Sony's PlayStation 4 is a thinly disguised PC

[Sufi]

I'm trying not to argue with people who make opinions based on very little fact and a whole lot of personal emotion and bias.

Sir, it is based on a fact. Look at Crysis sales. Barely anyone could run the game for many years. I'd love to see someone play Crysis with today's hardware at 1080p and 60fps with full details.

It doesn't take a high end PC to do what the PS4 can do. An i5 equipped PC with an HD 7870 or better video card can do 95% of what the PS4 can do, costs less than $1,000 to build, and uses hardware that has already been out for around a year.

You're wrong about the first sentence. No, it will take a pretty bad-ass PC to do what the PS4 should be capable of doing. You're comparing numbers, not efficiencies that are in the real world.

And the better video card could probably do better than the PS4 but again, the problem comes that developers don't focus the high-end graphics cards. For example, give me an example of a PC racing game that looks better than GT5, you can't find it. Why? Not because they can't make it but because they won't...because they want to sell games with the most segment penetration and thus you have to go for the lowest common denominator or you will lose sales.

Look at the reason why WoW is so popular, because the damn game can theoretically run on a decent laptop (if you're playing casually).

Not to mention that a very high end PC today is a budget PC 3 years from now. You're totally failing to take into account evolution of PC hardware. Your PS4 is a fixed system that will be exactly the same in 6 years, the PC will double in power every 18 months (Moore's Law)

I'm not seeing that anywhere in my post. I know that PCs evolve constantly.

This was important when PC architecture was dramatically different from console architecture, but now that consoles and PCs are using virtually identical hardware the opposite is true. If anything, your console games are going to all be built on the PC first and then have features and options reduced to make them work on the weaker PCs and consoles.

Ok, that first sentence, truly shows your ignorance...it doesn't matter if the architecture is exactly the same...you just don't get it.

Yes, the PC games will still look better, that's not my point and never has been. Read carefully what I'm saying. Then read it again. Think carefully about each word that I'm using. You wouldn't be saying any of this otherwise.

You obviously don't game on PCs.

I don't game on PC but I've been a PC gamer before.

Multicore CPUs and DX11 GPUs have been available for PCs for more than 4 years now. The PS4 does nothing to change these standards. Quite the opposite, it conforms to them. The PS4 is simply bringing consoles in line with existing PCs. A 2 year old gaming PC will support almost every single feature found in the PS4, and a current budget gaming PC can match or even exceed the PS4's hardware capabilities.

Who's saying PS4 is changing the standard? What PS4 features are you talking about? You do realize PC already has dozens of features that consoles might never get? A current budget gaming PC (if you mean, something close to a thousand dollars) may exceed the PS4's hardware but again, you don't understand that a PC with the same specs would still not come close to PS4's capabilities.

What the PS4 is is a budget gaming PC. Nothing more. Far from being a 'small segment' of gaming PCs that can match it, the vast majority of the ones that are out there right now already do and almost all of them that are built over the course of the next 6 years will easily exceed it.

What vast majority lol. Again, if you've read everyone else's posts, it's pointless to repeat it again, the average gamer will likely see more efficiencies in consoles and move to it. That's what's likely going to happen.

Lower resolution, lower frame rate, lower levels of AA, fewer particles, reduced shader detail.... That's just for starters.

Yea I knew something was up there...others have explained it pretty well. I expect the PS4 and the next Xbox to keep up with the PC for a good while and then we will see top-tier PC rigs outdoing consoles but I see the average gamer still seeing better graphics on consoles.

Which again, means that because the average PC gamer does not buy the latest hardware, they will see PS4/Xbox3 games looking better and either buy it or might even move to it.

So?

How is price in any way relevant to my post? Does the fact that it's more expensive mean that it's not more than double the power of the entire PS4 system?

Yes it is relevant because that's the entire issue with the PC gaming. That's the reason PC devs don't target the top hardware. Because it is expensive and only a minority of PC gamers get it.

No, your comments about the price just show how insecure you are about the PS4's abilities.

The PS4 IS A BUDGET GAMING PC. Nothing more.

No it's not lol. Again, stop looking at what's on the paper. Silly.

It uses off the shelf PC tech, mostly off the shelf PC parts, and it's using cheap tech that is basically already available.

Most advanced APU and 8GB GDDR5 is off the shelf and cheap? Alright buddy.

It has a few custom tweaks to tailor it to console purposes, but it's about 95% an off the shelf budget PC that you could build at home for less than $1,000 using current retail parts at retail prices.

Yes, theoretically a PC like that could but it won't and that's where the difference comes.

That's just the fact of it. Accept it and get over your insecurities. It will NEVER be a high end gaming PC, it will NEVER do anything that gaming PCs cannot do. It's a cheap gaming PC, and nothing more.

Starting out, you will likely see better games on the PS4/Xbox3, but with time we will start seeing PCs taking over.

If you want to talk about price, keep this in mind........

You get what you pay for, and you're only going to be paying about $400 or so for the PS4.

No no sir, you keep in mind about all the stuff that's being said in this thread so far. Please try to learn.

[itachi73378]

For example, give me an example of a PC racing game that looks better than GT5, you can't find it. Why? Not because they can't make it but because they won't...because they want to sell games with the most segment penetration and thus you have to go for the lowest common denominator or you will lose sales.

I know you were trying to make a point about larger consumer base when you brought up GT5 but just for the sake of posting gorgeous pics, Project Cars on PC looks better than GT5 (as a PC exclusive should)

[Cyn]

Project Cars isn't out yet so he's not wrong. And it's not a PC exclusive is it? I heard it's also coming to consoles

I don't get all the war drum banging by console and PC players.

Me either, most people own both and a lot of people game on both. I've been on various forums full of unbelievable amounts of ignorance and misinformation coming from the PC elitism crowd regarding consoles. It's sad.

[Sufi]

I know you were trying to make a point about larger consumer base when you brought up GT5 but just for the sake of posting gorgeous pics, Project Cars on PC looks better than GT5 (as a PC exclusive should)

True but the point still stands that theory and reality are two different things. Theoretically, PC should've been able to put out Project Cars 5 years ago. It didn't and that's the problem. Most PC gamers won't see Project Cars as it looks like in the pics, because they need the required hardware to run it exactly like that. Not everyone's willing to shell out hundreds of dollars just so they can get the best.

So PC takes care of that by scaling the game...and that's what I'm saying, the people who play it at medium with the smoke off, AA off, 720p or maybe 1080p...they'll look at the PS4 version and the rest of its games and go, "Hey, that's only the price of a decent video card, I should just get that because it looks better than my game on the PC."

[chrisw26308]

Werd, sufi.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[keefy]

Consoles were king in the 80's and aerly 90's. Computers couldn't run a game like MArio as fast and smooth as the NES did, PC games were usually a single screen at a time.

[unicron7]

Stop. Comparing. PC's. and. Consoles. APPLES AND ORANGES PEOPLE. As a console, it is a beast compared to what we have had. Yeah, it's not as powerful as a brand new gaming rig someone spent 1000+ on, and honestly, I don't give a shit.

[Bigdoggy]

The only time a person needs to spend over $1,200 on a PC is if he is building it for video editing and whatever else that falls into that category. Otherwise it's a complete waste and nothing more then a "I'm going to buy the best video card to play 1 friggin game, look at how hardcore I am" meh. it's stupid and I laugh every time I see some gamer spending over $600 on 1 single video card. o.O

It's your basic PC enthusiast that no one should follow when building a gaming rig.

I've seen people on the internet brag about how they have a GTX690 but all they do is game. The first thing I say is "What a shame and a waste" Mainly those cards are better used for stuff like Premier or whatever else. Otherwise I see no purpose for it to game.

[itachi73378]

The only time a person needs to spend over $1,200 on a PC is if he is building it for video editing and whatever else that falls into that category. Otherwise it's a complete waste and nothing more then a "I'm going to buy the best video card to play 1 friggin game, look at how hardcore I am" meh. it's stupid and I laugh every time I see some gamer spending over $600 on 1 single video card. o.O

It's your basic PC enthusiast that no one should follow when building a gaming rig.

Go to neogaf and check out the GTX titan thread. People buying 3 titan even when they already had 3 GTX680s.



I broke my palm by hitting my face too hard

[PeanutButterMunky]

Go to neogaf and check out the GTX titan thread. People buying 3 titan even when they already had 3 GTX680s.



I broke my palm by hitting my face too hard

What? You don't think paying 3000 dollars for 10% more power is worth it?

[itachi73378]

What? You don't think paying 3000 dollars for 10% more power is worth it?

Some PC gamers like to just have higher numbers than the other guys. SLI sucks to begin with and after 2x it becomes the equivalent of horse poop.

[Bigdoggy]

Go to neogaf and check out the GTX titan thread. People buying 3 titan even when they already had 3 GTX680s.

I broke my palm by hitting my face too hard

If those guys say they are rendering/video editing they are so full of shit because I don't think there is a difference at all when doing that stuff with or without sli. Infact I don't think you can even render with dual video cards but if you can you wont see even .0000000001 of a difference anyway rofl.

While it's their money and they can spend it as they see fit, You really have to stand in awe at the misinformed PC gamers out there. Those are the same people that will take "digs" at console systems and console gamers yet they can't even build a gaming PC without going all out lame on it.

[BoyBettaKnow]

The only time a person needs to spend over $1,200 on a PC is if he is building it for video editing and whatever else that falls into that category. Otherwise it's a complete waste and nothing more then a "I'm going to buy the best video card to play 1 friggin game, look at how hardcore I am" meh. it's stupid and I laugh every time I see some gamer spending over $600 on 1 single video card. o.O

It's your basic PC enthusiast that no one should follow when building a gaming rig.

I've seen people on the internet brag about how they have a GTX690 but all they do is game. The first thing I say is "What a shame and a waste" Mainly those cards are better used for stuff like Premier or whatever else. Otherwise I see no purpose for it to game.

My friend has a 690 - plans on getting another next year as well - and I can tell you from what I've seen of it, it's an epic card.

I see nothing wrong with buying whatever you want. If I had the spare money a 690 would also be in my machine.

Next time I build a new PC I'll be looking to spend at least $2000. Do I need to? Of course not. Do I want to? Damn right I do.


BBK. Tapatalking.

[baho]

What? You don't think paying 3000 dollars for 10% more power is worth it?

It's about 25% more powerful than the 680. Still, HUGE waste of money but people who can afford don't give a rats ass.

[PeanutButterMunky]

It's about 25% more powerful than the 680. Still, HUGE waste of money but people who can afford don't give a rats ass.

It's definitely imperative that they run their games at 800 frames per second. Don't want to have dropped frames and have to suffer at 700 fps. ;[

It really is ridiculous.

[itachi73378]

It's about 25% more powerful than the 680. Still, HUGE waste of money but people who can afford don't give a rats ass.

A single one is 25%, but I wonder what 3x680 vs 3xtitan is

It's definitely imperative that they run their games at 800 frames per second. Don't want to have dropped frames and have to suffer at 700 fps. ;[

It really is ridiculous.

3xtitan cant push through 100fps on crysis 3

[Bigdoggy]

My friend has a 690 - plans on getting another next year as well - and I can tell you from what I've seen of it, it's an epic card.

I see nothing wrong with buying whatever you want. If I had the spare money a 690 would also be in my machine.

Next time I build a new PC I'll be looking to spend at least $2000. Do I need to? Of course not. Do I want to? Damn right I do.


BBK. Tapatalking.

with that amount of money for one of those cards you will get better gaming performance anyway with two cheaper versions of the GTX680 or even the 2x GTX670. So the point is still that it's a crippled buy. The only people that are going to benefit from a GTX690 is for people video editing & rendering which is what the CUDA cores are for, which gamers look that but are pointless in terms for gaming.

It was funny when Nvidia was commercializing their top end GPU at the time of BF3, people went out and built a $2000+ machine just for BF3 alone. My entire point is, is that if someone is doing that, he shouldn't even be poking at console gamers or the systems. Mainly those are also the same people that blindly turn their backs on Radeon which in real user performance is not dominated by Nvidia, nor the AMD CPU Vs. Intel. it's misinformed people out there and there are a buttload of them.

I'm not saying every single pc gamer is wrong, far from that. What I am mainly stating is people really don't know what they are buying even though they look at the specs of the system. They say "OMG it has CUDA CORES, FRIGGIN AWESOME" yet it's clear they think it's mainly for gaming. lmfao

like I said, buying 1 GTX690 vs 2 GTX680's. better performance with the 2x GTX680's and you might get them cheaper.

Personally I'll probably end up buying radeons because the FPS rating isn't even that big compared tot he prices between Nvidia & Radeon.