*downscaled* Resolving Resolution

[ERP]

Your somewhat concentrating on a single point.
Just because people don't flock to PC's from their consoles doesn't mean people aren't interested in better graphics, just that if they are it's as a part of a greater whole and not as an isolated factor.
There are other obvious factors that affect where and how people play games

Cost
TV vs Monitor
Living room vs whereever the PC is - yes you could have a PC in your living room, but most people are more accepting of a console in that space
Convenience, whether or not that's real
Controller vs Mouse and Keyboard - yes I know you can use one on a PC, but it's not always a good experience
What social venue friends play on - Live vs Steam etc.

My PC is running a pair of 580's in SLI and I honestly don't think current gen console graphics look that
bad, but I rarely if ever A/B the same game between the setups. I usually look at the game and decide where I want to play it.

I don't happen to find aliasing all that annoying (outside of geometry aliasing in motion), but I do think that high end PC graphics are massively under utilized. And much of that is a combination of consoles driving development, budget, and the compromises that have to be made to cover a broad range of hardware.

 

[egoless]

Because they are happily playing on 2004 designed hardware by the millions when better graphical alternatives are available. If what you say is true and graphics are so important, then the day the new consoles are released if the pc versions of the games look better then people will ignore the consoles and go play on pc, that is if graphics really are all that important. We already know that pc will win on graphics in 2013 because graphics engines are infinitely more scalable now than they were in 2005, and there simply isn't enough wattage available on console hardware to even begin to compete with what you can graphically shove into a pc. But you and I know that won't matter one bit because to a large segment of the game playing population it's not all about graphics anymore. That a pc will beat them graphically on day one, make them look graphically bad by year three, and make them look graphically silly on year five makes zero difference. It's not like all people can even see graphical changes anyways. Look how many people still think pc games are just upscaled console games, then go through the graphical changelist offered by the companies and see all the things that people don't see on the pc versions.

I do not agree with better graphics on day 1, and here's why. If you want to distill it down to a resolution number, sure, day 1 better graphics. But other factors weigh in as you say, and by that I mean in a way such as people choosing iphone over android. The PC v console debate is much like the iphone v android debates. The ability for everyone to be on the same playing field even in regards to graphics is a huge value add that is glossed over (see iPhone and console). Tinkering (mods, forks, drivers, buttons/knobs/levers, etc) is not a huge value add when you want consistency and immediacy (see Android and PC). Thus, consoles sell because as stated before, there's more to graphics than a resolution (and also despite the cleverly disguised fanwar pixel counting threads pointed out above ).

 

[joker454]

Your somewhat concentrating on a single point.
Just because people don't flock to PC's from their consoles doesn't mean people aren't interested in better graphics, just that if they are it's as a part of a greater whole and not as an isolated factor.
There are other obvious factors that affect where and how people play games

Cost
TV vs Monitor
Living room vs whereever the PC is - yes you could have a PC in your living room, but most people are more accepting of a console in that space
Convenience, whether or not that's real
Controller vs Mouse and Keyboard - yes I know you can use one on a PC, but it's not always a good experience
What social venue friends play on - Live vs Steam etc.

But if graphics were indeed the be all end of what they were looking for then that should trump all of the above right? It doesn't take much to get a Silverstone htpc case, slap a gaming pc on it, hook it to your tv with a single hdmi cable and play everything from the couch with a 360 controller, people like me have been doing that for years now and it's not exactly an unknown quantity. I press a button and the pc is up and running in 3 seconds (faster than a console) and I play all my games from the couch with a 360 controller just like a console. The experience is the same aside from looking dramatically better to me. I did it because graphics are very important to me. Most don't because graphics are far lower down on the importance scale to them. It's not like it's a cost thing, look how much people spend on their consoles between accessories, extra controllers, replacement hard drives, memory cards, etc, especially launch day purchasers who usually drop quite a lot of money on a new console.

My PC is running a pair of 580's in SLI and I honestly don't think current gen console graphics look that
bad, but I rarely if ever A/B the same game between the setups. I usually look at the game and decide where I want to play it. I don't happen to find aliasing all that annoying (outside of geometry aliasing in motion), but I do think that high end PC graphics are massively under utilized. And much of that is a combination of consoles driving development, budget, and the compromises that have to be made to cover a broad range of hardware.

I guess it's all relative, I find even simple things like 60fps vs 30fps to be a dramatic difference, let alone all the rest of the improvements. I do recall a conversation with my brother in law when I was going over all the things that pc games do better visually, which is a really long list nowadays. In the end he simply asked me "yeah but will I really notice?". And he was right, he probably wouldn't. At the end of the day in spite of all the visual shortcomings on the console version which to me personally make it look bad, to him the game is ultimately the same and the visuals more or less all there so it's good enough. If it was like the old days where the pie level of Donkey Kong was missing then ok that's a big deal because gameplay was changed. But it's not like that anymore, the game is intact, pc vs console will be the same game experience and that's what matters most.

 

[joker454]

I do not agree with better graphics on day 1, and here's why. If you want to distill it down to a resolution number, sure, day 1 better graphics. But other factors weigh in as you say, and by that I mean in a way such as people choosing iphone over android. The PC v console debate is much like the iphone v android debates. The ability for everyone to be on the same playing field even in regards to graphics is a huge value add that is glossed over (see iPhone and console). Tinkering (mods, forks, drivers, buttons/knobs/levers, etc) is not a huge value add when you want consistency and immediacy (see Android and PC). Thus, consoles sell because as stated before, there's more to graphics than a resolution (and also despite the cleverly disguised fanwar pixel counting threads pointed out above ).

