Jump to content


New and Exciting!


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#41 Sneaky Snake

Sneaky Snake

    Official Mascot of the 1988 Winter Olympics

  • IMG Writers
  • 3298 posts
  • Steam Name:SneakySnake
  • Steam ID:sneaky_snake
  • Location:Waterloo, Canada

Posted 12 February 2016 - 07:28 AM

View Postmacdude22, on 12 February 2016 - 07:20 AM, said:

Call me superstitious but I don't like odd numbers in my storage. I didn't like 1.5GB HDs and I don't like 3 and 5TB HDs. Give me red blooded 'Murican even numbered storage.

A 1.5 GB HDD would be a pretty bad experience :unsure:
2015 13" rMBP: i5 5257U @ 2.7 GHz || Intel Iris 6100 || 8 GB LPDDR3 1866 || 256 GB SSD || macOS Sierra
Gaming Build: R5 1600 @ 3.9 GHz || Asus GTX 1070 8 GB || 16 GB DDR4 3000 || 960 Evo NVMe, 1 TB FireCuda || Win10 Pro
Other: Dell OptiPlex 3040 as VMware host || QNAP TS-228 NAS || iPhone 6S 64GB

#42 Frost

Frost

    Secretary of Offense

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6075 posts
  • Steam ID:CaptFrost
  • Location:Republic of Texas
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 February 2016 - 07:33 AM

View Postmacdude22, on 12 February 2016 - 07:20 AM, said:

Call me superstitious but I don't like odd numbers in my storage. I didn't like 1.5GB HDs and I don't like 3 and 5TB HDs. Give me red blooded 'Murican even numbered storage.

Now that you mention it, the only other recent hard drive failures I've had were 1.5s.

Odd numbered hard drive capacities are a commie plot, confirmed.
Kestrel (Falcon NW Tiki) – 4.0 GHz i7 4790K / 16GB RAM / 512GB Samsung 950 Pro M.2, 2x480GB Intel 730 (RAID0), 10TB STX BarraCuda Pro / GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB
Iridium (MacBook Pro Mid-2012) – 2.7 GHz i7 3820QM / 16GB RAM / 2TB Samsung 850 Pro / GeForce GT 650M 1GB

Eric5h5:
When there's a multiplayer version, I'm going to be on Frost's team. Well, except he doesn't seem to actually need a team...I mean, what's the point? "Hey look, it's Frost and His Merry Gang of Useless Hangers-On!" Or something.

#43 macdude22

macdude22

    Like, totally awesome.

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2028 posts
  • Steam Name:Rakden
  • Location:Iowa
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 February 2016 - 08:03 AM

View PostSneaky Snake, on 12 February 2016 - 07:28 AM, said:

A 1.5 GB HDD would be a pretty bad experience :unsure:

You don't know what I like in my private time. Also am only on my first cup of coffee this morning. :cool:
IMG Discord Server | http://raptr.com/rakden | http://www.trueachie....com/Rakden.htm
Enterprise (MacPro 3,1): 8 Xeon Cores @ 2.8 GHz || 14 GB RAM || Radeon 4870 || 480GB Crucial M500 + 2TB WD Black (Fusion Drive) || 144hz Asus Mon
Defiant (MacBookPro 9,1): Core i7 @ 2.3ghz || 8GB RAM || nVidia GT 650M 512MB || 512GB Toshiba SSD

#44 Janichsan

Janichsan

    Jugger Bugger

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8075 posts
  • Steam Name:Janichsan
  • Location:over there

Posted 12 February 2016 - 08:26 AM

View PostSneaky Snake, on 12 February 2016 - 07:28 AM, said:

A 1.5 GB HDD would be a pretty bad experience :unsure:
…nowadays. Back then in my Amiga days, that would have been the biggest HD available and offer more space than I would have ever needed. ;)

"We do what we must, because we can."
"Gaming on a Mac is like women on the internet." — "Highly common and totally awesome?"


#45 the Battle Cat

the Battle Cat

    Carnage Served Raw

  • Admin
  • 17376 posts
  • Location:Citadel City, Lh'owon
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:18 AM

When I got my first 1GB drive I felt like I would never fill that sucker up.  OMG!  All the room I'd ever need!  Do you realize how many floppies that would hold?!?!?!
Gary Simmons
the Battle Cat

#46 macdude22

macdude22

    Like, totally awesome.

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2028 posts
  • Steam Name:Rakden
  • Location:Iowa
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:21 AM

View Postthe Battle Cat, on 12 February 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

When I got my first 1GB drive I felt like I would never fill that sucker up.  OMG!  All the room I'd ever need!  Do you realize how many floppies that would hold?!?!?!

