About time developers and the bean counters stop catering just to the masses, and offer something truly unique for the power user/enthusiast segment.

is he for real? This is beyond impractical. This idea would alienate 99% of all gamers.

How big can the market be for people willing to spend 20G on a PC in order to play a game? I'm sure there is more than one person, but as a percentage of the general gaming population it must be near infinitesimal. I think most gamers would rather buy a car or make a down payment on house etc… I bet most hardcore gamers don’t even spend that much. Furthermore, if you purchased a $20,000 computer you would probably need to upgrade your air conditioning unit in order keep up with the heat output of your new 10,000 watt oven. You might have to put in some new ducting too. Also, if you are that serious about gaming you’re going to want a large UPS, and a natural gas or diesel generator. You’ll need some control electronics to take you off grid and on the generator and or new wiring through the house. So, that $20,000 computer is actually going to cost you $50,000 . Three or four years later, mainstream off-the-self components will be just as fast and not require exotic cooling and backup power.

Too bad for those companies to make a profit they would need to charge $100,000 a game unit for the 10 people dumb enough to waste that kind of money on a game.

I budget a hardware refresh once a year to support my gaming habit, but i'm not paying 20G's just to play a game. Sorry!

He obviously didn't mean exactly 20,000... he meant taking advantage of the best hardware on the market at the time to show how much better PC hardware is compared to half the price 2 year old console hardware. There are games that do this already, or will do it. Crysis comes to mind, but I'm sure there are others.

The High-end has always spurred development and progress in the mainstream, across industries, which is good -- trickle-down of tech and all that.

Uber-candy loaded "Director's Cut" games wouldn't alienate joe-average gamer anymore than high-end hi-fi speakers alienate joe-average music listener.

QHD games? Sure in five years. The displays will be here in three to four years. EHD, 2560x1600 is coming now in LCDs. Will they stop selling stuff after everyone has 1080p? I don't think so.

Well, it's not like people spent $15,000 for the PS3 or anything on Ebay, which is close enough. Taylor has a point though; better visual graphics through computer games can create a whole new experience. In effect, it may drive silicon chip manufacturers to develop higher end, yet more cost efficient solutions to run/pay such games. In the end, both the consumer wins (better visuals, better technology) and companies win (more sales to the "masses") through economies of scale.

If you have ultra high sfx and video settings for a game it should be the max settings as usual. Its silly to release a completely different version of the game just to cater to higher settings. So I go out and buy the high settings version and it runs like shit because my computer cant handle it and now I have to go buy the regular version???

why are consoles garroting pc's? because they're doing everything pc games used to do, for much much much less.

a 360 will cost you 400$ and last you 5 years.

a high end pc will cost you 1500$ every year for 5 years.

so why are people ditching pc gaming?

why pay 600$ for a graphics card, when you can get the exact same stuff for 400 $ alone on a game console that will last you 5X as long?

I have a 360 and a Ps3 and a HDTV 1080i. I also have a High End PC with a 24" monitor with 1920 x 1200 that does 1080p with my Blu Ray DVD Drive. I game all the time and nothing beats my PC with maximum settings. Yeh it costs more but it looks a hell of alot better than the 360 or PS3 games any day of the week. You just have to get a real job work hard and budget and have the best that is out there. Its how I do it! Bring on Crysis,Call of Duty 4 I say!

I think they should strive to make it cheap and practical for PC gamers to buy parts, monitors, and games that allow them to game at 1080p stably. We've all seen how good 1920x1080 can look. I wish they'd just start out at the high end and work their way down towards bringing PC gamers up to one standard gaming resolution. I'm talkin' you put the disk in and it runs at 1080p, no messin' around in the options, no nothin'. 1080p. I mean, I understand why it's important to push development, but PC gaming could experience a renaissance if there was some unity. But whatever....

C'mon, that $20k system will be worth next to nothing in two year, the game will still be available and better still, because it's 2 years old, it should only be $10.

Kinda like Halo2 now... only they still want full price, whats up with that?

OK monkeyboy here is the first problem with that statement

1 - a 360 will not last 5 years in fact a 360 was outdated months after it was released because the 8800 cards came out and smashed the crap out of every console on the market hands down.

2 - consoles are non upgradeable meaning...you spend $600 and you are stuck with it. It does not get any better over the 3 years it MAY last you where as with PC's the graphics constantly evolve and get better over that 5 year period.

3 - Where the hell did you come up with this $1500 figure? I built my comp over a year ago and have spent $250 to merely upgrade my cpu to a dual core and thats it. Still runs every game at max settings and I spent about $3000 to build it myself.

4 - You are forgetting to add in the cost of a Hi-Def TV for playing the console on...with that you can slap on about another $2500-$15000.

So which investment really seems smarter? The thing you spent just as much if not MORE on a console to last you 3 years (maybe 5) which becomes outdated and is not upgradeable months after it is purchased and have the games you play 5 years from the time you bought it look EXACTLY THE SAME as the ones before it. The hardware does not magically get better. Sure some developers may do better graphically than others but the limit is there and you are stuck with it.

With a PC the games only look better and better every year and many users do not need to upgrade for years (If you know how to build a proper computer and choose the right hardware you should not need a new system for 5 years) and can still play at max or medium settings (even at low settings a new PC game will still kick the crap out of a new 360/ PS3 game since the graphics on them are still 5 years OLD!)

Bottom line PC's PWN Consoles end of story.

Yay now my quad core sli 8800's can have some fun

It is in Nvidia's interest for their to be games that require a lot of expensive hardware to process. It keeps ppl upgrading their computers. Dont get me wrong, I still think these games would be a great thing.

I think what he means by having games that you need a $20 000 machine to play them, is that that machine is required to play the game at its best graphic settings, but you can still play the game on a lesser machine with lower graphic settings.

