The Console Arms Race: Is This What Console Gamers Want?

Do you like the idea of half-cycle (tick-tock) upgrades and forwards compatibility?


  • Total voters
    75
And I believe some of what has recently been said can be categorised as incorrect.

For example, Windows updates never force you to run them, so you would never be in a situation where you want to play a game but are stopped by those updates. And that includes graphics drivers. Windows will download and prepare updates for you in the background to run at your convenience and simply let you know that they're ready to run.

I never suggested Windows forces an update on you. So I take issue with you suggesting what I said was incorrect. What I said was:

"Well, the last laptop I had was Windows 7 and definitely performed it's updates (downloading then updating) while the machine was on"

Which is correct.

And while Windows doesn't force updates on you, they definitely should be applied. Just as I expect my PS4 to be updated, I also would expect the same of my PC (and do).

Again, my PS4 does this automatically.

Yes, if updates are ready you will have to apply them before you perform a full shut down - but there's nothing to stop you simply putting the computer to sleep instead. Updates don't need to be run to allow that. The automatic graphics driver updates that are available via both AMD and Nvidia work the same way and despite common misconception, the latest graphics drivers are not required to play the latest games in the vast majority cases. They merely provide a better experience (which is usually unnoticeable in my experience and more applicable to benchmarking sites).

And still, the computer must be on to apply those updates. Those updates should be installed and they'll download while the machine is on. If I choose to not update my PC when they're ready at shutdown, they'll just have to be applied the next time I shutdown.

My PS4 will do this automatically.

It's certainly true that consoles are still easier to use than PC's - it probably always will be. But tongue_of_colicab is absolutely correct when he says that this whole concept of constant tinkering with settings or drivers to keep PC gaming working is no longer true and hasn't been for quite a while.

And yet, you were the person that I'd referred to when I said:

" I know there are guys that love playing with settings and fair play to them"

As in one of our previous conversations you had mentioned that you enjoy playing with game settings. So if you provide the option of having settings in a game, is it not fair to say that a lot of people will be more obliged to look at those settings and readjust them to their needs than someone that doesn't have settings available? Since you enjoy doing it.

Drivers, updates and game patches all download themselves in the background and apply with zero or minimal user intervention (and you can control how much intervention you want to have in that process). I personally have never had a problem with Windows 10 with any update and I don't recall having any with Windows 7 either. I agree that if you haven't played a game in a while, then the running of an update will sometimes force you to wait until that is complete before you can play - yes consoles win there. But that's worlds apart from having to "constantly tinker with settings and drivers" to keep things operational. In fact it's pretty much no worse than the last generation of consoles.

So if you're looking to play some old game that's not present on Steam, do you anticipate that your version of Direct X, Java, or drivers will exactly work as anticipated from the moment you place that disc in the machine? My previous experience tells me that I might have to update one or several of those things in order to play. So if I have to revert back to some older version of a driver and my machine is setup to download the latest driver, will it continue to do that automatically or will you have to tell it not to download that latest version?

My experience with Java and some PC applications is that if my PC suddenly decides that it's going to automatically update to the latest version, that several common applications that I use in my job will stop functioning. Then I've got the faf of having to work out with version of Java I should be using with whichever version of the tool I'm trying to use.

I spend >8hrs every working day on a PC (Windows 8.1), so I'm not exactly new to software compatibility and changing setting to make software function. It's something that's a common occurrence. Does this particular software work with Chrome, or does it only function with Internet Explorer 7 and up? Do I need to have Steam for x/y/z game, or the new Microsoft store? Or do I now need to sign into EA servers and register before I can play? I'm installing a game and it tells me that I need the latest version of something-or-another before I can play.

Oh you think that mod looks cool, you'll have to go deep into the C-drive to find where the game is installed (or was it the d-drive? I can't remember) and adjust some files in there and add a few new ones. Not sure on how that's done? Look up a guide online and pray that it works exactly with your machine, considering all of the millions of possible configurations that it could effect instead. Fingers crossed, has it worked? No, there's something else I need to adjust, better check if someone has had the same problem in the past too...

