Question about ATI/Nvidia graphic cards.

[recon_zero]

I never liked the PC gaming, because of the potential incompatibility of some games and pieces of hardware, the expensive cards that get old in a couple of years, and the lack of access of Multiplayer experiences on my area.

[Yoshi]

I never liked the PC gaming, because of the potential incompatibility of some games and pieces of hardware

I have never experienced this at all in the last 3 years and 60 games.

the expensive cards that get old in a couple of years

Which is exactly why consoles can never catch up in the graphics department...

and the lack of access of Multiplayer experiences on my area.

I keep forgetting it's 1992 and internet use is not widespread.

The excuses to not play PC games all became bullshit with DirectX frankly. It resolved a lot of the old compatibility problems, and the cost issue loses a lot of weight when you consider that consoles are coming out every 4 or 5 years. Is 2-3 versus 4-5 really that different, especially when you only need one video card instead of three new consoles?

[Tracer]

Honestly, I see this as raising the LCD (lowest common denominator) for PC gaming so that more PC games will be available and those will be better looking. Particularly with XNA is its everything its cracked up to be. We saw, I like to think, a good bit of this with Xbox. By 2008, X360 and PS3 will be on the lower end as always. I don't see this taking away from PC but rather adding support to titles that will come out on them (again, like with the original Xbox... you can sell 500k Doom 3's on PC or you can sell 500k Doom 3's on PC and even more on Xbox with a marginal capital impact to port). Permit me to go on a tangent:

Morrowind was better on PC. It just was, as far as all the technical details and everything besides long term comfort of play (the only thing the Xbox version had over the PC counter-part). Morrowind most likely would have sold, on PC, the same numbers as it did, but the Xbox versions sales were greater (two versions actually!). I credit Bethesda for making an amazing game, but I credit Xbox with making it very sucessful and NOW Oblivion is actually in the Limelight so to speak. More people know about The Elder Scrolls now than ever, even though the series has always been good. Think now of other GOOD PC games that aren't so well known that MIGHT have been if they were also on Xbox (w/ marginal cost to port). Bioware, I belive, is seeing more sucess now than ever (then again, the Star Wars licence helps too). I think this trend can and will continue at least on X360 (despite disparity in PC to Xbox CPUs... though PCs are headed to hyperthreading and mulitcore technology).

This means to me, if anything, PC games will get support if they don't sell so well on PC and PROBABLY will result in the bottom end requirement for PC games to be much higher than if there were no consoles at all (or consoles that have the capacity to play these games). W/o consoles, the minimum requirements will (as they have before) be the most common CPU and GFX technology in most PCs (bound to be lower than that of a console like 360 for many years) and the progress made will be slower and more limited. With a console like the original Xbox in 2002 or X360 in 2005(6, since the install base will be to small to currently consider in 05) the LCD can be considered X360 and the PC can share those games, either as games debuting on X360 and hitting PC shortly after (KOTOR for instance) or debuting on PC and hitting the X360 after (Morrowind). Success is had on both fronts for the time it takes to develop 1 game... well.. counting the port make that 1.3 games but with less R&D and Initial Planning for that last .3. I think PC and Console wins both ways. The FPS is good on consoles, not obsolete on PC (not by a long shot). The RPG, particularly the MMO, is still safe on PC and you mentioned earlier, the RTS isn't going anywhere any time soon. Simulation games of all kinds, depending on the type, can be even played on PC and on Console.

I guess you would leave it to Microsoft to be a part of something like that - it's not exactly in thier best interest to make obsolete PC Gaming, the one thing that drives computer upgrades more than anything else. The Xbox HAS been a pretty good "little brother" to the home desktop and at its worst, Xbox 360 will be too, at its best, it'll be a full "partner in crime," with the PC.

I have never experienced this at all in the last 3 years and 60 games.

Which is exactly why consoles can never catch up in the graphics department...

I keep forgetting it's 1992 and internet use is not widespread.

The excuses to not play PC games all became bullshit with DirectX frankly. It resolved a lot of the old compatibility problems, and the cost issue loses a lot of weight when you consider that consoles are coming out every 4 or 5 years. Is 2-3 versus 4-5 really that different, especially when you only need one video card instead of three new consoles?

From my point of view, I think it's odd, your mislike of Xbox.

[recon_zero]

I have never experienced this at all in the last 3 years and 60 games.

Which is exactly why consoles can never catch up in the graphics department...

I keep forgetting it's 1992 and internet use is not widespread.

The excuses to not play PC games all became bullshit with DirectX frankly. It resolved a lot of the old compatibility problems, and the cost issue loses a lot of weight when you consider that consoles are coming out every 4 or 5 years. Is 2-3 versus 4-5 really that different, especially when you only need one video card instead of three new consoles?

I won't buy a console every year, i have experienced incompatibility. Those are my reasons, like it or not.

