Rein on Consoles, DX10

[Jul 30, 2007, 9:50 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments

Rein: Consoles put a stranglehold on DX10 on Computer and Video Games offers a dim view of the impact of DirectX 10 and its impact on gaming by expressing the opinion that the state-of-the art in gaming is to be dictated by the console world. Here's a bit:

"To be honest, and I'm going to cast a small pall on the industry here, I don't think you're going to get much higher until the next generation of consoles," Rein told CVG when asked what we can expect from DX 10 beyond what we're seeing in Crysis.

One reason for this, he said, is that the gulf between a high-end PC and a low-end PC is bigger now than it's ever been, and the low-end has been anchored while the high end just gets higher "and it becomes less and less economically viable to do the super high-end stuff".

"And in addition, just now we're just barely coming into the sweet spot of the next-gen consoles... We're at the point where it's viable to ship games on these next-gen consoles and it's going to be a gold mine for a couple of years.

View

26 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

26.

No subject

Aug 6, 2007, 16:02

dryden555

Yes but most folks dont have 2 TV's so that one person can game on a console and the rest of the folks in the house can watch TV too. Console gaming is not fantastically cheaper than PC gaming. Whenever the 360 elite drops to 299 or so, I'll consider it.

25.

Re: Consoles arent cheap

Aug 1, 2007, 06:30

rocketpcguy

okay, do you play your computer games in a 48" widescreen LCD? most people have average TVs, and that's good enough for a good gaming experience (the distance of the player and the screen is large) and is bigger than a gaming computer screen. and most people wouldn't spend $500 on a sound system, but if they do, they'd spend the same on a PC speaker set too. all things considered, consoles ARE cheaper than PCs with the same rendering speed for today.

24.

Re: Consoles arent cheap

Jul 31, 2007, 20:47

Prez

Is anyone who pays $500 or $600 for a next gen console going to want to play it on their old 640x480 resolution TV? The graphical impact of those expensive systems is basically negated at that migraine-inducingly low resolution.




Prez on Soundclick http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=604888

23.

Re: Consoles arent cheap

Jul 31, 2007, 19:25

Ray Marden

But the majority of people, especially in the U.S., will already have a television for watching cable, DVDs, and what not.

And yes, televisions are generally more in cost, but they are generally much larger in size, too.

For most people without a computer, they will have a television. Even if it is not a HD television, they still have one and the consoles do come with cables in the box (if not necessarily the best cables.)

I do think there is a difference between what a general non-gamer would opt for versus what the enthusiast or "hardcare" person would do.
Even if these people have an e-machine already, the PC will cost more.
Noting the disparity in renting games and used games, too,
Ray

-----
Q_Q
http://www.livejournal.com/users/raymarden/
I love you, mom.




Anna. Anna? Anna...is that you? http://www.youtube.com/blacklily8 I love you, mom.

22.

Duh!

Jul 31, 2007, 19:21

Toebot

21.

Re: He's right

Jul 31, 2007, 17:00

famished

I only prefer pc's for their versatility. I can play games, watch movies (though you can also do this on consoles), make music with powerful audio software, create graphics in programs like photoshop, animate, post processing the list is almost endless. Of course all that costs money though, fortunately (unfortunately?) something I care little about.

20.

Consoles arent cheap

Jul 31, 2007, 16:04

dryden555

exactly -- consoles arent that cheap when you look at needed accessories/cables and the $60 price of every console game. Even the wii gets pricey if you include the 2nd controller and that console if basically a gamecube inside -- not next generation gaming. So, I'm not convinced that playing games on consoles is cheaper than buying a PC (which I use for a heck of a lot more than just gaming).

19.

Re: He's right

Jul 31, 2007, 14:34

Cutter

Xbox Elite with taxes $650 CDN
TV for console = $300-$2000 plus, plus taxes
5.1 digital sound system = $500+

All of a sudden to have a good console experience it's not so cheap is it? Add to which, it's still just for games. At least you can do actual work on your PC. And gamepads blow compared to keyboard and mouse. Playing an FPS on a console is a joke.

"Well that sounds like fun times, Peter. Tell me...where does James Woods fit into the "fun times"."
- James Woods, Family Guy




"Are you crazy? Is that your problem?" - Jack Burton

18.

Re: He's right

Jul 31, 2007, 13:56

Overflow

Are we including the monitors on the prices? How expensive is the TV that you run your console games on?

17.

Re: He's right

Jul 31, 2007, 10:52

Ray Marden

I think it goes back and forth.

But in the last few years, what amazing improvements have occured on the PC side of things? Uhhhh...

Or for somebody to purchase a low to mid-range PC, they could pick up a PS3, Xbox, and Wii. From there, they will have games that, essentially, run out of the box. Further, with the same set hardware, they will watch their gaming experience improve over time and they can game on these systems for a few years.

Meanwhile, I will be spending money on a nearly-yearly basis for small performance gains and, in general, each new game will need more and more to run at my previous settings, much less anything higher/better.

I still think it's quite insane that a good graphics card can be the single most expensive item in a PC system...and that Nvidia/ATI are actually pushing for you to purchase two of them. Or 800W+ systems and their resulting heat and electrical cost? Even if somebody unfamiliar with PCs jumps into the market, spending big money on a pre-built system with a high end processor and lots of memory/strage, why is there a good chance they will be swindled with a very weak, on-board video card?