My PS4, I just put the disc in and I play.


The real PC user experience is that 9 times out of 10 I press a button on the keyboard or move the mouse to wake the PC. 5-10 seconds later, I'm on the desktop, I click steam to pop open my games library (or I can set it to be there waiting for me when the PC comes on with all my most recently games at the forefront just like a console) and I start playing whichever game I like. The tenth time, that game will start running an update first and I'll have to wait 5 minutes before I can play it. Maybe one in 20 times I'll also have an icon in my task tray from either Windows update or GeForce experience telling me a new update has been downloaded and installed or is ready to install when I'm ready. And I leave that until the time is convenient for me to click okay and wait 5 minutes for it to complete.

And on the PS4 I press the PlayStation button, then I press X and I'm in the game.

Every. Single. Time.
 
16gb hbm2 and 14nm would be a mid-gen upgrade, not the 8x memory and 8x performance upgrade we expect from a generation jump.
Just my musings referencing the 8x historical norm

Moore's law is now over so the time cycle and power cycle are no longer as they where.

Would be need 8x for the customers to see it as a jump? Or can you even keep consoles relevant for long enough to find that if you want true 8x.

Previously each generation has been quite different technology which seems to take a while to be used efficiently. Consoles were cutting edge and PC was comparativly bloated enabling consoles to punch above their weight or last longer. This relationship is changing.

If staying with AMD apu existing performance gains should map to a new apu fairly well. Would we even see such a delta from first to last game titles.

Node shrinks won't deliver easy performance as it has, PC has got low level APIs similar to console.

It all seems like 8x perf jump may take too long with PC potential accelerating away, if this is the case when do you release any why.

From the Wii onward it seems now you need a USP to really define a jump forwards, will VR be the next jump.

perhaps we are looking at the wrong areas for big change, performance and the diminishing returns seem to be more appropriate now, cloud and VR and such seems to be more interesting and unproven.

I suppose given the cost to fill 5gb with art assets and the hard limit of your display to only 4x fidelity do we need 8x to call it a generation and what will define a jump from a customer experience point of view.
 
And while Windows doesn't force updates on you, they definitely should be applied. Just as I expect my PS4 to be updated, I also would expect the same of my PC (and do).

Of course they should, but you apply them when it's convenient to you, and it in no way stops you gaming when you want to game. There's certainly an implication here that Windows updates have some impact on your ability to game on the PC, they do not. End of story (at least not outside of extreme corner cases). If that isn't being implied then I do apologize but then I'd also question why they were mentioned at all in that case.

Again, my PS4 does this automatically.

Windows also does this automatically where possible. However some updates do require a system reboot to become effective. I image the same is true of PS4 but on a far rarer scale, hence why I already said "It's certainly true that consoles are still easier to use than PC's - it probably always will be."

And still, the computer must be on to apply those updates. Those updates should be installed and they'll download while the machine is on. If I choose to not update my PC when they're ready at shutdown, they'll just have to be applied the next time I shutdown.

My PS4 will do this automatically.

So? I already said "It's certainly true that consoles are still easier to use than PC's - it probably always will be". Parading this very, minor inconvenience of "I occasionally have to perform a full reboot of my system at a time that is convenient to me" as some great reason why consoles are better than PC's for gaming, or worse, why PC's are unsuitable as gaming devices is silly.

And yet, you were the person that I'd referred to when I said:

" I know there are guys that love playing with settings and fair play to them"

As in one of our previous conversations you had mentioned that you enjoy playing with game settings. So if you provide the option of having settings in a game, is it not fair to say that a lot of people will be more obliged to look at those settings and readjust them to their needs than someone that doesn't have settings available? Since you enjoy doing it.

