Are you trembling with fear knowing that gen consoles will be soon lost in oblivion?

  • 200 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for MK-Professor
Edited 2 years, 6 months ago

Poll: Are you trembling with fear knowing that gen consoles will be soon lost in oblivion? (99 votes)

Yes 25%
No 75%

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-geforce-gtx-870-and-gtx-880-available-in-november.html

In a few months Nvidia will launch the new GTX 870 and GTX 880, early 2015 we will see the new monster single GPU from AMD 9 TFlops (10 TFlops+ if you OC, that is just crazy). Even single GPU's from january 2012 are 2 times more powerful than the most powerful next gen console. How to you feel about the next gen consoles becoming even more irrelevant? It is time for the console people to switch to PC gameing?

Avatar image for mbrockway
#101 Posted by mbrockway (3556 posts) -

B***tards made me think they announced the next Elder Scrolls game. Now I sad. :(

My laptop was more powerful than the PS3 I bought after the $499 price drop, my desktop I've been using for the past 4 years is more powerful than my PS4. I don't care about the PS4 being weaker than my pc's, I just want my Japanese rpg devs to have a cheap popular easy to use console to feed my habit.

Avatar image for papatrop
#102 Edited by PapaTrop (1792 posts) -

I agree that the consoles are very poor for gaming right now, and will most likely get worse as time goes on as has been the trend, but I don't think this GPU is the cause of that.

Avatar image for Zidaneski
#103 Posted by Zidaneski (8616 posts) -

I've only been gaming on PC because of console game drought, but come fall I'll have Destiny and so far it looks to be pretty amazing as long as you have some friends to roll with. Consoles have nothing to fear from PCs.

Avatar image for Ballroompirate
#104 Edited by Ballroompirate (25462 posts) -

@commonfate said:

@Ballroompirate said:

I have no desire to drop insane amounts of money just on a graphics card.

Yeah it's kinda funny to see hermits circlejerking hardware that never gets used but by shallow as **** games like Crysis 3. Upgrading a mid-range GPU every 2-3 years seems the way to go.

I usually upgrade every 4-5 and a half, I always try and keep a budget when I get a new PC as well.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#107 Edited by R4gn4r0k (23860 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@R4gn4r0k said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

Are you asking me if I'm aware that Crysis 3 does indeed look better on PC than consoles? Because I am well aware. But that doesn't change that it is the same game with the same character models and graphics pipeline on both platforms. Even if you put it to 8K, that won't change.

But what does it matter?

Crysis 3 is one of the best looking games around and easily matches up to Killzone: SF and Infamous: Second Son. Who cares that PS3 and 360 are running a scaled down version with scaled down assets ? I see you bring this argument up time after time.

You can claim it's all the same but at the end of the day it doesn't matter. I'm sure a scaled down version of Killzone: SF and Second Son is possible on PS3 and 360 too. The thing is they don't do that because they need exclusives to sell PS4s.

Oh and that image kinectthedots used is a pretty pathetic attempt. I'm sure if he searched harder he could've found an even smaller image with even crappier compression to make the difference between version come out as even more minimal.

I've seen Crysis 3 running maxed out on PC and on 360. The difference is huge. Anyone denying that or bringing up crappy compressed small images to claim otherwise is an idiot.

See thats where you are wrong. Infamous Second Son is taking full advantage of modern GPU technology from the fround up. Every asset in the pipeline is catered to the PS4. Nothing was held back for the PS3/360. Do you realize what that means for real time graphics?

Now Crysis 3 being the graphics king would mean what exactly? That it's the best looking game out there? Or the most technically advanced game out there? I personally say neither. It's definatly one of the best looking games out there. For sure. But tell me in words how it's that much better than Crysis 2. After all, both games were created for the same platform with the same console restraints. Tell me with all your knowledge what Crysis 3 has on Crysis 2 apart from PADM? Go.

Go ?

Your answering my question... with more questions? That's a no-go

I asked you what it matters that Crysis 3 is a multiplat and Infamous: SS is not when both games measure up graphically pretty well?

