48 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
48.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 15, 2016, 21:26
48.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 15, 2016, 21:26
Mar 15, 2016, 21:26
 
Good reply. I am also aware that these deals were inked before any of these consoles saw the light of day. I doubt Platinum knew going in that the Wii U would be doomed from the start, otherwise they would have had an escape plan. As you say, they got their money early on and Nintendo took the brunt of the hit when the game didn't do well. But it makes sense that the consequences would still be felt by someone. Maybe Nintendo will be less likely to commission a Bayonetta 3, considering how the previous one did. Who knows. Same goes for Microsoft and Sunset Overdrive. How likely is it that they will pay for another exclusive title from Insomniac?

What both companies will probably conveniently overlook though, is how the sales of their own hardware factored in to the failure of those games to reach a broader audience. With the Wii U barely hitting 12m units sold, and the PS4 holding a 20m unit installed base lead over XBox One, that's a factor that outsiders and game publishers will find hard to ignore, but that the companies themselves will do their best to pave over. That's corporate politics for you.
47.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 15, 2016, 14:09
47.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 15, 2016, 14:09
Mar 15, 2016, 14:09
 
Zoopster wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 15:05:
Ecthelion wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 14:15:
There are still total exclusivity deals with third parties. For example, Platinum Games made Bayonetta 2 for Wii U (Nintendo funded them after all) and will not port it. The same seems to be true of Scalebound for XBox One. Insomniac Games made Sunset Overdrive for XBox One and won't port that. Same with Ratchet and Clank for PS4. Those full exclusives are still out there, but they are fewer in number this generation. And as you said, those third parties definitely don't go "timed exclusive" or full exclusive without being paid.

Microsoft definitely has the edge in PC to console. I was pleasantly surprised to see how well XBox One to Windows 10 streaming works, and now Sony is doing the same thing and has to match that performance without being the developer behind Windows, and they can't do a console-PC cross buy deal like Microsoft can for games.

I agree that reducing exclusivity is a good move, although it may hurt Sony and Microsoft in the short term. I wouldn't have bought a XBox One if it hadn't been for exclusives like Sunset Overdrive and Scalebound. Eventually Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo will need to find other ways to make themselves unique.

If those games you mention had done better, we would probably see them get ported over at some point. Bayonetta 2 sold just shy of 1m units worldwide, so it didn't even recover its development costs (sorry big N fans but the Wii U is done, time for the next thing). Sunset Overdrive, same deal: about 1.1m units sold in spite of deep discounts and bundling. Scalebound isn't even out until next year, so let's revisit that topic then.

I find it unlikely that a 3rd party would lock in a game as an exclusive even if it is completely financed by one of the "big" players (Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo etc), because doing so would preclude them from working on or profiting from any follow-up, no matter how successful it is.
I agree that it doesn't make a lot of sense (to us gamers at least) for developers to do exclusive deals, but they definitely were at least at the beginning of this generation. As you mentioned, my exclusivity examples did not sell extremely well. However, isn't a large part of that due to the very fact that they released on one platform? Bayonetta 2 is unique because the game wasn't going to get made until Nintendo ponied up the dough, and from what I understand, Platinum Games did not lose money there, Nintendo did. However, in the case of Insomniac Games, they have almost always been Sony exclusive. It wasn't until late last generation that they branched out into a PS3/X360 game (Fuse) and smartphone games. If you read the history of Sunset Overdrive, you know Microsoft paid Insomniac to make it exclusive after the game was pitched (it seems they funded most or all of the game in fact).

