XBone Vs PS4 Vs PC - VIDEOGAME POLITICS THUNDERDOME - PS4:900p-XBone:720p-PC::smug:

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Russic

Legitimate question for the master race: has there ever been a time when a console or consoles were more powerful than a PC? I've never been a true PC gamer, so I don't know the history very well.

I don't think so... PC has always been bounds ahead of what a console could produce in terms of graphics, but at a much higher cost relative to consoles and also a much different set of games being produced for the consoles. Though this has changed a lot now with the whole multi-plat era development tools. Also there is a much wider range of hardware that runs PC games so in theory someone could play a PC game on hardware that is weaker than a console.

[chemgear]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...s-for-xbox-one

Microsoft has begun testing a feature which makes Xbox One games free to download and play for a limited period.

US users taking part in the Xbox One console beta last night spotted that Max: The Curse of Brotherhood had been unlocked as a free download

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Russic

Legitimate question for the master race: has there ever been a time when a console or consoles were more powerful than a PC? I've never been a true PC gamer, so I don't know the history very well.

To add to the above, if you're talking dollar for dollar, in the first 4-5 years of every console gen, consoles typically deliver more performance than a PC because the console manufacturers run at a loss. A $400-$500 PC would be pretty awful as a gaming platform.

As far as the last 5 console gens have gone though, PCs are generally about 2-4x more powerful at the top end ($2000-$3000 PCs mind you) than the consoles at release.

For example, the PS4 uses a modified 7870, which is about equal to a GTX 660, which is a ~$200 video card at the moment. Of course, consoles are generally (not always) optimized to run better with worse hardware (as PCs don't have the same APIs, minimal OS, etc.) so you could probably extrapolate performance closer to a GTX 670/760, or more near the $300 card range.

That said, a $300 card worth of performance doesn't stack up much when you have devices like 780 Ti, Titan Black, Titan Z, 290X, 295X2, the upcoming 880, etc on the market. Especially when you can SLI/Crossfire (in combinations of up to 4 cards/GPUs in some instances) all of the above.

A PS4 is ~1/8 as powerful as a Crossfire 295X2 setup (which would cost ~$4200 for a full PC).

For a more rational level of contrast, I built a friend a PC for ~$1200 with a GTX 780 (ocd) back in May, and it would be about 2x-3x faster depending on the game than a PS4.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Russic

Legitimate question for the master race: has there ever been a time when a console or consoles were more powerful than a PC? I've never been a true PC gamer, so I don't know the history very well.

Pretty much what the others have said...

PCs have a huge advantage due to upgradability. Even if a console was released with absolute top of the line everything today, the next chip/card/whatever with better specs is scheduled for release tomorrow.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Pretty much what the others have said...

PCs have a huge advantage due to upgradability. Even if a console was released with absolute top of the line everything today, the next chip/card/whatever with better specs is scheduled for release tomorrow.

The problem is there are very few games that actually take advantage of the superior PC hardware, since most are designed to be multi-platform. My dual GTX 460's still run almost every new game released with max visual settings, but when I try to fire up PC-only Star Citizen it crushes my system

[chemgear]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

The problem is there are very few games that actually take advantage of the superior PC hardware, since most are designed to be multi-platform. My dual GTX 460's still run almost every new game released with max visual settings, but when I try to fire up PC-only Star Citizen it crushes my system

What resolution are you running?

[darklord700]

Any one played Flower on PS3/PS4? I played a while last night but couldn't see the point of this game and it was the highest rated PS4 game. At least it's only $7.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by chemgear

What resolution are you running?

1920x1200

[PsYcNeT]

Don't worry, SC gives me the sighs as well. 2x 680 4GBs and I still generally only get about 50 FPS :/ 1 880 looks to be about 5-10% faster than my cards put together, so I'll probably buy two of those and be good to go in October.

[StrykerSteve]

Originally Posted by darklord700

Any one played Flower on PS3/PS4? I played a while last night but couldn't see the point of this game and it was the highest rated PS4 game. At least it's only $7.

You have bring the world back to life. Fly around and touch closed flowers and make them bloom. Once you do all of them in an area, the world springs to life. There are also hidden flowers (I think they are pink, iirc) to collect that unlock some goodies.

The game is a blast, once you grasp the gameplay concept. Any button will accelerate you on gusts of wind, I mostly used X, I think.

As you progress further into the game, the worlds get darker and more apocalyptic, until you finally reach the city. Bringing that back to life is an amazing experience.

[darklord700]

Originally Posted by StrykerSteve

Bringing that back to life is an amazing experience.

