The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
With today's announcement of the XBox One we now know all of the contenders in the next generation of the console wars!!!1 In the red corner we have the latest iteration of Sony's gaming powerhouse, the Playstation 4. Nothing original with the name, but why change a winning formula?
In the blue corner (or should that be green) we have the XBox One. Will people think that it is 360 times more inferior that the XBox 360? Will they compare it to the PSOne? Is their naming convention too confusing for anyone to truly follow?
And in the brown corner is the Wii U. At least they're sticking to what they know. Stick with the Wii name, because that works. And why not stick with the same policy of not backing it at launch with enough games either, amIright? Then, when the games do come, they're the same games we already played. When did Nintendo release an original game? I'm thinking GameCube era. No doubt when the games do come along they will be good, but the way Nintendo are likely to drip-feed them through there won't be enough to keep people interested. The tablet is neat, but so far no one is doing anything interesting with it.
I think the Wii U could put Nintendo in some serious trouble, but they'll always make money from their games - but could we one day see a day when Nintendo release games on another platform?
So it will be left to the big boys to duke it out. Punches will be thrown. Blows will be landed. At the end of the day many of the big games will be multi-platform, but there will be some exclusives. If you can't call it from the exclusives and you're looking at what else it can do, well frankly I'd go for the Sony kit. It looks better. It won't make you pay for Kinect you might not even want, and, at the end of the day, it looks better.
So! Who will you back in the next generation!?
In the blue corner (or should that be green) we have the XBox One. Will people think that it is 360 times more inferior that the XBox 360? Will they compare it to the PSOne? Is their naming convention too confusing for anyone to truly follow?
And in the brown corner is the Wii U. At least they're sticking to what they know. Stick with the Wii name, because that works. And why not stick with the same policy of not backing it at launch with enough games either, amIright? Then, when the games do come, they're the same games we already played. When did Nintendo release an original game? I'm thinking GameCube era. No doubt when the games do come along they will be good, but the way Nintendo are likely to drip-feed them through there won't be enough to keep people interested. The tablet is neat, but so far no one is doing anything interesting with it.
I think the Wii U could put Nintendo in some serious trouble, but they'll always make money from their games - but could we one day see a day when Nintendo release games on another platform?
So it will be left to the big boys to duke it out. Punches will be thrown. Blows will be landed. At the end of the day many of the big games will be multi-platform, but there will be some exclusives. If you can't call it from the exclusives and you're looking at what else it can do, well frankly I'd go for the Sony kit. It looks better. It won't make you pay for Kinect you might not even want, and, at the end of the day, it looks better.
So! Who will you back in the next generation!?
Page:
The PS3 and Xbox are not one thing. They are different branded items. PCs do not work this way.
If you own an Xbox, you go into a shop or go online and buy an Xbox game. It will work.
If you own a PC you need to know whether your graphics card is more or less powerful than certain benchmark cards, how much memory you have and your CPU speed and how that correlates to other different CPUs (is a Dual Core 2 CPU running at a certain speed the same as a Dual Core i3 running at the same speed?)
PC specs are literally more complicated than looking at a single label to find out if you have an Xbox or a PS3, this is a fact. The only question is if anyone who currently plays the latest games on a console could easily find out whether they could play that same game on their similarly priced shop bought PC.
You've mentioned already that PCs should not be a single specification and consoles ARE a single specification for that console. Even PCs from different manufacturers have different specifications, so you can't even use this label.
Yes, many households have a PC now and many have games on them, but you can't comparing minesweeper to the latest Call of Duty game.
Other than the core gamers, a significant amount of the world's population who currently play games would not bother to play those same games on a PC because of price, complicated stats and having to place their PC in a living room and connect it to an HDMI TV.
If that wasn't the case then there would be no consoles today because everyone would have bought a PC and console sales would have declined to a point where they just weren't profitable to release. Console hardware sales have actually been increasing.
As I've already said, this is not detracting from the PC as a games system, but simply that PCs and Consoles form 2 different areas of the gaming market and cater to different crowds.
If you own an Xbox, you go into a shop or go online and buy an Xbox game. It will work.