Avatar image for CrownKingArthur
#108 Edited by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

that's actually a really good time, will suit me well. depending on the bench results, i'm thinking 870 would be the minimum i'd go for. more like 880.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#109 Posted by R4gn4r0k (23860 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

that's actually a really good time, will suit me well. depending on the bench results, i'm thinking 870 would be the minimum i'd go for. more like 880.

Gonna wait and see what AMD'll be releasing too :p

Avatar image for lostrib
#110 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

Haven't the last few NVIDIA high end launches been mostly paper launches, whit it being rather difficult to find the actual GPUs?

Avatar image for GTSaiyanjin2
#112 Posted by GTSaiyanjin2 (6017 posts) -

This is good for those games who want to game at 4k or even just want a better 1440p experience... Other wise very few games will truly take advantage of this GPU. Also 28nm GPU die in late 2014... no thanks.

Avatar image for speak_low
#113 Edited by Speak_Low (2248 posts) -

No trembling here. You tremble when you may or may not get any games, and shake even worse when know you won't get them ever.

Every new next-gen game announced is headed to PS4/X1 first (don't even have to think about it for one second). PC a good chance too. Wii U no. It's like PS4/X1 prepared themselves for this moment, years ago, and reserved their prime parking space and have nothing else to worry about for the next five years.

GTA 6? Red Dead Redemption 2? Tekken 7? Street Fighter 5?? Destiny 2 (or even Destiny 1)? Where are they head for sure? PC might get them too, but there are a lot of franchises that I like or that I'm interested in, where I can't sit there with vague announcements and wait around and see nothing but "TBA" or zero news. What PS4/X1 may not have in top hardware, it makes up for in third-party support.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#114 Posted by R4gn4r0k (23860 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

Explaining the differences of a super hero sandbox game with a graphics focused fps would take some time. But think about this. Look at Infamous 2. Then look at Crysis 3/Uncharted 3 on PS3. There is a major difference in realism and asset quality because C3/UC3 are more linear and have more focus on realism and graphics in general. But they are all running on the same hardware none the less. Infamous 2 doesn't look 'bad', but it looks nowhere near C3/UC3 on the same platform. That said, I bet infamous 2 is rendering just as many polygons to screen as those two games on PS3. It probably stresses the hardware just as much too. But that doesn't mean it looks better.

That does not just have to do with one being linear and the other being open world.

I think it has a lot more to do with developer competence when it comes to graphics.

Compare Haze and Killzone 2 for example. It's clear Guerilla was way more competent at understanding PS3 hardware. Check the credits for the Uncharted games (I think starting from UC2). They thank Guerilla. Why is that ? Because Guerilla obviously worked with ND to deliver better graphics.

@scottpsfan14 said:

Now, Infamous SS, is basically an evolution of Infamous 2 in graphics. A generational leap so to speak. Regardless of it being the same genre as Infamous 2 and having the same focus points, it still gives last gens best looking games on PC a run for their money in pure asthetics. But technically, under the hood, it completely trounces last gen games fundamentally. Just like Infamous 2 may not be as pleasing to the eye as Half-Life 2 to some people, but technically there are far more polys being drawn to screen and much more going on.

Infamous SS has a lot of stuff going on. It's really impressive the sheer amount of stuff going on with it. From the rendering pipeline itself, to the effects all happening in unison. And I think you will agree for a game of it's type, it's damn impressive.

Compare Far Cry with Crysis 1

Compare Crysis 1 with Crysis 3

PC doesn't work with generations, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a graphical leap between these games

@scottpsfan14 said:

Explaining the differences of a super hero sandbox game with a graphics focused fps would take some time.

But that is besides the point. Take Killzone: SF as an example if that is easier for you.

I'm just asking you why Crysis 3, a multiplat running on PC/360/PS3, isn't beaten graphically by Killzone: SF a game designed SPECIFICALLY for PS4

That question is supposed to lead to me questioning you about your point you make in each thread: that somehow Crysis 3 is inferior because it uses 360/PS3 assets. I'm not seeing it. This supposed ' inferior asset' graphical showcase is not beaten by a 'superior asset' graphical showcase in the form of Shadow Fall.

That's the point of this whole discussion...