All the ASCII pr0n you'll ever need on one drive. What a futurepast we live in.
IMG Discord Server | http://raptr.com/rakden | http://www.trueachie....com/Rakden.htm
Enterprise (MacPro 3,1): 8 Xeon Cores @ 2.8 GHz || 14 GB RAM || Radeon 4870 || 480GB Crucial M500 + 2TB WD Black (Fusion Drive) || 144hz Asus Mon
Defiant (MacBookPro 9,1): Core i7 @ 2.3ghz || 8GB RAM || nVidia GT 650M 512MB || 512GB Toshiba SSD

#47 mattw

mattw

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 828 posts

Posted 12 February 2016 - 12:44 PM

As were are talking about disks this is about the best study I've seen on reliability based on a massive sample:

https://www.backblaz...bility-q3-2015/

There were definitely some serious issues with some Seagate 1.5TB models and indeed these drives were the ones I had issues with around that time when they were the largest you could get hold of.

HGST always seem a good choice and (touch wood) have been good so far for me but, at least shopping over here they are far less available than the WD and Seagate models and I had an issue with a 6TB NAS version not mounting on restarts when used inside my Mac Pro.

it worked fine once actually mounted but I go fed up of shutting down and cold booting just to mount my Time Machine disk.

That meant I ended up just using it externally as an archive and swapping it for a 6TB Toshiba internally as it was the only other affordable 7200rpm model (most are 5400rpm).

Hopefully one day we will just be able to cheaply and easily buy SSD drives that are well over 10TB and it won't be an issue anymore.
Mac Pro 09 (now a 5.1, 2 x 3.06GHz Xeon X5675, 24GB, R9 280X 3GB, 480SSD, 16TB HD, MacOS 10.12.6

#48 mattw

mattw

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 828 posts

Posted 12 February 2016 - 04:54 PM

Seems like we may get there one day:

http://www.pcworld.c...cron-chips.html
Mac Pro 09 (now a 5.1, 2 x 3.06GHz Xeon X5675, 24GB, R9 280X 3GB, 480SSD, 16TB HD, MacOS 10.12.6

#49 Frost

Frost

    Secretary of Offense

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6075 posts
  • Steam ID:CaptFrost
  • Location:Republic of Texas
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 12 February 2016 - 09:40 PM

View Postthe Battle Cat, on 12 February 2016 - 09:18 AM, said:

When I got my first 1GB drive I felt like I would never fill that sucker up.  OMG!  All the room I'd ever need!  Do you realize how many floppies that would hold?!?!?!

I remember buying a 9.1GB SCSI-3 Seagate Barracuda for like $700 back when they were the largest 3.5" drives on the planet. I think everything I owned fit in like 2 GB, and I figured holy hell, from the beginning of the personal computer revolution I've only accumulated 2GB. This thing is going to be good for like another 10 years at least!

Meanwhile just my Titanfall install is like 50GB these days...

Although another thing to note is that Barracuda is still running and it'll turn 20 I think next year. 1990s Seagate was a lot better than 2010s Seagate.
Kestrel (Falcon NW Tiki) – 4.0 GHz i7 4790K / 16GB RAM / 512GB Samsung 950 Pro M.2, 2x480GB Intel 730 (RAID0), 10TB STX BarraCuda Pro / GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB
Iridium (MacBook Pro Mid-2012) – 2.7 GHz i7 3820QM / 16GB RAM / 2TB Samsung 850 Pro / GeForce GT 650M 1GB

Eric5h5:
When there's a multiplayer version, I'm going to be on Frost's team. Well, except he doesn't seem to actually need a team...I mean, what's the point? "Hey look, it's Frost and His Merry Gang of Useless Hangers-On!" Or something.

#50 DirtyHarry50

DirtyHarry50

    Special Snowflake

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts
  • Steam Name:DirtyHarry
  • Steam ID:dirtyharry2
  • Location:North Carolina, USA

Posted 13 February 2016 - 09:21 AM

View PostFrost, on 12 February 2016 - 06:56 AM, said:

The price of the PC isn't up to $770 unless the price of the console is up to $1500 because you have to count the HDTV. If you're going to push the point that you can't just game on your TV with a PC using a controller, I'm going to never acknowledge that as valid because I do that all the time. Yes you can.
  • Plug HDMI cable into TV
  • Press the Xbox button or PS button or equivalent on your controller of choice to launch Steam Big Picture
  • Play
If you set Steam to run at login and start in Big Picture mode you've essentially just turned your PC into a console.