Changing in game graphics settings to suit your preferences and "constant tinkering with settings or drivers to keep PC gaming working" are completely and totally different things. I'm not referencing changing game setting at all in my post since I personally hold it as a big advantage of PC gaming like you say. I'm talking about drivers, patches, windows updates etc... that all occur outside of the game.

With regards to the internal game settings though, while I do agree, once again that consoles are easier to use in this regard, I thinks it's disingenuous to parade it around as some sort of problem with PC gaming that would make it unsuitable for less technical people. Even for people who don't want to fiddle with in game settings the process is ridiculously easy. 9 times out of 10 if you have a system that exceeds the minimum spec of the game then the games default settings will work just fine. If you want a bit more refinement then GeForce experience will handle that automatically and seamlessly for you in supported games (and I assume AMD offer the same service). In the rare instances where neither of the above apply, just turn everything down to minimum and move things up until you're happy. It's a one time only 10 minute process - so what?

This all comes back to the misinformation or general exaggeration which is spread about the "difficulties" of PC gaming by some people. I'm not accusing you of this at all, but you mentioned in an earlier post about PC gamers trying to "sell PC gaming" in these kinds of debates, but I think the opposite is just as often true. i.e. console gamers exaggerating or outright making things up about the difficulties of modern PC gaming (usually harking back to how things were a decade or more ago) in order to place unjustified emphasis on the relative ease of console gaming.

So if you're looking to play some old game that's not present on Steam, do you anticipate that your version of Direct X, Java, or drivers will exactly work as anticipated from the moment you place that disc in the machine? My previous experience tells me that I might have to update one or several of those things in order to play. So if I have to revert back to some older version of a driver and my machine is setup to download the latest driver, will it continue to do that automatically or will you have to tell it not to download that latest version?

No, I have never, not once, experienced this. Update Java to run a game? WTH? Like most people I tend to only play games that would be considered 'current generation' so granted, this may be a more common problem with much older games, but if your argument is that it can be technically challenging to run a very old game on a PC that would actually be impossible to run on a console since they aren't backwards compatible to the same degree then we may as well just leave it at that.

My experience with Java and some PC applications is that if my PC suddenly decides that it's going to automatically update to the latest version, that several common applications that I use in my job will stop functioning. Then I've got the faf of having to work out with version of Java I should be using with whichever version of the tool I'm trying to use.

There's a world of difference between work based applications that use java being effected by a java update and games. To the best of my knowledge you don't even need Java installed to run any non web based games. I'm not sure why it's even being mentioned.

Oh you think that mod looks cool, you'll have to go deep into the C-drive to find where the game is installed (or was it the d-drive? I can't remember) and adjust some files in there and add a few new ones. Not sure on how that's done? Look up a guide online and pray that it works exactly with your machine, considering all of the millions of possible configurations that it could effect instead. Fingers crossed, has it worked? No, there's something else I need to adjust, better check if someone has had the same problem in the past too...

My PS4, I just put the disc in and I play.

Yes. Without the mods. Claiming an advantage for console gaming from something that is difficult to implement on the PC and impossible to implement on a console based on how difficult it is to implement on the PC seems kinda ridiculous.

And on the PS4 I press the PlayStation button, then I press X and I'm in the game.

Awesome, so exactly how anyone can setup a PC to work with Steam if they wish. I personally don't wish because 9 times out of 10 when I turn my PC on, it's to use the internet, not to start a game, but you get the idea.

Every. Single. Time.

Yes, kudos on that. 1 time in 10 (realistically it will be much less if you're regularly playing a single or small set of games) your get to start a game a few minutes sooner than a PC gamer would. An advantage? Yes of course, hence why I already said "It's certainly true that consoles are still easier to use than PC's - it probably always will be". But a fundamental difference in the ease or convenience of usability that would justify claims of PC gaming being too complicated for the masses? Hardly.

