My dream platform would have the best of all PS and XBox features...
- Thread starter Kodie
- Start date
I think platforms are held back from being "dream" status due to the challenge of affordability.
I'd pay more than $400-$500 for a dedicated games console, but most of the rest of the world wouldn't.
Steam boxes are intriguing to me and I think they may meet a lot of your criteria. The two biggest things they fail at are input options and the lack of a well rounded community. There's also the tendency for the harware to become obsolete within a years time. And the fact that they will be held back indirectly by the affordability problem. Sure I can buy a high end $1000-$1500 steam box. But how many devs are making games with that type of power in mind?
I'd pay more than $400-$500 for a dedicated games console, but most of the rest of the world wouldn't.
Steam boxes are intriguing to me and I think they may meet a lot of your criteria. The two biggest things they fail at are input options and the lack of a well rounded community. There's also the tendency for the harware to become obsolete within a years time. And the fact that they will be held back indirectly by the affordability problem. Sure I can buy a high end $1000-$1500 steam box. But how many devs are making games with that type of power in mind?
I hope you're trolling me right back.
What does a game that takes that power in mind look like to you? I think plenty of games look like they take that power in mind to me. Looking at Witcher 2 and Battlefield 3, they are a WORLD apart from their console iterations
The answer is that you don't buy a $1,500 PC because you are not an enthusiast. You are a gamer who is not experiencing the best on those closed consoles.
I think your best bet is to look at the AMD roadmap and go with an APU solution to combine with a compatible graphics card to run in dual graphics.
It's not really about graphics. Those are easily scalable which is why that's what devs shoot for when thinking about using the extra power some gamers have.
If devs were making games with $1000 power in mind and they didn't feel the need to make them scaleable to 10 year old machines, the entire game would be more complex and they could use the extra processing power for gameplay instead of just graphics.
I think someone who has had EVERY console and has played most worthwhile games would be considered an "enthusiast"
Like I explained above graphics aren't everything. Better graphics is not enough for me to pay a bunch of extra money and to throw my controller in the bushes.
Ah I see what you mean. Yeah I don't know. It's hard to do not just because of consoles but because when you release a PC game you're releasing it for people on mid to low end systems too. So a lot of the advancements end up being mostly cosmetic (like PhysX) in order to not take away functionality from others. That said, I don't think the benefit of a PC can only be seen in $1500 machines. A lot of the advantages I posted are seen in low end machines. And a lot of my most played games this year are indies like Rogue Legacy, The Swapper and right now, Amnesia. These are games that are still PC exclusive.
Yeah I am missing out on a lot of those indie games. That's the biggest reason I've been considering a steam box. But at the same time I get a lot of my indie fix on my iPad and the consoles are picking up on indie support.
The good thing is that there are a lot of choices for gamers. The bad thing is that devs have to try to be compatible with all those choices.
whole post is truth. Bolded is gospel.
Ineedmoney504
SOHH ICEY...WE EATIN
That shyt is only a dream, fukk outta here pc lames, yall dont even get all the games, plus the multiplayer is always ruined wit aimbots and trash
Plus u can have the strongest pc but if they not pushin it cause most people have average pcs it wont matte
Pc gaming only go as far as console gaming goes, cause they only going to develop to the lcd, so the pc will have slightly better graphics, wit more player, but they will never push it to its highest level
Plus u can have the strongest pc but if they not pushin it cause most people have average pcs it wont matte
Pc gaming only go as far as console gaming goes, cause they only going to develop to the lcd, so the pc will have slightly better graphics, wit more player, but they will never push it to its highest level
not IMO. An enthusiast is someone like @2gunsup @Malta @Kodie and @daze23
I tip toe on that line every now and then, but not on that level anymore. Also, I think you are missing the point...if you think its just about graphics then you are not paying attention to my argument.
BF3 is the best example I can give you of a very popular game being much better on the PC due to hardware. Does it look better? Of course it does, but more players playing at a higher resolution cannot be ignored or dismissed as just "better graphics"
More customization options, better support because of users who like to tinker with stuff...that's enthusiast territory and not many fit that mold. Thus a $1,500 machine for that crowd doesn't make sense.
I don't think you are an enthusiast. You LOVE video games, but don't go knee deep into .ini files to mess around with things like some do. Know benchmarks, overclock, know hardware release cycles off hand, and know the pros and cons immediately without having to read an instruction manual. Many probably dove into programming as well and some are active such as @Kodie. There is nothing wrong with that, but there is clearly a line and I think you are on the other side of it.
No platform gets all the games.
Yall are just arguing semantics. Also I can't be put on the same level as the others you mentioned
. I'm just someone that likes to play all the games even though I don't have enough time to do so.
I'd say battlefield is one of the rare examples of a game that's truly better on PCs going beyond just graphics.
You are speaking of a computer/tech enthusiast. Not a game enthusiast.