You seem to be missing the point i just made. If I want a console, I will buy a console which is better at being a console than a PC trying to be a console in my opinion. I don't want a Windows console at all that I consider to be inferior to anything from Microsoft, SONY or Nintendo and I am not talking about hardware specs and benchmarks nor do I want to. That's my opinion and I respect anyone else's being different.

I am not saying console is better than PC overall. Both platforms have their pros and cons. What I have been saying is that PC gaming is over time more expensive for the hardware than console gaming is. That's all. I am also acknowledging that for the minority of PC gamers playing on high end gear, PC gaming performance and visuals are significantly superior. How superior they are when compared to what the average PC gamer plays on is probably debatable but I don't want to at this point. What I will say is that for me and many millions of other gamers, the performance and visuals provided by consoles on television displays is plenty good enough to enjoy a lot of really great gaming experiences.

I know you don't agree with my insistence that the PC desktop display is a relevant cost not required for console typically. I think I have been failing to do a good job of making my point about that clear. Here is a look at my own situation where the cost of the display is absolutely a factor:

I presently own an iMac located in my bedroom on a computer desk and this is where computer desktop gaming with a mouse and keyboard happens. Sometimes i use a controller too depending on the game. I also have some nice Bose speakers and other various stuff that goes with this computer but all that could be used with a new one except for the display. I have to buy a new display if I buy an Alienware Alpha for example or anything else in the way of a PC. I don't have one. So it is 720 bucks to put that in usable form on my desk and another 50 if I didn't have a crappy Logitech controller or decided to upgrade it to an XBox one. In fairness though, I'll just keep it to 720. for comparison purposes regarding my situation.

In my living room like the vast majority of consumers I have a television. So, if I buy an XBox I am all set already for the display because like most people I already have a TV. I don't need to buy another one to do this to play video games.

So, for me I could go with a 350 dollar XBox that will presumably last a good four, maybe more years and be able to run all XBox One games without spending another penny for hardware.

Alternatively, I could buy an Alienware Alpha and play PC games with a mouse and keyboard on my desk for 720 bucks. Unfortunately though, due to the soldered on GPU, I'll be needing to buy another one for another roughly 500 bucks in say 3 years. So my cost to keep on trucking here with PC gaming is at least 1,220 bucks. My cost to play games on the couch using the TV I already had stays at 350 for the same period of time.

So for me I am looking at spending 870 bucks more in a three year time frame on hardware to play PC games on the desktop than with a console on my couch. That's just the way it is from where i am sitting.

What this ignores and I know you are thinking about is that I could plug that Alienware Alpha into my television and therefore not buy a display. I get that but I have two major problems with it. The first one i already mentioned. A Windows console is the last console on earth that I personally would want. That kills it right there even though I feel differently about Windows gaming which is fun but I like it less and less for reasons already stated than I do a simpler and less costly console experience. That does not define one option or the other as better. That is just my subjective call about what works for me. However, one thing does still need to be factored in even if I was okay with a Windows console. In three years max I have replace the thing, right? In three years if that, there is no way you'll be accessing new AAA at the same settings you were when the thing was new if you can run it all all on a system with 4 gigs of ram and dual core CPU not to mention a GPU you are stuck with. The only cure for that is spending more money that you don't have to spend with a console. There's no getting around that. This means if the price of the thing stays the same and you replace it three years out you will then have spent 900 bucks minimum if you did no upgrades along the way. I am comparing to that. At three years out with an XBox I don't need to do that and I never had to deal with a gradual performance decline and fiddling with settings along the way to reaching that point. If I buy the 350 dollar XBox which is a fairer comparison given both having 500 gig 7200 RPM hard disks, it's almost three times as expensive even when the display is not considered.

I hope that manages to clarify where I happen to be coming from. Furthermore, going beyond just my scenario even for a PC gamer putting this thing on a desktop who owns a display so the point is moot there, they are still looking at replacement of the unit 3 years out tops to access new AAA releases at the same level of performance if at all whereas no console owner is going to have that expenditure to make.

The above is the crux of what I've been talking about in considering costs over time. You just can't beat a console for cost over time because the platform AND it's software are a fixed, known quantity that remains stable over the life of a given console generation which is not the case in the PC world as system requirements continue to rise for games over time. Do you get something for that on the PC side? Sure you do. I'm not saying you don't. All I have been saying is please don't tell me you don't have to pay for that because I know that you do.