If you own a PC you need to know whether your graphics card is more or less powerful than certain benchmark cards, how much memory you have and your CPU speed and how that correlates to other different CPUs (is a Dual Core 2 CPU running at a certain speed the same as a Dual Core i3 running at the same speed?)
PC specs are literally more complicated than looking at a single label to find out if you have an Xbox or a PS3, this is a fact. The only question is if anyone who currently plays the latest games on a console could easily find out whether they could play that same game on their similarly priced shop bought PC.
You've mentioned already that PCs should not be a single specification and consoles ARE a single specification for that console. Even PCs from different manufacturers have different specifications, so you can't even use this label.
Yes, many households have a PC now and many have games on them, but you can't comparing minesweeper to the latest Call of Duty game.
Other than the core gamers, a significant amount of the world's population who currently play games would not bother to play those same games on a PC because of price, complicated stats and having to place their PC in a living room and connect it to an HDMI TV.
If that wasn't the case then there would be no consoles today because everyone would have bought a PC and console sales would have declined to a point where they just weren't profitable to release. Console hardware sales have actually been increasing.
As I've already said, this is not detracting from the PC as a games system, but simply that PCs and Consoles form 2 different areas of the gaming market and cater to different crowds.
@pb: "mainstream" means easily accessible, popular and commonly seen or utilised.
I really don't know the actual figures, but I am fairly confident that the majority of households own at least one pc of some description. I would also be pretty certain that the majority of those pc's have at least one game on them, played by a member of that household.
Mainstream or not is at best a minor point. DL is absolutely correct, in that the majority of "shop built" pc's will in fact play at least some games, in the same way that an xbox will play at least some games and a PS3 will play at least some games; all three of those are "limited" by their technology, and the issue is not whether they will play games or not, the issue comes down to choosing appropriate ones (360 games for 360, PS3 games for PS3, pc games that my system meets the specs of).
To argue that "nobody wants to read specs off a box" is ridiculous. My wife knows what her pc will run, she doesn't have a clue how to put one together. My dad understands the difference between what works and what doesn't for his system, but wouldn't know a graphics card from the back end of a donkey.
Similarly, to argue that for pc gaming to be "mainstream" would require a single set of specs, no offence, but nonsense. 360 and PS3 have both been quite successful (different specs). The Ds and the Wii get along quite nicely (different specs). Don't people pick their console based on the "specs" that they find appropriate for them? It was certainly the biggest selling point when I used to sell them, particularly with "serious gamers".
The main advantages of pc are that you choose the system to suit your needs, and when it no longer meets your growing demands, you can update it. If you can't do it yourself, there's a million people out there that can do it for you- no more complicated than purchasing a newer console. The "complication" with pc is a fallacy; it's no more "complicated" to look at a box and think "Direct x 10, I've got that" than it is to read a box and think "360, I've got that".
I really don't know the actual figures, but I am fairly confident that the majority of households own at least one pc of some description. I would also be pretty certain that the majority of those pc's have at least one game on them, played by a member of that household.
Mainstream or not is at best a minor point. DL is absolutely correct, in that the majority of "shop built" pc's will in fact play at least some games, in the same way that an xbox will play at least some games and a PS3 will play at least some games; all three of those are "limited" by their technology, and the issue is not whether they will play games or not, the issue comes down to choosing appropriate ones (360 games for 360, PS3 games for PS3, pc games that my system meets the specs of).
To argue that "nobody wants to read specs off a box" is ridiculous. My wife knows what her pc will run, she doesn't have a clue how to put one together. My dad understands the difference between what works and what doesn't for his system, but wouldn't know a graphics card from the back end of a donkey.
Similarly, to argue that for pc gaming to be "mainstream" would require a single set of specs, no offence, but nonsense. 360 and PS3 have both been quite successful (different specs). The Ds and the Wii get along quite nicely (different specs). Don't people pick their console based on the "specs" that they find appropriate for them? It was certainly the biggest selling point when I used to sell them, particularly with "serious gamers".
