An Open Letter to PC Gamers

[BenjerminGaye]

Check out this guys videos where he makes a comparison between a $375 pc and the PS4...make your own conclusions.

[video=youtube;SRuvMDxBGEw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRuvMDxBGEw[/video]

He has more comparisons of other games too.

thats a ps4 not a ps4 pro, and he cut far to many corners for it to be an apt comparison. As per usual.

 

[Darth AniCetuS]

thats a ps4 not a ps4 pro, and he cut far to many corners for it to be an apt comparison. As per usual.

Well when he assembled the PC, PS4/Xbone were the latest consoles. Check on the date. Its unfair to compare an almost 2 years old pc to the latest console. I am sure someone is going to create a similar PC within the $400 price point and then comparing the PS4 pro against that we can see which one wins out.
Sure he made adjustment to the PC settings cuz the $375 PC is unable to run the game at max with satisfactory framerates and still the verdict was PC better than console slightly.

 

[Darth AniCetuS]

The games i listed are either pc only or were on pc first, THEN got ported over to console, yet theyre still sh!t And yall still buy them.

This whole notion of "holding back" is ludicrous, since devs STILL have to optimize for low end tech. PPL that still run 750ti's even though its only 3 years old have to be accounted for, unless they too are "holding things back" -_-

Again I am not trying to downplay the consoles so no need to get irritated. Anyway both Arkham Knight and Dark souls were ported from console so you're wrong. And Watch dog brought down the quality just to bring parity between consoles and PC and many other devs do the same. About people having older hardware, the PC easily provides easy customization to make the games run adequately on their systems. On the other hand the settings and graphical fidelity could go much higher on the PC but devs are held back so as to not make the difference between consoles and PC too high cuz then console players would start complaining and the console manufacturers don't want that and sacrifice their profits.

 

[BenjerminGaye]

Well when he assembled the PC, PS4/Xbone were the latest consoles. Check on the date. Its unfair to compare an almost 2 years old pc to the latest console. I am sure someone is going to create a similar PC within the $400 price point and then comparing the PS4 pro against that we can see which one wins out.
Sure he made adjustment to the PC settings cuz the $375 PC is unable to run the game at max with satisfactory framerates and still the verdict was PC better than console slightly.

No, he cut corners on the PC itself. No ps4 sells with a hard drive less than 500GB yet on the system he built he's running with 320gb of hard disk space. No ps4 has 6GB of shared ram (its 8) yet his system is 4gb system ram and 2gb of video ram. ETC etc. going further the 760, much like the 750 ti CANT survive now, unless your gonna drop it down to 720. it straight up won't last, whereas on console you're good till ps5 comes out.

Again I am not trying to downplay the consoles so no need to get irritated. Anyway both Arkham Knight and Dark souls were ported from console so you're wrong. And Watch dog brought down the quality just to bring parity between consoles and PC and many other devs do the same. About people having older hardware, the PC easily provides easy customization to make the games run adequately on their systems. On the other hand the settings and graphical fidelity could go much higher on the PC but devs are held back so as to not make the difference between consoles and PC too high cuz then console players would start complaining and the console manufacturers don't want that and sacrifice their profits.

what did i Say. The games I mentioned. Not you. And no if devs only cater to enthusiast class, then no amount of adjustment will help you run the game.

 

[Darth AniCetuS]

No, he cut corners on the PC itself. No ps4 sells with a hard drive less than 500GB yet on the system he built he's running with 320gb of hard disk space. No ps4 has 6GB of shared ram (its 8) yet his system is 4gb system ram and 2gb of video ram. ETC etc. going further the 760, much like the 750 ti CANT survive now, unless your gonna drop it down to 720. it straight up won't last, whereas on console you're good till ps5 comes out.

He's not trying to compare the system based on the hardware but on the price. I believe PS4 when it launched was somewhere around $400, so he built a system he thought was best within that range. He's not trying to match with PS4 hardware because he can't.
And he only made adjustments to PC graphical settings and even with those compromises it was on par or slightly better than the PS4. In terms of framerate too.

what did i Say. The games I mentioned. Not you. And no if devs only cater to enthusiast class, then no amount of adjustment will help you run the game.

Dev provide adjustments from low to high for every class but there enthusiast class is capped by console hardware limitations.