@scottpsfan14 said:

Infamous SS has a lot of stuff going on. It's really impressive the sheer amount of stuff going on with it. From the rendering pipeline itself, to the effects all happening in unison. And I think you will agree for a game of it's type, it's damn impressive.

Lol, I'm impressed by Sly Cooper at the moment ;)

Avatar image for cfisher2833
#115 Posted by cfisher2833 (2150 posts) -

@Cranler said:

Look how much more powerful the 780 was over the ps360 but that didn't stop consoles from breaking sales records last year.

Actually, it's only the PS4 that did well. Every other console/handheld has been doing quite poorly compared to previous generations.

Avatar image for sam890
#116 Posted by sam890 (1108 posts) -

These GPU's are for people looking to game at 4k or 1440p.

Avatar image for Cranler
#117 Posted by Cranler (8809 posts) -

@cfisher2833 said:

@Cranler said:

Look how much more powerful the 780 was over the ps360 but that didn't stop consoles from breaking sales records last year.

Actually, it's only the PS4 that did well. Every other console/handheld has been doing quite poorly compared to previous generations.

I'm talking about GTA V breaking game and entertainment sales records as well as PS 4 breaking launch records.

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
#118 Posted by faizan_faizan (7869 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:
@faizan_faizan said:

@scottpsfan14 said:

But we all know Crysis 3 is a game made to run on shadermodel 3 GPU's

That's not true, though.

The whole game was created first and formost for the PS3/360 in mind. Shadermodel 3 GPU's. Both Crysis 2 and 3 suffer from last gen restraints regardless of the extra DX11 (Shadermodel 5) class effects added. The content pipeline for all versions is the same. I think I went over this with you. Nothing in the core game assets are DX11 GPU specific. Both it and Crysis 2 are last gen games with a glossy coat of paint on. A very effective coat of paint none the less.

Again, incorrect. The game was developed separately for PC and consoles. They do share assets, I'll admit, but that has nothing to do with the pipeline. It's not simply a matter of adding shader model 5.0 effects. Crytek stated long before Crysis 3's launch that their game won't be supporting GPUs with anything lower than shader model 5.0.

Avatar image for faizan_faizan
#121 Edited by faizan_faizan (7869 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

Assets are what goes through the content pipeline. They are all part of the rendering pipeline. It is the game itself. The art. The concept. Assets do have a lot to do with the pipeline lol. Crysis 3 on lowest settings PC does infact have DX11 specific lighting that the console version does not. But it's not like Crytek couldn't have released it DX9 too just like Crysis 2 did if they really wanted to. Crysis 2 shares the same real time GI and Image based lighting as crysis 3 and that was all added in a patch on Crysis 2 lol.

If you compare Crysis 3 lowest settings to Xbox 360, what's different? I actually would like to know.

I think you're misinterpreting what I intended. Anyway, real-time GI wasn't included with the patch. Screen-space directional occlusion, screen-space reflections, wave simulation, tessellation and some texture enhancement was added with the patch. Their Light Propagation Volumes tech was in the retail version of Crysis 2 PC and consoles. LPV isn't exclusive to DX11.

If I remember correctly, when Crysis 3 was released, someone posted screenshots comparing its lowest settings to X360 screenshots and Crysis 3 looked significantly better. The most apparent difference was in the LODs.

Avatar image for herebefragons
#122 Posted by herebefragons (25 posts) -

Hermlords have no reason to tremble. That simple.

Avatar image for Chutebox
#123 Posted by Chutebox (41241 posts) -

This will literally mean nothing to consoles.

Avatar image for miiiiv
#124 Edited by miiiiv (897 posts) -

@scottpsfan14: I agree with you that when looking at the amount graphics effects running in unison, Crysis 3 probably tops everything out there. And yes, it was hurt by taking consoles into consideration during the development. I don't think there are more to be said regarding Crysis 3 vs KZSF than what hasn't already been said a 1000 times already.
And the most impressive ps4 game right now is Infamous SS, even though the lod distance could have been better, it's open world and it really renders a lot on the screen at once. Also Battlefield 4 on ps4 doesen't get as much praise as it should, probably because it's not 1080 but it's still 64 player action with large environments, great graphics all things considered, runs really good (I was really surprised when I saw some helicopter gameplay at friends house on his ps4) and no screen tearing at all. If it was a ps4 exclusive and there was no better pc version available, I'm sure most playstation fans here wouldn't stop going on about it.
Sorry for the grammar, I'm a bit drunk tonight and english is not my first language.