I think that Nvidia should have an online competition. The comp should have a couple of high end graphic card and screen prizes for participants and should poll participants on the on the best graphical game. The winning game developers will get a heap of cash with a 1st, 2nd and 3rd prize. This will provide a real business incentive for the businesses that make games to make higher and higher quality graphical games.

It would be great to see creative doing this aswell, to provide greater incentive for game developers to provide higher quality audio (eg 24 bit 96 k uncompressed ).

Blu-ray / HD DVD could do this with a comp for the best game on their format.

PC's will never be unified in resolutions... First off, I pride myself on my liquid cooled monster of a computer. But I understand that most people will not go that far... usually go out and buy a Dell or other pc from a big name brand.

His "solution" for PC gaming is: have games released first for consoles, then, after a while, come up with a PC version which only a few people can play.

If that ever happens, then it'd mean that PC gaming is practically dead. Everyone will move to consoles because games will always be there first.

That's already part of the problem, games coming first or only for consoles because developers are paid to do that. In that sense, if anyone helped kill PC gaming, it's Microsoft, who prefers to push games for its console rather than games for its PC OS.

I recently bought a dell 30 incher and I wish I could play more classic games on it with high 16x10 resolutions.

It wouldn't be hard to future proof games with expected resolutions, or allow completly custom user configs complete with FOV pull back.

Heh, I love console fanboys. I love how they play with their inferior little controllers, and talk about how fast their PS3 is,(with 256 WHOPPING MBs of mem). You show me a console that can play the most advanced games, download porn, burn a dvd, surf the net, print out photo quality pics, and run my recording studio. Tell me what a console that could do all that costs. Consoles are strictly for morons that don't want to do any more than lift 1 finger, and that 1 finger is only to turn their moron machine on.

First of all, the average Joe does not need to spend $600 on a video card. He need spend only about $150 to get a decent card today. My X1900 video card and 4200 CPU I had could easily out-pace anything the XBox 360 has now. Granted, I have moved up to faster components. The XBox is basically just a laptop computer. Furthermore, you can't upgrade a console...yet. Then there's also overclocking. Also, PC parts prices are falling as the market is becoming more saturated, Vista sucking, competition heating up, and economies of scale kicking in. DDR2 ram is half the price DDR ram was for instance. CPU prices are low right now as well. Motherboards can be had for $50 that include more and more all the time as component sizes shrink. We're beginning to see a convergence of the PC and game consoles. Only thing is, the PC has always been capable of playing games and so much more. It's simply less limited in what it can do. Abundantly so.

What gives computers their strength is their adaptability, games should reflect this for them with scaleable detail and one easy way of this is for games like dungeonseige, oblivion etc. to have greater field of vision.
What i hate is useless physics a.k.a ragdoll, small item motion example: uber soldier. if your gonna bother having physics allow it in games like 1st person shooters scaled for bullet holes and explosions.
Look at red faction, yes the physics weren't full on accurate the game was excellent because you could make defensible ositions or destroy bridges.
shrapnel doesn't necessary need to be there, basically you have to look at what they meen to those playing them.
People are meant to enjoy playing them which is why morrowind was good due to the amount of freedom people had moving about, unlocking high level area's & beating their odds to secure treasure, etc.
Oblivion sucked because it ended up too heavily rules lawyerd for a single player game... i could understand why you'd aim towards that if it was a multiplayer sort of competative game but it's a game people tend to modify for their own roleplaying experience.
That's why people tend to turn towards consoles and why the Wii does so well games are for enjoyment & entertainment besides what nividia would have you think eye candy does not a good game make.
It's like iceing on the cake.

The only possible way consols can ever beat the PC as a gaming platform is if they become PCs themselves. And given the nature of consols, they still wouldnt be as good as current PCs... They would be more like Machintosh, with all the problems that create. (Cross-platform incompatibilities)

Such high resolution is is utterly useless. They need to concentrate on shader throughput rather than pixel throughput. I'd happily play a Standard definition game if it looked like a movie, and 720p is just dandy and great. Good AA, realtime radiosity etc.. This is what they should go for.

Lets face it: a lot of game developers don't do PC games anymore. On top of that you have to consider the insane prices you have to pay just for the privilege of having a 8800 card then you start wondering why you should upgrade your PC just to play some fancy FPS. I used to be a PC gamer but it's just not cost efficient. I bought an XBox360 and saved a bundle on my new general-purpose PC instead.

This reminds me of old days, Wing Commander etc etc, U saw an amazing looking game(at the time) in shop which needed only the best to run at all, forced everyone to upgrade which helped speed progress, I am all for this even though i can't afford it, Eventually it filters down to mainstream when enthusiasts have bought into it enough.

Maybe, but I can do more than just play a game with it. PCs can also be tweeked to meet your specific need, there are only a hand full of mods you can do to your console almost all void the warrenty.

When you upgrade to the next console in most cases you lose the ability to play the games on your old console, if you bought 30 games @ $60 each thats $1800. On my PC I can still play games that I had when I was running Win 98 (which I have done recently to test Vista compatibility).

B.D.

There are lots of people who buy pc's but do not run Windows. Microsofts operating system might be the dominant in the OS market but it is not the only one. There is MAX OS X (which some have installed on non-Apple computers), ReactOS, Linux, eComStation/OS/2 Warp, etc (there are many if one choses to look).

It would be nice to have a pc game that does not require bending ones hand out of shape to use the keys required for the game. I like the way Doom and Quaker used (mainly) a single row of keys to play the game (I guess this dates me :) ).

I think this would be great. Everyone that builds a new system wants to see what there rig can do, they will go out and buy this. The rest of the people can go buy the normal game and run it.

This will set new benchmarks, it will become an overclockers dream to get 200fps out of a system that costs way less. It will set a level that all gamers will aspire to.

