E3 2012

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:33 PM, Enter a new display name said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:58 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:32 PM, Npoess said:

What? No.... I can't stand pc gaming.

 

Fine, play it on the console where it won't look anywhere near as good as that.

 

No-one is forcing you to play it on the system where it'll look the best.

 

Could you please remind me how much money you were planning to spend on your next computer? £4000 if I'm not mistaken.

Spending 4K on any computer is silly - the hardware will be outdated long before you get any return on your investment, and along the way you'll probably have to upgrade it just to play the latest games, etc.

The biggest thing I think PC gamers miss in the PC vs console argument is the fact that consoles deliver a very good experience for usually 1/2 to 1/10th of the cost of a PC, and usually the only benefits a PC brings are increased resolution and/or increased frame rate. Nothing else the PC brings to the table overshadows the ease and convenience of a console.

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:39 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:33 PM, Enter a new display name said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:58 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:32 PM, Npoess said:

What? No.... I can't stand pc gaming.

 

Fine, play it on the console where it won't look anywhere near as good as that.

 

No-one is forcing you to play it on the system where it'll look the best.

 

Could you please remind me how much money you were planning to spend on your next computer? £4000 if I'm not mistaken.

 

Spending 4K on any computer is silly - the hardware will be outdated long before you get any return on your investment, and along the way you'll probably have to upgrade it just to play the latest games, etc.

 

The biggest thing I think PC gamers miss in the PC vs console argument is the fact that consoles deliver a very good experience for usually 1/2 to 1/10th of the cost of a PC, and usually the only benefits a PC brings are increased resolution and/or increased frame rate. Nothing else the PC brings to the table overshadows the ease and convenience of a console.

DirectX 11 says you're wrong, Joyrex...

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:40 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:39 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:33 PM, Enter a new display name said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:58 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:32 PM, Npoess said:

What? No.... I can't stand pc gaming.

 

Fine, play it on the console where it won't look anywhere near as good as that.

 

No-one is forcing you to play it on the system where it'll look the best.

 

Could you please remind me how much money you were planning to spend on your next computer? £4000 if I'm not mistaken.

 

Spending 4K on any computer is silly - the hardware will be outdated long before you get any return on your investment, and along the way you'll probably have to upgrade it just to play the latest games, etc.

 

The biggest thing I think PC gamers miss in the PC vs console argument is the fact that consoles deliver a very good experience for usually 1/2 to 1/10th of the cost of a PC, and usually the only benefits a PC brings are increased resolution and/or increased frame rate. Nothing else the PC brings to the table overshadows the ease and convenience of a console.

 

DirectX 11 says you're wrong, Joyrex...

That's in conjunction with the right hardware though - you don't have the right hardware, and no DX11 for you. Tell me - what's the minimum spec to run DX11, and the costs associated? I bet they're equal to, and potentially more, than a console at current costs. Also, DX11 means nothing if the developers don't take advantage of it's abilities, so there too is a limiting factor on it's supposedly superiority over the console experience.

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:44 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:40 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:39 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:33 PM, Enter a new display name said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:58 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:32 PM, Npoess said:

What? No.... I can't stand pc gaming.

 

Fine, play it on the console where it won't look anywhere near as good as that.

 

No-one is forcing you to play it on the system where it'll look the best.

 

Could you please remind me how much money you were planning to spend on your next computer? £4000 if I'm not mistaken.

 

Spending 4K on any computer is silly - the hardware will be outdated long before you get any return on your investment, and along the way you'll probably have to upgrade it just to play the latest games, etc.

 

The biggest thing I think PC gamers miss in the PC vs console argument is the fact that consoles deliver a very good experience for usually 1/2 to 1/10th of the cost of a PC, and usually the only benefits a PC brings are increased resolution and/or increased frame rate. Nothing else the PC brings to the table overshadows the ease and convenience of a console.

 

DirectX 11 says you're wrong, Joyrex...

 

That's in conjunction with the right hardware though - you don't have the right hardware, and no DX11 for you. Tell me - what's the minimum spec to run DX11, and the costs associated? I bet they're equal to, and potentially more, than a console at current costs. Also, DX11 means nothing if the developers don't take advantage of it's abilities, so there too is a limiting factor on it's supposedly superiority over the console experience.

About £200. If that.

Also, many PC games are using DirectX 11 and have been for many years.

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:33 PM, Enter a new display name said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:58 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:32 PM, Npoess said:

What? No.... I can't stand pc gaming.

 

Fine, play it on the console where it won't look anywhere near as good as that.

 

No-one is forcing you to play it on the system where it'll look the best.

 

Could you please remind me how much money you were planning to spend on your next computer? £4000 if I'm not mistaken.

You could quite reasonably get a set up right now that could easily handle the settings for that game. Of course it's a sliding scale and you can turn up and up settings as time goes by. And you add bits and pieces.

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:46 PM, delet... said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:33 PM, Enter a new display name said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:58 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:32 PM, Npoess said:

What? No.... I can't stand pc gaming.

 

Fine, play it on the console where it won't look anywhere near as good as that.

 

No-one is forcing you to play it on the system where it'll look the best.