The main advantages of pc are that you choose the system to suit your needs, and when it no longer meets your growing demands, you can update it. If you can't do it yourself, there's a million people out there that can do it for you- no more complicated than purchasing a newer console. The "complication" with pc is a fallacy; it's no more "complicated" to look at a box and think "Direct x 10, I've got that" than it is to read a box and think "360, I've got that".
pb wrote:
The point is that we're not talking about you,
I wasn't aware that "I" was the subject of this thread!
My point is that the majority of reasonably priced PCs with a dedicated graphics card bought from High Street vendors will play the majority of games available.
Minimum and recommended 'configurations' have always been on PC game cases but this not an indication that just because your PC doesn't fit those specifications exactly, that the game won't play. Point in case ... according to Nvidia, my GeForce 9800GTX+ won't play any game released during the past 18 months! I'm telling you that it does and that the gamesare exceptionally good.
The point is that we're not talking about you,
I wasn't aware that "I" was the subject of this thread!
My point is that the majority of reasonably priced PCs with a dedicated graphics card bought from High Street vendors will play the majority of games available.
Minimum and recommended 'configurations' have always been on PC game cases but this not an indication that just because your PC doesn't fit those specifications exactly, that the game won't play. Point in case ... according to Nvidia, my GeForce 9800GTX+ won't play any game released during the past 18 months! I'm telling you that it does and that the gamesare exceptionally good.
The point is that we're not talking about you, we're talking about an average gamer who doesn't want to know what goes on inside their machine, who wants to buy a piece of hardware with a label and buy software that works with that label, not with bits and pieces of it.
Yes, PC gaming is good and those of us who know what we're doing enjoy it, but 'mainstream' means everyone from your mother to someone who wants to play games and considers themselves a gamer but wouldn't know what to do with a graphics card if someone shoved one and an open PC in their hands.
These people will want to walk into a shop or, at a push, browse Steam, and pick up a game that tells them the format they can play it on and it will work. They will not want to look at specs, which are different to looking at a single label to show the format (PC already has this, it's a label that says 'PC' on it.
Not only this, but it's much more difficult to go to a shop and buy a PC already set up for gaming with all the software set up and all the hardware there in one place. Even where they do exist, they are priced outside the mainstream user's market.
Therefore PC gaming has never been 'mainstream' in the sense of a mainstream audience. That doesn't make it worse than console gaming, or better, it makes it different.
The question we should perhaps be asking is; do you want PCs to become mainstream, because that would mean having a single spec box which needs to be set and kept at that spec to enable the audience to play games that will work on it. Surely that takes away most of the good stuff a PC is about?
Yes, PC gaming is good and those of us who know what we're doing enjoy it, but 'mainstream' means everyone from your mother to someone who wants to play games and considers themselves a gamer but wouldn't know what to do with a graphics card if someone shoved one and an open PC in their hands.
These people will want to walk into a shop or, at a push, browse Steam, and pick up a game that tells them the format they can play it on and it will work. They will not want to look at specs, which are different to looking at a single label to show the format (PC already has this, it's a label that says 'PC' on it.
Not only this, but it's much more difficult to go to a shop and buy a PC already set up for gaming with all the software set up and all the hardware there in one place. Even where they do exist, they are priced outside the mainstream user's market.
Therefore PC gaming has never been 'mainstream' in the sense of a mainstream audience. That doesn't make it worse than console gaming, or better, it makes it different.
The question we should perhaps be asking is; do you want PCs to become mainstream, because that would mean having a single spec box which needs to be set and kept at that spec to enable the audience to play games that will work on it. Surely that takes away most of the good stuff a PC is about?
pete_21 wrote:
Many people do want to play games on laptops, that Sims 3 I mentioned ended up being installed on one, it's a reasonable spec machine (i7, 6GB DDR3, dedicated graphics card) and although it is less powerful than my desktop it did still do the job it was intended to in this case. Not sure that it would run stuff like Battlefield or Call Of Duty very well though.
You probably haven't tried yet have you ;¬)
Many people do want to play games on laptops, that Sims 3 I mentioned ended up being installed on one, it's a reasonable spec machine (i7, 6GB DDR3, dedicated graphics card) and although it is less powerful than my desktop it did still do the job it was intended to in this case. Not sure that it would run stuff like Battlefield or Call Of Duty very well though.