Consoles have the exact same hardware which does not vary from system to system. That reason alone allows them to compete with PC's for longer than they should be able to technically.

people want to work on photos in full res,

as for PC games they are always going to be around
everytime a Console generation starts it looks so good, then 2 years latter: it looks OK, 3 years in: it looks like your sister or mother {you don't want to play with it compared to the PC]

PC gaming just gets better [hardware wise] at a steady rate.

now if only we could do away with the clunky OS,
I miss the good old [DOS] days...

I think most of you are missing the point here. he says that he wants directors cut versions of the game no matter the cost. if they made 2 versions, say one is 60 bucks (like they do now) and one is 100 bucks, but the 100 dollar one is uber for graphics isnt the industry going to grow into that technology? i think the point he is trying to make is like half life for example, one of the highest rated games of all time. 98 out of 100 in most professionally rated fashions, when that game was release back in what 97? something like that it wasnt that bad looking and the game was amazing to play then it started to get out dated graphically. whatif back then they also released thier "full" version which was way too much for thier hardware, wouldnt that game then appeal to the consumer AGAIN in 2 or 3 years when the hardware grows into it?

"so why are people ditching pc gaming?"
Who ever said that? PC gamers are here strong. Dude are you reading anything on gaming development? PC gaming only took a dive when company greed and pirating was at its highest point. Game companies released 55 to 80 dollar games. Many of those companies switched to console development for mainly two reasons less pirating (meaning they thought they had a group of people with no where to run and had the ability to charge at will) and less development time (because the equip differs slightly instead of vastly like pc's). But then pirating on consoles using MOD chips came into play as the old saying goes "Where there is a will there is a way".

But companies like EA discovered that most people would purchase madden in droves at 29.95 than 59.95. Similarly to online music 49 to 99 cent songs as opposed to $23 cd's has much better profits. And companies like walmart have grown and expanded. And new egg has not, by jacking up prices during so called "price drops".

Consoles will always have their place because most children play on them. Most have no concept of visual concept of what things could be. They are simply told this is the newest and want it.

LOL and from some of the responses that I've read on this post and others. Many adults can't see it either, I had a guy name adam claim he was playing new games at the top resolution with an X850 and 3800 althon. I showed the FPS for such card and he disappeared LOL...

Turning off all of the options and choosing lower resolution doesn't mean PC gaming is visually equal to consoles. You made the PC game look consolish.

PC gaming is and should always be a step up. Low budget gamers have a place already called XBOX (360) & PS2(3). Read this article http://www.twitchguru.com/2007/06/18/lost_planet/

If you aren't one of the few that have a $20,000 PC to run the game with full eye candy, turn it down some and I'm sure it will run. Developers are developing the game with the settings up on max to run on an average to a "little above" average PC. If you develop a game with the mac settings to run on the best PC's, then the mid to low settings should run on an average PC and such. Why waste time and money developing a "mediocre" game. If people can't afford all the "eye candy" settings, that's just something they'll have to live with knowing they didn't buy the best gaming rig. If I buy a corolla and can't drive 150 mph down the autobahn I shouldn't ask them to enforce a speed limit of (cap the speed limit to) 100 mph simply because I can't go faster than that. Let those that spend extra money on a Bugatti Veyron enjoy the higher limit. No reason to set the max res/eye candy to be able to run on the average level PC.

Bring all games up to playability on standard hardware at 1080p is fine. for one year. maybe. after that, you'd be limiting future development and the whole thing would be worthless.

Yes, i put just over $10k into my gaming rig, and i've spent over $30k on gaming over the last 5 years. it's not that unreasonable. i play everything at 1920x1200, and it's quite worth the cost. if in five years that resolution has quadrupled...i'll be there. it's true that the majority of gamers probably can't do that. but the enthusiasts can.

if you want to be able to just throw in a disc and play...buy a console, and enjoy your lower quality visuals. :-)

This was my point in http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/32411/135/

where console and extra low budget gamers claim there is no difference. And that 1 gig of video ram has no use in gaming.

20,000 for a PC is a slight exaggeration, but the main reason that this hardware cost so much initially is because of the volume sold at the start.

If you think about a company having a staff that obviously needs to be paid. What ever they produce needs to cover their salary and other expenses.

So initially the hardware will be more expensive (can be for other reason as well such as greed).
small things can cause a drop in price such as DDR3/4 prices dropping. But volume sells has always made the pricing low. Console prices are low as a result of volume sales. If you contact most manufacturing companies the price between creating a thousand units and 500,000 units is huge.

As an example ATI/AMD took a gamble based on the feedback of anticipated purchasers and released the card with a very reasonable price. And not the bleeding edge 8800 GTX 640 plus price.

If the commitment and desire is there for better gaming. The ante will be upped in gaming.

the issue isn't whether or not you can turn down the 'eye candy' you have been able, and likely will always be able to disable certain visual and sound effects that games offer.

however, the issue is in the development time it takes (and in business, time = money) to make the games that much better looking are going to cost everyone, the person who has the $20k pc and you and me with our $2k pc, and we won't be utilizing the features we are paying for...

Colin Mcrae DiRT is alreadly like, that. I can play DiRt with dual 8800GTX SLI, Quadcore overclocked at 1080p...., bearly, but above 30fps.

No unity, huh? It was just a thought...

I don't think making "director's cuts" is the answer or even the right idea. Most of you who want to play at higher and higher resolutions are enthusiasts, like myself. That's how I ended up at 1080p in the first place. So far it doesn't seem that enthusiasts can support the industry. This talk of director's cuts only further alienates average gamers who want to play new titles. Enthusiasts read 3800x2400 and drool. Avg. gamers read that and think, "How much is a PS3?" How does that save a "dying" industry? Hardware devs act like building super expensive multi-GPU systems mean higher resolution gaming, but what is reality? Most guys with $5,000 PC's play WOW at 1280x1024 and get 200,000fps (I hear humans can only see 60fps). Meanwhile those of us with 1920x1200 monitors (or higher) who play newer, less addictive games wait for patches and driver updates....