Avatar image for Pray_to_me
#125 Posted by Pray_to_me (3842 posts) -

No thanks, I'll stick with my PS4 and spend those thousands of dollars on something less nerdy and useless.

Avatar image for AM-Gamer
#126 Edited by AM-Gamer (8116 posts) -

It's funny the PS4 will still offer a far larger leap over the PS3 then these high end GPUs will over the PS4. In the land of diminishing returns we have a ways to go before I'm interested.

Avatar image for remiks00
#127 Edited by remiks00 (3718 posts) -

@Cloud_imperium said:

Don't know about consoles but I can't wait for 800 series to come out . Lot of people are waiting for those video cards before making an upgrade . Others will upgrade to 700 series because a bit older stuff will become cheaper after the launch of new hardware .

Then it'll be fun to run these games on higher settings .

Unreal Tournament :

The Witcher 3 :

Cyberpunk 2077 :

Star Citizen :

Exciting times ahead .

Greatness awaits. *snickers*

Avatar image for Shielder7
#128 Posted by Shielder7 (5191 posts) -

Even if I did build a PC with that like most people I don't have a 4K TV or monitor so it would be wasted so whats to be scared about again?

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#129 Posted by foxhound_fox (95493 posts) -

I'm more saddened by the fact that consoles are no longer really the "consoles" I grew up with. They are just shitty PC's.

Though, the Wii U to a much lesser degree than the POS4 and XBONE.

Avatar image for fgjnfgh
#130 Edited by fgjnfgh (2641 posts) -

console is where the money at. Developers prioritize making games there and that's because the competition is high and each large company wants to play monopoly.

Avatar image for PsychoLemons
#131 Posted by PsychoLemons (2985 posts) -

Nope, so long the game is enjoyable, regardless of what system.

Avatar image for papatrop
#132 Posted by PapaTrop (1792 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

I'm more saddened by the fact that consoles are no longer really the "consoles" I grew up with. They are just shitty PC's.

Though, the Wii U to a much lesser degree than the POS4 and XBONE.

As long as Japanese support for the PC keeps growing at the rate it is, it won't matter too much.

Go back a few years and you might have seen a single Japanese game show up on PC in any given year. Now it seems like a new one pops up every week or two. It's great. I hope more of the bigger Japanese publishers come over. Many have already, but Sega and Square Enix don't seem to like putting their Japanese titles on PC.

Slowly, but surely though.

Avatar image for hrt_rulz01
#133 Posted by hrt_rulz01 (11562 posts) -

Who cares. Go spend a fortune on a graphics card.

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#134 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (20636 posts) -

I'm always in favor of more powerful video cards. But, both AMD and Nvidia need to do something about the increasingly large sizes. My 4gb GTX 770 is only 10.24 inches. But, I'm fast approaching my limit for video card size.

PNY Nvidia FX-5200, ASUS GF4 Ti-4200 ViVo, Gigabyte Windforce GTX 560 Ti, MSI GTX 770. Not in photo is XFX 8600 GT

I hope the 8XX series aren't bigger than the 7xx series.

Avatar image for RossRichard
#135 Posted by RossRichard (3498 posts) -

Power doesn't matter if game developers don't use it. And this is coming from someone who games on PC.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
#136 Posted by R4gn4r0k (23860 posts) -

@scottpsfan14 said:

Infamous has a certain artstyle that deliberately looks 'comic book' like. It was never meant to compete with Uncharted or KZ3 graphically or on a photorealistic level. Also, it would be physically impossible for the PS3 to produce visuals like Uncharted 2/3 open world like Infamous 2 is. So it does have at least something to do with it being open world.

