony being that on PC HDR is a gimmick, as it doesn't work, while not being a gimmick on console. 

[Kamjam21xx]

7 minutes ago, App4that said:

CD Project Red supported the Xbox One X with HDR way before the PS4.

 

You just proved my point. The features on PC are not gimmicks, because in your opinion they work. But HDR is a gimmick because. 

They arent the same, leave it at that for the love of god Dx

 

Ive had every system except the new nintendo and the xbox 360 & one. Theyre all fun. I just boycotted xbox for what they did to halo. Also had an atari and intelevision. 

 

But they're just different and not inherently better.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, Kamjam21xx said:

They arent the same, leave it at that for the love of god Dx

 

Ive had every system except the new nintendo and the xbox 360 & one. Theyre all fun. I just boycotted xbox for what they did to halo. Also had an atari and intelevision. 

 

But they're just different and not inherently better.

I totally agree that it's impossible to call one "better" as they serve totally different needs. That's not the point of contention. 

 

HDR isn't a gimmick on console, not by the definition posted. It works. HDR not working well on PC does nothing to HDR on console that does work well.

[Kamjam21xx]

4 minutes ago, App4that said:

I totally agree that it's impossible to call one "better" as they serve totally different needs. That's not the point of contention. 

 

HDR isn't a gimmick on console, not by the definition posted. It works. HDR not working well on PC does nothing to HDR on console that does work well.

I havent lookes much into hdr on pc or console.

 

I know i want it in my camera, like 13-15 stops of dynamic range. However computer graphics have always been horrible at producing lighting right without help after the fact. So id have to read up on what it ACTUALLY is. 

[App4that]

Just now, Kamjam21xx said:

I havent lookes much into hdr on pc or console.

 

I know i want it in my camera, like 13-15 stops of dynamic range. However computer graphics have always been horrible at producing lighting right without help after the fact. So id have to read up on what it ACTUALLY is.

Well, HDR support relies on a person going in and adjusting the image (colors) so HDR quality changes game to game. AC Origins and Horizon Zero Dawn knock it out of the park. Unfortunately that uneven approach to HDR and the wide range of implementation of HDR on different displays muddies the water. You could argue that HDR on cheap LCD televisions without zone lighting border on being a gimmick. Since the implementation of HDR on a television with zone lighting or something like a OLED display are so much better. 

 

Not the fault of the console which display you use, and using any display in HDR is beautiful. Now, in the wide range of HDR televisions is a wide range of impacts on latency. I bought mine because it's one of the few to not impact latency while in HDR. So it takes a buyer who researched to get the best experience. 

[Frankenburger]

9 hours ago, Gdourado said:

Come on... 

Consoles don't have mediocre visuals... 

Looking at digital foundry graphics comparisons, most of the time they have to either pause the screen or zoom in to 300% for the differences to be seen. 

Digital Foundry's visual comparisons isn't entirely representative. There's a huge difference between a looking at a heavily compressed web optimized video and raw footage.

 

Most of the time, console games have distracting motion blur in an attempt to mask the flaws and large amounts of aliaising. Monster Hunter World is one such example. The motion blur is so bad in MHW that I literally reeled in my chair when I first saw my character's face turn into a smudged oval with hair at the slightest shift in posture. It's an effect I have not noticed by any significant amount while watching MHW vids on YouTube.

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

Digital Foundry's visual comparisons isn't entirely representative. There's a huge difference between a looking at a heavily compressed web optimized video and raw footage.

 

Most of the time, console games have large amounts of aliaising and distracting motion blur in an attempt to mask the flaws. Monster Hunter World is one such example. The motion blur is so bad in MHW that I literally reeled in my chair when I first saw my character's face turn into a smudged oval with hair at the slightest shift in posture.

I've found Digital Foundry's analysis to be on point, running the same game on my display using both offers the same results.

[Frankenburger]

2 minutes ago, App4that said:

I've found Digital Foundry's analysis to be on point, running the same game on my display using both offers the same results.

Thanks to YouTube's compression, I can easily tell between the raw footage and uploaded video. The bitrate on most YouTube uploads is too low, which often masks flaws and causes a significant loss in fine detail.

 

Like I mentioned earlier, I can't notice any significant amount of motion blur in DF's MHW comparison video, but it's immediately noticeable while playing MHW on my PS4 Pro. Even when I captured this video and upscaled it to force a higher bitrate, it's still not representative of the quality I see in game.

Meanwhile, Digital Foundry uploads in 1080p, which is far too low of a bitrate thanks to YouTube's compression algorithm to get an idea of the nuances in these games.

[App4that]

12 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

Thanks to YouTube's compression, I can easily tell between the raw footage and uploaded video. The bitrate on most YouTube uploads is too low, which often masks flaws and causes a significant loss in fine detail.

 

Like I mentioned earlier, I can't notice any significant amount of motion blur in DF's MHW comparison video, but it's immediately noticeable while playing MHW on my PS4 Pro. Even when I captured this video and upscaled it to force a higher bitrate, it's still not representative of the quality I see in game.

