Technological Advance Stalled In Gaming?

[Sinophile]

segas trouble came from the uselessness of the sega saturn, not a dwindeling market

The Saturn was released 15 years ago, the article I posted was dated this month. I believe this topic, of which you are the OP, is why there hasn't been much in the way of advancements since 2003. Did you even bother to read the article I posted?

 

its not about how much of a market share i represent

Yes it is, why would a company spend millions of dollars on a game, and even more on new hardware, just to cater to a few hardcore gamers who can afford the latest software?

 

 

once again you didnt get the point of better technical possibilities in the conjunction with guitar hero, its not about a totally different game i made my remarks about

Once again, you didn't get my point.

 

if youre comin from a "long line of gamers" (may i say LOL) you should know that "casual gaming" as you call it was very well developed back in the 90ties

The market itself was much more homogeneous back then, and the gap before what one would label "casual" and what one would label "hardcore" was much less pronounced. Secondly, your complaint was that back then, games were designed to run on the latest computer hardware, instead of the latest console hardware. Since the difference between consoles and PCs in terms of capability was much more pronounced back then, there was less need to design a game meant for multiple platforms.

 

 

playing a cop to beat up hippies or a rowdy to beat up hippies or a hippie to live in dirt wasnt what i said, i dunno why you come up with such conclusions lol

It's called Sarcasm, and my point was simply that graphics, or hardware in general has little bearing on sales of the game. The concept itself is very primitive and simple, all you have to do is press a bunch of buttons in time with the music.

 

well if you check the hardware inside a ps3... well you could get that for about 50$ if anyone would even still pay for somin like that... i for example am selling a laptop which leaves the ps3 standing in its dust atm for 100Euro... roughly 120$,

Euros? I take it you are European then, which would explain the grammar. Nothing that you can buy for $300 in the US is going to run Dragon Age at even it's lowest settings.

 

if you wanna stereotype on the other hand plz learn how to do so properly without looking like a lil boy in an angry spree of devastation

No, I don't want to stereotype, nor did I resort to Ad Hominem attacks. As for me being an angry little boy with his nose in a playboy, this whole topic is little more than nerd rage.

 

anyway, since i think its fun let me have a go at your way of argumenting

Once again, I was parodying your style or arguments. I thought I was hyperbolic enough you knew I was joking. I own both a PS3 and an Asus laptop which I use to play games on. As a matter of fact, I prefer to play Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Fallout, and Oblivion on my PC, despite it only having a low-end Nvidia graphics card. This is partially because I like to mod, and prefer to play using a Keyboard instead of a controller((it is hard to hotkey 10 different spells using a controller)). My point is that having a preference doesn't make you smarter than anyoe else, it just means you have more time and money to spend on your particular hobby.

[Sinophile]

sorry for the double post, I apparently exceeded my "quote limit".

 

Now, if you really wanna rage over something, it should be things like this:

 

Facebook and Twitter on television.

 

Apparently no one realized that most laptops released over the last couple years come with HDMI ports, or that Most HD televisions can easily be used as computer monitors. This is why corporations and game developers aren't making games as technologically advanced as they could, because ZOMG, Twitter and Facebook on the telly!!!

[ub3rman123]

Another reason is that companies crank out a new console every 3 years or so with the best technology available, but most people who play PC games don't upgrade regularly, nor do they know how to. It's easier to go to the store and buy a Playstation than it is to go to eBay and select the best machine available, simply because there's so many different specs and settings. I tried to find a cheap laptop and found that I knew almost nothing about what the system requirments I'd need were, but I know that if I got a Playstation, it can play Playstation games.

 

When computers become more standardized, they'll be capable of advancing.

[Sinophile]

Another reason is that companies crank out a new console every 3 years or so with the best technology available, but most people who play PC games don't upgrade regularly, nor do they know how to.

I'd estimate that 90% of consumers never upgrade their computer. Of the remaining 10%, half of them pay Best Buy to upgrade for them. I worked in a computer shop in a small town, and people will pay good money to do the simplest of things, such as set up their router, or clean up viruses contracted while looking at pics of teenage asian girls in bikinis(more common than you'd think). Also, I believe the PS, PS2, and PS3 were all released 5 years apart.

 

I tried to find a cheap laptop and found that I knew almost nothing about what the system requirments I'd need were

That is why forums such as this one exists. In addition to the Nexus, another good forum is the "notebook forum". Generally, notebooks aren't meant for gaming, at least not in a cost effective way.

 

 

but I know that if I got a Playstation, it can play Playstation games

You wouldn't have to worry about clearing your hard drive, freeing up enough ram, enabling administrator privileges, checking to see if the latest directX is installed, or seeing if your particular video card is supported.