Thanks, I'll give the game another go.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

To add to the above, if you're talking dollar for dollar, in the first 4-5 years of every console gen, consoles typically deliver more performance than a PC because the console manufacturers run at a loss. A $400-$500 PC would be pretty awful as a gaming platform.

As far as the last 5 console gens have gone though, PCs are generally about 2-4x more powerful at the top end ($2000-$3000 PCs mind you) than the consoles at release.

For example, the PS4 uses a modified 7870, which is about equal to a GTX 660, which is a ~$200 video card at the moment. Of course, consoles are generally (not always) optimized to run better with worse hardware (as PCs don't have the same APIs, minimal OS, etc.) so you could probably extrapolate performance closer to a GTX 670/760, or more near the $300 card range.

That said, a $300 card worth of performance doesn't stack up much when you have devices like 780 Ti, Titan Black, Titan Z, 290X, 295X2, the upcoming 880, etc on the market. Especially when you can SLI/Crossfire (in combinations of up to 4 cards/GPUs in some instances) all of the above.

A PS4 is ~1/8 as powerful as a Crossfire 295X2 setup (which would cost ~$4200 for a full PC).

For a more rational level of contrast, I built a friend a PC for ~$1200 with a GTX 780 (ocd) back in May, and it would be about 2x-3x faster depending on the game than a PS4.

Problem is nothing is actually going to take advantage of that hardware and by the time it does you could buy just as good or better PC components for less money. Honestly there is nothing currently on PC that looks much better than say NBA 2k14 on PS4

[RW99]

http://www.computerandvideogames.com...-for-the-core/

Speaking in the latest issue of Edge magazine, which goes on sale on Thursday, Shigeru Miyamoto said his team does not want to focus on making content for people who "passively" enjoy games.

Miyamoto says his team doesn't want to cater for those who have a "passive" interest in games "[These are] the sort of people who, for example, might want to watch a movie. They might want to go to Disneyland," he said.

Who knows if this actually means anything. I for one would love to see another N64, it was a powerhouse during its time. I haven't felt as excited for a console since then. Maybe it was my age combined with the push to 3D graphics. But I'd like to see what they can do with a full 3rd party line up, even some EA games. But they just started this console life cycle...

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by RW99

http://www.computerandvideogames.com...-for-the-core/



Who knows if this actually means anything. I for one would love to see another N64, it was a powerhouse during its time. I haven't felt as excited for a console since then. Maybe it was my age combined with the push to 3D graphics. But I'd like to see what they can do with a full 3rd party line up, even some EA games. But they just started this console life cycle...

The N64 to me was a huge moment. I really didn't believe games could ever get that "real". Mario 64 was jaw dropping. Absolutely amazing. Then GoldenEye came out and BOOM went my head

[AcGold]

What would be get me to get back into Nintendo would be a zelda game that has evolved with the times where puzzle solving is actually coherent with the environment and story and there isn't little switches and locked doors every room.

Take the mechanics of Dark Souls and Shadow of the Colossus and put that into a Zelda game and I'd buy a wii U

[Igottago]

I haven't had or wanted a Nintendo console since the SNES. I know they still have some hardcore fans, but I felt like the more I grew up, the less Nintendo products were for me. I think they missed a huge opportunity to be taken seriously again when they made the Wii U instead of a good modern gaming console that caters to people who don't really know what a pokemon is. They've been banking on nostalgia for way too long.

[chemgear]

http://time.com/3195116/standalone-kinect-xbox-one/

The standalone Xbox One Kinect SKU finally has a price tag and a launch date: Microsoft announced it’ll cost $149, and you can buy it on October 7.

[Mass_nerder]

Unless they start releasing games with some serious wow factor, directly tied to the kinect, I can't see many of those being sold.
Those who bought kinect free xbox one probably did so because they didn't see $100 value in the kinect. Why would they then buy it for $150?

[Erick Estrada]

$150 is steep IMO for Kinect. I don't see the value given the lack of any AAA tittles that require it. That said they did sell millions of Kinects for the 360 so maybe there is a casual base that feels they need this. It's very early in the cycle right now so time will tell if they have some cool games in development up their sleeve. I have it anyway so I will always be able to take advantage I guess.

[dino7c]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

$150 is steep IMO for Kinect. I don't see the value given the lack of any AAA tittles that require it. That said they did sell millions of Kinects for the 360 so maybe there is a casual base that feels they need this. It's very early in the cycle right now so time will tell if they have some cool games in development up their sleeve. I have it anyway so I will always be able to take advantage I guess.

they did sell lots but motion controls were still a fad and the only people with an xboxone and no kinect are people who didn't think it was worth the extra $100. I just can't see it selling...I have one that came with my xbox that has basically never been used