I think this was a bad statement from Nvidia. This article makes it seam like PC games are bordering extinction. PC games will never die. They have developed a niche. Yea, the new consoles look sweet on HDTV's with all their bells and whistles, but in a year or two it will be the norm.

PC games have the interface that can't be mimicked by a console. Real Time Strategy (RTS) games for one suck on consoles. You need a mouse and a keyboard for them. Hotkeys are set for them, groupings, and you cant use a joystick to replace the mouse on a console. Also, first person shooter games are better on PC's because of the mouse/keyboard interface as well. Sports games were made for the consoles, they have taken that over and I dont see the PC regaining that sector. However, first person shooters are still highly regarded on PC's and RTS games are almost entirely for PC's. And I need not mention MMPORPG ... world of warcraft, vangard, everquest, etc...

Another plus for PC games is their ability to deliver expansion packs. Most expansion packs add on to an already extremely popular game and give it tons of new features and not cost as much as a brand new game. Diablo II LOD, Warcraft 3 FT, Battlefield expansion packs, and medal of honor expansion packs are prime examples.

PC games dont need ultra high resolutions to stay alive. They are alive and well as we talk about this. I play games almost entirely on my PC, and I have a Xbox 360 (pretty much for halo only). PC games thrive because of the interface, and because of their playability. Starcraft came out over 10 years ago and its still played highly... and it doesnt even have 3D graphics. Graphics are a bonus and make you feel good about your system, but when you are fragging in Battlefield 2, and thinking on a dime when you are in a battle in Company of Heros, are you really looking in awe at the graphics, or are you having fun trying to win?

I thought this was a great article, and yet I felt stunned by the interviewee's comments. I really think NVIDIA missed the mark here. Read my comments in the Newsletter section at mtbs3D.com.

There was a saying in the late 90's. If you wanted a game that looked cool, get a Windows game. If you wanted a game that played cool, get a DOS game.

That philosophy has not changed. Games are looking better and better, but the quality of what made the games great are not what they once were.

I feel like developers are spending to much time using graphics to create an engaging experience. More often than not, the game the holds my interest longest is the one with engaging gameplay...NOT graphics.

To put it another way, its not the pretty graphics that make a certain game a top seller. The game sells if its fun to play.

And honestly, Im getting tired of the graphics war.

nVidia, you're shooting yourself in the foot if you think you can continually profit by pushing developers to release games that cater to only the weathy elite gamers. And selling video cards that cost $600 each and must be run in SLi to support the latest games. The masses will go elsewhere, they will follow the trend, and it will not involve nVidia.

30 inch screen at a foot or two away would be really nice and on the edge of the human eye.

New games scale nicely to higher resolutions. Older games everything just gets smaller and not sharper.

O and i sure they meant that they want to make games scalable to an insanely high level.

15 years ago, I thought the idea of a $4,000 TV being normal as impossible. I see people in the parking lot of Best Buy cramming 50-inch plasma-TVs into their 10-year-old cars that are worth less than the TV.

I bougt a 22-inch 1050x1680 widescreen LCD at Fryes last week for $190. So, 3800x2400 for about $600 in a couple of years?

I for one an a PC-aholic. I myself don't see any harm in a console but yea they pretty much suck a few months after they are released.

Compare Oblivion on the 360/PS3 to my PC. I run it at 1280x1024 with everything maxed and get 50 FPS outside and 150 inside. And my machine is 4 years old. ALso in terms of the graphics the PC version looks much much better and plus you have the mods you can add. What about the consoles?? Oh yea they don't support that.

And what Bubbet said is right. A console will have the same graphics for the period they exist and thats that. No way to improve upon them as where with a PC you video card will usually last you 5 years on most games.

Granted the next gen PC games will require newer hardware but it is well worth it since you can also hook you PC up as a Tivo system, watch DVDs, Blu-ray(if you are crazy to pay 1K on the player), HD-DVD, list to music on pure 7.1 channel surround sound and everything else.

The fact is the console leeches off of the PC every time a new one comes out. PS1 was a 75Mhz Pentium with 8 megs of ram. PS2 was a P2 @ 333Mhz with 128megs of ram and Xbox was a P3/Celeron @ 700Mhz/1.4Ghz with 128 megs of ram. The new PS3 uses its own processor built by IBM, same with the 360, but still uses a PC video card and memory and so on. PCs are the only reason consoles still exists and are at the point they are at today so be happy PCs still push the boundary further.

And 20K for a PC? Thanks but no Thanks. I am happy with my 1500-2000 dollar PC.

Now we may not pay $20,000G's for a pc to run it. But i like that idea and i hope developers begin to grasp that and actually make games that will put the nxt gen graphic card as in the*8800GTX* to its ultimate test. This is true, developers should harness the power of the latest graphic card n just stress it out to its max with a game delivering more then what the graphic card can handle. I'm sure that by the time games like this come out the nxt best thing to the 8800gtx will be coming out. I'm tired of seeing games on my PC deliever minimal graphics when i have everything notched up to its peak. Its time developers made a game that looked soo great that it would almost cost u 20G's just to run it. I like it and i hope they go through with it..

I decided to give up PC gaming once I realized how much I was spending, yet I was never able to keep up. To run at their full potential, some games like Flight Simulator X require GPUs that make the entire PS3 look like a bargain. Vista is crap and DX10 turned out to be a huge disapointment. The mid-range DX10 cards in my price range a mediocre at best.

Mind you, some games have to be played on PC. Simulators, RTS games, role playing games, and first person shooters are really best played on PC. I can't imagine playing the first three on a console.

