Playstation 4?

[Mike Weedmark]

Re: Playstation 4?

I'm _NOT_ familiar with PC gaming lol :P I don't want the only company I buy from to be Blizzard and maybe the guys who make Crysis. When you talk about gaming, you're basically talking about consoles, and in that respect there's little that can be done nuts-and-bolts-wise to improve them right now. You can experiment with new controllers and different technology like motion control and stuff, but that's not what the PS4 looks like right now. It looks like "Buy the PS3 again, but with all this new sucky bullshit!"

When the PS3 was about to come out and FF13 was close on the horizon, I was optimistic. Sony has since corrected my expectations of new consoles.

What I mean by "hasn't advanced much" is that raw CPU speed has been stagnant for about 8 years now. A 3.5 gHz machine was top of the line in 2005 and it's top of the line now. You won't find anything above 2.4 in a Best Buy. That's WinXP-era. You can add retard amounts of RAM like some people have been doing for some unfathomable reason, but the diminishing returns on that are steep. In terms of raw power, the PS4 is not going to be significantly better than the PS3. There have probably been a lot of slight tweaks to other pieces of technology it can brag about, and like you said it has to be compatible with newer TVs, but saying computer technology has seen big improvements lately would be retarded. It's been really decisively stagnant.

[Tyson ultima]

Re: Playstation 4?

I'm _NOT_ familiar with PC gaming lol :P I don't want the only company I buy from to be Blizzard and maybe the guys who make Crysis.

I literally had to stop reading here because this is how stupid you sound.

[Mike Weedmark]

Re: Playstation 4?

I'm sorry but PC gaming is absolute fucking shit. I'm very very comfortbale not playing Diablo 3 and Dragon Age. _VERY_.


Edit: I thought I might be wrong for a sec, but I did a halfassed search and found this article:

http://www.techspot.com/guides/634-h...games-of-2013/

The best game on that list is Sim City by many, many orders of magnitude. QED bud you're finished talking.

[Tyson ultima]

Re: Playstation 4?

I'm sorry but PC gaming is absolute fucking shit. I'm very very comfortbale not playing Diablo 3 and Dragon Age. _VERY_.

Holy crap you manage to spit out something EVEN MORE retarded

btw I'm not even trolling. To people who actually know computers, you sound WAY past the levels of dumb. _WAY_

[Mike Weedmark]

Re: Playstation 4?

K, show me your examples. I'm always ready to be proven wrong, but wishful thinking wont do it. You've been very mouthy so far without actually saying one factual thing.

[Tyson ultima]

Re: Playstation 4?

K, show me your examples. I'm always ready to be proven wrong, but wishful thinking wont do it.

First of all lets take into consideration that console's are in fact computers put into a different package. You have yourself the CPU and GPU like any other computer will have. With this you have a rather low end CPU and GPU but marketed to look cool with "console exclusive" games.

So then we go to your statement where you said 3.4GHZ is still high end. Yes this is KIND of true but CPU's are meant to last a while. CPU's are only meant to be high to handle the massive changes in the GPU. With upgraded GPU comes upgraded graphics which the PC is not limited to the amount of Data a game can handle. Console gaming comes on discs which ARE limited to the amount of data and graphics (because of a shitty graphics card) they can handle. So already we can recognize that PC graphics are superior in their capability.

Then we have the fact that there is A LOT more games than just Diablo 3 and Dragon Age and the such. A good portion of the games that were released on console are released on a PC but slated for a future release. This is to upgrade the graphics and to be able to change their settings. With things like steam games have not only been ALOT cheaper (Dues ex being on sale for 5 bucks almost every other week. Hitman Absolution being on sale for 66% off) but there is a VERY wide variety of games to play from INCLUDING RPG's.

Then we have the fact that when graphics ARE limited the added GPU power can be supported over three screens which a console probably will never be able to do. Games like crysis can be played in a panoramic view which greatly increases the experience of the gaming itself. I am done if you can't realize simple facts because you think "PC gaming is fuckshit" then it is you who is a retard.

[Pseudo Enigma]

Re: Playstation 4?

a while ago there was a thread about a new way of making 3D games using atoms or whatever, that was pretty neat. It's also a really good example of what CPU/GPU power computers have over consoles.

actually it was a while ago

[Izzy]

Re: Playstation 4?

What I mean by "hasn't advanced much" is that raw CPU speed has been stagnant for about 8 years now.

If by stagnant you mean increased 10 fold than sure. A cpu's processing power is hardly determined by its clock speed alone. It's architecture is way more significant.

A 3.5 gHz machine was top of the line in 2005 and it's top of the line now.

From 1 core to quad core and six cores with hyperthreading and massively improved architecture. Clock speed is not as important.

You won't find anything above 2.4 in a Best Buy. That's WinXP-era.

Best buy is not really cutting edge technology. If you want a good computer you buy it part by part.

You can add retard amounts of RAM like some people have been doing for some unfathomable reason, but the diminishing returns on that are steep.