It has been pointed out repeatedly that PC hardware offers superior performance and the gap continues to widen over the life of a console generation. I'd never dispute that at all. The thing is, it's only natural that this is also going to cost more.
“The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.” — Bertrand Russell

#51 mattw

mattw

    Legendary

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 828 posts

Posted 13 February 2016 - 04:19 PM

I can kinda see the gaming desktop becoming a smaller and smaller niche as you say because we already know phones and tablets are becoming the main devices for many users with laptops/notebooks the next for more complex tasks. We already know most gamers don't have cutting edge hardware even on the desktop (e.g. Steam hardware survey) - it's just the vocal few that are hardware enthusiasts.

Games consoles will no doubt improve in steps every few years and continue as the main hardware for gaming with most titles ported back to computers later.

Which of these becomes "best" in terms of the experience I think depends on if there are reasons for mobile devices to continue improving GPU/CPU to levels to a point beyond where consoles can get there first with their life cycle length.

I'm not sure the desktop will disappear all together but there will no doubt be less concern targeting them for games as they become more and more niche.

What is interesting is that the hardcore gamer view of hardware and games is actually quite different to the average. For instance I recently found out that sales figures over here show that most console owners only buy 2 or 3 games a year, I always assumed it would be 10 to 20 given it is a device just for games and I must buy something like that for my Mac and it isn't a gaming only machine by any means.
Mac Pro 09 (now a 5.1, 2 x 3.06GHz Xeon X5675, 24GB, R9 280X 3GB, 480SSD, 16TB HD, MacOS 10.12.6

#52 Frost

Frost

    Secretary of Offense

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6075 posts
  • Steam ID:CaptFrost
  • Location:Republic of Texas
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 13 February 2016 - 04:40 PM

I think my point is if you prefer gaming on a console and you feel it's simpler to set up and use and fits your needs, hey, more power to you. I don't think it's appreciably more difficult, you do, okay. That's subjective so you go with what works for you best in the end.

I'm just pointing out the assertion that it's more expensive is wrong. It's not. You're making it more expensive by putting requirements that aren't necessary on it. Everything becomes more expensive when you do that. At least from my point of view, what you're doing is the equivalent of taking two cars from different makers that are about the same price, and saying Car A is much cheaper for you because if you buy car B, you have to add the optional $1000 sunroof, optional $2500 20" rims, optional $2000 navigation system, and so on. Meanwhile, on Car A it's so much cheaper because you don't need that sunroof, navigation, etc. When you don't actually need that on either car. That's why I'm like, "WTF is he talking about?"

One last attempt:

View PostDirtyHarry50, on 13 February 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

In my living room like the vast majority of consumers I have a television. So, if I buy an XBox I am all set already for the display because like most people I already have a TV. I don't need to buy another one to do this to play video games.

Untrue. You can run it on a TV just fine. There we go, your monitor expense is gone.

The whole reason Steam Big Picture and NVIDIA's GameStream tech even came about was the number of people who wanted to play PC games in their living room on their TV, and have the experience a console could give but using their PC hardware. That's already been a thing for years now. Last month I replayed Tomb Raider 2013 to get ready to the sequel. I played it with a controller on my HDTV in my living room the same way I would have if it was running on my PS4. I used a controller to launch it, I used a controller to play it, I used a controller to quit when I was done.

View PostDirtyHarry50, on 13 February 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

So, for me I could go with a 350 dollar XBox that will presumably last a good four, maybe more years and be able to run all XBox One games without spending another penny for hardware.

A PC will do the same. You don't need to buy extra hardware.

View PostDirtyHarry50, on 13 February 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

Unfortunately though, due to the soldered on GPU, I'll be needing to buy another one for another roughly 500 bucks in say 3 years. So my cost to keep on trucking here with PC gaming is at least 1,220 bucks. My cost to play games on the couch using the TV I already had stays at 350 for the same period of time.

I think this is our main point of disconnect. What you're saying is flat out wrong. It's not a matter of opinion. Go search YouTube. You can find people running, say, Black Ops 2 on their 8800s and Core 2s from 2006 and 2007 and while they don't look great, neither do they look any worse or perform any worse than the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions. Or Tomb Raider 2013. It'll still run on 2006 hardware that was about equivalent to the PS3. It doesn't look all that fantastic, but it still runs, and it gets equivalent or better framerates to the PS3 version (which also does not look fantastic, but still runs).

View PostDirtyHarry50, on 13 February 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

A Windows console is the last console on earth that I personally would want. That kills it right there

I can completely understand and appreciate that. If that's why, then do what works for you. I'm not taking issue with your personal preferences. :)

View PostDirtyHarry50, on 13 February 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

In three years max I have replace the thing, right?