 

[BenjerminGaye]

He's not trying to compare the system based on the hardware but on the price. I believe PS4 when it launched was somewhere around $400, so he built a system he thought was best within that range. He's not trying to match with PS4 hardware because he can't.
And he only made adjustments to PC graphical settings and even with those compromises it was on par or slightly better than the PS4. In terms of framerate too.

so when that 475 pc runs out of hard drive space or runs into a game that requires more than 4 gb of ram then he's doing his viewers a disservice. Cuz they're gonna be assed out from his cut corners.

Dev provide adjustments from low to high for every class but there enthusiast class is capped by console hardware limitations.

Its those very same consoles that enabled the pc you've shown to still run witcher 3. That game requires 6gb of ram and a 660 or better to run it but had they not optimized for consoles and instead only paid attention to enthusiast class the minimums would most likely be much higher, that's what you're not getting.

 

[Darth AniCetuS]

so when that 475 pc runs out of hard drive space or runs into a game that requires more than 4 gb of ram then he's doing his viewers a disservice. Cuz they're gonna be assed out from his cut corners.

If you understand that then you must understand that consoles are already doing that. They can't match the quality of a high end PC and thus resorting to tricks like paying devs or the devs having to bring down the quality down to where consoles could run them.
Anyway, if the hard disk or ram or any other hardware in a pc is not adequate, there is always the option to upgrade that hardware only.

Its those very same consoles that enabled the pc you've shown to still run witcher 3.

:wut:

That game requires 6gb of ram and a 660 or better to run it but had they not optimized for consoles and instead only paid attention to enthusiast class the minimums would most likely be much higher, that's what you're not getting.

Its the opposite, had they optimized for PC only right from low to highest possible then console could've only run at best the low to medium settings whereas a PC user could easily upgrade the hardware to run at max if they're not satisfied with whatever setting they're able to run the game at.

 

[iNotorious]

PC, PS4 Pro and Switch are the way to go. If Xbox's exclusives are coming to PC, there's no reasons to own a xbox scorpion unless all your friends have xbox.

 

[BenjerminGaye]

If you understand that then you must understand that consoles are already doing that. They can't match the quality of a high end PC and thus resorting to tricks like paying devs or the devs having to bring down the quality down to where consoles could run them.
Anyway, if the hard disk or ram or any other hardware in a pc is not adequate, there is always the option to upgrade that hardware only.

but they're aren't they set a standard that devs choose to abide to. If they don't then they simply lose out on that market. the same way they'd lose out on the low end user. -_-

:wut:

u don't get it? console set the minimum so that low end hardware (i.e. the vid you posted) can last as long(assuming the devs actually do their job) as a console generation. If not for consoles, devs only target the current enthusiast tech(what you're suggesting they do) and build like that or tech from 3-4 years ago becomes worthless even faster than it already is now.

Its the opposite, had they optimized for PC only right from low to highest possible then console could've only run at best the low to medium settings whereas a PC user could easily upgrade the hardware to run at max if they're not satisfied with whatever setting they're able to run the game at.

YOu cannot 'optimize' for pc. Its brute force. Since the devs have to cater to a wide array of builds it will never be as heavily optimized as consoles are.

You need both.


Console optimization helps keep low and older tech lasting longer in the marketplace, as opposed to changing graphics cards every 3-4 years.

 

[Darth AniCetuS]

but they're aren't they set a standard that devs choose to abide to. If they don't then they simply lose out on that market. the same way they'd lose out on the low end user. -_-

Devs are actually forced to abide by those standards cuz as you said if they don't they loose the market. They didn't chose those standards.

u don't get it? console set the minimum so that low end hardware (i.e. the vid you posted) can last as long(assuming the devs actually do their job) as a console generation. If not for consoles, devs only target the current enthusiast tech(what you're suggesting they do) and build like that or tech from 3-4 years ago becomes worthless even faster than it already is now.

You're not getting my point. When a game is created for PC, most of the devs consider the performance from low to highest possible. Where they're restricted is at the high end. If there is a huge difference between how the game looks at a high end PC and on a console. The console players would start complaining and that'd be bad for business for the console manufacturers.

YOu cannot 'optimize' for pc. Its brute force. Since the devs have to cater to a wide array of builds it will never be as heavily optimized as consoles are.