[cacophany]

 

Or perhaps you don't get console gamers. My PS3, which I purchased earlier this month costs me $300. Assemble a gaming rig for me that would cost less than my PS3 and able to  run current releases.

 

US Dollars I assume?

 

 

 

 

 

All right then. Lets see.

 

 

 

 

http://www.amazon.co...77522521&sr=8-1

 

http://www.amazon.co...77522611&sr=8-3

 

http://www.amazon.co...77522637&sr=1-4

 

http://www.amazon.co...77522667&sr=1-1

 

http://www.amazon.co...77522688&sr=1-1

 

http://www.amazon.co...77522707&sr=8-1

 

 

http://www.amazon.com/Western-Digital-Intellipower-Desktop-WD10EARS/dp/B002WB2KFI/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1277522967&sr=8-6

 

 

 

 

Right, Core 2 Duo, only 4 gigs of ram, but it will work. (Two sets of the RAM have been purchased, but that's accounted for in the total)

 

 

 

 

$579.75 You know what, you're right, that IS more expensive then your PS3. But it can also use word, browse the internet, manage your email among MANY more things. It has 1 terrabyte of storage, I would wager that's a bit more then your PS3?

 

All in all, you're right, buying a PC costs more then a console. I am sure I could probably get more powerful at a lower price, but I really didn't want to spend too much time. I just wanted to make my point that it's not terribly hard to get a cheapish gaming computer. Add to the fact that you probably need a PC AND a Console if you want to be a console gamer though and together that costs more then just a gaming PC on it's own. You could get your current computer upgraded pretty cheaply so that it could play most current games on medium to high graphics which is more then the PS3 can do. Combined with all the other benefits and it's a little bit more appealing then before, isn't it?

 

 

 

 

That said, I'm not trying to say anything against console gamers, I'd love a PS3 personally, they are a little bit easier to jump right into, and you can play multiplayer on the same screen. The PS3 seems really excellent to me, but I just like the options available to me with a gaming PC. Also note that if more people bought into gaming computers new brands of cards and chipsets would undoubtedly show up to cash in on it which would lower prices significantly. Ideally PC gaming could be a lot cheaper then console gaming.

 

There's benefits in both really, it's just up to what you like.

 

 

[ub3rman123]

And, of course, there's always one point few people notice: Maybe they can't get any better without being ludicrously expensive, and then at that point the games just aren't worth it. It might be fun to play full graphics Crysis on a Cray, but is it worth it?

[Vagrant0]

About my "braindead" comment, no offense was intended. I was merely stating that of most of those who buy any consumer product, most don't think very much about what they're buying in relation to the sort of usage they might want to get out of it. In the case of computers, these are usually the sort of people who bought computers from a store when windows Vista came out, didn't even look at the system specs, but assumed that since it was a newer computer it would work better than their XP system they bought 3 years earlier.. Then proceeded to rant and rave on their blogs about how Vista is a piece of worthless crap, how it makes everything slower, and how the programs and files they had no longer work. These are also the same sort of people who assume that just because they have a newer computer that their computer can play all the newest games at max detail and without any problems, and when problems do occur, they right away blame the company which made that game for any of their issues. In both cases they fail to even consider that their shiny new HP desktop is the underpowered budget model, which is designed for little more than office work, web browsing, or serving as a paperweight (after 6 months when the thing finally craps out). In these cases, consoles make the most sense since there's none of this to consider, and to their credit, some of these braindead persons have actually managed to make this enormous leap of sentient decision making. It doesn't however change the fact that with consoles, all their decisions about performance, appearance, and longevity of the system are essentially dictated by a company. There is a difference between not caring to involve yourself with those complications of a PC, and those to whom such complications are beyond their ability to even briefly comprehend.

 

But, the "average braindead consummer" really spoke to just about every consumer good out there which is mediocre in function, but has a wonderful ad campaign that hooks in buyers. The assumption that these people are braindead is based on the fact that if they had stopped to consider "hey, wait, they're showing me this device in a scripted, idealistic situation, meanwhile the real device was made in some 3rd world factory with substandard parts, and no situation like that actually exists, anywhere" they would have not bought the blasted thing, and those companies earning millions wouldn't be around and as profitable as they are. Children can tell when they're being lied to, fools can tell when they're being lied to when it is made obvious, the average braindead consumer on the otherhand... Either cannot or cannot be bothered to care. Saturation marketing is based around this premise, and I hate to say it, but console companies have been heading down this road more and more than previously... Or didn't you see the Natal demo at E3...