Videogamer - Insomniac Explains Reasons Behind Sunset Overdrive's Xbox One Exclusivity

IGN - How Sunset Overdrive Became an Xbox Exclusive

The implication is that Sony wanted to own the IP and Insomniac said no. It seems like if money was lost on Sunset, it was Microsoft, not Insomniac. You'll notice they're still making games and going strong. Anyway, back to my point about the lost sales due to exclusivity, don't you think Insomniac would spend the resources to port Sunset Overdrive to PS4 if they could? The porting costs would easily be offset by even a portion of their sales on Xbox One, and personally I think the audience on PS4 would be more receptive to the game than the Xbox crowd was (hell, I'd buy it again on PS4 because I enjoyed the game so much). It seems pretty clear to me that even now, Insomniac is not free to port the game to other platforms, because of their deal with Microsoft. Also, to your second statement about profiting from a follow-up, the articles confirm that Insomniac owns the Sunset IP, not Microsoft, so they could make a sequel and put it on PS4, Xbox One, and Windows and profit from it. As for Ratchet and Clank, Sony owns that IP, and Insomniac still agreed to make the new game trying into the movie. That's another exclusive deal that Insomniac (being an independent developer) could have easily walked away from but chose to pursue. Insomniac will never be able to port that to other platforms, because Sony would never agree to it with it being their IP. Insomniac knew going into that deal that it would only ever come out on the PS4 (and potentially remastered for the PS5 down the road).

Knowing how Nintendo operates, I would expect they made the same kind of "exclusive forever" deal for Bayonetta 2.

Maybe we won't see these exclusive deals much anymore (Phil Spencer mentioned that Microsoft wouldn't make many deals like Rise of the Tomb Raider in the future), but at least at the beginning of this generation, it was definitely still happening. Scalebound and Quantum Break started development long before Microsoft and Nintendo saw the results of their exclusive arrangements, so things may be different now. The fact of the matter is though, that what happens between a developer and publisher behind closed doors can be anything. At the end of the day it's a business deal, and if Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo makes the exclusivity offer good enough, at least some developers say yes just as they always have.


Also, PS4 now has Early Access too: Paragon is out today. Personally I'm not interested in Early Access games on any platform, but I guess it's good that there is more choice for gamers.

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 2016, 19:27.
46.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 15, 2016, 12:24
46.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 15, 2016, 12:24
Mar 15, 2016, 12:24
 
Julio wrote on Mar 15, 2016, 05:40:
I'll give you that the EA access program on Xbox One is good, as for the rest of the list (backwards compatibility, PC compatibility, early access) I don't find any of them valuable.

I wasn't talking about the EA access program. I'm talking about Early Access, also known as Game Preview. The games released on it are usually in beta stage at best (sometimes alpha), and may or may not even see a final release. Elite: Dangerous was one. ARK and The Solus Project are available now as well. It's kinda like Steam Early Access, but on XBox.

I played through the early access for Elite and it was pretty rough for awhile, but it plays great now that they officially released it. I messed a little bit with ARK and The Solus Project too, but I'm not sure how I feel about those yet.

More here.
45.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 15, 2016, 05:40
45.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 15, 2016, 05:40
Mar 15, 2016, 05:40
 
Zoopster wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 18:33:
I respectfully disagree...So, not exactly a "door-stopper".

I'll give you that the EA access program on Xbox One is good, as for the rest of the list (backwards compatibility, PC compatibility, early access) I don't find any of them valuable.

Flak wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 20:10:
any multi-platform sports game released is almost always better on PC once you factor in higher frame rates & modding abilities. The problem is EA owns everything/exclusive licensing plus even when sports titles were on PC, the console versions often had the 'new' engines while for some ridiculous reason the PC versions would use last gen engines, probably so people actually had a reason to buy those garbage consoles

To me, it's not that the PC couldn't be better than console for sports games, it's because typically the PC gets antiquated versions of sports games. I'd also rather play sports games in the living room on a big screen TV (though the PC is starting to get there).
44.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 15, 2016, 03:05
44.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 15, 2016, 03:05
Mar 15, 2016, 03:05
 
ElPolloDiablo wrote on Mar 15, 2016, 02:05:
First I'm pretty dubious on the Skyrim numbers on that link. It has the total sales at 23,270,000 and the PC percentage at 14%. Yet Steam Spy has the total Skyrim players at about 9,875,670. Those two numbers don't jive. Regardless, I'm sure the big gaming industry muckety mucks look all those types of statistics before figuring out what they are going to develop games for.

