GTA 4 PC Specs

The Games for Windows Website now offers recommended system requirements for the upcoming PC edition of Grand Theft Auto IV, which seem pretty modest considering the promise of higher-resolution graphics. The specs call for Windows XP SP2, a dual core CPU (Intel Pentium D or better), 2 GB of RAM, 18GB of free hard disk space, a dual-layer DVD drive, and a 512MB Direct3D 10 compatible video card or Direct3D 9 card compatible "with Shader." Thanks Videogaming247.
View : : :
60.
 
Re: ...
Sep 13, 2008, 22:45
60.
Re: ... Sep 13, 2008, 22:45
Sep 13, 2008, 22:45
 
Limitations of the console don't dictate it's player's attention spans.

Oh boy, way to completely miss the point. You know why consoles are so popular? Because they are convenient. Casual players prefer convenience over efficiency, power, optimal control schemes, etc. A person with a short attention span is much more likely to be a console gamer than a PC gamer, given that PC gaming requires a much greater investment of time and money.

And who gives those publishers their big dollars? Gamers.

Yes. Console gamers, not PC gamers. It's not about making a profit anymore. Console game sales set the bar and all other sales are expected to meet it. It doesn't matter if a PC game sells 1 million units if a console game sells 10 million. Success is judged by AAA blockbuster sales, so even if a game makes a profit, it's not good enough. Publishers are driven by greed and if they know that they can sell more on a console than on a PC, they'll focus on the consoles. You can write all the e-mails and petitions you want. That won't stop console gamers from buying more games than PC gamers, simply because there are more console gamers.

It's not up to the developers and publishers, it's up to you as the buyer to dictate to the vendor what exactly you want and are willing to pay for.

The problem is that they aren't making the games I want to buy. I want old-school cRPGs. I want high-flying, high-speed shooters with steep learning curves. I want vehicular combat, I want mech sims. If developers and publishers would start making these games (and making them well), I'd gladly support them.

Frankly I think WoW and MMO games in general have done far more damage to the PC gaming market than consoles ever will.

While I agree that MMOs are hurting PC gaming, I disagree that they are doing more damage than consoles. The audience for MMOs consists primarily of people who wouldn't play anything else anyway, much like the audience of The Sims. I still stand by my point that if Microsoft had never created the Xbox and instead invested all that money into PC gaming, PC gaming would be a lot stronger than it is today.

This comment was edited on Sep 14, 00:22.
Avatar 20715
Date
Subject
Author
1.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
2.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
3.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
4.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
5.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
6.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
7.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
8.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
13.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
14.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
16.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
17.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
     Re: No subject
18.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
     Re: No subject
19.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
      Re: No subject
20.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
      Re: No subject
21.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
       Re: No subject
22.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
        Re: No subject
24.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
         Re: No subject
31.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
      Re: No subject
10.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
15.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
27.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
28.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
30.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
9.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
11.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
12.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
25.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
   Re: Damn
23.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
26.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
29.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
32.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
33.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
34.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
35.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
85.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
36.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
37.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
38.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
39.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
     Re: No subject
41.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
      Re: No subject
42.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
       Re: No subject
43.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
       Re: No subject
44.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
        Re: No subject
46.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
         Re: No subject
45.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
       Re: No subject
47.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
        Re: No subject
48.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
         Re: No subject
49.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
          Re: No subject
50.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
        Re: No subject
51.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
         Re: No subject
52.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
         Re: No subject
40.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
     Re: No subject
53.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
54.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
58.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
59.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
   Re: ...
 60.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
    Re: ...
63.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
     Re: ...
64.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
      Re: ...
65.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
       Re: ...
66.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
        Re: ...
68.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
        Re: ...
71.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
         Re: ...
55.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
56.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
57.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
61.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
62.
Sep 13, 2008Sep 13 2008
67.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
70.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
73.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
74.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
   Re: ...
75.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
    Re: ...
76.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
    Re: ...
77.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
     Re: DRM
79.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
      Re: DRM
80.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
       Re: DRM
81.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
        Re: DRM
82.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
         Re: DRM
83.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
          Re: DRM
84.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
           Re: DRM
86.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
    Re: ...
87.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
     Re: ...
88.
Sep 15, 2008Sep 15 2008
      Re: ...
89.
Sep 17, 2008Sep 17 2008
       Re: ...
90.
Sep 17, 2008Sep 17 2008
   Re: ...
72.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
69.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008
78.
Sep 14, 2008Sep 14 2008