You probably haven't tried yet have you ;¬)
chasfh wrote:
EDIT: With regard to "certain types of graphics card" being incompatible, this is [I]almost always "mobile" cards that have the problem; mobile versions of current cards are often cut down hardware or rebranded older chipsets- perfect for their purpose, but they're never going to compete with the "big guns".
I liken it to expecting my Wii game to play on my DS....[/i]
But a Wii game isn't supposed to work on a DS, a PC game is supposed to work on a PC.
Many people do want to play games on laptops, that Sims 3 I mentioned ended up being installed on one, it's a reasonable spec machine (i7, 6GB DDR3, dedicated graphics card) and although it is less powerful than my desktop it did still do the job it was intended to in this case. Not sure that it would run stuff like Battlefield or Call Of Duty very well though.
EDIT: With regard to "certain types of graphics card" being incompatible, this is [I]almost always "mobile" cards that have the problem; mobile versions of current cards are often cut down hardware or rebranded older chipsets- perfect for their purpose, but they're never going to compete with the "big guns".
I liken it to expecting my Wii game to play on my DS....[/i]
But a Wii game isn't supposed to work on a DS, a PC game is supposed to work on a PC.
Many people do want to play games on laptops, that Sims 3 I mentioned ended up being installed on one, it's a reasonable spec machine (i7, 6GB DDR3, dedicated graphics card) and although it is less powerful than my desktop it did still do the job it was intended to in this case. Not sure that it would run stuff like Battlefield or Call Of Duty very well though.
DL wrote:
Isn't that what I just said but in a few less words ;¬)
I do agree though
More or less..
I began writing my response before you posted yours. Other things got in the way, and....
I like words though, so I don't limit myself!:-)
Isn't that what I just said but in a few less words ;¬)
I do agree though
More or less..
I began writing my response before you posted yours. Other things got in the way, and....
I like words though, so I don't limit myself!:-)
Isn't that what I just said but in a few less words ;¬)
I do agree though
I do agree though
pete_21 wrote:
chasfh wrote:
[i]Manufacturer says "game requires this" and everyone that doesn't have those requirements stands up and shouts about it being unfair. Is it any different to manufacturer saying "game will only play on PS3"?
I would say that it is different as a PS3 game will play on any PS3, stick the disc in and away you go, end of. Bought a copy of Sims 3 a couple of months ago and on the back of the box it stated that it wasn't compatible with a certain type of graphics card (can't remember what type it was). Probably not an issue for serious gamers with purpose built gaming machines but it could be for the casual player who really just wanted to stick the disc in their family PC and play the damn thing.
If I do decide to give PC gaming a whirl I seriously doubt that I will join the run everything on uber settings brigade, I would be looking to get the game to work with the minimal amount of hassle.[/i]
Still don't see the difference.
I don't own a PS3, so wouldn't expect to be able to play a PS3 game.
Blokey doesn't own an HD 7850 GPU for a game that requires an HD 7850 GPU, surely he shouldn't expect to be able to play it.
And my Blu-ray player isn't made for playing games any more than many "family PC's" are.
How much more compatible can you get than a game that will happily play on a dual core, quad core or six/ eight core processor with 4GB or more RAM, using any graphics card from a base line set at roughly six years old, at any resolution from 1024x768 up to stupidly high, with a pad or keyboard and mouse, in 3D or standard mode?
PC compatibility "nightmares" are a myth, nothing more. Granted there are issues, but most relate to user expectations not being met by hardware (in exactly the same way as expecting PS3 games to run on a PS2 is not "valid") or overclocking to the point of artefacts and corruption. It's not a nightmare, it's common sense, or lack thereof.
"PC compatibility" is like giving someone the biggest target in the world, setting it up 100 yards away, telling them to use any gun of their choice with a minimum of a pistol, up to a cannon or anything in between, and them saying,
"No thanks, I'll use a pea shooter."
Good luck with that one...
Badly optimised games do exist, such as the original "Crysis". However, this is poor performance by the games developer, NOT an issue with PC gaming
EDIT: With regard to "certain types of graphics card" being incompatible, this is almost always "mobile" cards that have the problem; mobile versions of current cards are often cut down hardware or rebranded older chipsets- perfect for their purpose, but they're never going to compete with the "big guns".