Again this all comes back to exaggeration. As long as people are making exaggerated (or outright false) claims about the 'technical challenges' of gaming on PC then there are going to be people like myself and tongue_of_colicab trying to set the record straight - and probably being accused of trying to sell PC gaming for our trouble.
 
... there are going to be people like myself and tongue_of_colicab trying to set the record straight - and probably being accused of trying to sell PC gaming for our trouble.

And yet, the original comment from the other poster was something to the effect of "want power, buy a PC".

I'm glad we agree that console gaming is easier. That's all I've been suggesting all along.

It doesn't bother me one iota that you play with settings in games, or that any PC gamer does. Honestly, good for you. I used to find some entertainment doing it too. Those days are past me now.

It does, however, get on my tits when you get a PC guy jumping in and saying "just get a PC". It annoys me for all the reasons I've detailed in earlier posts.
 
And to be fair on you @pjbliverpool, you're not one of those hypercritical guys around these parts. And I usually take your opinion seriously and have respect for what you're saying.
 
I don't think it's about PC gamers trying to sell anyone anything. It's about people who are clearly in the best position to comment on the platform seeing misinformation about it being spread and wanting to set the record straight. I don't see what's so wrong with that?
It's as Pissartist just said - the assertion was if you want an upgradeable console, get a PC. A PC isn't a substitute and we'll continue to argue against that view as long as that's the case. It's also unfair to suggest some of us are making things up when we're talking from personal experience. I agree that exaggerations happen, but the arguments are still generally valid. Some are perhaps outdated, but you can't argue with personal experience. If someone says they personally had to poke about with drivers to get a game working (and that can include rolling back to earlier drivers) then that's a Real Thing that happens in PC Land and part of the purchasing decision.

Windows needs a major overhaul to offer a console like experience (I naively believed Windows 10 was it!). Until then, it's not a substitute and there's a clear middle ground between PC and 8 year fixed console hardware that some want to see addressed. About 50% of core gamers going by this poll. So probably a good 20 million by my number-wrangling from the current user base. I don't think that's an audience that should be overlooked.
 
Other than the mmorpg crowd...I would argue that most PC gaming is less about the actual gaming and more about building/tinkering/benchmarking aspect. People who play games on PC do so because A) they want the best hardware and/or B) Like building/tinkering with hardware and/or C) Like be able to tinkering/control software settings.

Look at any PC related site/forum and when news hits about a game most of the comments are not "gee that game looks fun". It's "OMG developer didn't include X graphic setting!"
 
It's also unfair to suggest some of us are making things up when we're talking from personal experience.

I didn't mean to suggest that of anyone in here so apologies if that's how it came across. The problem is that very often when this kind of "PC's are really hard/fiddly to use" argument does come up, then things do get heavily exaggerated or outright made up to support it. I've been addressing them for years so have come to expect it by now.

There are obvious areas were the PC experience does need to improve, and I'll be the first to admit them, if something isn't right there's nothing to be gained by anyone by claiming that it is - that's just self delusion. But as much as the statement ""just get a PC" rightfully gets on Pissartists tits, the fallacy that PC's are still stuck in the 90's/early noughties era of "constant driver, update, patch management" really gets on mine. It's really not like that anymore. It sounds like you had a bad experience with Surface but I suspect that's more down to teething problems with the platform than a more generalised Windows update issue. For example I don't think I've ever had Windows try to download or install a graphics driver at all. Even in the days before GeForce Experience handled it automatically.
 
For example I don't think I've ever had Windows try to download or install a graphics driver at all. Even in the days before GeForce Experience handled it automatically.
Isn't this a new Windows 10 thing? Also I was locked out of installing the latest drivers and have to use the official Windows Update one or circumvent. So instead of Windows becoming easier than Win 7 (which I'd say has generally worked for me, save USB issues with graphics tablet getting lost when launching Skype, for example), it feels like, if not a backwards step, certainly progress isn't being made. PC is only better now than it used to be (post Win 2K) because of Steam.