I wouldn't trust that data. By the site's own admission it is a beta and to expect major bugs. The sales figure mentioned on the page I sent is confirmed as of the end of last year. The Wikipedia entry has a similar number. There are no reliable numbers for digital-only sales on this or any other title however, so I don't know what percentage they are, or if they are even included in that figure. It was offered for digital sale on XBox360 and PS3 too. I myself bought three physical copies of it: one for XBox360, one for Windows (so I could have access to the editor), and one Legendary Edition for XBox360 to get all the DLC for it.

I agree that piracy does result in lost revenue. I also agree that no one really knows what the severity of that loss is. So, using piracy as a point on argument is a weak one because know one really knows its impact. Our energy is much better spent lighting our torches, grabbing our pitch forks and storming our local Gamestop.

Maybe so, but I maintain that piracy was and is far more rampant on PC than on the consoles, for a very significant reason. Pirating a PC game only requires a software method; i.e., a key generator, hacked executable, modified savegame, pirated ISO file etc. Hacking a console however requires you to physically alter the hardware itself, by dropping in a mod chip, installing a modified firmware, replacing the disc reader and other tricks. I had an original XBox modded this way, back in the day. Such methods are a great deal more trouble for "casual" users than circumventing the copy protection of a PC game (not to mention pricey), and thus a greater number of them participate in it.


They are chopping it up quite a bit, sometimes more than a lumberjack with epilepsy. There was that one train simulator with about 230 DLC and the cost of all of it would be about $3000. Now that's an extreme example but it happens.

That's a ludicrous example of course. Almost all other games don't have such a crazy amount of DLC and don't expect the user to pony up that much for it. A good example I would point out is Grand Theft Auto IV, which only had 2 DLC packs come out post-release, yet cost Rockstar over $100m to make. They made their money on that one the old-fashioned way: by selling the shit out of it.

They get discounted sooner, but you can always find new releases for cheaper on release day too. Right now you can get The Division for 20% off at and the new Hitman for 25% off from GreenManGaming. Not to mention the gray key market shops too.

I'm talking about MSRP, not discount sites or questionable sources. You can always find games marked down if you look around a bit, but the price the publisher originally set for current releases is pretty uniform across the board now.

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 2016, 03:11.
43.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 15, 2016, 02:05
43.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 15, 2016, 02:05
Mar 15, 2016, 02:05
 
Zoopster wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 23:48:

OK, but that's a poor comparison. The sheer quantity of available PC games outnumber console games by a hundred times over, so even though the overall revenue total is higher, the "per-title" amount earned is actually way less, and that number is what publishers and developers tend to look at. If you take even a single blockbuster title such as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, its console versions outsold the PC version at a rate of more than 6-to-1. That is typical.
First I'm pretty dubious on the Skyrim numbers on that link. It has the total sales at 23,270,000 and the PC percentage at 14%. Yet Steam Spy has the total Skyrim players at about 9,875,670. Those two numbers don't jive. Regardless, I'm sure the big gaming industry muckety mucks look all those types of statistics before figuring out what they are going to develop games for.

Agreed, and I despise chains like Gamestop for essentially feeding off the body of the industry just to keep its own doors open. But the impact of piracy in terms of lost revenue is definite, there can be no question about it. People are just unable to come to agreement on how much.
I agree that piracy does result in lost revenue. I also agree that no one really knows what the severity of that loss is. So, using piracy as a point on argument is a weak one because know one really knows its impact. Our energy is much better spent lighting our torches, grabbing our pitch forks and storming our local Gamestop.


That would have to be a hell of a lot of "chopping" to make up for a 100-fold increase in development costs, vs. a 20% increase in retail price. DLC and micro-transactions can't recover that much of it. So they have to move a lot of units in order to make it up, otherwise they lose their shirts.
They are chopping it up quite a bit, sometimes more than a lumberjack with epilepsy. There was that one train simulator with about 230 DLC and the cost of all of it would be about $3000. Now that's an extreme example but it happens.

It's as simple as that. Also, mainstream PC games now start out the same price as their console counterparts, though they do tend to get discounted sooner.
They get discounted sooner, but you can always find new releases for cheaper on release day too. Right now you can get The Division for 20% off at and the new Hitman for 25% off from GreenManGaming. Not to mention the gray key market shops too.

And the simple reason many PC games are cheaper than console ones should be pretty obvious: development tools are standardized not proprietary, with open-source options available; no licensing fees required; no quality standards that need to be met in order to be approved for release; and no per-unit royalties required. All of these can put up a pretty formidable barrier to entry for the casual developer. If you want to develop for a console platform there are a lot of hoops to jump through, which don't exist in the PC sphere. So unless your game had no budget and the increased exposure alone would be profitable, or you know that you have the next GTA in your hands ready to go, developing for consoles is a pretty scary proposition.
Agreed. The entry into console development is pretty steep.
42.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 23:48
42.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 23:48
Mar 14, 2016, 23:48
 
ElPolloDiablo wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 21:45:
If they are in it to make money then focusing on PC as a platform makes more sense because globally its making more money than consoles.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

OK, but that's a poor comparison. The sheer quantity of available PC games outnumber console games by a hundred times over, so even though the overall revenue total is higher, the "per-title" amount earned is actually way less, and that number is what publishers and developers tend to look at. If you take even a single blockbuster title such as The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, its console versions outsold the PC version at a rate of more than 6-to-1. That is typical.

You know what costs the gaming industry more money than piracy? Used console game sales, because a used game sale means $0 for the developer and is almost certainly a lost sale for them.

Agreed, and I despise chains like Gamestop for essentially feeding off the body of the industry just to keep its own doors open. But the impact of piracy in terms of lost revenue is definite, there can be no question about it. People are just unable to come to agreement on how much.


While this is true, its been compensated by the developers by chopping the game up in to a lot of DLC and micro-transactions. Years ago buying a game meant you got everything the developers had to offer. If the game was successful they might release an expansion pack here and there but not too much and it came out months after it was initially released. Now a days if you bought a game plus all the DLC you are looking at $100+ per game.

When speaking of the price of games, the hat gets tipped of in favor of PC gaming as the price of games generally are much cheaper on PC.

That would have to be a hell of a lot of "chopping" to make up for a 100-fold increase in development costs, vs. a 20% increase in retail price. DLC and micro-transactions can't recover that much of it. So they have to move a lot of units in order to make it up, otherwise they lose their shirts. It's as simple as that. Also, mainstream PC games now start out the same price as their console counterparts, though they do tend to get discounted sooner.

And the simple reason many PC games are cheaper than console ones should be pretty obvious: development tools are standardized not proprietary, with open-source options available; no licensing fees required; no quality standards that need to be met in order to be approved for release; and no per-unit royalties required. All of these can put up a pretty formidable barrier to entry for the casual developer. If you want to develop for a console platform there are a lot of hoops to jump through, which don't exist in the PC sphere. So unless your game had no budget and the increased exposure alone would be profitable, or you know that you have the next GTA in your hands ready to go, developing for consoles is a pretty scary proposition.

This comment was edited on Mar 15, 2016, 00:05.
41.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 22:05
41.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 22:05
Mar 14, 2016, 22:05
 
CJ_Parker wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 22:00:
Hahahaha, yeah, that bullshit comes from the same CD Projekt who cooperated with law firms to hunt down pirates in order to recuperate those "not lost sales". Yes, I know they quit doing it after they got caught with their pants down but those guys have zero credibility in that regard, man.
Piracy definitely leads to lost sales. The question is only "how many?".

No I agree, piracy does account for a lost sale in some cases. The "how many" is a Texas sized point of contention that prevails through out the gaming industry.
40.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 22:00
40.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 22:00
Mar 14, 2016, 22:00
 
ElPolloDiablo wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 21:45:
Also it has been stated many times piracy isn't necessarily a lost sale.

