Support NeoGAF

[Shangounchained]

For like, a year. The 360 was quickly eclipsed, and in the end what did it fucking matter. How many games did you play that were truly better than what’s on PC.

If you want power, invest in your own machine

A year is an enough statement for a console of 400$ beating 2000$ pcs its even shameful your defending this, in no galaxy ever u can restart the universe a gazilion times and a 400$ console beating a 2000$ pc would more preffarable. Pcs really dont make sense being game machines any more because ull spend 2000$ and in a year another cpu, gpu cones out even better n ull have to spend another 1000$ to keep with the times simple example, nextgen consoles are rumoured to use 16gb+ gddr6 a rtx 2080ti only has 11 and theyll use ssd as virtual ram similar to the radeon ssg that costs 7000 and all this prefarably on 600$ consoles so chosing to spend 1000s of $ to beat 600$ consoles is either your genetically stupid or just possesed by demonic spirits.

 

[JordanN]

A year is an enough statement for a console of 400$ beating 2000$ pcs its even shameful your defending this, in no galaxy ever u can restart the universe a gazilion times and a 400$ console beating a 2000$ pc would more preffarable. Pcs really dont make sense being game machines any more because ull spend 2000$ and in a year another cpu, gpu cones out even better n ull have to spend another 1000$ to keep with the times simple example, nextgen consoles are rumoured to use 16gb+ gddr6 a rtx 2080ti only has 11 and theyll use ssd as virtual ram similar to the radeon ssg that costs 7000 and all this prefarably on 600$ consoles so chosing to spend 1000s of $ to beat 600$ consoles is either your genetically stupid or just possesed by demonic spirits.

And yet when we see the first multiplatform game run next year, we will have been told the console versions will be missing features that are only exclusive to PC.

 

[Shangounchained]

Maybe not in power itself, but more memory is still quite crucial when it comes to gaming at higher resolutions as too low can act as a bottleneck.

With consoles next gen, the choice of gaming resolution will cap out at 4K or less, whereas PC gamers will be running games at double the resolution and frame rate.

Edit: Actually, PC gamers are already well above that. 16K resolution was possible 3 years ago. The PS5/XSEX aren't going to be able to catch up to this.

Depends how ur using the memory as of now games only use 8gb on console and pc and this is solely because games are ported from consoles so the assets per frame only need 8gb they wont use more of that but when u increase resolution itll need a bit more memory but mostly higher bandwidth, but when u increase the assets on screen per frame say polygons tectures physics simply more data on a frame then capacity is more important u can have as much bandwidth and speed but if the ram isnt holding the data then its pointless. To simply put what makes a game or any graphics is whats in memory it always has been.

 

[Shangounchained]

And yet when we see the first multiplatform game run next year, we will have been told the console versions will be missing features that are only exclusive to PC.

Ill castrate my balls if theres any important upgrade. if nextgen consoles can use 128gb extra of ssg ram and still be underperforming.
The main difference this gen was fps, resolutions and raytracing, better lighting is a given nextgen n if they can output 4k 30-60 then whatever u can get on pc be it 16k 1000fps wouldnt matter to anybodys arse be my guest i and get a 16k monitor for another 5000$ just to prove console gamers wrong.

 

[JordanN]

Depends how ur using the memory as of now games only use 8gb on console and pc and this is solely because games are ported from consoles

I don't know why you continue to say this when its console games that had every single downgrade this generation.

Face-Off: Assassin's Creed Unity

A year after the launch of the new wave of consoles, the Assassin's Creed franchise has finally made its next-gen leap,…

www.eurogamer.net

If you have the hardware capable of running at a stable frame-rate, the PC version of Assassin's Creed Unity provides the most graphically accomplished representation. Maxing out the game in every area, along with selecting HBAO+ and PCSS (percentage closer soft shadows) gives us a game that not only looks sharper than on console, but also features more intricately detailed artwork and better draw distances. These really allow you to fully appreciate the painstaking work gone into modelling every every inch of the city, inside and out.

Other PC-exclusive effects also come into play. HBAO+ gives buildings and characters stronger indirect shadow coverage when in the shade, which helps to keep these scenes from looking too flat - direct shadows are only cast by the sun, so disappear when in parts of the environment that are in the shade. Tessellation is also going to be added in a future update, which should an extra dimension to the rendering of tiled rooftops and cobblestone paths.