Mike,

How can you say DX10 'turned out to be a huge dissapointment' when there are currently a total of 3 games that support it and even then the DX10 components of them were tacked on AFTER the DX9 versions of the game were long released!Have you even seen videos of Crysis running? If thats dissapointing then your a hard man to please. Furtehr to that point, DX10 has just been released. Software evolves, none more so than the DX series.

Vista is not crap, its only been out for less than a year and like it or not it WILL improve (it all ready has, I have vista 64 and it is sh!tloads better than XP) and is the future of PC gaming.

-Matt

Consoles are for the casual gaming market. That’s all there is to it. Nintendo seems to understand that VERY well. The NES, Gameboy, SNES, N64, and, DS, Wii all have been very popular with well... just about everybody.

The PC however is a hardcore enthusiast market. The BEST games are on the PC, always have been and always will be. The PS and Xbox get to try and be enthusiast for a month or two and always fall back to the upper level casual gaming.

This is why people every few years (during a console war) will say that PC gaming is dead. Enthusiasts and wannabe hardcore gamers will cheer, the fanfare will blow and it will all be over before next Christmas. Before you know it the true enthusiasts return to their PCs for the cutting edge technology and absolute best game play, the PC market remains at the forefront, and the cycle continues to repeat itself.

I never buy consoles because their games are not quite exquisite enough for my tastes and their technology gets outdated instantly.

Half Life2, Crysis, TeamFortress2, Spore, Starcraft2, and anything else Blizzard comes out with (their fineries are too good for the console). All of them coming to my collection in the coming few months.

Okay Mike this is two post where you're proven to not know a damn thing. In fact you're now exposed as a liar and a fraud.

You made two post in http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/33019/139/
claiming that overclocking a cpu will burn it out in less than a year which is the biggest newbie/ haven't got a clue statement of the year here.

But here is where you're busted loser:

1) "With that being said, I overclocked my Athlon64 (939) 3200 to equivalent of a 3800 single core, and I didn't bother buying into that whole dual core thing."
a) What the hell would you know about DX10 with a single core 3200 CPU (which is not a midrange processor as you claim).

2) "This chip cost me about $100 CDN at the time, almost a whole year ago." conflicts with "I decided to give up PC gaming once I realized how much I was spending, yet I was never able to keep up."
a) What console are you moving too? playstation was 600 US which is like 1100 canadian. Last time I checked 100 plus your low end video card has a lot of change left over.

3) "My video card was low-end at the time, which also cost me a low end price. I do not play games at resolutions over 1024x768 though"

a) Now you post DX10 was a huge dissapointment. LOL what a 'F'ing joke. Please tell us the name of this DX10 compatible card that was "low end" a year ago when you bough it? And why think you would be running new DX10 games at a resolution lower than 1024x768?
b) Please tell us these games that you played over these past 5 months that were DX10 to claim this disappointment?

Dude shake yourself, DX10 is not the huge disappointment, your posting is...

You ran from last post and you should easily run from this one.

Same as with building cars, sure you can go and buy a fast car but there will always be people that want to build and/or modify their own.

And really who uses PC just for games? Sure you occasionally drop some serious dough into your beloved rig but all of a sudden you can edit movies and music, render 3D animation, waste time on different messengers and networking websites, watch and record TV and look at porn (just admit it, it's the most abundant file download type after all). O yea and they play games. What do consoles again? JUST play games and maybe movies. I think I'll stick to my custom hardware than spend 700 bucks (including HDMI cable) on a toy.

I forgot about having a music/video/photo collection as well as editing photos. And I bet there's more uses. The day a console does all this I will throw away PCs and stop calling consoles toys.

Mass Effect developed by bioware- paid for by microsoft - xbox only. Well gee M$ why DID you make vista? Since the only REAL draw is DX10 and games, then you pay devs to make games xbox360 exclusive. Rediculous, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Anyways i'm sick of having to play a game with power-ups and cheat modes to get a good story line. It is sad to those of us whom remember by-gone days where the effort HAD to go to gameplay, so limited was the technology and the very limits of gameplay were reached. I'm talking about Xcom, i'm talking about starcontrol3, i'm talking about a new revolutionary GENRE nearly every year instead of re-hashed shooters, with tired old cliche' story lines and the only badguys are nazis and aliens. Can't even show a swastika on the flight sims anymore.

In summary gaming is becoming very watered down. I don't buy games to play 15 hours and then on to the next mindless drivel. I suppose that makes me part of a very small minority and I shall fade into the dark....screen of DosBox.

Why do PC gamers think that the best looking games are the best games. Graphics don't make a good game, gameplay does. Farcry has the same gameplay as quake did: you run, you shoot, you sneak, you shoot, then you reach the end of the level. Visual bells and whistles don't necessarily make the gameplay any better.

What's this about the end of PC gaming? While more people are moving towards the economy and ease of console gaming, there will always be PC gaming as well (be it emulators, RTS games, classics, etc...) Just because video came along, that doesn't mean that radio is dead (not that the music industry hasn't tried).

The real problem with PC gaming is the constant "moving platform" of hardware and software, and the costs associated with it (although sometimes this is a blessing). Consoles don't even "solve" this problem, but they do offer a more consistent platform for a somewhat longer period of time, at a slightly cheaper price. Another problem for both PCs and consoles is the constant rehash of the same games. This effects PCs especially because of the higher costs associated with PC Gaming. Finally, VP of hardware companies saying you need to spend $20,000 to be a "real" PC gamer doesn't help any, especially when real PC gamers know that in 2 years time that $20,000 PC will be worth only $2,000...

Then nick prove us all wrong...

Play only atari 2600 games from here to eternity. Pitfall was a top seller great game play and so was missile command. I'm sure you'll love that visual quality for the next 10 years.

My God !! LOL graphics don't matter.