Hahahaha, yeah, that bullshit comes from the same CD Projekt who cooperated with law firms to hunt down pirates in order to recuperate those "not lost sales". Yes, I know they quit doing it after they got caught with their pants down but those guys have zero credibility in that regard, man.
Piracy definitely leads to lost sales. The question is only "how many?".
39.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 21:45
39.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 21:45
Mar 14, 2016, 21:45
 
Zoopster wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 20:37:
These guys are in it to make money.
If they are in it to make money then focusing on PC as a platform makes more sense because globally its making more money than consoles.
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3


The amount of piracy on PC platforms is quite high relative to consoles
Maybe that is true for this generation of consoles, but last generation console games were pirated just as much if not more then PC. Also it has been stated many times piracy isn't necessarily a lost sale. You know what costs the gaming industry more money than piracy? Used console game sales, because a used game sale means $0 for the developer and is almost certainly a lost sale for them.

and game prices themselves have barely moved over the last 40 years despite much higher development budgets.
While this is true, its been compensated by the developers by chopping the game up in to a lot of DLC and micro-transactions. Years ago buying a game meant you got everything the developers had to offer. If the game was successful they might release an expansion pack here and there but not too much and it came out months after it was initially released. Now a days if you bought a game plus all the DLC you are looking at $100+ per game.

When speaking of the price of games, the hat gets tipped of in favor of PC gaming as the price of games generally are much cheaper on PC.

38.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 21:04
38.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 21:04
Mar 14, 2016, 21:04
 
Zoopster wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 20:37:
Flak wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 20:10:
I disagree, any multi-platform sports game released is almost always better on PC once you factor in higher frame rates & modding abilities. The problem is EA owns everything/exclusive licensing plus even when sports titles were on PC, the console versions often had the 'new' engines while for some ridiculous reason the PC versions would use last gen engines, probably so people actually had a reason to buy those garbage consoles.

The only thing that ever held back sports gaming on PC were the developers and publishers that blatantly neglected the platform.

The "ridiculous reason" is actually a sensible one. Developers like EA essentially targeted console hardware over PC because the tools were more fully realized and better supported, the hardware more consistent, and the games expected to sell better. PC versions were usually little more than ports from the console release, possibly with higher rez textures added in to take advantage of increased memory and GPU bandwidth. But they also had to make some compromises since not every PC has a top of the line graphics card and CPU in it.

Sorry but that's the reality. These guys are in it to make money. The amount of piracy on PC platforms is quite high relative to consoles, and game prices themselves have barely moved over the last 40 years despite much higher development budgets. Google for some old Sears or Electronics Boutique ads and you will see what I mean. Atari 2600 carts were selling for $49.99 in 1978, for games that only cost $300k to $500k to produce. As a point of reference, an average new car sold for about $4700, gas was $0.77/gallon, and a loaf of bread $0.32 that same year.

Today new cars usually sell for 3 times as much (minimum), gas went as high as $4.20 before the market imploded, and it's hard to find a loaf of bread for less than $2.00 these days. Yet games like GTAV and Call Of Duty routinely have development budgets exceeding $100m, sometimes even $200m, and yet only sell for $10 more.

Wow developers like EA. Probably drop a Ubi and an Activision to. Yeah there are more indy developers than AAA devs and they can choose any platform and I'd say they seem to favor the PC. But whatever, again this isn't 1997 anymore, this was all buried long ago. We get it some people like one thing, some like them all, the cost is whatever any more. Get what you like.
Avatar 17232
37.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 20:37
37.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 20:37
Mar 14, 2016, 20:37
 
Flak wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 20:10:
I disagree, any multi-platform sports game released is almost always better on PC once you factor in higher frame rates & modding abilities. The problem is EA owns everything/exclusive licensing plus even when sports titles were on PC, the console versions often had the 'new' engines while for some ridiculous reason the PC versions would use last gen engines, probably so people actually had a reason to buy those garbage consoles.