In comparison, the PS4 and Xbox One releases appear to operate with environment detail set to the very high preset on the PC, while texture detail and shadow quality closely match the high setting. SSAO replaces HBAO+, while tessellation is completely absent. Anti-aliasing also appears to be a close match for FXAA, displaying similar blurring characteristics and edge-smoothing properties.

This is just one example out of dozens of comparisons.

Ill castrate my balls if theres any important upgrade. if nextgen consoles can use 128gb extra of ssg ram and still be underperforming.

You'll never go through with such a bet. The CEO of Nvidia already said next gen consoles are already weaker than what the company has planned next, they will underperform when the first comparisons are revealed.

 

[PocoJoe]

Consoles should cost 500-800€ and have higher specs

Reasoning:

Millions are willing to pay ridiculous 70€ for games on launch.

So why should console cost the same as 5-6 games?

Blurays cost 10-30€ and player costs 100-300€ = 10x the media should be fair.

Consoles price is tiny amount vs what one gen of gaming costs

Online service 50€/year

5-10 games year

Maybe extra controllers

= 1500-3000€ gen easily for hobbyist.

Those that buy one fucking fifa/nhl per year should not get a vote, they arent even "real game hobbyists". They can play on older gens as they dont really care about gaming, just want to have their yearly sports game.

But sadly these people are the majority, not us whom buy 50-100 games/gen or more

700€ would be fine if specs are 2x stronger than 350€ one.

 

[Shangounchained]

I don't know why you continue to say this when its console games that had every single downgrade this generation.

Face-Off: Assassin's Creed Unity

A year after the launch of the new wave of consoles, the Assassin's Creed franchise has finally made its next-gen leap,…

www.eurogamer.net

This is just one example out of dozens of comparisons.


You'll never go through with such a bet. The CEO of Nvidia already said next gen consoles are already weaker than what the company has planned next, they will underperform when the first comparisons are revealed.

Hes the ceo of nvidia hes boubd to say that unless he doesnt want his job.

 

[Shangounchained]

Consoles should cost 500-800€ and have higher specs

Reasoning:

Millions are willing to pay ridiculous 70€ for games on launch.

So why should console cost the same as 5-6 games?

Blurays cost 10-30€ and player costs 100-300€ = 10x the media should be fair.

Consoles price is tiny amount vs what one gen of gaming costs

Online service 50€/year

5-10 games year

Maybe extra controllers

= 1500-3000€ gen easily for hobbyist.

Those that buy one fucking fifa/nhl per year should not get a vote, they arent even "real game hobbyists". They can play on older gens as they dont really care about gaming, just want to have their yearly sports game.

But sadly these people are the majority, not us whom buy 50-100 games/gen or more

700€ would be fine if specs are 2x stronger than 350€ one.

Gamepass is the future examlle i watch films everyday freely online from anime manga and films but i go 3-7x a year in the cinema and i dont hear film companies complaining of it so if consoles are 600-800$ and they can atleast privide a netflix design kind of service for most games n then well buy more blockbuster games at 70$, the ps2 sales are misleading alot of people the ps2 was simply enjoyed and applauded the world over because it was easy to mod bk in africa a ps2 disk costs 90-200,000 shs and a modded disk only costed 5-10,000 so anybody could afford the games and play,

This is the same for pcs bk in the days all u haf to do was make a gaming pc and get online then ull get all the games u ever wanted on pirate bay everybody hates to say this but this is what sold pcs, and ps2s back in the day. Expensive entertainment simply doesnt win.

 

[Kittehkraken]

Pass.

I'll save myself the $300-400 dollars and buy what Nintendo is offering instead. As will the other 100 Million people.

 

[Christian Eugenio]

Above 600$ is too much, if you keep paying more money companies will continue to raise prices just because they can, just like Apple.

If you are not willing to pay high prices companies are still going to make powerfull consoles just for the sake of compete with each other and attract users from their competitors.

 

[SLB1904]

Nobody is targeting a $1000 pc for their games. Lol

 

[JordanN]

Hes the ceo of nvidia hes boubd to say that unless he doesnt want his job.