Well I know there is more to graphics then just resolution, you can look up some of my posts from years ago where I listed resolution much lower down on the graphics scale importance. It will also be less of a factor next gen since pc and console will both be often running at 1080p anyways. Texture resolution will also likely be a non issue in the first 2 to 3 years since I suspect pc versions will use identical texture sets to their console counterparts for that period of time. Ram also won't be an issue for 2 to 3 years since the console will be between 4gb and 8gb of ram, and most peoples pc's are in that range as well.

What makes me feel pc will win day one is the render engines. They are in totally different league now compared to 2004, they have all been built from the ground up to be both portable, scalable, and multi core aware. This will let them scale very rapidly to pc hardware, and there is less DirectX cruft in the way to waste cpu cycles. Also there was a bit of a divide to how console engines were designed compared to pc engines, different goals in mind, whereas next gen they will be much closer together if not be one and the same. Additionally last gen games were often built and designed first on a console dev kit and then ported to pc later. Next gen will be totally different, because of how long this gen was means that the current render engines were all designed, built and tested first on pc then ported to console dev kits. So the main render engines like Cryengine, Frostbite, Unreal, etc, are all first and foremost built on pc, fleshed out on pc, tested on pc, optimized on pc, and demonstrated on pc. Finally, consoles aren't the only game in town anymore so render engines are being made to work better across all kinds of hardware. It's not all about putting the console first anymore.

We'll have to wait and see, but I'll wager that on day 1 when comparing like game to like game, the pc version will smoke the console version. I'll also wager that most really won't care.

 

[ERP]

But if graphics were indeed the be all end of what they were looking for then that should trump all of the above right?

That was sort of my point, it's just one part of a much bigger picture. It's only a significant part of the comparison once you level the playing field in the other areas.

Consumers have demonstrated in many areas it isn't about being the "best" or even providing the best "value", more often than not it like evolution is about being "good enough" at the right price and convenient.

Digital audio/video and the rise of compressed file formats demonstrate that as well as anything, I've reached the point where I'd rather watch a digital download from Amazon or Netflix than buy a BluRay, and I can very obviously see the difference, but it's trumped by the convenience factor.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Because they are happily playing on 2004 designed hardware by the millions when better graphical alternatives are available.

It's never solely been about the graphics. Why do I still game on PS3 when I wish I had better quality visuals (particular examples of late are Trine 2 and Borderlands 2 (which I haven't actually got) where I'd rather have the much better PC visuals)? There are exclusives on PS3 I value. There's the convenience of the small form-factor console. There's the added value of BRD playback. There's the significant cost of a new PC, and with the potential of a new console just around the corner, it'd could be bad economy to buy a PC now only to have a more affordable and functional console become available. And plenty more reasons to boot. If I had limitless resources, I'm sure I'd be playing some games on PC. But with finite funds, console still offers good value.

The transition to PC isn't free, so console gamers aren't going to migrate just because their consoles are getting long in the tooth.

That a pc will beat them graphically on day one, make them look graphically bad by year three, and make them look graphically silly on year five makes zero difference.

Not least because those graphical upgrades come at significant cost of a couple hundred bucks every couple of years. Again, you're ignoring price completely. It's very unlikely that a PC costing the same as a console will be its equal in performance on day one.

 

[joker454]

Again, you're ignoring price completely. It's very unlikely that a PC costing the same as a console will be its equal in performance on day one.

How much did the typical ps3 launch buyer spend? More often than not it was:

- PS3 console for $500 to $600
- Spare controller for when the battery dies on the first one
- Replacement hard drive

That probably hits many of the people here, as most from what I've seen here have changed the hard drive and added a controller. So they were willing to spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 at launch.

How much do pc parts cost in the uk anyways? It's true I forget you guys get financially raped over there so I may be out of touch on pricing in Europe. Here though it's dirt cheap. I won't even list cheapest scenario, instead I'll go with a more expensive option that's simpler. Just buy one on sale, they are on sale every single day here. Example:

- $300 with no tax and free shipping gets you a desktop Lenovo pc with Win7, 6gb of ram, 500gb hdd, amd cpu, dvd drive, and some crappy old radeon card which is probably still more powerful than console gpu's.

- Chuck the radeon card and swap it for a $200 NVidia, or $300 if you want to match next gen gpu.

- Plug said computer to tv with hdmi cable, which is also separate purchase on consoles.

- $500 to $600 and you are on your way, no taxes and no shipping costs.

Obviously you can build a pc for far cheaper than that but that's just a quick example to make the point with todays pricing. For comparison Shifty, how much did you spend on your PS3?

 

[almighty]

- $300 with no tax and free shipping gets you a desktop Lenovo pc with Win7, 6gb of ram, 500gb hdd, amd cpu, dvd drive, and some crappy old radeon card which is probably still more powerful than console gpu's.

- Chuck the radeon card and swap it for a $200 NVidia, or $300 if you want to match next gen gpu.

- Plug said computer to tv with hdmi cable, which is also separate purchase on consoles.

- $500 to $600 and you are on your way, no taxes and no shipping costs.

Obviously you can build a pc for far cheaper than that but that's just a quick example to make the point with todays pricing. For comparison Shifty, how much did you spend on your PS3?

Please don't start building and selling PC's

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This thread closed as it's gone way OT and that discussion is going to get its own thread.