Wrong. In three years it'll be the same machine you bought.

View PostDirtyHarry50, on 13 February 2016 - 09:21 AM, said:

In three years if that, there is no way you'll be accessing new AAA at the same settings you were when the thing was new if you can run it all all on a system with 4 gigs of ram and dual core CPU not to mention a GPU you are stuck with.

Nope, still wrong. See above. There are people with systems from ~2006 that were about equivalent to or a little better than a PS3 (2006) and Xbox 360 (2005) and they're still able to run games from the last handful of years at about equivalent settings. So this isn't true.

Hell, I did this myself. Before I bought a gaming PC in September 2013, I was playing on a bootcamped Mac with a friggin' 8600M GT, which is weaker than the Xbox 360 and PS3.

A console's hardware is frozen in time at the time you buy it. It doesn't become worse. Same with PC hardware. You have the OPTION of upgrading PC hardware over time at additional expense if you want to. And besides, you're not stuck with the GPU if you don't want to be. I said at the beginning the Alpha was one option of many that I just picked as an example of a compact prebuilt. There are other prebuilts on which you can change out the card that are still in the same price range.
Kestrel (Falcon NW Tiki) – 4.0 GHz i7 4790K / 16GB RAM / 512GB Samsung 950 Pro M.2, 2x480GB Intel 730 (RAID0), 10TB STX BarraCuda Pro / GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB
Iridium (MacBook Pro Mid-2012) – 2.7 GHz i7 3820QM / 16GB RAM / 2TB Samsung 850 Pro / GeForce GT 650M 1GB

Eric5h5:
When there's a multiplayer version, I'm going to be on Frost's team. Well, except he doesn't seem to actually need a team...I mean, what's the point? "Hey look, it's Frost and His Merry Gang of Useless Hangers-On!" Or something.

#53 Sneaky Snake

Sneaky Snake

    Official Mascot of the 1988 Winter Olympics

  • IMG Writers
  • 3298 posts
  • Steam Name:SneakySnake
  • Steam ID:sneaky_snake
  • Location:Waterloo, Canada

Posted 13 February 2016 - 08:07 PM

The biggest issue that people like Frost and I have with the new consoles is their vey lacklaster hardware. When the PS3 and X360 came out they had MUCH more powerful hardware (relative to the times).

Intel's newest integrated GPU, the HD 540, is within a stone's throw of the performance in the Xbox One.
2015 13" rMBP: i5 5257U @ 2.7 GHz || Intel Iris 6100 || 8 GB LPDDR3 1866 || 256 GB SSD || macOS Sierra
Gaming Build: R5 1600 @ 3.9 GHz || Asus GTX 1070 8 GB || 16 GB DDR4 3000 || 960 Evo NVMe, 1 TB FireCuda || Win10 Pro
Other: Dell OptiPlex 3040 as VMware host || QNAP TS-228 NAS || iPhone 6S 64GB

#54 Frost

Frost

    Secretary of Offense

  • Forum Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6075 posts
  • Steam ID:CaptFrost
  • Location:Republic of Texas
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 13 February 2016 - 09:01 PM

View PostSneaky Snake, on 13 February 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

The biggest issue that people like Frost and I have with the new consoles is there vey lacklaster hardware. When the PS3 and X360 came out they had MUCH more powerful hardware (relative to the times).

Intel's newest integrated GPU, the HD 540, is within a stone's throw of the performance in the Xbox One.

Yeah, and that's probably why they lasted so long. I don't think the new crop will get anywhere close to that level of longevity.

I was a Mac gamer from the start even though I had a Genesis, then a Playstation, then Playstation 2, the Mac was my primary. I went console with the PS3 and 360 because, well... holy popsnizzle, man. The PS3 gave you a CPU with more horsepower than my Mac workstation, the RSX GPU was on par with the 7800 GTX I had at the time (which cost about as much as a PS3 just by itself), the RAM was an order of magnitude faster, and on top of all that it had Blu-ray which was expensive as hell at the time... and they delivered that for all of $600. I mentioned people still being able to game at equivalency with Core 2 CPUs and 8800s, but when I don't mention is their setups probably cost a LOT more at the time than a PS3 or 360. There was no way PC or Mac hardware could compete with that price performance ratio when it came to gaming. That was absurd. Sold me and in 2007 I went console and stayed console till 2013.

If we were still in that kind of situation I'd say go console unless you have the money and want to push the bleeding edge. Nowadays though, a console only makes sense if you like the user experience and/or are invested in a particular ecosystem, or just want a very controlled "it just works" experience. There's no longer any price/performance advantage they're giving you. These days you're not getting a closed system version of a $1500 gaming computer for $500-600 like 10 years ago, you're getting a closed system version of a $400 gaming computer for $400.
Kestrel (Falcon NW Tiki) – 4.0 GHz i7 4790K / 16GB RAM / 512GB Samsung 950 Pro M.2, 2x480GB Intel 730 (RAID0), 10TB STX BarraCuda Pro / GeForce GTX TITAN X 12GB
Iridium (MacBook Pro Mid-2012) – 2.7 GHz i7 3820QM / 16GB RAM / 2TB Samsung 850 Pro / GeForce GT 650M 1GB

Eric5h5:
When there's a multiplayer version, I'm going to be on Frost's team. Well, except he doesn't seem to actually need a team...I mean, what's the point? "Hey look, it's Frost and His Merry Gang of Useless Hangers-On!" Or something.

#55 Frigidman™

Frigidman™

    Eye Sea Yew

  • Admin
  • 4265 posts
  • Steam ID:frigidman
  • Location:East mahn, East!
  • Pro Member:Yes

Posted 14 February 2016 - 08:21 AM

"MY" biggest issue with any console is, you cannot play the games with a mouse and keyboard.

Until such day that consoles begin to package/allow/FULLY support a key/mouse combo control unit.... then at such day I would even consider a console. Price be damned, features, power, hardware.... none of that makes a lick of difference if my ability to control the game is unfun.

-Fm [1oM7]
"I'm not incorruptible, I am so corrupt nothing you can offer me is tempting." - Alfred Bester


#56 DirtyHarry50

DirtyHarry50

    Special Snowflake

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts
  • Steam Name:DirtyHarry
  • Steam ID:dirtyharry2
  • Location:North Carolina, USA

Posted 14 February 2016 - 01:22 PM

View PostFrost, on 13 February 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

I think my point is if you prefer gaming on a console and you feel it's simpler to set up and use and fits your needs, hey, more power to you. I don't think it's appreciably more difficult, you do, okay. That's subjective so you go with what works for you best in the end.

It's not a matter of difficulty. It's a matter of the value of my time which I'd rather spend gaming.

Again, we are not connecting because you are equating PC desktop gaming with gaming in the living room for the purposes of this discussion and cost comparison of options which while certainly doable is not traditional desktop gaming with a keyboard and mouse parked at a desk, etc. It is not the same thing when you play some RTS with a bunch of hotkeys or anything that lends itself well to mouse/keyboard by design. I am making an absolute distinction here that you are ignoring in replies to me or I have failed somehow to make clear so far. Gaming at a desk with a desktop computer is not exactly the same experience as gaming on couch in a living room with a controller. They are different. They are not interchangeable when comparing a preference for one or the other. The cost of them is a separate discussion as far as I am concerned and that's where our disconnect happens because while you see converting the PC to a console and plugging it in to the TV as removing the monitor expense issue this ignores the fact that we are not doing mouse/keyboard PC gaming anymore. Can we have a mouse and keyboard in the living room too? Please, let's not even go there and this is why most people don't go there. That's off the table.

This has been my position from the start and I have not varied from it. Your response as I understand has been to change the comparison to something else - a Windows console vs a anything else console. That would be another discussion I haven't given a lot of thought to frankly as it is not something I would care about just like tens of millions of other gamers don't care about that. So I am not exactly out to lunch here to be fair. Nor are you either but we aren't talking about or making the same comparison so no wonder we can't come to any sort of agreement about it.

Once we start comparing a desktop PC and the games that release for it which do have increasing hardware requirements year after year to a console which has new AAA release year after year with no comparative change in system requirements it becomes easier to see how the PC side gets to be more expensive just because at least so far console generations tend to last a good deal longer than you could expect a PC to without needing to be upgraded or even replaced depending so it could still run the latest and greatest games for PC.

That's all I've been trying to say in probably way too many words.

When I look at the comparison you are making, I really do understand what you talking about there and appreciate your point of view about that. My only bone to pick with your there comes back to longevity in terms of access to brand new AAA for as long as console offers from launch forward. I think there, the console wins because thus far console generations have gone on for a long time, longer than you could hope to use a PC without having to upgrade or if you couldn't, replace it to be able to access the latest greatest games. Just as one example which is not a good example of a gaming PC but I think still makes this point somewhat: my iMac is just two years old and was the latest available when I took delivery of it. It has a 3.4 i5 CPU, 8 gigs system RAM, a 27" 1440p display driven by a Nvidia 775m which is just a rebranded 680m not to be confused with the better 680mx. So as a gaming systems go this was nothing to write home about to begin with yet it does surprisingly well at 1080p for a lot of stuff. However, running the Witcher 3 on this is not even possible. It's not like you could run low settings. It simply is not doable at all. There are increasingly more games for which this is true. So this here box has already hit a wall so far as brand new AAA goes. It's already game over in two years. In fact, while Alien Isolation, CoH2 and others will run on this, you have to drop the resolution to 720p and reduced visual settings to attain playable frame rates? How much does that suck? Well, that's my own fault so I'll stop there about that. However, let's consider now the Alienware Alpha which out of the box new is a lot better so far as GPU goes. That's a plus for sure and it will last longer as such but how long? My assertion is that it cannot hope to last a full console generation before it needs to be replaced because sooner or later games will starting coming out that it can't meet the requirements for. When I make claims about the console being cheaper it is in no small part because the requirements don't change so it's never an issue during the console generation lifetime. All new AAA will run well. I don't see any PC being able to last that long accessing any AAA released and being able to meet the requirements the older it gets. Some stuff will, some won't depending on how old it is. Someone who bought an XBox 360 on launch never had to think about or spend a nickel on hardware. Someone who bought a PC then almost no matter what it was had to have spent more money by now. What PC made 10 years ago could run a AAA game released today? Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I think for the time being they have not stopped all AAA releases on XBox One or PS3 yet nor shut down their online services.

So, I'll let it rest there because I am running out ways to try to say this stuff. I am unable to see how I could play new AAA for even 5 years without having to upgrade a PC but it's a given you can do that on consoles so far. Am I missing something there? I played games on PC for many years with midrange hardware I put together myself each time and I cannot recall ever getting more than 3 years maximum without having to at least do a GPU upgrade and a lot of times other upgrades to get decent performance on newer titles. So this is why I am having a hard time getting my head around the idea that any PC is good for anymore than 3 years tops before it needs something, most likely a GPU, thus my feeling that you are kinda screwed at the 3 year mark with an Alpha you can't upgrade the GPU on, just like you are with a Mac that you can't do that.

View PostSneaky Snake, on 13 February 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

The biggest issue that people like Frost and I have with the new consoles is their vey lacklaster hardware. When the PS3 and X360 came out they had MUCH more powerful hardware (relative to the times).

Intel's newest integrated GPU, the HD 540, is within a stone's throw of the performance in the Xbox One.

Okay, well I won't argue with you about the hardware. My whole thing was about the cost, the affordability of one option vs a different one over time. For me though the whole thing rests on being fine with what I am getting for that money too.

I cannot play Halo games on the HD540 though so it doesn't matter.
“The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.” — Bertrand Russell

#57 Sneaky Snake

Sneaky Snake

    Official Mascot of the 1988 Winter Olympics

  • IMG Writers
  • 3298 posts
  • Steam Name:SneakySnake
  • Steam ID:sneaky_snake
  • Location:Waterloo, Canada

Posted 14 February 2016 - 01:26 PM

View PostDirtyHarry50, on 14 February 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

Just as one example which is not a good example of a gaming PC but I think still makes this point somewhat: my iMac is just two years old and was the latest available when I took delivery of it. It has a 3.4 i5 CPU, 8 gigs system RAM, a 27" 1440p display driven by a Nvidia 775m which is just a rebranded 680m not to be confused with the better 680mx. So as a gaming systems go this was nothing to write home about to begin with yet it does surprisingly well at 1080p for a lot of stuff. However, running the Witcher 3 on this is not even possible. It's not like you could run low settings. It simply is not doable at all.

There's lot of video's on YouTube of people running Witcher 3 just fine on that hardware. The Xbox One's Witcher 3 runs at low settings, 1600x900, some AA, and 25-30fps. Guys on YouTube are able to run Witcher 3 better then that with the 775M.
2015 13" rMBP: i5 5257U @ 2.7 GHz || Intel Iris 6100 || 8 GB LPDDR3 1866 || 256 GB SSD || macOS Sierra
Gaming Build: R5 1600 @ 3.9 GHz || Asus GTX 1070 8 GB || 16 GB DDR4 3000 || 960 Evo NVMe, 1 TB FireCuda || Win10 Pro
Other: Dell OptiPlex 3040 as VMware host || QNAP TS-228 NAS || iPhone 6S 64GB

#58 DirtyHarry50

DirtyHarry50

    Special Snowflake

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts
  • Steam Name:DirtyHarry
  • Steam ID:dirtyharry2
  • Location:North Carolina, USA

Posted 14 February 2016 - 02:33 PM

View PostSneaky Snake, on 14 February 2016 - 01:26 PM, said:

There's lot of video's on YouTube of people running Witcher 3 just fine on that hardware. The Xbox One's Witcher 3 runs at low settings, 1600x900, some AA, and 25-30fps. Guys on YouTube are able to run Witcher 3 better then that with the 775M.