I only refer to the Surface in particular because MS's own product. If they can't get Win 10 working well on the hardware they designed, what hope for the mass of random component assemblages out there?! I'd have thought like Google and Nexus, an MS device sould run the MS OS to the best capacity it has to offer, and I take the SP4 as a litmus test of where Win 10 is out, which is far inferior to what I was expecting! Overall I think the mixed hardware of PC still means you can get an awkward system that doesn't play nice. Consoles eliminate that, so despite plenty of the same issues nowadays regards patches and hangs, you know that a console is going to work and shouldn't have to worry about your particular box being more troublesome than someone else's.
 
Isn't this a new Windows 10 thing?

I'm not too sure tbh, I've been on W10 since day 1 and it hasn't updated my graphics drivers but maybe I've always been ahead of the Windows update schedule thanks to GeForce Experience. That said, I don't always upgrade via GF experience as soon as the new driver is available so there must be some lag on Microsofts side there.
 
Isn't this a new Windows 10 thing? Also I was locked out of installing the latest drivers and have to use the official Windows Update one or circumvent. So instead of Windows becoming easier than Win 7 (which I'd say has generally worked for me, save USB issues with graphics tablet getting lost when launching Skype, for example), it feels like, if not a backwards step, certainly progress isn't being made. PC is only better now than it used to be (post Win 2K) because of Steam....

Windows Update in Windows 7 provides graphics drivers. It's how I install graphics drivers on all of the PCs I set up at work. I also updated my parents pc yesterday and it offered a new Nvidia graphics driver.
 
I'm not too sure tbh, I've been on W10 since day 1 and it hasn't updated my graphics drivers but maybe I've always been ahead of the Windows update schedule thanks to GeForce Experience. That said, I don't always upgrade via GF experience as soon as the new driver is available so there must be some lag on Microsofts side there.

As far as I know they only put certified drivers in windows update, not the game specific beta ones nvidia and amd always pushed.
 
As far as I know they only put certified drivers in windows update, not the game specific beta ones nvidia and amd always pushed.
Yes, this has always been my understanding; Windows will only deploy drivers with a WHQL signature.
 
So there's not going to be an Xbox 1.5. That makes sense, as Xbox One.5 would basically be PS4.1, at least on the GPU side.
 
How about there is no come back or fourth to a set predefined lifespan but it is meet pragmatism? Available and each, market shares, opportunity, pro/con, etc
Overall there have been few cycles with changing actors of different size, with different goals, that!is not a valid sample or significant sample.
 
So probably a good 20 million by my number-wrangling from the current user base. I don't think that's an audience that should be overlooked.

Like this poll is in any way shape or form indicative of the audience at large. Come on. This site is a tiny bubble within a tiny bubble drifting somewhere within a big-ass pond. Show people games like Uncharted 4, or Battlefront, or hell, probably even Dark Souls III, and they'll think it looks like the bee's knees. The last thing you're gonna convince them of is that they should buy a new piece of hardware for some reason. I'm all for shorter hardware cycles myself, just not at a time when you still need a magnifying glass in order to tell a PS4 version of a game apart from its high-end pc counterpart.
 
Well. Uncharted, DS3, QB do look amazing. But just like people upgraded last time, thinking that TLOU looked great, they will do the same at some point. With forward compatibility, the "issues" of the past are very much eliminated, as people on older hardware will still get all their games. And the people in the bubbles will get them 'better'.

I just bought a new camera that shoots 4K video. Knowing myself, this is the beginning of the end and I'll end up with a 4K TV by year end. I should put child lock on my Mac.
 
Sure. I just think "a good 20 million" is a rather preposterous statement considering the total install base is like what? 40 million tops at this point?

Looking forward to an E3 where the next big new system is being revealed, and it'll desperately try to wow the audience with amazing feats such as higher precision motion blur.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top