Just because something looks more realistic and 'better' to the eye, doesn't neccecarly dictate that it's more graphically advanced. As I say, I bet there are just as much polygons being drawn to screen in Infamous 2 as Uncharted 3. Just put in different places with a less realistic art style. You watch Uncharted 4 look significantly more realistic than Infamous SS. But I doubt that it has much more than 11 million polygons on average. And be out right more advanced just because it looks 'better'. And it probably will look better.

You are missing the point here. Crysis 3 PC is nowhere near the leap over the PS3/360 version as what Infamous SS is over Infamous 2. Why, because Crysis 3 PC and 360 are the same game. And I'm not just talking by name, but by the assets, code, and graphics pipeline. The character models, animations, AI, level geometry, objects, props, guns, misc things you see in the level are all exactly the same on PC to PS3/360. Sure, there are differences in textures, resolution, lighting, reflections, shadows, and draw distance etc, but thats all derived from the engine as an asthetic addition to the already existing game. I am not disputing that it looks fantastic maxed out, but i am just telling you how it's done. Crytek gave a 360 game an amazing makeover curtesy of Cry Engine 3 basically lol.

Now in the case of Infamous SS and Infamous 2, sure they are not the same games like Crysis 3 PC and console version are, but there is a bigger difference between the two graphically. Well, for a start the character model is several times as detailed in polygon count. 120,000 polygons in an open world game. Crysis 3 Psycho model is 20,000 polygons for reference. On top of that, there is an expodentially more detailed world. You find that all the little things in the world have more attention to detail etc. Much more geometrically dense. The animations are much much better with full body motion simulation that simply couldn't be synthasized on PS3 (and that counts for PC 7th gen multiplats as they share the same animations with the console version). These are all what make the game, the game. The fundamental assets. If they change, they cease to be the same game. The same is not true if you change the texture resolution and lighting etc. As they are asthetic engine additions. They are very important to asthetics, but still aren't the core game.

So in short, the overall graphical difference between Crysis 3 PC and PS3/360 is no where near as large as the difference between Infamous 2 and Second Son. As SS is fundamentally more advanced and built for modern hardware with no last gen restraints.

Now, when Guerilla announced Killzone Shadow Fall and showed the tech presentation, they specifically went into detail about their 'next gen' rendering pipeline. They showed you a typical asset from Killzone 3, and then showed you a typical asset that would be found in Killzone SF. It was several times more detailed. This is because it was designed for PS4. Not PS3. In short, the typical asset found in Crysis 3 is not as geometrically detailed as Killzone SF assets. Again, it's a more geometrically dense game. That's just the way it is. Crysis 3 simply couldn't be that detailed due to sharing the same PS3/360 rendering pipeline. All the game art was the same (as I've said many times). The character models are also far better animated in Killzone than Crysis 3 and are comprised of double the amount of polygons. That's every NPC using 40,000 polygons. Again, reference to Psycho model using 20,000 polygons. Now you could argue that Psycho looks 'better' than any character in KZSF. That is because the face map in the PC version is very sharp and detailed. But it looks dead and stiff in comparison due to inferior facial muscle simulation. Also, the face texture on Psycho >>>> his cloth texture.

So that leaves the lighting. Crysis 3 has real-time GI and other tech where Killzone doesn't. But Killzone has amazing lighting too. And texture work in places. It has PBR but has baked GI in places. The lighting in KZ typically looks more natural than C3 however due to PBR.

At the end of the day, what looks better is opinion. If your talking fundamentally, Infamous SS, Ryse, Killzone SF all are more advanced than Crysis 3 or any 7th gen multiplat on max settings. If you are talking asthetically, then thats down to the viewer. If you are talking sheer amount of rendering effects running in unison, Crysis 3 on max is your man.

But you still haven't answered my question.

What does all of what you wrote matter when at the end of it all you said: what is the better looking game is down to the viewer ?

You keep bringing up last gen assets and that there are few differences between last gen and current gen versions of Crysis 3. But I don't see how ANY of that matters when it stacks up just fine next to a full current gen asset game like Killzone: SF.

Avatar image for ReadingRainbow4
#137 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (18733 posts) -

I wonder if two 880's would be overkill. Running games at 4k will I even need to worry much about AA?