 

Could you please remind me how much money you were planning to spend on your next computer? £4000 if I'm not mistaken.

 

You could quite reasonably get a set up right now that could easily handle the settings for that game.

It's ok, Enter a new display name has referenced something I said about my new build completely out of context from the reasoning behind my choice of such an expensive build.

But that's ok, that's how master trolls work.

Why spend 4000 dollars now. when you can wait a year and the kit will cost you less than half ? So maybe, you said that you were getting a 4000 system, and meant to purchase it when it costs 900. heh. nice one.

I'm posting this on my 1,000,000 dollar TV using and integrated wireless peripheral system costing 50,000. What music am i listening to ?

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:51 PM, delet... said:

Why spend 4000 dollars now. when you can wait a year and the kit will cost you less than half ? So maybe, you said that you were getting a 4000 system, and meant to purchase it when it costs 900. heh. nice one.

Who said I was spending £4000 (pounds, not dollars) now? I said in my original comments (in a completely different thread, mind you) that the system I want to build would cost £4000 at the moment. I need to save up first, about 8 months or so. By that time the components' prices will have come down considerably. The most expensive part is the 30" IPS display, which I don't see coming down much in price.

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:53 PM, delet... said:

Why spend 4000 dollars now. when you can wait a year and the kit will cost you less than half ? So maybe, you said that you were getting a 4000 system, and meant to purchase it when it costs 900. heh. nice one.

 

I'm posting this on my 1,000,000 dollar TV using and integrated wireless peripheral system costing 50,000. What music am i listening to ?

Why, that'll be disco dleetr.

That's correct, whatever era it is, i will be listening to disco. Well done, for beating the trick question. You get a bonus of ten 1940 dollars.

everything about a pc is superior to a console, but i'm old. watch dogs looks good and will play fine on my 3yr old pc.

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:57 PM, cloud capture said:

everything about a pc is superior to a console, but i'm old. watch dogs looks good and will play fine on my 3yr old pc.

in DirectX 11 mode too, most likely. Something that the current gen consoles will never be able to do. Not saying that out of any bias, but saying it out of factual limitations put on consoles due to the fact that they have 5-6 year old tech in them.

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:45 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:44 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:40 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:39 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:33 PM, Enter a new display name said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:58 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:32 PM, Npoess said:

What? No.... I can't stand pc gaming.

 

Fine, play it on the console where it won't look anywhere near as good as that.

 

No-one is forcing you to play it on the system where it'll look the best.

 

Could you please remind me how much money you were planning to spend on your next computer? £4000 if I'm not mistaken.

 

Spending 4K on any computer is silly - the hardware will be outdated long before you get any return on your investment, and along the way you'll probably have to upgrade it just to play the latest games, etc.

 

The biggest thing I think PC gamers miss in the PC vs console argument is the fact that consoles deliver a very good experience for usually 1/2 to 1/10th of the cost of a PC, and usually the only benefits a PC brings are increased resolution and/or increased frame rate. Nothing else the PC brings to the table overshadows the ease and convenience of a console.

 

DirectX 11 says you're wrong, Joyrex...

 

That's in conjunction with the right hardware though - you don't have the right hardware, and no DX11 for you. Tell me - what's the minimum spec to run DX11, and the costs associated? I bet they're equal to, and potentially more, than a console at current costs. Also, DX11 means nothing if the developers don't take advantage of it's abilities, so there too is a limiting factor on it's supposedly superiority over the console experience.

 

About £200. If that.

 

Also, many PC games are using DirectX 11 and have been for many years.

That's around 309USD, which is what a PS3 or a 360 costs, depending on the model you buy. I'm assuming that's a whole PC, with a video card that can do at least 720P/30FPS at a minimum?

If that's a whole PC, then I'm frankly surprised, as most 300USD PCs sure as hell can't do basic web browsing and desktop apps that well, let alone run a modern game.

Let's take Diablo III for instance - the recommended specs for it are:

Windows® Vista/7 (latest service packs) Mac® OS X 10.7.x or newer Intel® Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 5600+ 2.8 GHz Intel® Core 2 Duo 2 GB RAM 2 GB RAM NVIDIA® GeForce® 260 or ATI Radeon™ HD 4870 or better NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 330M or ATI Radeon™ HD 4670 or better

The video card listed (the ATI) is 75USD alone, despite being 3 years old - you expect me to believe the rest of the computer is 225.00?

  On 6/6/2012 at 9:19 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:45 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:44 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:40 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:39 PM, Joyrex said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 8:33 PM, Enter a new display name said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:58 PM, oscillik said:

  On 6/6/2012 at 7:32 PM, Npoess said:

What? No.... I can't stand pc gaming.

 

Fine, play it on the console where it won't look anywhere near as good as that.

 

No-one is forcing you to play it on the system where it'll look the best.

 

Could you please remind me how much money you were planning to spend on your next computer? £4000 if I'm not mistaken.

 

Spending 4K on any computer is silly - the hardware will be outdated long before you get any return on your investment, and along the way you'll probably have to upgrade it just to play the latest games, etc.

