On Jan 14, 12:20 pm, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 11:08 am, Morgan <nos...@nospam.co.uk> wrote:
> >> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> >>>> I see plenty of PC games advertised on GameStop/EB's frontpage - both as
> >>>> retail games, and through Gamestop's digital download store.
> >>> LOL
> >>> The only PC games on those homepages are the PC versions of games that
> >>> are also available for the consoles... and the "PC" link is always
> >>> last.
> >> But these games are still available on the PC, the fact that they are
> >> also available for consoles is immaterial.
>
> > People were able to buy audio cassettes and VHS cassettes for many
> > years after CDs and DVDs took over. That doesn't mean that those
> > things *weren't* on the way out.
>
> This isn't a very good analogy at all though. Writing a VHS or audio
> tape incurs negligible extra cost. Tailoring a game to run on a PC
> requires a lot more time and resources in design coding, testing and
> will require substantial investment.
It's a solid analogy from the perspective of demand. My argument isn't
that "hardcore" PC games are going to go away forever. I don't think
the market will even decrease much more than it already has. My
argument is that demand is way down from even just a half decade ago
and that the fact that you can still find them in stores or on
websites doesn't mean that they still have the same standing that they
did back in the day.
Like with audio and video cassettes, the game companies will still
sell to PC gamers so long as there are enough of them to make it worth
their while.
A video game related analogy... they were still releasing Game Boy
Advance games in 2007 and still selling them in retailers during the
2008 holiday season, long after the DS's 2004 debut and even though
the DS was already a mega powerhouse in the handheld market.
> >>> Now, the only real advantage of PC games is the higher resolutions
> >>> which Blu-ray has shown is really not important to the typical
> >>> consumer.
> >> The PCs graphical superiority goes far beyond screen resolution.
>
> > Of course they are but higher resolutions are the most prominent and
> > noticeable change.
>
> Not true at all, and a very strange comment from the person who climed
> that most people can't tell the difference in resolution between DVD and
> Blu-Ray.
The two statements are not incompatible in the slightest - the point
being that the other graphical improvements would be even less
noticeable to the typical consumer - although I do concede on second
thought that perhaps something like improved lighting would be more
noticeable.
Framerate? Well, that's arguable as far as whether it should be
considered a problem with the graphics themselves. I don't think that
most people would conclude when seeing a game running in 30fps and
60fps with all else equal that the difference is in "the graphics"
considering a lot of people will look at a game like Wind Waker with
good graphics technology but still say "the graphics" suck.
> >If you say "PCs" in general, then it's tough to
> > include all aspects of better graphics because you need to account for
> > the cheaper PCs that aren't able to handle much more than one
> > improvement.
>
> Cheaper PCs still have a lot more horsepower than a 360 or PS3, and a
> new PC game on medium settign will look better than a new console game.
I can't even buy a $200 desktop from Dell. Here's one starting at
$289:
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/deskt..._new_anav_01~~.
The computer only has 2GB RAM, at least 1GB of which will be eaten by
Windows. The integrated graphics card that comes with it is not
favorably reviewed, considered a card that would be "overkill for
Diablo" but "probably won't even load a menu" in Crysis. It wouldn't
be able to handle games like Modern Warfare 2, Gears, Unreal
Tournament 3, etc. even at the lowest settings.
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/deskt...-mini_anav_1~~
The above one's $399 but its graphics card can't even handle Halo 2 on
the PC.
http://www.dell.com/us/en/home/deskt...n-580_anav_1~~
$449 but the graphics are integrated into the CPU? Somehow, I doubt
you'll be playing Modern Warfare 2 on even medium settings with a set-
up like that but maybe I'm wrong there.
> >You're not going to be able to run Crysis with higher
>
> > resolutions *and* better lighting *and* improved textures *and* better
> > mapping *and*... etc. and so forth on anything but a higher end gaming
> > rig.
>
> That's one example, Bioshock on the other hand ran fine maxed out on a
> mid range PC of the day.
What do you consider a mid range PC? According to benchmark tests of
the time, BioShock only ran smoothly at max settings with the 8800GT
(which still goes for over $300 in most places) or the ATI HD2900XT
(which still goes for over $400 in most places) except that this was
at less than 1080p (1024 x 768) and no anti-aliasing so I'm guessing
we're talking about high $800s or maybe even in the low $1,000s to get
lower resolution than the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 but possibly with
some better effects and textures.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ut,1701-3.html