You're free to believe that, but their track record heavily points towards what he said is likely fact.

They made the same prediction about PS4 vs PC back in 2013 and the gap hasn't exactly slowed down since then.

In fact, you keep bringing up the Xbox 360 yet PS3 launched a year later and it wasn't more powerful than the newest PC card that did come out (Geforce 8800). So the race is over.

Next gen consoles will definitely target a $399 price point, in which some of those components will be spent on the SSD or Disc drive.

There's probably only $100 being spent on the CPU and GPU respectively, in which case, how is it even feasible that consoles will be more powerful? They're not.

And that's not a bad thing. If there are exclusive games, power wont matter. But for every multiplat, it will be just like the Assassin's Creed comparison. The PC version will retain exclusive features and run at a much higher frame rate and resolution that consoles can't keep up with.

 

[SlimySnake]

Can you talk like an adult

No.

 

[PlayStaytion]

8th generation consoles were supposed to release 2 years ahead which leads to somewhat off the chart specs in comparison to late 2013 pc build for gaming and that issue have been addressed for next gen consoles but nobody talks about it unfortunately; it's also a common mistake to compare consoles specs before their releases with current pc components market , that's a huge mistake cause they are building it way ahead of their release and the custom parts aren't always necessary means more expensive stuff, it may also mean cutting unnecessary corners from off the shelf parts before they put it together, this thing typically is missing on PC platform where unnecessary chips inside the components are out of consumers hands but they pay for it unfortunately; having one brand which is amd will also play a huge role in pushing the cost way down of their real value.

 

[Keihart]

OP is on a roll, reads like and old man put in charge of a gaming deparment while he doesn't understand anything about the industry.

Ofcourse consoles don't have the best performance, there is a enthusiast market already in PC gaming, wich is not as big as some might think, because even if there is a lot of people gaming on PC , the amount of people with the top of the line hardware is very small.

Consoles are important right now to the ecosystem because they set the target specs gathering a huge target population to make games for, this target specs become PC specs as well. So a new console gen is in a way also a new PC gen.

 

[magnumpy]

it's a balancing act when a new generation starts. they have to be more powerful than previous generation but not too expensive. I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions lol

 

[JordanN]

Ofcourse consoles don't have the best performance, there is a enthusiast market already in PC gaming, wich is not as big as some might think, because even if there is a lot of people gaming on PC , the amount of people with the top of the line hardware is very small.

Unlike console, the PC baseline increases every year. A low end GPU today is actually more powerful than a high end PC from 5 years ago.

So a PC doesn't have to be top of the line to exactly top console performance. This was also quite evident in CPU's this generation. The PS4/XBO were using some kind of netbook shit. For an entry level PC, there where already cheap parts that still outperformed the ones in consoles.

 

[sendit]

Maybe not in power itself, but more memory is still quite crucial when it comes to gaming at higher resolutions as too low can act as a bottleneck.

With consoles next gen, the choice of gaming resolution will cap out at 4K or less, whereas PC gamers will be running games at double the resolution and frame rate.

Edit: Actually, PC gamers are already well above that. 16K resolution was possible 3 years ago. The PS5/XSEX aren't going to be able to catch up to this.

PC gamer here, 1080 Ti. I’m still gaming at 1080p. Benefits greatly diminish when increasing resolution.

 

[JordanN]

PC gamer here, 1080 Ti. I’m still gaming at 1080p. Benefits greatly diminish when increasing resolution.

High resolution and anti-aliasing go hand in hand.

I actually think 4K is not enough. 8K is the absolute minimum before we stop seeing distracting pixels.

Mind you, I also do design work. It's actually not unusual for advertising companies to do final renders at 16K resolution, because they can blow up or print their images without any loss in quality.

High resolution is also important for VR. I have a PSVR headset and 1080p doesn't work well with realism. So there is still a benefit to going beyond 4K in order to avoid the "screen door effect".

 

[01011001]

High resolution and anti-aliasing go hand in hand.

I actually think 4K is not enough. 8K is the absolute minimum before we stop seeing distracting pixels.