I liken it to expecting my Wii game to play on my DS....
chasfh wrote:
[i]Manufacturer says "game requires this" and everyone that doesn't have those requirements stands up and shouts about it being unfair. Is it any different to manufacturer saying "game will only play on PS3"?
I would say that it is different as a PS3 game will play on any PS3, stick the disc in and away you go, end of. Bought a copy of Sims 3 a couple of months ago and on the back of the box it stated that it wasn't compatible with a certain type of graphics card (can't remember what type it was). Probably not an issue for serious gamers with purpose built gaming machines but it could be for the casual player who really just wanted to stick the disc in their family PC and play the damn thing.
If I do decide to give PC gaming a whirl I seriously doubt that I will join the run everything on uber settings brigade, I would be looking to get the game to work with the minimal amount of hassle.[/i]
Still don't see the difference.
I don't own a PS3, so wouldn't expect to be able to play a PS3 game.
Blokey doesn't own an HD 7850 GPU for a game that requires an HD 7850 GPU, surely he shouldn't expect to be able to play it.
And my Blu-ray player isn't made for playing games any more than many "family PC's" are.
How much more compatible can you get than a game that will happily play on a dual core, quad core or six/ eight core processor with 4GB or more RAM, using any graphics card from a base line set at roughly six years old, at any resolution from 1024x768 up to stupidly high, with a pad or keyboard and mouse, in 3D or standard mode?
PC compatibility "nightmares" are a myth, nothing more. Granted there are issues, but most relate to user expectations not being met by hardware (in exactly the same way as expecting PS3 games to run on a PS2 is not "valid") or overclocking to the point of artefacts and corruption. It's not a nightmare, it's common sense, or lack thereof.
"PC compatibility" is like giving someone the biggest target in the world, setting it up 100 yards away, telling them to use any gun of their choice with a minimum of a pistol, up to a cannon or anything in between, and them saying,
"No thanks, I'll use a pea shooter."
Good luck with that one...
Badly optimised games do exist, such as the original "Crysis". However, this is poor performance by the games developer, NOT an issue with PC gaming
EDIT: With regard to "certain types of graphics card" being incompatible, this is almost always "mobile" cards that have the problem; mobile versions of current cards are often cut down hardware or rebranded older chipsets- perfect for their purpose, but they're never going to compete with the "big guns".
I liken it to expecting my Wii game to play on my DS....
pete_21 wrote:
... Bought a copy of Sims 3 a couple of months ago and on the back of the box it stated that it wasn't compatible with a certain type of graphics card (can't remember what type it was). Probably not an issue for serious gamers with purpose built gaming machines but it could be for the casual player who really just wanted to stick the disc in their family PC and play the damn thing.
It wouldn't be an issue for 'serious' gamers pete as they certainly wouldn't be playing Sims 3. As for the 'card' issue ... it isn't normally an issue ever!
If I do decide to give PC gaming a whirl I seriously doubt that I will join the run everything on uber settings brigade, I would be looking to get the game to work with the minimal amount of hassle.
And you shouldn't expect to! My setup is nearly 4 years old including my trusty GeForce 9800 GTX+ and can still play everything thrown at it today ... mainly FPS and online too ... and the only issues I have is someone else's server problems!
... Bought a copy of Sims 3 a couple of months ago and on the back of the box it stated that it wasn't compatible with a certain type of graphics card (can't remember what type it was). Probably not an issue for serious gamers with purpose built gaming machines but it could be for the casual player who really just wanted to stick the disc in their family PC and play the damn thing.
It wouldn't be an issue for 'serious' gamers pete as they certainly wouldn't be playing Sims 3. As for the 'card' issue ... it isn't normally an issue ever!
If I do decide to give PC gaming a whirl I seriously doubt that I will join the run everything on uber settings brigade, I would be looking to get the game to work with the minimal amount of hassle.
And you shouldn't expect to! My setup is nearly 4 years old including my trusty GeForce 9800 GTX+ and can still play everything thrown at it today ... mainly FPS and online too ... and the only issues I have is someone else's server problems!
Page: