Nope, that is still true, and will only get worse as this console gen goes on. Don't use Watch Dogs as an example, that game has been proven to have been dumbed down so that the PC version didn't embarrass the console version too much.
Larger monitors without sacrificing pixel density.
But 4k is an extreme example. You cant do 1440p, 21:9, or multi monitor gaming on a console.
My biggest gripes with consoles are how many 'Cants' there are that come with them, and how much more expensive it is overall to game on a console... paywall online, horrible sales, 60 dollar launch prices for games, etc. They are underpowered and cant do what I want them to do. so they are a waste of money.
lol those 'Comparisons' use pc resolutions that are the same or close to the consoles on purpose.
1440p, ultra wide, 4K, multi monitor... Cant do any of that on a console.
Also, 'a lot of money' has been beat like a dead horse by now on how that is simply not true. Sure, a decent gaming rig will cost a little more than a console, but it is much better comparatively. A 500 dollar pc can pack a cpu and gpu that are twice as powerful as the con...
Dunno man, 6-12 months is a gross exaggeration try 3-5 years... Sure if you are so inclined you can upgrade that often, but there is no need unless you simply must have the best all the time and have deep pockets.
Compatibility issues are largely a thing of the past and driver updates are automated now.
But Watch Dogs wasn't running on a 'supercomputer' They intentionally reduced the Ultra PC settings so they were closer to what the consoles will look like. I have the mod installed and it made next to no performance impact to the game. It made it look a hell of a lot better though.
**puts on tin foil hat**
People are saying that either Microsoft or Sony don't want their consoles to be too badly upstaged by PCs graphically this early on in the...
90s? try early 2000s super computers. My current computer is more powerful than all of the top 500 super computers in the world from 2004.
I think you underestimate moores law.
It's not really a game console... but a set top streaming box that will be geared for gaming. There is a difference.
It is not trying to be another xbox or playstation.
I'm guessing it will have some decent mobile hardware inside, as long as it has a decent price I will snatch one up.
I'm getting tired of having to transcode stuff to my playstation, I need a box that can play all formats natively, and since this is android all yo...
That may not be as much as intel or nvidia... but hey I guess amd doesn't make anything else...
oh thats right.. yeah.
Replying here to reply to your reply to andrew.
You do realize that having 2 gpus does not mean you get twice the vram, the frame buffer is duplicated across both cards, so you in effect have only 4. regardless that should be enough. I am able to play it with a decent fps at ultra with Temporal SMAA @ 2560X1080. My gpu is a Asus R9 290X DCU II.
The problem you are having is that they game runs like shit on two gpus, and is likely only using one.
Well done Sony, you have my attention, my excuse to finally get a PS4 (Moved to PC gaming a couple of years ago, but Naughty Dog will always have a place for me)
The games argument is simply not true, for every game that comes out on console that doesn't on pc there are dozens that will not see the light of day on a console. Easier? to a degree, yeah consoles can be easier to manage. but that is a trade off. Better experience for a little effort or a good enough experience with no effort?
The best things in life are the ones you work for... at least thats what they say.
Yes because every PC gamer has a 2000 dollar pc... @_@
I do, but that Is because I like to waste money! My GF doesnt, hers was about 1300, and that will max every game out there at around 60fps minimum @1080p.
Oh yes I forgot about the turd that was NFS Rivals. On PC that game had no justification for being frame limited. It is a RACING game, you know one of the genres that especially benefit from higher FPS.
And.... it is a limitation of the hardware. No developer in their right mind will lock the frame rate to 30 if they can achieve higher consistently.
Refresh rate has nothing to do with how good or bad a game is. That is a stupid example.
Frame interpolation from your TV and a high refresh rate are not the same thing. Frame interpolation is largely a gimmick to get you to buy that tv that is Clear motion 120, but is actually 60hz.
I just shat myself.
Not quite, it is like charging the price of a lamborghini for a Shelby GT500 mustang.
It is overpriced, yes with one Caveat: for gamers, not for professionals or developers.
See the titan Cards have full Double precision enabled, which is generally workstation card territory. If Nvidia were to sell the titan class cards for the equivalent price of the non double precision cards then how would they sell their quadros? Granted a quadro is still faster, but the ...
Wrong, they don't need to build their hardware around Mantle. Mantle as it is now is tailored for GCN, but will not be so in the future as it will platform agnostic and run by a committee and not just AMD (Much like OpenGL). They have stated this multiple times.
Dunno why you got disagrees here... Your reasoning is perfectly rational and mature IMO.