Meanwhile, Digital Foundry uploads in 1080p, which is far too low of a bitrate thanks to YouTube's compression algorithm to get an idea of the nuances in these games.

No, I mean I run the same game, on the same television, using both my HTPC and the console in question. 

 

If I say you down and handed you a controller, try and tell if my HTPC or Xbox One X is running Forza 7. You can't. 

 

Now, take a PC that costs the same as a Xbox One X and compare, not a HTPC running a 980ti. Now you'll know the difference because there's no way a 500 dollar PC built from new parts can keep up with the Xbox One X.

 

I've put hours and hours going from the HTPC to the console in question looking at the difference. It's fun for me. The PS4 Pro looks amazing in Sony exclusives, falls short to the One X and HTPC outside exclusives. The One X doesn't have exclusives if you own a PC, but does offer better backwards support in older games than even PC while looking the same in shared titles on a 4k television. The HDR support is the best on the PS4 Pro (perfect), the One X is visually the same but buggy, the PC is a joke.

 

 

[Frankenburger]

5 minutes ago, App4that said:

If I say you down and handed you a controller, try and tell if my HTPC or Xbox One X is running Forza 7. You can't. 

 

Now, take a PC that costs the same as a Xbox One X and compare, not a HTPC running a 980ti. Now you'll know the difference because there's no way a 500 dollar PC built from new parts can keep up with the Xbox One X.

That's not the point I was making, and is basically straying off the topic I was touching on.

 

I'm not arguing the validity of consoles, nor am I denying that a comparable PC looks more or less on par with their console brethren.

[App4that]

3 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

That's not the point I was making, and is basically straying off the topic I was touching on.

 

I'm not arguing the validity of consoles, nor am I denying that a comparable PC looks more or less on par with their console brethren.

You're debating that the compression hides some differences when looking at Digital Foundry's analysis. At 300%, sure.

 

Listen to their words. 

[Frankenburger]

1 minute ago, App4that said:

Listen to their words. 

I did

 

Digital Foundry, when comparing the PC version to console versions, usually sets the PC version to high or ultra. Console games are more or less equal to medium settings for the Pro and X consoles, and low settings on the base consoles.

 

What I'm saying is the lack of perceived difference between Digital Fountry's PC vs Console comparisons is attributed by how the videos are compressed. Nothing more, nothing less.

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, Frankenburger said:

I did

 

Digital Foundry, when comparing the PC version to console versions, usually sets the PC version to high or ultra. Console games are more or less equal to medium settings for the Pro and X consoles, and low settings on the base consoles.

 

What I'm saying is the lack of perceived difference between Digital Fountry's PC vs Console comparisons is attributed by how the videos are compressed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Their analysis blows a hole in the idea consoles run the games at medium settings, that's the point of their videos...

 

Some titles on the base consoles and even the Pro drop to medium settings, not on the One X. Sure you have the garbage outlier that is PUBG, but in Forza 7 a few settings go beyond PC's ultra settings.

 

Then take that 500 dollar PC built from new parts, and run AC Origins at even high settings at 4k. Try it...

 

If you tried to compare a 1080ti yo a 580 you'd get jumped on this forum for good reason. But. Here we are.

[Frankenburger]

8 minutes ago, App4that said:

Their analysis blows a hole in the idea consoles run the games at medium settings, that's the point of their videos...

 

Then take that 500 dollar PC built from new parts, and run AC Origins at even high settings at 4k. Try it...

I disagree. MGS Ground Zeroes, Dying Light, Shadow of War, and Fallout 4 are a few examples of games that look notably better on PC at high settings. But of course, there are exceptions. Nier Automata looks pretty comparable when comparing the PS4 Pro to the PC.

 

ACO doesn't run at full 4k on the XboneX...

 

Quote

In general gameplay, we didn't get to see the Microsoft console deliver full-fat 2160p, but we did measure 3584x2016 at the upper bounds - a 62 per cent increase in maximum resolution up against the highest pixel count we saw on Pro: 2816x1584. In terms of the minimums, it's X at 1656p vs Pro vs 1350p.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-assassins-creed-origins-xbox-one-x-analysis

[App4that]

Just now, Frankenburger said:

I disagree. MGS Ground Zeroes, Dying Light, Shadow of War, and Fallout 4 are a few examples of games that look notably better on PC at high settings. But of course, there are exceptions. Nier Automata looks pretty comparable when comparing the PS4 Pro to the PC.

 

ACO doesn't run at full 4k on the XboneX...

Yes, ACO hits full fat 4k with the Xbox One. It uses dynamic resolution, that's to keep the framerate stable. 

 

Shadow of war uses high to ultra settings on the Xbox One X, it's the Pro that drops the settings.

 

You're also dodging the point. The One X costs 500 bucks, compare it to a 500 dollar PC built from new parts.