Avatar image for -RocBoys9489-
#138 Edited by -RocBoys9489- (6336 posts) -

Consoles aren't going anywhere bud; however, the lack of powerful hardware this gen is going to mean another 4-year cycle ala the Xbox/PS2/GC/DC gen. You know for a fact MS and Sony are gearing up to put out some MONSTERS by 2017. This gen is just a stop-gap until some real powerful hardware hits. Look at the graphics of this gen's games. For the most part, they're all using the same assets as last gen games, just running them at a higher res and frame rate. Which is quite sad, my going on three year old PC has been doing this since I got it LOL.

Avatar image for effec_tor
#139 Posted by Effec_Tor (862 posts) -

Not buying a new GPU till the 800s are out.

Avatar image for topgunmv
#140 Edited by topgunmv (10719 posts) -

@jun_aka_pekto said:

I'm always in favor of more powerful video cards. But, both AMD and Nvidia need to do something about the increasingly large sizes. My 4gb GTX 770 is only 10.24 inches. But, I'm fast approaching my limit for video card size.

PNY Nvidia FX-5200, ASUS GF4 Ti-4200 ViVo, Gigabyte Windforce GTX 560 Ti, MSI GTX 770. Not in photo is XFX 8600 GT

I hope the 8XX series aren't bigger than the 7xx series.

You could always get a larger case.

Avatar image for gamecubepad
#141 Edited by gamecubepad (7351 posts) -

More interested in sff low-mid tiers.

Avatar image for faizanhd
#142 Edited by faizanhd (961 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

and it still won't be able to play uncharted 4 nor guilty gear xrd. No game will take advantage of it beside maybe star citizen, so what is the point?

The last 2 Guilty Gear and Blazblue games came out on PC and Xrd will likely too.

Uncharted 4........................ basically you want to play the FOURTH game in a soulless AAA third-person "blockbuster" series.

Instead of 25 FREAKING YEARS OF GAMING LEGACY.

Every single masterpiece that has ever been playable on a computer WILL be playable if you buy a PC.

After you buy a PS4, you're at the mercy of devs. Want to play a game from any previous generation ? Too bad. Your stuck with Knack.

Avatar image for HalcyonScarlet
#143 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (7386 posts) -

Don't know about that, but I wonder if consoles aren't too far away from simply being called the PS and Xbox services working like PS Now and Onlive.

I don't fancy paying £400 plus yearly subscriptions every 5 to 8 years for smaller and smaller leaps between the the gens, if this is the case, the manufacturers can worry about the hardware instead, just like Onlive.

They need them to cost less to sell, but they need more expensive parts to show significant gains from the previous gens at this point. As it is consoles feel like limited PCs. IDK, but console manufacturers need to work something out for the future, because this is just poor. I expected much more after 8 years.

Avatar image for santoron
#144 Posted by santoron (8582 posts) -

Waste of time. No one here currently has a card around this power, because just about nothing out there can take advantage of this card. And it's not likely to see many games tailored around its capabilities because AAA development will stagnate around the capabilities of XB1 and PS4. For years.

By the time mainstream games really use a card like that it'll be a midrange card a fraction of that price.

High end cards (with few exceptions) are for suckers.

Avatar image for ps4hasnogames
#145 Posted by PS4hasNOgames (2620 posts) -

Why would anyone be scared when PC has to make a petition just for a chance to play a console exclusive.

Avatar image for RyviusARC
#146 Edited by RyviusARC (5480 posts) -

I've been waiting for a while to build a new PC and once maxwell arrives I will do so.

Going to finally enjoy 2560x1440 gameplay.

Still using an old GTX 570 that I have oced to 950mhz for the core clock so it does perform pretty well for a 2011 GPU (performs better than the PS4 or Xbox One which is laughable).

Avatar image for jun_aka_pekto
#149 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (20636 posts) -

@topgunmv said:

You could always get a larger case.

Yeah, I know. I am considering that option. Prior to my 2009 PC, I had full-sized and big midtower cases just like many here. But, I've grown rather fond of minitowers although I had to jerry-rig something for my HEC minitower so that my GTX 770 is cooled adequately.