More ram doesn't make a computer faster in the first place. As long as you don't have 100% ram utilization then you aren't thrashing your harddrives. You can be using 95% of your ram or 10% of your ram and your computer will perform the same. You can get better ram with a higher clock speed and lower latency to improve performance though.


All in all you are making horrible assumptions, hardware has improved a ton in the last decade and top of the line PC builds are years ahead of consoles and they always will be because consoles have to be standardized to exact hardware that can't be updated unless they make a new console.

[Mike Weedmark]

Re: Playstation 4?

GPUs have seen the same diminishing returns as CPUs and the vast majority of what's on Steam are B-games or old games. If you wanted to convince someone to get a PC for gaming you wouldn't use Deus Ex as an example. I mean... what? I was in grade 8 when Deus Ex came out. Its requirements are fantasticamally lower than everything about the old PCs I was calling stagnant. It's a great game, yes, but:

Why would you make some big stab at proving graphics are better, and then give a bunch of examples of games that don't need it? For one thing, I don't care about graphics. My explanation of what would make the PS4 good revolved around titles that are good for other reasons. Pointing out the stagnation of base tech was a dismissable afterthought.

I still can't figure out what you even disagree with me on, other than the general statement that PC gaming sucks compared to console gaming, which isn't a tech problem but a creative problem, regardless of your stance. If I haven't played a great PC exclusive game since Brood War or even a good one since Frozen Throne, what does marginal GPU improvement have to do with changing that?

Steam? I will admit there's some DECENT stuff on there, but I'm tired of hearing about it. Yes, I'm very aware of Steam. It's every PC-elitist's anthem-du-jour of gaming snobbery. You wouldn't believe the number of people I know who wont shut up about how I should rather be playing TF2 than whatever I'm currently doing. But where do you draw the line? I've played indie flash games that are better than half of what's on steam and almost all of what's on PS3. That doesn't mean they're going to figure into any statements I make about PC gaming.

And if you're going to go back as far as Deus Ex, or hypothetically, as far as the early 90s, in what way does bringing legendary SNES and PSX games into the equation help what you're saying? I'd rather keep this to more recent stuff. For YOUR sake, not mine. It's more managable and it won't automatically screw you, because as debatable as PC vs console gaming is NOW, the past is set in stone, and that stone is made of unconditional console superiority.

PS Izzy: cores are not that significant. They help of course, but they're the "diminishing" part of diminishing returns. We add more cores because we're done with clockspeed. It's not anything like the 10x you think it is.

Also, this extends WAY outside just computer tech, but there's a general fantasy people have of endless upward progress that makes it hard for them to accept that things can stop getting better for years at a time. It's not that more progress can't be made, but when you look at the recent history of PCs, like... It's very well documented right infront of your face: it's been dramatically slow lately.

[Poison-]

Re: Playstation 4?

He was talking about Deus Ex: Human Revolution...

[Izzy]

Re: Playstation 4?

I fail to see the point you are trying to make. Consoles are beyond inferior to a modern PC in terms of hardware and that is a fact.

Therfore games would run much better and have a lot more potential on a PC. They make games for consoles because it is easier to do when the hardware specifications are set in stone. PC game development is more difficult due to the broad range of hardware and is easier to pirate therefore making less profit.

At any rate you are an incredibly opinionated person despite stating that you would be willing to change your mind if proven wrong.

[Mike Weedmark]

Re: Playstation 4?

The original point I wanted to make is that the PS4's greatness will depend on games partially because any console's greatness depends on games, and partially because a massive leap in tech relative to the PS3 isn't possible, since as we've seen with PCs for the past decade, gaming tech has slowed down quite a bit.

The key is the massive part. Giving me a list of fine-tunings isn't proof that the leap to the PS4 will be even a fraction of what previous leaps have been.

It's an easy argument to disprove if the evidence is there, but the walls of text suggest that it's not really.

[Izzy]

Re: Playstation 4?

So you are saying the performance of the ps4 will be barely better than ps3? I agree, but only because it would cost way to much to make it with good hardware like a PC.

As for whether or not PC or console gaming is better there is no way to answer that because it is an opinion.

[Tyson ultima]

Re: Playstation 4?

The original point I wanted to make is that the PS4's greatness will depend on games partially because any console's greatness depends on games, and partially because a massive leap in tech relative to the PS3 isn't possible, since as we've seen with PCs for the past decade, gaming tech has slowed down quite a bit.

The key is the massive part. Giving me a list of fine-tunings isn't proof that the leap to the PS4 will be even a fraction of what previous leaps have been.

It's an easy argument to disprove if the evidence is there, but the walls of text suggest that it's not really.

I'll let izzy continue this I am getting a tumor

[Mike Weedmark]

Re: Playstation 4?

Izzy, that's a weird thing to say considering Sony's never had a problem selling consoles at a 200% loss. If the upgrades were there, they'd probably use as many as people would overpay for. Or well, I guess it's not really OVERpaying since they're just straight expensive.