The only thing that ever held back sports gaming on PC were the developers and publishers that blatantly neglected the platform.

The "ridiculous reason" is actually a sensible one. Developers like EA essentially targeted console hardware over PC because the tools were more fully realized and better supported, the hardware more consistent, and the games expected to sell better. PC versions were usually little more than ports from the console release, possibly with higher rez textures added in to take advantage of increased memory and GPU bandwidth. But they also had to make some compromises since not every PC has a top of the line graphics card and CPU in it.

Sorry but that's the reality. These guys are in it to make money. The amount of piracy on PC platforms is quite high relative to consoles, and game prices themselves have barely moved over the last 40 years despite much higher development budgets. Google for some old Sears or Electronics Boutique ads and you will see what I mean. Atari 2600 carts were selling for $49.99 in 1978, for games that only cost $300k to $500k to produce. As a point of reference, an average new car sold for about $4700, gas was $0.77/gallon, and a loaf of bread $0.32 that same year.

Today new cars usually sell for 3 times as much (minimum), gas went as high as $4.20 before the market imploded, and it's hard to find a loaf of bread for less than $2.00 these days. Yet games like GTAV and Call Of Duty routinely have development budgets exceeding $100m, sometimes even $200m, and yet only sell for $10 more.
36.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 20:31
36.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 20:31
Mar 14, 2016, 20:31
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 17:13:
HorrorScope wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 14:08:
Why not put the TV and surround stereo cost in on the consoles end to? Since well it would need both as well and I don't have those already.

I don't agree with much of what Zoopster says, but I can see the logic behind not counting the cost of a television and such like.

Well going with new young adults, isn't that all part of cutting cable? That you can do everything on your PC/Phone. So a 20 something very well could have no tv these days because they don't watch TV. This is all part of the cable cutting/streaming deal for many I'm led to beleive.

Things I don't really count as part of the pc:
Monitor
K/M
Headset

Like others never list accessorial costs of consoles.

How about making cash back?
http://i.imgur.com/qVIxOuu.jpg

But this is all going over old tracks, both exist but the PC's won the hearts of tinkerers long ago and refused to die. If one has to sell me on ease and convenience of use, first pc's are easy today to, I don't even have to insert a disk. But I'll raise yah, I'll show you a phone, a dumb ass phone for ease of use and convenience, not only on a couch but on a train.

Consoles are no better than 2nd place in any measure. Welcome to Silver Medal status.
Avatar 17232
35.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 20:25
35.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 20:25
Mar 14, 2016, 20:25
 
On PC, not so much. Now, me and you might enjoy the voltage porn and having 7 different programs controlling the settings, but most of normal people don`t and I don`t blame them for it.

Sorry, but that's bull. I haven't "tweaked" anything on my desktop for a PC game in years. I put the DVD in (or click "Download"), install, and then click "Play." Then, as if by a miracle, the game... runs.

Folks who babble about needing to tweak settings apparently haven't gamed on a PC since the 90's. Sure, if you want to run some esoteric extreme performance build. But just playing games (at higher fidelity and frame-rate than consoles) requires nothing but a desktop icon...
34.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 20:22
34.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 20:22
Mar 14, 2016, 20:22
 
ElPolloDiablo wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 20:01:
To be honest I'm not much of an audiophile so all the on board sound I've experienced has been fine for me. I don't think it's a huge point of dissension for most people either as I don't see it as a hot topic on PC gaming forums. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but if you say an Audigy is something necessary then that is only an $35-$40 extra on the build. Since sound cards don't change as much as video cards, that card can carry over in to your next 2 or 3 builds depending on how often you feel like upgrading.

Yes and no. On my original PC the Audigy card I had for it was a PCI board. The new PC has no PCI slots in it, only PCIe. So I had to buy a new card anyway.
33.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 20:10
33.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 20:10
Mar 14, 2016, 20:10
 
Julio wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 18:06:
Certain games (generally sports) are better on PS4 than PC.