Mind you, I also do design work. It's actually not unusual for advertising companies to do final renders at 16K resolution, because they can blow up or print their images without any loss in quality.

High resolution is also important for VR. I have a PSVR headset and 1080p doesn't work well with realism. So there is still a benefit to going beyond 4K in order to avoid the "screen door effect".

I think 4K with a decent AA solution on top is absolutely enough.
especially on smaller screens.

 

[I Love Rock 'n' Roll]

Zen 2 means poor performance?

 

[Keihart]

Unlike console, the PC baseline increases every year. A low end GPU today is actually more powerful than a high end PC from 5 years ago.

So a PC doesn't have to be top of the line to exactly top console performance. This was also quite evident in CPU's this generation. The PS4/XBO were using some kind of netbook shit. For an entry level PC, there where already cheap parts that still outperformed the ones in consoles.

I'm arguing the contrary, new Console Gen will increase the new targeted specs for PC upwards. Even when consoles are less powerful than PCs, the new targeted specs increase as the new console gen matures.

 

[CrisPy2019]

Tbh I can't imagine it being worse than XBO PS4 being outdated before they even launched.

But thinking about it. We have inflation. 500 is not 500 anymore.

Will gamers still complain if in 2030 consoles cost 500+?

Paying $500 in 2030 will give you tech worth the equivalent of $350? in today's money. That means we either get used to pay more soon or we will have to get used to make babysteps in console evolution. "Worse than today"

But then we soon have photorealistic visuals anyway.

 

[theclaw135]

And yet when we see the first multiplatform game run next year, we will have been told the console versions will be missing features that are only exclusive to PC.

Tell me that when they stop removing split screen couch multiplayer from PC versions, even in games supposedly originally developed for PC.

 

[Shadowstar39]

Most multiplat games are made with a console as a base target and some extra fluff for PC users. Consoles are holding the medium back. Cheap ass no jobbers who need mummy and daddy to buy them a their game box are the partly the reason.

A lot of people have no problem laying down 1000+ for a phone but would have a melt down when a console costs more than 400. Consoles need to buck the price trend and stop using shitty outdated tech and get back to the way it used to be, when the latest console was a breakthrough in tech.

You do realize you need a phone for communication, to get a job, to make appointments etc, also the phone is paid for in installments. You pay up front for a console. It's also entertainment not a tool/communication device.

People have bills, families. Rent or mortgage, electricity, car payments, kids, food, heating, Netflix, other subscription services, college loans, credit card debt, medical bills and copay ents, property taxes, water sewer and trash, wives with insane projects and demands, child support, entertainment, going out to eat, car repairs, home repairs, insurances, booze payments, gambling debts, pay for crack, heroin, hookers and blow.

My point is people got a lot on their plate. I myself make about $40-50k a year depending on overtime availability. A shit ton of people make less and a shit ton make more. Unless you live with your folks rent free, then you have bills and expenses. Sorry but not everybody is making $80+k a year to afford expensive devices. The ones who are usually are trust fundies or work so much they don't have time for gaming or have an insane ritzy wife who would snub you for "gaming with the peasants and children" as gold diggers tend to be that way.

I'll take a $400 ps5. As long as it's similar jump to how ps4 was to ps3 then I will be thrilled. I own a pc with a Nvidia 1060gtx 6gb which still runs all in max at 1080p. That's another thing I don't own 4k TV. I am not getting rid of my perfectly good 60in 1080p set and 24" pc monitor for a few more pixels. It made sense when going from SD or from 720p but I don't see the same difference going to 4k. So the console power isn't that big of deal.

Sony won this Gen and the ps1/2 gens via reasonable prices console. They will loose with a $600 box. You people forget the ridge racer conference and how you all made fun of the 60gb ps3 that had an included ps2 because it was $600?

 

[diffusionx]

I honestly don't know why people make the PC out to be this unaffordable, inconvenient luxury. If you care about hardware power, frame rates, high resolution, shit like that, the PC is the ONLY option. It makes a lot more sense just to jump in and build a PC than it does to hope Sony will see things the same way you do, which they don't, and then wait another six years when they inevitably disappoint you. Just build a PC and get it over with - play the games the way you want. It's the platform that caters to you, whether you know it or not.