 

Back on topic... While yes, a PC with the same basic hardware as a console won't be able to play the same game in the same way, this is almost always due to minor bits of software tweaking in the game which compromises some aspects in favor of others in order to just run the game on a given console. Additionally, consoles don't use the same hardware as PCs, instead they use specially designed versions which also have similar tweaks to make "important" processes function better. Furthermore, since the consoles are all the same hardware, made from the same manufacturer, and assembled in the same place, they can order in bulk, so their cost per videocard for example is often much less than what someone building a PC pays. Even discount suppliers have some sort of markup over the price they bought it from the manufacturer, and even the manufacturer sells their product for more than it costs to build. They wouldn't be in business otherwise. So... the $200-$300 difference (really about $50-$120) between a console and a comparable PC is mostly just price markup of parts, shipping, and due to it being a small-ish order. The reason why I say really $50-$120 is because a computer is not just the hardware, it is also the software which is needed to run the PC. Consoles don't have much of a per-unit software cost since all of their software is done in house, using their own drivers, staff, and licensing. In contrast, most PC hardware comes with its own software which must pay a licensing fee for the OS that hardware is designed for, pay printing costs for the medium that software is on, and add some cost for shipping to the facility where the end product is packaged... All of these costs being passed on to the dealer, which in turn is passed onto the consumer. Then there's the operating system, which again, console manufacturers deal with in-house, in non-transferable bulk, and you get the gist. Point being that the actual cost of hardware isn't that different, but instead it's the cost of all that other stuff that console manufacturers don't rightly have to deal with or pass onto consumers, while PC manufacturers do. Which is why "bundled software" usually means "2 things that your computer needs to run, 5 things you might actually use, and 30 other things which are entirely useless (many of which requiring additional purchases to avoid having annoying messages popping up after a certain date), but were included as part of contract agreements in order to include those 7 mostly useful things without having to charge you for all of it individually".

 

Which is why consoles have been making more and more sense for most consumers, and why most companies have been designing their games for consoles, which is also why most game advancements have coincided with console advancements.

[Retribution]

It's because of consoles. Microsoft and Sony expect for their consoles to last until 2015. This is pathetic, because everyone knows that the hardware inside them was outdated years before they were released. 10 years later, and you've got hardware that's outdated by more than ten years. It's ridiculous that gamers would allow this to happen. I'd wager that when the new Xbox or new PS3 is released in 2015, or sometime around that, its hardware will be VERY outdated compared to today's hardware.

[Vagrant0]

I'd wager that when the new Xbox or new PS3 is released in 2015, or sometime around that, its hardware will be VERY outdated compared to today's hardware.

That really depends on if you're talking about top of the line hardware, or what is practical for your standard PC user to get without having to take out a loan. It also depends on what you consider to be "VERY" outdated. The fact of the matter is that both console and mass-produced PC manufacturers have always gone with the hardware they can get that is within the budget for whatever the pricepoint that end product is. While I don't think they would be quite as bad as you think, it will however probably be about as outdated as one would expect for a $500 system.

[Sinophile]

$579.75 You know what, you're right, that IS more expensive then your PS3.

 

Terabyte Hard Drive: 70USD

4GB RAM: 105USD

Motherboard: 48USD

Core2duo processor: 120USD

Power supply: 20USD

1 gigabyte graphics card: 160USD

 

Just over $500, So at the very least, they are somewhat close.

I've excluded the case since you could technically use a cardboard box(I have one friend who simply uses velcro to attach his PC components to a wall). I believe that the PS3 only has 256 GB DDR3 Ram, according to the specs found Here,

However, Dragon Age looks much better on the PS3 than it does on my laptop with 4 gigs of ram and an Nvidia 9300M(which has 512MB of Vram). The PS3 also has a BD-Rom drive. A BD-Rom drive for a PC would run about 100 USD, but technically this pc wouldn't need one, since Most games could easily be downloaded off of websites such as Steam.

 

But it can also use word, browse the internet, manage your email among MANY more things. It has 1 terrabyte of storage, I would wager that's a bit more then your PS3?

The difference between a PS3 with a 120GB hard drive and a 250GB hard drive is 50USD, which is ridiculous. A PC can literally do anything a console can do. Although for the sake of argument, I was simply comparing gaming power. Games on my 700USD Asus( estimated to have a current value of 500USD), do not look as good as games on my 300USD playstation.

 

About my "braindead" comment, no offense was intended. I was merely stating that of most of those who buy any consumer product, most don't think very much about what they're buying in relation to the sort of usage they might want to get out of it

Lol none taken. I've had one guy refer to console gamers as "trash", and bragged about being old enough to remember games such as Ultima.