I'd much rather play the game on console anyway. I don't buy that it would acceptably here where this system just barely meets minimum spec and the GPU is just very slightly under spec. It has nearly always been my experience that unless you can meet recommended requirements you are probably best off not bothering. Will something run at minimum, well supposedly yeah but will I be happy with it? I doubt it. Could this iMac run it as well overall as the XBox One? I really doubt that too based on how badly it handles the games I think I already mentioned above. I'm thinking something like Pillars of Eternity will run okay. I hope so. The Witcher 3? Naw, not worth it.

Unless they changed things I read the plan was to have this game upscale to 1080p from 900p and back dynamically as often as possible to improve the visuals. I didn't bother checking to see if that made it into the final build or not but again, it's not important to me. It's good enough.

I see this which is an admittedly imperfect comparison considering its a 1080p YouTube video as reason why I don't care at all about who has what settings, etc. when I'm lying on my back in comfort viewing this from a distance and it looks plenty good enough to me. So however valid and however important this stuff is to some folks I'm sorry but I can honestly say that at today's level of quality in general that i just don't care really.

https://www.youtube....annel=Candyland

I think this video is best viewed full screen btw
“The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.” — Bertrand Russell

#59 DirtyHarry50

DirtyHarry50

    Special Snowflake

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts
  • Steam Name:DirtyHarry
  • Steam ID:dirtyharry2
  • Location:North Carolina, USA

Posted 14 February 2016 - 02:50 PM

I forgot to mention but I meant to that I'm done. I'm just repeating myself and have been for a while here. Sometimes it's a good thing to just agree to disagree and let it slide, you know? It's fine. No group or even pair of people can ever hope to always agree about everything all of the time. So where I am of course right and you guys are just completely and totally wrong and cannot be reasoned with according me well, I'm good. I know what's happening. Ha ha!!!!! :)
“The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.” — Bertrand Russell

#60 DirtyHarry50

DirtyHarry50

    Special Snowflake

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts
  • Steam Name:DirtyHarry
  • Steam ID:dirtyharry2
  • Location:North Carolina, USA

Posted 14 February 2016 - 06:57 PM

View PostSneaky Snake, on 14 February 2016 - 01:26 PM, said:

There's lot of video's on YouTube of people running Witcher 3 just fine on that hardware. The Xbox One's Witcher 3 runs at low settings, 1600x900, some AA, and 25-30fps. Guys on YouTube are able to run Witcher 3 better then that with the 775M.

I lied. Sort of. Not debating anything but wanted to let you know I had found but not read an article by Eurogamer that did a very good evaluation of platforms with info about settings and performance, etc. It turns out I was wrong about not being able to run it as you'd pointed out according to them also. It also points out that both XBox One and PS4 use the same settings across the board other than filtering which is higher on PS4 and they are a mix of medium to high settings. Performance is marginal because of that though but the review was done prior to the most recent patches on all three options so hopefully console performance has been tweaked a little to improve how steady the frame rates are for both consoles. Visually though while of course not as good as PCs generally it turns out even the XBox One at 900p being the weakest of them still looks very good. So that's pretty cool especially if they wound up being able to improve optimization somehow which they were at the time said to be working on. I didn't bother searching for anything more recent but this stuff was interesting and I thought you might think so as well where it goes into some detail including about additional features possible with the PC version to enhance visuals.

On their budget test system they found they could achieve performance about on par with consoles with a Nvidia 750ti which is very close to an even match to what I have and the CPU I have is better. However they felt that to get console level graphics (1080p so PS4) at a steady 60 fps would require more as stated here in case you don't feel like reading the whole article:

Bumping up our spec to a Core i5 processor tested with a GTX 960 and its closest rival - AMD's R9 280 - our console-quality experience hits the desired 1080p60 for much of the duration, though a quick gallop through the streets of Novigrad City sees performance drop to a low of 50fps on Nvidia hardware, and 45fps on the R9 280. We're still looking into PC performance in more depth, but right now, our feeling is that to surpass console-quality visuals and still hit and maintain 60fps, something like a GTX 970 or an R9 290 is required, unless you're happy to explore lower quality preset

Here's the link if you are interested in the full evaluation: http://www.eurogamer...d-hunt-face-off
“The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.” — Bertrand Russell