I agree the level of optimization can't be as good as a console but it'd still be better than a game ported from a console.

You need both.

Don't deny that.

Console optimization helps keep low and older tech lasting longer in the marketplace, as opposed to changing graphics cards every 3-4 years.

If that were the case all the console manufacturers won't be coming out with new consoles 2-3 years after the last generation of consoles. The xbone and PS4 were already quite weak when they were released and now with the new consoles, there life is at best another 1 or 2 years.

 

[Olorin]

no, acconsole is a console, except the switch, the switch is awesome (but only because of zelda, mario and pokemon)

 

[BenjerminGaye]

Devs are actually forced to abide by those standards cuz as you said if they don't they loose the market. They didn't chose those standards.

the same same way they'd lose market if they dont cater to the low end gamer.

You're not getting my point. When a game is created for PC, most of the devs consider the performance from low to highest possible. Where they're restricted is at the high end[/I]. If there is a huge difference between how the game looks at a high end PC and on a console. The console players would start complaining and that'd be bad for business for the console manufacturers.

@bold.Not even remotely true.
@Underline. where they always will be as long as low end graphics cards exist.

I agree the level of optimization can't be as good as a console but it'd still be better than a game ported from a console.

that's developer laziness. Has nothing to do with console.

Don't deny that.

k

If that were the case all the console manufacturers won't be coming out with new consoles 2-3 years after the last generation of consoles. The xbone and PS4 were already quite weak when they were released and now with the new consoles, there life is at best another 1 or 2 years.

That's because of the market crash/recession. The ps4 and xbox 1 were supposed to drop earlier but the market was horrible. Its why the ps3 and 360 each lasted a decade. Either way it doesn't change the fact that each 'new console' is simply the old console with a stronger gpu, and has been stated by many to be a mid console refresh, meaning that the current consoles (ps4 and xbox 1) are still gonna be here for another 4 years. Cant say the same about the 600 series graphics cards(and soon the 700 series) bar the ones that costs 500-600 at launch.

 

[Darth AniCetuS]

the same same way they'd lose market if they dont cater to the low end gamer.



@bold.Not even remotely true.
@Underline. where they always will be as long as low end graphics cards exist.



that's developer laziness. Has nothing to do with console.



k




That's because of the market crash/recession. The ps4 and xbox 1 were supposed to drop earlier but the market was horrible. Its why the ps3 and 360 each lasted a decade. Either way it doesn't change the fact that each 'new console' is simply the old console with a stronger gpu, and has been stated by many to be a mid console refresh, meaning that the current consoles (ps4 and xbox 1) are still gonna be here for another 4 years. Cant say the same about the 600 series graphics cards(and soon the 700 series) bar the ones that costs 500-600 at launch.

Alright bro lets agree to disagree.

 

[P3ĮÑ]

The brag circling the "pc community" market isn't all that. Most top played or popular titles on pc are not demanding, cs, dota, league, skyrim have a huge playerbase, which can run on outdated hardware and mid range laptops, Not necessarily being "held back" when that is consumer related, it's obvious games that don't have hefty requirements will naturally have more accessibility due to easier access to hardware that can run those games. Most AAA titles barely have a 10% playerbase compared to their console counterparts, if they designed those games specifically for pc that catered to high end hardware they would barely generate quarter the revenue they do on consoles for those same games.

Crysis 3 did attempt to cater to the high end pc market (despite being on consoles) it was used as benchmarks for quite a while on the pc, the sales barely grossed above it's budget and was a failure.

 

[Nebuloxic]

The brag circling the "pc community" market isn't all that. Most top played or popular titles on pc are not demanding, cs, dota, league, skyrim have a huge playerbase, which can run on outdated hardware and mid range laptops, Not necessarily being "held back" when that is consumer related, it's obvious games that don't have hefty requirements will naturally have more accessibility due to easier access to hardware that can run those games. Most AAA titles barely have a 10% playerbase compared to their console counterparts, if they designed those games specifically for pc that catered to high end hardware they would barely generate quarter the revenue they do on consoles for those same games.

Crysis 3 did attempt to cater to the high end pc market (despite being on consoles) it was used as benchmarks for quite a while on the pc, the sales barely grossed above it's budget and was a failure.

What do you mean exactly?