 

The biggest thing I think PC gamers miss in the PC vs console argument is the fact that consoles deliver a very good experience for usually 1/2 to 1/10th of the cost of a PC, and usually the only benefits a PC brings are increased resolution and/or increased frame rate. Nothing else the PC brings to the table overshadows the ease and convenience of a console.

 

DirectX 11 says you're wrong, Joyrex...

 

That's in conjunction with the right hardware though - you don't have the right hardware, and no DX11 for you. Tell me - what's the minimum spec to run DX11, and the costs associated? I bet they're equal to, and potentially more, than a console at current costs. Also, DX11 means nothing if the developers don't take advantage of it's abilities, so there too is a limiting factor on it's supposedly superiority over the console experience.

 

About £200. If that.

 

Also, many PC games are using DirectX 11 and have been for many years.

 

That's around 309USD, which is what a PS3 or a 360 costs, depending on the model you buy. I'm assuming that's a whole PC, with a video card that can do at least 720P/30FPS at a minimum?

Come on, Joyrex. You should know that PC components are on a 1:1 price ratio between the dollar and the pound.

  On 6/6/2012 at 9:19 PM, Joyrex said:

If that's a whole PC, then I'm frankly surprised, as most 300USD PCs sure as hell can't do basic web browsing and desktop apps that well, let alone run a modern game.

 

Let's take Diablo III for instance - the recommended specs for it are:

 

Windows® Vista/7 (latest service packs) Mac® OS X 10.7.x or newer Intel® Core 2 Duo 2.4 GHz or AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 5600+ 2.8 GHz Intel® Core 2 Duo 2 GB RAM 2 GB RAM NVIDIA® GeForce® 260 or ATI Radeon™ HD 4870 or better NVIDIA® GeForce® GT 330M or ATI Radeon™ HD 4670 or better

 

 

The video card listed (the ATI) is 75USD alone, despite being 3 years old - you expect me to believe the rest of the computer is 225.00?

Seems like you're confusing a store bought PC that has been built for you and overpriced, containing old components, against a proper PC gamer that generally builds their own system (or at the very least gets a PC custom built to their spec). Completely different worlds, and to be honest it kinda shows that you're a bit unqualified to be talking about the subject if you didn't know that already.

a £200-£300 PC built up yourself can very easily do DirectX 11 games at full settings, 1080p resolution.

And yes I do expect you to believe the rest is that cheap. Do you realise how old the Core 2 Duo line is? How cheap 2GB of RAM is?

It's ok though, what do I know, eh? I've only been a hardcore PC gamer since I was 12 years old. What the hell do I know about the PC gaming world....

I bought an xbox 360 6 years ago for the price of a decent graphics card, and I can still play the latest games satisfyingly. Ok, the textures may be lower res and the frame rate lower, but higher resolution =/= superior/different gameplay, it's the same fucking games. Tell me what PC I could've bought for a song 6 years ago that still would be able to run the latest games?

  On 6/6/2012 at 9:27 PM, oscillik said:

It's ok though, what do I know, eh? I've only been a hardcore PC gamer since I was 12 years old. What the hell do I know about the PC gaming world....

  On 6/6/2012 at 9:39 PM, Gocab said:

I bought an xbox 360 6 years ago for the price of a decent graphics card, and I can still play the latest games satisfyingly. Ok, the textures may be lower res and the frame rate lower, but higher resolution =/= superior/different gameplay, it's the same fucking games. Tell me what PC I could've bought for a song 6 years ago that still would be able to run the latest games?

No-one said it equalled superior/different gameplay.

I'm seriously looking forward to Obsidian's South Park RPG. Mr Slave is a summon, cmon u gotta love it.

http://m.kotaku.com/5916076/everything-you-should-know-about-the-vulgar-wonderful-south-park-rpg

  On 6/6/2012 at 9:41 PM, oscillik said:

No-one said it equalled superior/different gameplay.

lol YouTube screengrabs.

I thought the gameplay for Watch Dogs looked sweet no matter what system it's on. Sign me up.

Also, Chicago is a great city that is often ignored in games, so the environment intrigues me.

Just wanted to say I'm with Oscillik... It's not that expensive... I mean, if you have a decent rig, you slap on a good video card for about $300, and you're already doing better than consoles...

I need a good rig for designing... so a video card makes more sense for me than getting a console :/

this sounds like Nintendo is going to have a massive team of censors removing any and all objectionable messages, as well as spoilers. Welcome to the Nintendo Network.

http://m.ingame.msnbc.msn.com/technology/ingame/nintendo-secrets-censorship-saving-saves-spoilers-816536

I used this (now outdated) guide to build my computer and the most expensive build costs 1400$, not including monitor, mouse, keyboard and audio system

There isn't one objectively better platform, ideally you would have them all if you could, but some people like PCs more, some like consoles. They both play video games and stuff, its not like you are gonna have a bad time on either one. I don't understand console/pc wars. It was fun when I was 14 because it was seemingly a topic / discussion that made us feel more like adults, more educated because our parents didn't care or know about any of it. It was a good feeling to move ahead and tower over the other kids and their flawed fanboy logic. But now that feeling is gone and all that remains is the depressing thought of how pointless it all was.