When you can post that I'm currently using my sega, colecovision or commodore 64 as my gaming machine then we'll believe you.

Until then Snooze Boy, we want max visual quality as well as have great game play.

Looks like MS could figure out a way to upgrade the XBox 360 every three months or so, when you send it in to be repaired ...

2 Totally different people..
Yes a PS3, / Xbox 360 has good graphics, (with the addition of a 1000 TV that is.
But this is a reality. When the Xbox was close to being released, all this hype on how the video card on that was just awesome. (back in the 6900 era of nvidia).
Well fast forward to today, and a 8600 GTS card which totally destroys a 6900 is avaliable for sub 300..

The killer of all these comments are , that these console fanatics are using a PC to write these comments.
PC gaming, isnt designed for cheap / poor people. Console gaming is designed for casual gaming. PC gaming is designed for HARDCORE Gaming. If developers doubt that, look at the 9million subscribers of WOW.
9,000,000 users = 450,000,000 million just for the game
1,400,000,000 THAT is 1.4 BILLION a year for a game.
When i played SWG, that was an experience, that rocked. not any console i have ever played give that to me. So yah, pc gaming, may be struggling, but trust me.. someone sees that 1.4 billion in revenue, and you best believe that someone is designing pc games..

ALSO, notice taht those 9million people, are also pc gamers.. HENCE no matter how you look at it..

Console gaming has a future, when the new consoles hit, that is all cool. But until you can play a game, voice chat with your partners, recored your games, and also more importantly, turn the thing off, and use your computer for profit... Until a console can do that, i will just pass on the console...

Still waiting on your response...

is the funniest thing I've read all day.

WEll, truth be told we are living in a time now where cost for gaming 'for' that beautiful graphics are taking its toll by sacrificing gameplay/story and especially Dev times... we all know that it cost money and especially time to create these games and now Nvidia is talking about a "directors cut", its not that simple for the Producers, cause don't forget who is willing to spend to 're-create or fund' these games. Now, it does make sence for 'hardcore or even the slightest bit of 'fans'' would love to play their favorite games in higher rez. I mean who wouldn't, however what game engine would they have to use? don't tell me you would like to see the same graphics but @ a higher rez and call that a "graphical achevement" because it isn't nor does it justify buying that "$20,000" system (I think the Nvidia guy is talking about an overall cost for "the" gaming rig... ex: including Monitor and all.) because You'd just look at the same graphic engine but @ a higher rez...I'd say with In_Game_Ads (IGA) They wouldn't have to worry about cost or being bought off by the Top-doggies (ex: the top 5 companies...take a guess at which company I am talking about).This 'should be good news' for the Ad companies (hopefully all "respectful" Ad companies). It's going to happen.. we're gonna see IGA's (In-Game-Ads)on games no matter if we like it or not... Sure, it'd be nice to play these fantastic games on my $20,000 gaming rig, thats just one part of the story.... getting that Game out where its done 100 percent and "worth" the purchase is another story... And thats for the Devs/producers to fig out...*don't mind my spelling errors... its just "my" opinion on this topic...*

I can definitely understand what he says. In the fight between compatibility and quality, developers have moved too close to compatibility at the expense of quality.

I got a 4 year old 9800 pro card and the tech demos that came with the card look more fantastic than any game graphics I've seen to date, thats pathetic! There's more to graphics than vertices/sec.

My creakin ps2 with 8MB RAM can wow people more than my gaming rig with 2gb RAM. Its great to have awesome games like UT2004 and guild wars that have the kind of gameplay you couldnt imagine on a console, but, you got to have some show-stopper apps. I toss in DOA4 on the 360 and as of yet, no one has been able to pass without being captivated. Gameplay graphics = excellent, but really really good graphics comes in a pretty close veery good!

One poster said that the 360 will not last 6 years because a new PC graphics chipset already came along that was faster.
This totally misses the boat, as well as making the point for console gaming. The very PROBLEM with PC gaming is that the components are evolving rapidly, and it takes continual outlays of cash year after year AS WELL AS a completely new system every 3-4 years. so if you spend 150 a year on your PC upgrades to pay the latest PC games and you started out with a 1500$ system, after four years you will have spent $1950. On top of this, you will always have a segment of PC games that require more muscle than your system has, and the ones that do work will require patches and Microsoft Windows updates and even then you can't be sure it will play exactly the way you hoped, given your specific hardware/software configuration.
If you buy an XBox 360 the hardware is not upgradeable and will not change until the next console. Take the same amount of time... you start out spending say 499$ for the top of the line 360 with all the extras, throw in a wireless adapter for 90, that brings you to almost 600$, and you have AT LEAST 3 to 4 years before you have to lay out another dime on anything but the games you buy. During that time, the game manufacturers will be putting out games that work more or less perfectly and remain well-performed and fluid because they know exactly what hardware you have!
The decision here is a no-brainer.

That is where PC gamers and consolers differ. We (PC gamers) are willing to pay for a top of the line experience. Money is no object. It is like buying a Ferrari vs. buying a Toyota. Both good machines, but one will perform much better and yes. Cost much more. Your justification for sticking with the console is your own. If you are happy with your console then great! You have spent your money wisely. But also keep in mind that I am also happy with my gaming PC. I too have spent my money wisely.
Another thing to keep in mind is the fact that PCs do a far greater variety of tasks than consoles do. Granted consoles are now taking advantage of the internet and have their own web browsers. This allows them to download firmware updates and patches (something unheard of in the console world until this recent console wave). Also, a large majority (not all) of Playstaion 1 & 2 games and an even larger sum of Nintendo games are easily emulated (and typically run at much higher resolutions and greater frames per second) on the PC. A good PC will DO MORE than a console. And yes… COST MORE as well.
You yourself also have a computer (unless you are accessing the web publicly or at a friend’s place). Add the cost of your home PC or laptop to the cost of your console and the justification for buying a gaming PC looks a little bit better although still more expensive. It is all about perspective and personal taste.
That is why my friend bought a PS3 for around $600 and a new Mac Book for $1,000. The cost is about $500 less than my gaming desktop. (If you exclude the costs of our screens) but he has been very bored with only God of War (a PS2 game), Tekken, and Resistance (ewwww) to play.

christ there are some fucking idiotic comments here, from both sides. the 360 is a wonderful piece of technology and for what you pay, you get a lot.

PC gaming is dying and probably wont be saved, but it will be around for a few years yet. however when it comes purely down to money, you're simply better off going for the 360 for GAMING, over a new PC.

now more than ever it is more and more expensive to keep up with required PC gaming specs. its just utter nonsense to say people that game on consoles are less 'hardcore' than PC gamers. just because you can afford to buy a new TOTR PC, doesnt make you any better, or more of a gamer than a console owner.

how many of you PC owners have bought your PC's on credit card, or gone over budget?

yes a console cant do everything a PC can, but that's not the fucking point and it sure as hell isnt why you're buying one. instead of buying a new PC in 2007, i have bought a 360.

i will be able to play a huge range of big title games which are also coming out on PC and some that aren't. I'll be playing Bioshock in full detail on my widescreen monitor and enjoying it fully. all that will have cost me is £340. i would have needed to spend a MINIMUM of £600-£800 on a new PC and even then I would have needed to buy lower spec components.

dont fool yourself into thinking console gaming is a lesser form of gaming just for the sake of it.

try it

Back in the early 90s we sold 10 Silicon Graphics Reality Engine IIs to the UK MoD as part of a flight simulator for $60k each. Less than 10 years later they were so slow that they couldn't run current games at a usable frame rate, not even 1Hz. If any of you wants to bet your pension that resolutions better than 3800x2400 aren't possible in the near term then I think you are in for some huge surprises. The old Dell CRT, at least 4 years old, that I'm working on now is running 1600x1200 at 120Hz, it will run around 2048x1536 at 60Hz. I'd only need double the horizontal and vertical resolution to blow away that spec.

But why bother? Who needs it? I can't see the pixels on this screen anyway. The 1920x1200 I use at home seems better than I need, it's almost too wide to use. I have to search around the screen to see where I left things.

As to games consoles... I'm glad you people are happy with your crummy controllers and limited performance. The flight simulator I run wouldn't fit in your memory and the frame rate would be unusable and the controllers don't have near enough buttons to control all the aircraft systems. Games consoles have, through my 20 year career, always had an overinflated opinion of themselves and they have never been anything more than a pale imitation of what is available in a PC.

The majority of console owners already own a PC anyway, and will probably be upgrading it every 5-8 years even if they aren't gaming on.

Both my parents have been looking at new PCs recently and neither of them have played any game on a PC besides maybe solitare. For the $500-1000 range for a new PC to do the basic PC stuff that everyone does plus the $300-600 for a console you are at the price of a decent mid range PC.

Even the internet capable consoles don't even compare to the basic usability of the internet on an old PC.

If you spend about $1200-1500 for a PC now it will play every game out on very high settings. You may not get the same 100FPS you get with a $3K SLI system, but you are still going to get a good 40-60 FPS which is more then most people are even capable of seeing. And that will run games at least as good, and probably better, as the current console systems in terms of visuals. And in 3-5 years time that PC will still be able to play games, but the difference will be instead of playing all the games at the highest settings like you did when the system was new, you are instead playing all the games at mid-low settings. The difference is that mid-low settings on games in 3-5 years is going to be at least as good, if not better, then what we see as top of the line right now.

The console in comparision will always play all its games at the same "high resolution" but the difference will be that "high resolution" will be the same this year as it will be in 3-5 years time when the console is replaced.

My computer right now is 3-4 years old, and it was a mid range PC when I bought it. I have yet to find a game that doesn't play on it (though I'm sure there are some that just don't happen to appeal to me so I haven't came across them). Even the games I have to play on mid-low settings still look a lot better then what can be found on the last generation consoles.

EVE Online ISK

EVE Online ISK
EVE ISK
Buy EVE Online ISK
Buy EVE ISK
Cheap EVE Online ISK

EVE Online ISK
EVE ISK
Buy EVE Online ISK
Buy EVE ISK
Cheap EVE Online ISK

EVE Online Guide
EVE Guide



Runescape Gold

Runescape Gold
Runescape Money
Buy Runescape Money
Cheap Runescape Money
RS Gold
RS Money
Buy Runescape Gold
Cheap Runescape Gold

Runescape Gold
Runescape Money
Buy Runescape Money
Cheap Runescape Money
RS Gold
RS Money
Buy Runescape Gold
Cheap Runescape Gold

Free Runescape Money
Free Runescape Gold
Runescape Gold
Runescape Money
Runescape GP
Runescape Guide
Runescape Guides
Runescape Cheats
Runescape Hacks



WoW Gold,World of Warcraft Gold

WoW Gold
Buy WoW Gold
Cheap WoW Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
Warcraft Gold

WoW Gold
Buy WoW Gold
Cheap WoW Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
Warcraft Gold

WoW Guide
WoW Powerlevels
WoW Power level
WoW Powerlevel Guide
WoW Powerleveling Guide



Lineage II adena

Lineage II adena
Lineage 2 adena
Buy Lineage 2 adena
Buy Lineage II adena
Cheap Lineage II adena
Lineage II Gold

Lineage II adena
Lineage 2 adena
Buy Lineage 2 adena
Buy Lineage II adena
Cheap Lineage II adena
Lineage II Gold

Pc gaming isnt dead nor will it ever be. I'm not sure if people realize it but Microsoft is pretty much merging the two slowly as we speak, the Xbox 360 in itself is a very compact pc/media center with a controller. As time goes on, and as more and more people own Pc's, The tide will turn towards pcs. Its just one more reason why there are xbox360 controllers for the PC, to merge the two together, to get those people comfortable with a controller to move to a PC...kinda like training wheels for a bike, and is why they are pushing the "games for windows". They are trying make it mainstream. You can pretty much now and days build a PC for around 450-600 dollars as of now, and thats not completly bottom of the barrel, anyone check how much a E6300 is now? its cheap as heck, and for most people...more then enough juice.As time goes on, there will be no point for consoles from a price stand point and logical choice.Id say give 10-15 years before consoles as we know it become extinct. The main reason why PCs arent mainstream yet are because they are not "social gathering" friendly. They require a desk with a chair, not a couch (least for most of us)As bigger screens come out and eventually a more comfortable way to play with a keyboard and mouse on the couch...this gap will also be filled.

its not pc gamers who have abandoned pc gaming but the developers who have been lured to the consoles.PC gamers are alive and well but good PC games are sorely lacking these days!You dont need the best graphics to make a good pc game but fresh ideas and good writing.I regularley replay older games such as unreal,halflife,system shock2,deus ex,even though I have a $3000 computer system that could handle any newer game,because they are great pc games.Although good graphics and eye candy add to a game,they are only a small part of a great gaming experience!

Why do people keep using ridiculous numbers to say PC gaming costs $20,000? Over two years ago I built a gaming PC for $1,400. It had a AMD X2 3800 and a GeForce 6800GT. It was fully capable of playing Oblivion at Max settings with up to 25fps outdoors and up to 50fps indoors. The only upgrading I've done is a $139 500GB hard drive, which was not for gaming, and I recently bought a 7900GS for $114. Since I sold my 6800GT on Ebay for $74 that means my total cost of gaming upgrades over a 2 year period was $40 and I can play the lettings games at high settings.

Stark contrast to the $1500 a year crap people are making up. Even the insane rigs in Maximum PC only run around $10,000.

Ok this one will shut most of you up about pc cost in general. Let's look back to the mid 90's when the first pentiums came out we were paying an average of 2000-4000$ for a new computer & today you can have bad ass pc anywhere from 1500-3000$. The reason for this is the age of technology is more advanced & we have better capabilities to produce hardware at reduced costs as back then it was a transition period for the pc. So as far as the pc goes the price/performance will continue to go down slowly but surely. Now consols cannot live without pc's but pc's can live without consols. Why is this. Because consols are built based off current techology that is available. If pc's did not evolved consols would not either. Now to get into the whole gaming topic.
Pc games had the upper hand because at the time yes the techology was way more advanced than any consol that could be built so it was more efficiant to produce for pc's. Yes unfortunatly the table's have turned & most companies are focused on consol gaming for the simple fact that the consol all cary the same hardware down the line(respectivly to there own) This is more cost efficiant for the software companies to programe & create there games using the consols & the porting over to the pc. What will happen in 5 years which is usualy the life span of consols, till the next fresh batch is slowly more games will be released for pc & everyone will cheer that pc gaming is back & alive & this cycle will continue till the gaming industry dies (which wont be anytime soon). So on both sides of the table we should all cheer & party because in the end we all love to play games & do our things with our freedom of choice.

The problem is not the gamers. It's the developers. The majority of them (the cheap ones pushed by the buisness men) are looking for a good way to make money doing the same things they have done for years. Unfortunately they have people like Blizzard and Valve to compete with on the PC. The companies that lack vision and creativity will run away to the console where players are too dumb to know the difference between a good game and a sad game. There they will try to do the same things as before because they have run out of ideas. Even the groundbreaking Wii wasn't creative enough to keep people interested forever. I was impressed for a while... but now it is like. Come on... don't you have any more?

PC gaming is dieing because no one has 800 dollars to buy a graphics card to play the game. Only kids who live in the basement in their moms house who don't pay rent can afford 500 dollar graphics cards. 300 is pushing it a bit for people who are trying to pay a mortgage or rent.

It's a lot cheaper to just spend 500 dollars on an xbox or ps3 and get superior hd gaming.

You can shove that Director's Cut comment back up your crack. No way. Tha is an excuse for trying to make the 'cheap' version lacking so many features people feel they have to spend $10 more for what should be in the game.
Games cost enough already. No special edition.
Additional downloadable content and expansion packs works because it forces the developer to make a game worth buying in the first place. When it is, EVERYONE wants the expansion pack. Otherwise, you make a lame directors cut and no one will ever buy your game again.

Yea, if you think PC gaming is dead, watch the CPL tournament videos sometime. There are hundreds of people there, just to watch 3d.ny own u5 in CounterStrike:Source. You say it's kids who live in their parents basement who have all the money...as if it's a bad thing for a kid to live at his parent's house and not pay rent? That's what gaming is: kids playing with expensive toys. If you can't make rent, you shouldn't be worrying about being a gamer because gaming being expensive is just the nature of the beast.

On the subject of screen size, I think 24 inches is a good sweet spot for now. With a 30 or 37 inch monitor you'd have to sit upwards of three feet away from the screen, and nobody would want to do that. Not even kids who don't pay rent will necessarily have that kind of space.

Nobody has mentioned how much console prices keep going up. Just a few years ago a brand new console would only be around $200. I remember worries over whether $300 would be prohibitively expensive. I kind of expect this trend to continue, in order to allow consoles to keep up with relatively modern (PC quality) graphics.

And also keep in mind that you can build a gaming PC for under $1000 that would blow any console out of the water. That sub-$1000 also means you get all the other abilities of a new PC.



As for $20k, that's absurd. I'm not saying you couldn't spend that much (I almost could now) but why would you? It probably would only be slightly better in practice than what you could get for less than a fourth of that cost.