[Yoshi]

From my point of view, I think it's odd, your mislike of Xbox.

Tracer, you're smart enough to know that about 75% of the anti-Xbox stuff I say on TNL is to goat on the fanboy morons. I have two Xbox consoles and buy almost all multi-platform games for it.

[Tracer]

You won't buy a PC every year.

Tracer, you're smart enough to know that about 75% of the anti-Xbox stuff I say on TNL is to goat on the fanboy morons. I have two Xbox consoles and buy almost all multi-platform games for it.

I'm smart enough NOW!

Learning is half the battle

[Yoshi]

I won't buy a console every year, i have experienced incompatibility. Those are my reasons, like it or not.

Who buys a video card every year? I am fairly close to the leading edge, and I still went from January, 2003 to March 2005 without upgrading my video card. The only other thing I have added to my 2003 PC is another 512MB on RAM, which was cheap as dirt.

[Tracer]

You might not belive it, but I still use a GeForce 3. I've only needed RAM upgrades (I can play UT2K4, Half Life 2, Guild Wars w/o problem, though they're not all they could be they are all they need to be and some). RAM isn't expensive. By the time I think to upgrade my GPU, I'll be upgrading from my Socket A 1.8Ghz processor and faster RAM too... like buying Xbox 360 and PS3 at once as far as cost goes, but I know it'll last me a long time from then. I like these consoles being simular in some respects to PC because when new consoles come out, it gives you the best technology leap to upgrade to. My PC is marginally better than an Xbox (GF3, 1.8Ghz, nForce2, 512MB DDR RAM) and when I upgrade in Dec. or Jan. it'll be something along the lines of a 360, probably better and that will last me another console cycle (I suspect).

[TobalRox]

They can make the cards for the consoles, but then why wouldn't they want to keep making PC cards since they constantly come out with new ones. One card every generation is not enough to keep them in business.

[toxic]

Well, a couple things to counter this.

For one thing, how many people are willing to spend $300-$500 on a new graphics card that can get them maybe 10% or 15% worth of performance increases over a console that costs $300 by itself?

Not many .. but almost all PC users will spend 200 dollars on a new graphics card if there is enough games to justify the purchase. Most graphics card start at 500 dollars and move to 200 dollars within 18 months. Your %%'s are based on 2006 assumptions. In 2008-9 the 500 dollar video card is going to give you a sizeable edge over any console.

I jumped off the PC hardware bandwagon when I spent $300 on a state of the art GeForce 1 in 1999. It was able to kill all the games I had, of course. But by the time games were coming out that used the card's extra features, the card didnt have the raw power and fillrate necessary to power those games. It was a waste of money, really.

So, more and more people are possibly coming to this realization. Theres always gonna be a select few that will buy the newest shit to stay ahead of the game. But those people, especially with the 360 and PS3 coming out, might be a shrinking minority, to the point where developers wont care about the market anymore.

There are definite reasons to NOT be supportive of PC gaming. It is expensive, sometimes inconvienent and you don't quite get the diversity of games that console does (Although not having Ghost Recon 2 is not something to mourn over)

We're even seeing that more now, the PC is kinda becoming a "port if you got the time" platform instead of the primary one, which it absolutely was 5 or 6 years ago. Console versions of PC games, inferior though they might be, are routinely outselling the PC versions by a huge margin.

Here's where I will strongly disagree. 6 months ago, I held this view. But current events have changed my mind.

Recent interview with J Allard (Microsoft):

About Gears of War

Eurogamer: But is that exclusive to Xbox?

J Allard: It's Xbox and PC.

Eurogamer: It's interesting. Why have you not made those Xbox/PC titles like Call Of Duty 2, Quake 4 exclusive to Xbox 360?

J Allard: I always get back to the gamers. Every decision we make is really focused on what the gamers want. A ton of our gamers are dual gamers meaning that they have PC and console because they prefer some aspects of PC, especially in FPSs. Okay, should we really make Quake an exclusive that you can't play on PC.

Activision CEO

: We've strategically developed those resources so that they're focused on that opportunity. They're not at the expense of doing next-generation development. We have lots of next-generation development under way. Our strategy is 10 to 12 big franchises each year exploited across multiple platforms. And if you really are going to take the brand focus that we have adopted and you're going to be true to it, you can't ignore a platform. The only way that you can successfully exploit that franchise is to be on every platform. So that's integral to our strategy.

That is pretty indicitive of all the MAJOR companies (EA also). For them to experience growth (dollars), they NEED to be on all platforms with every franchise. Grant exclusivity for some ... but still hit every platform (PC included). You have a Microsoft suit saying he "is focused on what gamers want" 9which is code for: We don't want to tie the hands of our game makers) and you have the game publishers saying "We want to be everywhere with all of our important games". That's the reality of the next generation for consoles and PC games.