Tbh I can't imagine it being worse than XBO PS4 being outdated before they even launched.

But thinking about it. We have inflation. 500 is not 500 anymore.

Will gamers still complain if in 2030 consoles cost 500+?

Paying $500 in 2030 will give you tech worth the equivalent of $350? in today's money. That means we either get used to pay more soon or we will have to get used to make babysteps in console evolution. "Worse than today"

But then we soon have photorealistic visuals anyway.

Of course they will be outdated before launch. They are going to be mid-to-high range by today's standards, except next year we will be getting better CPUs and better GPUs. People are saying Nvidia's next round of GPUs will be a huge step forward (which can be expected, they're not even on 7nm yet).

They will be good machines, no doubt. The PS4 was a good machine, that was satisfactory for millions of people. Ultimately that is what is important for the console makers, not doing some impossible task like beating a moving target with a much higher price ceiling.

 

[xPikYx]

I think I'm am one of the few ready for a 800$ console

 

[OmaeWaMouShindiggity]

Innovation and details comes from developers themselves rather than more than power.

Yes, but convince me that the same developer can make equally good games with one using a PS1 and the other using a Xbox one X. More power gives you the freedom for more innovative techniques and ideas. If power and parts didn't matter we wouldn't need new tech every few years.

 

[Venom Snake]

Yes, but convince me that the same developer can make equally good games with one using a PS1 and the other using a Xbox one X. More power gives you the freedom for more innovative techniques and ideas. If power and parts didn't matter we wouldn't need new tech every few years.

Don't they call it a remake?

 

[alabtrosMyster]

If you want power buy a PC. Consoles have never been about power, other than in comparison to their peers, but that’s just marketing bullshit.

I'm not so sure about that:
When the NES was released (japan 1983, us 1985) there was nothing like it in the home AT ALL.
Same for the Sega Master System.
However, when the TurboGrafx 16 /Genesis (1987 in Japan, 1989 in the US, both got CD add-ons) you had x68000 - japan only - computers that would outdo any gaming console at anything (Atari ST and Amiga cannot do tye same claim, they did some stuff better than consoles, but not everything all the time)
The SNES released in 1990/1991 was a graphics processing monster early on, it would stretch a background layer anyway you wanted at 60fps, provide transparency effects... However it wasn't as good as older consoles at handling a lot of moving sprites... But still, early on computers didn't outperform it at everything.

Now the PS1 was released in 1994, offered very basic hardware accelerated 3D, 16bit colors, gouraud shading, colored ligh sources, multilayer transparency effects, high definition mode that offered good (for the time) 3d gaming at a decent price.

Then Nintendo released the N64 - 3d acceleration wasn't that good on PCs at this point in time, Mario 64 was state of the art 3d in the home (arcades were way ahead already, but this is not what I'm responding to). Obviously, again, PCs did some things better, way better but they weren't always better at everything, and they cost wayyyy more.

The PS2 had its limitations, but it still featured pixel shaders, something that would not be coming to PCs for a little while.

From then on I grant you are right, by the time the Xbox came out that wasn't true anymore, since then I always had PCs that both did everything the consoles did, better and faster... With shorter loading times, etc. Just less comfort and bad ports... I will not bring the exclusive argument, because the PC platform has way more exclusive games, they're just different.

 

[VFXVeteran]

I was blown away by horizon graphics and God of war to name a few. That was from a $400 console.

Do they make thousands of exclusive games for nvidia Rtx 2080 owners?

There are thousands of games for consoles across Xbox, PlayStation and switch. With near 200 million install base Including them all.

Most people on steam don’t have Rtx cards they have a gtx 1060.

Yes there may be more PCs than consoles, but consoles push the baseline graphics.

Im not saying consoles have better graphics than a high end pc , but the RTX 2000 series doesn’t have an install base of 150 million does it?

I know I've said it a gazillion times already but I just can't help but to respond to this still unfactual statement.

Consoles don't push baseline graphics. Technology does. Every single gaming company uses a PC to develop their games on. ALL of them. Yes, including Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, GG, Quantum Dreams, etc.. etc.. They may "target" a spec for the consoles, but that doesn't mean (especially nowadays) that their graphics engine can't render a game that is not possible on a console. They render their games on PC too. You not seeing "ports" coming out on PC has been a thing of "selling platforms", old business paradigms and complicated hardware that in the long run hurts the development times and costs. Going forward, graphics features like PBR and RTX will be implemented on the PC first since it has the most resources and development applications. The compiling and building to the console happens afterwards. Yes, there will be several bells and whistles that won't be enabled on PS5/XSX but enabled on the PC - just like you saw this current gen. The next-gen consoles are like PCs more than ever before. Releasing to as many platforms as possible simply makes business sense.

Lastly, the PC will have more games than the consoles combined. A lot of Sony exclusives will no longer be "exclusive" to Sony platforms. And ALL of Xbox titles are on PC. The PC also has many many more Indie games than the consoles.

Just be prepared for some changes next-gen. It may not be what you want, but I would start looking at what my favorite games are and choose a platform that falls in your budget that lines up with the games. Looking at hardware of both consoles and seeing which one is the most powerful is only going to leave you disappointed since you won't have the most powerful system because the PC will be. In that case it won't matter about your new shiny console because any game you choose to show off the power of your console may end up being on the PC which will have the best features of your game.

 

[PlayStaytion]

I know I've said it a gazillion times already but I just can't help but to respond to this still unfactual statement.

Consoles don't push baseline graphics. Technology does. Every single gaming company uses a PC to develop their games on. ALL of them. Yes, including Naughty Dog, Sony Santa Monica, GG, Quantum Dreams, etc.. etc.. They may "target" a spec for the consoles, but that doesn't mean (especially nowadays) that their graphics engine can't render a game that is not possible on a console. They render their games on PC too. You not seeing "ports" coming out on PC has been a thing of "selling platforms", old business paradigms and complicated hardware that in the long run hurts the development times and costs. Going forward, graphics features like PBR and RTX will be implemented on the PC first since it has the most resources and development applications. The compiling and building to the console happens afterwards. Yes, there will be several bells and whistles that won't be enabled on PS5/XSX but enabled on the PC - just like you saw this current gen. The next-gen consoles are like PCs more than ever before. Releasing to as many platforms as possible simply makes business sense.

Lastly, the PC will have more games than the consoles combined. A lot of Sony exclusives will no longer be "exclusive" to Sony platforms. And ALL of Xbox titles are on PC. The PC also has many many more Indie games than the consoles.

Just be prepared for some changes next-gen. It may not be what you want, but I would start looking at what my favorite games are and choose a platform that falls in your budget that lines up with the games. Looking at hardware of both consoles and seeing which one is the most powerful is only going to leave you disappointed since you won't have the most powerful system because the PC will be. In that case it won't matter about your new shiny console because any game you choose to show off the power of your console may end up being on the PC which will have the best features of your game.

And how would you explain the downgrade of the original watch dogs game ? , the pc port didn't get away from it , all platforms treated the same.

 

[MeatSafeMurderer]

 

[VFXVeteran]

And how would you explain the downgrade of the original watch dogs game ? , the pc port didn't get away from it , all platforms treated the same.

Witcher 3 downgrade too. I don't know why they didn't include it in the PC. It was done on the PC but maybe it was a proof-of-concept without the full game logic in it. Maybe they did it because there was some shrinkage in employees and didn't have the funding for that slice to make all of the game. You can't assume that a demo that is shown is a slice of the entire game. Sometimes they just make that part of the game look like that but have no intentions of creating the assets to cover the entire game.

Sometimes things happen and we just don't know why. I don't think any of those previous reveals could run on current gen consoles. I think they were all either captured or done on a PC.

 

[Thaedolus]

When people talk about consoles pushing graphics forward, they have it backward: consoles become less of a drag when their next gen systems release. That’s not pushing the tech forward, it’s becoming less off a lower common denominator games need to be programmed around.

The only recent time I can think that *maybe* the inverse was true was the 360, because MS was determined to get it to market first.

When Tomb Raider was on PlayStation and PC, I had friends blown away by what my Voodoo 1 was doing in comparison. There’s probably a good argument for the diminishing returns when getting into the enthusiast market, but let’s not kid ourselves: consoles are dead weight on pushing tech forward.