Does your PC beat the Steam average?

Chevron said:
It's actually a good thing. Thanks to consoles holding PCs back we need to upgrade less frequently so can spend more on our cheaper games :D
Click to expand...

Consoles don't hold pc's back. Even if we were to do away with the console market entirely, you would still deal with industry benchmark denominators. Just like Valve, all devs carry out surveys to find their bench spec systems. EA did it with Sim City, and had to "downgrade" the game in order for it to run smoothly on the majority of users' computers. All devs do it. It basically just ensures that you can maximize your market potential.
 
Tw171 said:
Consoles don't hold pc's back. Even if we were to do away with the console market entirely, you would still deal with industry benchmark denominators. Just like Valve, all devs carry out surveys to find their bench spec systems. EA did it with Sim City, and had to "downgrade" the game in order for it to run smoothly on the majority of users' computers. All devs do it. It basically just ensures that you can maximize your market potential.
Click to expand...

Almost sounds like you believe that. What you said was true pre-ps3/xbox360 generation. Now they are all ports.

Most of the time they even get capped at 30fps and 65FOV. Totally besides the fact plenty games still use dx9 as that's what the last gen consoles use and publishers aren't willing to put the extra effort into the PC version of the game. Plenty games also don't get released with server support again, because of their console origins.

Granted it is a lot better now that the current gen consoles support DX11 and multiple cores.
 
Chevron said:
Almost sounds like you believe that. What you said was true pre-ps3/xbox360 generation. Now they are all ports.

Most of the time they even get capped at 30fps and 65FOV. Totally besides the fact plenty games still use dx9 as that's what the last gen consoles use and publishers aren't willing to put the extra effort into the PC version of the game. Plenty games also don't get released with server support again, because of their console origins.

Granted it is a lot better now that the current gen consoles support DX11 and multiple cores.
Click to expand...

Think you slightly missing my point here. Yes, the devs go were the money is; yes, that does impose certain constraints under the guise of system parity, but even if we were not dealing with consoles, we would still be sitting with the situation were the most prevalent pc hardware configuration would determine the type of game: whether they have hardware configs capable dx 12 would similarly be an issue then. I am not saying that consoles don't affect pc games, they do, as you point out, however, the answer to the question as to whether we'd see better games if consoles didn't exist, is no. We would be dealing more or less with the same as we are dealing now.
 
Tw171 said:
Think you slightly missing my point here. Yes, the devs go were the money is; yes, that does impose certain constraints under the guise of system parity, but even if we were not dealing with consoles, we would still be sitting with the situation were the most prevalent pc hardware configuration would determine the type of game: whether they have hardware configs capable dx 12 would similarly be an issue then. I am not saying that consoles don't affect pc games, they do, as you point out, however, the answer to the question as to whether we'd see better games if consoles didn't exist, is no. We would be dealing more or less with the same as we are dealing now.
Click to expand...

Before the consolification of games one would upgrade their graphics card every 2years to keep currentt and decent framerates. Now we only need to upgrade every 4years. The upgrade cycle has lengthened and that's due to consoles.

Which was my original point :)
 
Chevron said:
Before the consolification of games one would upgrade their graphics card every 2years to keep currentt and decent framerates. Now we only need to upgrade every 4years. The upgrade cycle has lengthened and that's due to consoles.

Which was my original point :)
Click to expand...

Ahh, see while I agree with that, I think the reason for it is different. The increase in they cycle time is not because of consoles, but rather money. If you go and look at more expansive studies, you find that most of the world's pc gaming population uses computers where they have at least one component on their motherboard that is 8 years or older. Most people can't afford to spend the required money every few years to upgrade their pcs. And it is this, not so much the consoles, that hold gaming back.
 
Chevron said:
Before the consolification of games one would upgrade their graphics card every 2years to keep currentt and decent framerates. Now we only need to upgrade every 4years. The upgrade cycle has lengthened and that's due to consoles.

Which was my original point :)
Click to expand...

I don't think this is the case.
I think they have learned to code the games better with the engines they use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X