I disagree, any multi-platform sports game released is almost always better on PC once you factor in higher frame rates & modding abilities. The problem is EA owns everything/exclusive licensing plus even when sports titles were on PC, the console versions often had the 'new' engines while for some ridiculous reason the PC versions would use last gen engines, probably so people actually had a reason to buy those garbage consoles.

The only thing that ever held back sports gaming on PC were the developers and publishers that blatantly neglected the platform.

Avatar 57481
32.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 20:01
32.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 20:01
Mar 14, 2016, 20:01
 
Zoopster wrote on Mar 14, 2016, 19:28:
If I have a problem anywhere it's probably my monitor. Sixty fps is as high as it goes. I need to look into a faster one.

If your monitor only goes up to 60hz then yes it can only display a max of 60 fps. However your GPU performance isn't tied to your monitor. Your GPU will crank out as many fps as it can manage regardless of what your monitor can handle.

And what about the sound?

To be honest I'm not much of an audiophile so all the on board sound I've experienced has been fine for me. I don't think it's a huge point of dissension for most people either as I don't see it as a hot topic on PC gaming forums. I know this isn't the case for everyone, but if you say an Audigy is something necessary then that is only an $35-$40 extra on the build. Since sound cards don't change as much as video cards, that card can carry over in to your next 2 or 3 builds depending on how often you feel like upgrading.
31.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 19:49
31.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 19:49
Mar 14, 2016, 19:49
 
You're being facetious I hope. I don't smoke dope and I don't drink while gaming (my reflexes are lousy enough while cold sober), but I can't deny the occasional M&M's.

I also would point out that a couch is a lot easier on my back in long stretches than the executive chair I have at my PC desk. But I have done marathon gaming sessions on both. Hasn't killed me yet.
30.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 19:28
30.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 19:28
Mar 14, 2016, 19:28
 
If I have a problem anywhere it's probably my monitor. Sixty fps is as high as it goes. I need to look into a faster one.

The PC build you linked looks interesting, particularly using the AMD chip instead of Intel. I was always skeptical of those going back many years, because it seemed like their clock speeds were always inflated compared to actual performance. We had some custom lab PC's that had them and they just couldn't keep up with supposedly equivalent Intel boxes. Sure they cost half as much as an Intel CPU, but you also got half the performance. Maybe they have gotten better, but I have been running straight Intel for about 12 years now.

And what about the sound? That is an important consideration. Like I said, the onboard sound devices on pretty much every PC I have used (including the work PC I'm currently replying from) is total garbage, making an Audigy or better an absolute necessity. I'm talking in terms of fidelity, not just how many channels. If you plugged it into a home theater next to an XBox or PS4, turned both on switched back and forth with your eyes closed, would you be able to tell which is which? (I'm guessing you would)
29.
 
Re: Morning Consolidation
Mar 14, 2016, 19:06
29.
Re: Morning Consolidation Mar 14, 2016, 19:06
Mar 14, 2016, 19:06
 
Let's face it: Consoles are a lifestyle-choice. It's the choice of the couch-dwelling amoeba of society who like to play games stoned drunk or stoned drugged with as little cerebral activity as possible. They just enjoy lying there and pushing buttons while everything is colorful and fancy. Then munch some M&Ms in between joints or beers (or both) and life is alright (until they pass out and vomit on their couch that is).

So... as long as there are amoeba celebrating this kind of lifestyle, there will be consoles and since it is very unlikely that amoeba will die out anytime soon (them being one of the most resilient life forms and all that... not even having a brain to damage is a huge biological advantage, ya know), well, we, the highly developed PC master race species, will unfortunately have to make the best of living among the inferior lowlifes. Sad but true. <- Metallica black album FTW btw!

If you are interested in more of these awesome sociological studies by yours truly please don't hesitate to contact my office during normal business hours at 1-800-NAILONHEAD. Thank you.
48 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older