Don't get me wrong, I love my PC gaming...but it does have its drawbacks and I don't think we go about things in the smartest way...
Or have a non-computer person figure out which CPU or GPU they need?
Still going to upgrade for Crysis :o,
Ray

-----
Q_Q
http://www.livejournal.com/users/raymarden/
I love you, mom.




Anna. Anna? Anna...is that you? http://www.youtube.com/blacklily8 I love you, mom.

16.

Re: No subject

Jul 31, 2007, 10:39

StaTik

Something else to consider is the daunting number of hardware options out there for PC. It's not like the old days when you had 2/3 cards from 3dfx and 2/3 from Nvidia. Combine that with the number of motherboard's, RAM speeds, cpu's the decsions when building a computer to hit the right price performace point is out there. Today you would have to sift through hundreds of reviews to get an idea of what the best configuration will be for gaming insted of just hitting a site and looking at a few numbers. The console makes it so much easyer to go out and drop $300/$400 on the counter and be done with it now that they can come close to the PC for gameing.

15.

No subject

Jul 31, 2007, 10:25

dryden555

Its significant that PC games like Crysis outstrip anything the PS3 and 360 can do graphically without suffering from frame-rate issues, hazing out the horizons and worse. In other words "next-gen" consoles are already using old technology. This is part of the reason I havent bought any of the new consoles -- I'm not impressed with the supposedly "next-gen" games for consoles and the $400-500 system price and 60 buck games arent worth it. I'm quite happy to play Mass Effect, BioShock, and Crysis on PC and wait a year down the road when a used 360 costs 200 bucks and the used games cost 20 bucks.

14.

Re: He's right

Jul 31, 2007, 10:12

rocketpcguy

i hate to admit it, but i do sometimes feel that gaming pcs are bad value for money. for the same rendering speed as a $350 xbox-360, you need to spend over a $1200 for just the pc. its cheaper to get a low end PC for work and a console for gaming together.

13.

Re: He's right

Jul 31, 2007, 07:37

AcidDrone

I actually don't think its true that kids can't get pc's unless they have rich parents, these days PC's are cheaper then they ever were. You can get a decent mid range system for under $1500(thats aud) which isn't really much, 10 years ago when I was a "kid" it would of cost me about $3500 for something like a decent Intel p2 15"inch crt, so I can clearly say that technology is better and cheaper. And to reiterate what someone else said its about having a Job, alot of parents these days strive to make there kids find there own place in the world from a financial standpoint and if its done right by the time they are 20 the kid has a car, a license, a good understanding of how to save money and if they are inclined a decent PC. It's really not that hard.

12.

Re: He's right

Jul 31, 2007, 07:18

Prez

I don't think any of those games qualify as next-gen. Mainly because the PC doesn't really have generations.

That said, if you can run Crysis at 1650x1050 with maxed settings, I'll be impressed.

Fair enough. "Next Gen" is probably the wrong term. I assume you got my point, though. As far as "max settings", I never run at max settings. I run at the best visual settings that give me a decent framerate.




Prez on Soundclick http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=604888

11.

No subject

Jul 31, 2007, 07:07

LittleMe

The reason of the wider gap with video graphics capabilities is because people are willing to pay over $500 for a high end graphics cards. This is a relatively new event. Many people aren't willing to pay over $100 for graphics capabilities because when they buy their PC they don't want to. Then later they have a desire to play games and are stuck with the slow graphics chip on the motherboard. Maybe their child wants to play games on it, for example.




Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.

10.

Re: He's right

Jul 31, 2007, 02:15

Jerykk

I can play Fear, BF2142, Prey, HL2, and many other next gen games at 1650x1050 with no problem. I don't think any of those games qualify as next-gen. Mainly because the PC doesn't really have generations. That said, if you can run Crysis at 1650x1050 with maxed settings, I'll be impressed.

WOW

Jul 31, 2007, 01:04

Kxmode

Use the same WOW requirements and there's at least 7-8 million potential buyers. ----- "Well it's true! You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're the margarine of evil. You're the Diet Coke of evil. Just one calorie, not evil enough." (http://music.download.com/kxmode)

Re: He's right

Jul 30, 2007, 23:55

Prez

I bought a barebones PC with a dual core AMD and 2GB of memory for $350. Another $150 for a geforce 8600gt. That's $500. I can play Fear, BF2142, Prey, HL2, and many other next gen games at 1650x1050 with no problem.

How much is an Xbox 360 or a Playstation 3 again?

This comment was edited on Jul 30, 23:56.




Prez on Soundclick http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pagemusic.cfm?bandID=604888

Re: He's right

Jul 30, 2007, 23:49

PropheT

The only people who can afford to play PC games anymore are kids with rich parents. I think it's well past time that people started to acknowledge that video games aren't children's domain anymore, if they ever really were. You would think it would be apparent considering the price of next-gen consoles, and how PC's have always been, that the average user base that bolsters gaming isn't the mid-teen playing on his parent's dollar. It's the parent.

26 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >