i'll start by saying, i think its entirely possible it could happen again.
but there is a chance it may not, because the starting positions are different: http://i.imgur.com/cIOnJdZ.jpg
but i don't personally endorse 'ps4 lvl' $399 PCs unless the person really wants that kind of experience.
That's why I chose a budget build that was 3 years into last gen. Dead Rising 3 is the only next gen multiplat that we have reqs for and these budget builds are just barely meeting minimum. As the gen goes on the devs will start using more cores and these mid-low end quad cores aren't going to cut it.
I'm using Windows 7 that I bought for my previous PC back in 2009. Now that I have a new PC, do I count the cost of Windows 7 still or not? If I have to count it, why must I count it twice?
I bought my PS4 last year, do I count that still?
So, I take it I don't have to factor the price of Windows 7 into my new build. Good. Some console gamers can't get it onto their head that it's possible not to include the OS in a PC build. The burden does fall on the PC owner to explain why.
Your sales numbers are likely solely based on physical sales.
PC games being cheap due to your reasoning is 100% speculation. You are linking piracy "statistics," but do any of those links infer lowering prices due to high piracy rates?
----
Seriously, your argument is flimsy at best, and you don't back it up well.
1)Thank god i am not..hahah
2)Prove it....
3)NO PC games are cheap because piracy is rampant on PC,and developers most sell all they can fast before they lose the sales window,those games been download 4million times alone by torrent,which doesn't include FTP sites,sites like megaupload which still exist but now you have to pay a premium for speed,news groups it could have been even higher.
Your sales numbers are likely solely based on physical sales.
PC games being cheap due to your reasoning is 100% speculation. You are linking piracy "statistics," but do any of those links infer lowering prices due to high piracy rates?
----
Seriously, your argument is flimsy at best, and you don't back it up well.
Is it me or the world has gone mad.? Is the physical copy actually cheaper than then downloadable one.?
Meh. Only 7 units left in stock. And what about shipping costs ? IF you live outside of US and Canada, you should include custom taxes as well. Plus 1 to 3 weeks of waiting for arrival if it doesn't get lost or something.
RIGHT NOW everything on greenmangaming goes with 25% discount which makes Watchdogs cost 45 bucks for PC.
Your sales numbers are likely solely based on physical sales.
PC games being cheap due to your reasoning is 100% speculation. You are linking piracy "statistics," but do any of those links infer lowering prices due to high piracy rates?
----
Seriously, your argument is flimsy at best, and you don't back it up well.
3)NO PC games are cheap because piracy is rampant on PC,and developers most sell all they can fast before they lose the sales window,those games been download 4million times alone by torrent,which doesn't include FTP sites,sites like megaupload which still exist but now you have to pay a premium for speed,news groups it could have been even higher.
Is it me or the world has gone mad.? Is the physical copy actually cheaper than then downloadable one.?
I buy brand new release at 30 euros. Much cheaper.
As for piracy, lol, this bullshit again. That's why more and more publishers are putting their games on PC. Yes, prices are this way because of piracy. But ofcourse they are.
Troll account or not. I still don't see the reason for you to change your statement because of the extra feature that is "free" games.
Paying 50$~ a year to get "free" games now validates having PS+. It's just another useless "feature" to validate the need for it to access online. In fact it's one of the biggest scams there is. Lets say the console life cycle is 8 years. After 8 years you've paid about 400$ in PS+ and you've decided not to continue to pay for it since you got bored of consoles. Well, now you don't have access to those games anymore. You just paid 400$ for what? Having access to online, and "useless" features as you stated for the XBL gold membership.
I didn't change my statement quote me saying that paying for online play is OK now if you can't do that you have no point.
Paying $50 for games already validate PSN+ and before the PS4 was even here PSN+ was launch June 2010 it has 4 years now the PS4 has just 8 months,so yeah is not now that PSN+ is validate it has been for quite some time.
PSN+ exist since 2010 and on PS3 which has free online play,sony hiding online play on PSN+ adds no value at PSN+ at all,but that doesn't mean PSN + doesn't have value as a whole even on PS3 it did an on PS3 online play is free,so is not a useless feature dude,you get 24 games with your year subscription and huge deals on sales.
Games aren't free last time i check unless you refer to free to play games which are also free on PS4 and are free to play online on PS4 just as they are on PC.
8 years x 24 games per year yeah that comes to 192 games even at 10 dollars each we are talking about 1920 dollars worth when you payed $400,not bad at all...
If i got bore of consoles and stop paying for PSN+ why would i care if i can access the games or not.? wasn't the reason for not paying that you got BORE of the console,so when you get bore you get something else to entertain your self with right.?
Basically you are killing your own argument,if you want to access your games again pay $20 and you can access them all for 3 months you play them get bore again and don't play them again..
If you don't pay your sams membership you can't get into the store to buy any more,same with costco.
You payed for games,it doesn't matter if after 8 years you stopped paying and all of the sudden you can't access the games any more,you have access to those games for 8 years and you play them for 8 years so yeah it wasn't just for online play that you pay,on PS3 online play is free if i stop paying and lose access for what was i paying dude since online in free on PS3 so are apps.
hahaha....
MS charged for 11 years and gave people nothing but access to their own connection,PSN+ since it was introduce gave you games which aren't free any where is totally different scenario.
@jun_aka_pekto said:
Also.....
I'm using Windows 7 that I bought for my previous PC back in 2009. Now that I have a new PC, do I count the cost of Windows 7 still or not? If I have to count it, why must I count it twice?
Windows is 1 license if you install it on a second PC it most be by crack,people say that you can call MS and move your license but i don't think since i already quote MS on that,and even if you could that mean your other PC will have to be offline always,as soon as MS detect that you have 2 PC online with the same key 1 will be a goner...
@Gaming-Planet said:
Steam gets free games too you know and we don't have to pay a subscription to play free weekends.
Free to play games is not the same as getting watchdogs free bro,the PS4 also has free games even without PSN+ and like on PC they are free to play online as well.
I'm using Windows 7 that I bought for my previous PC back in 2009. Now that I have a new PC, do I count the cost of Windows 7 still or not? If I have to count it, why must I count it twice?
Windows is 1 license if you install it on a second PC it most be by crack,people say that you can call MS and move your license but i don't think since i already quote MS on that,and even if you could that mean your other PC will have to be offline always,as soon as MS detect that you have 2 PC online with the same key 1 will be a goner...
My PC from 2009 does not have the Windows 7 that I bought for it. It's now running a retail version of Vista. The 2009 Windows 7 is now installed on my current PC. It activated fine. MS has no problems with it. I already included the cost of that Windows license with my 2009 PC. Why should I include it in the cost of my latest PC?
Since I'm the one paying my bills, it would look like I bought WIndows 7 twice when in reality, it's still the same Windows 7 license.
Still trying to hide the price of the OS and components up front. How will I play Rock simulator without a operating system?!?
i play with a 99 dollar windows 8 (because im so dumb that i give M$ money they dont deserve)
I don't understand. Doesn't Windows 8 work? Or are you REALLY that dumb? You bought a product from MS makes that works therefore they deserve your money.
I'm using Windows 7 that I bought for my previous PC back in 2009. Now that I have a new PC, do I count the cost of Windows 7 still or not? If I have to count it, why must I count it twice?
I bought my PS4 last year, do I count that still?
So, I take it I don't have to factor the price of Windows 7 into my new build. Good. Some console gamers can't get it onto their head that it's possible not to include the OS in a PC build. The burden does fall on the PC owner to explain why.
OK, clearly sarcasm doesn't work for you. It depends. If your just talking about how much you spent on the new system, no, and it really doesn't have any relevance for anyone but yourself. If you're comparing the cost of the new system to, say, the PS4 like this thread, yes. The Windows 7 is an important part of the PC that makes it function so the cost should be included. Whether it was paid 5 days ago or 5 years ago, it was still a cost paid. You didn't get the money back that you spent. And you aren't counting it twice. When you removed it from the old system, you removed that cost and replaced it with the Vista cost (imo, Vista is a much higher cost in annoyance).
Many here are saying that The Order and Uncharted 4 will look so much better than BF4 and that BF4 is no indication of what the ps4 is capable of, while this is somewhat true, BF4 is no exclusive game and a launch title. Anyway it should be obvious that games with confined environments and much less things going on should look better in many aspects compared to a game that has large areas with 64 multi player mayhem, it would be a disgrace otherwise. Yes we haven't seen much gameplay of those games, but neither of them are likely to to have nearly as much going on at the same time as a game that primarily focuses on multiplayer action.
And I think the ps4 does a pretty good job of running BF4 at 900p with a mix of different settings at 45-60fps. Dice will probably be able to get the next Battlefield to run a bit better, but I'm not expecting huge improvements, at least they seem to prioritise frame rate over resolution on the next-gen consoles, something truly I wish more developers would do.
I'm using Windows 7 that I bought for my previous PC back in 2009. Now that I have a new PC, do I count the cost of Windows 7 still or not? If I have to count it, why must I count it twice?
I bought my PS4 last year, do I count that still?
So, I take it I don't have to factor the price of Windows 7 into my new build. Good. Some console gamers can't get it onto their head that it's possible not to include the OS in a PC build. The burden does fall on the PC owner to explain why.
OK, clearly sarcasm doesn't work for you. It depends. If your just talking about how much you spent on the new system, no, and it really doesn't have any relevance for anyone but yourself. If you're comparing the cost of the new system to, say, the PS4 like this thread, yes. The Windows 7 is an important part of the PC that makes it function so the cost should be included. Whether it was paid 5 days ago or 5 years ago, it was still a cost paid. You didn't get the money back that you spent. And you aren't counting it twice. When you removed it from the old system, you removed that cost and replaced it with the Vista cost (imo, Vista is a much higher cost in annoyance).
I don't have problems counting the (retail) Vista license if it was bought brand new. But, it too was already counted in the cost of the PC that preceded the 2009 one. That PC included the cost of both the Vista license and the original XP license that I bought for it. That PC is also long gone. But, the two WIndows OSes that I used with it are still in use.
I'm using Windows 7 that I bought for my previous PC back in 2009. Now that I have a new PC, do I count the cost of Windows 7 still or not? If I have to count it, why must I count it twice?
I bought my PS4 last year, do I count that still?
So, I take it I don't have to factor the price of Windows 7 into my new build. Good. Some console gamers can't get it onto their head that it's possible not to include the OS in a PC build. The burden does fall on the PC owner to explain why.
OK, clearly sarcasm doesn't work for you. It depends. If your just talking about how much you spent on the new system, no, and it really doesn't have any relevance for anyone but yourself. If you're comparing the cost of the new system to, say, the PS4 like this thread, yes. The Windows 7 is an important part of the PC that makes it function so the cost should be included. Whether it was paid 5 days ago or 5 years ago, it was still a cost paid. You didn't get the money back that you spent. And you aren't counting it twice. When you removed it from the old system, you removed that cost and replaced it with the Vista cost (imo, Vista is a much higher cost in annoyance).
I don't have problems counting the (retail) Vista license if it was bought brand new. But, it too was already counted in the cost of the PC that preceded the 2009 one.
If you needed to sell your computer and someone offered to buy it for what you spent (as-is with Windows 7 installed), would you include the cost of the Windows 7?
If you needed to sell your computer and someone offered to buy it for what you spent (as-is with Windows 7 installed), would you include the cost of the Windows 7?
Beats me. I never sold my old PCs. I've handed them down to relatives minus the retail OSes I paid for. I never gave away my retail OSes because I know I can reuse retail OS licenses on a different PC.
On a related note, I grabbed a couple of this for $78 apiece. MS didn't continue the practice too long. Good thing I got on it when I did:
Your sales numbers are likely solely based on physical sales.
PC games being cheap due to your reasoning is 100% speculation. You are linking piracy "statistics," but do any of those links infer lowering prices due to high piracy rates?
----
Seriously, your argument is flimsy at best, and you don't back it up well.
Is it me or the world has gone mad.? Is the physical copy actually cheaper than then downloadable one.?
Meh. Only 7 units left in stock. And what about shipping costs ? IF you live outside of US and Canada, you should include custom taxes as well. Plus 1 to 3 weeks of waiting for arrival if it doesn't get lost or something.
RIGHT NOW everything on greenmangaming goes with 25% discount which makes Watchdogs cost 45 bucks for PC.
Console Watchdogs $35 including shipping. Great deals on other recent games also.
Your sales numbers are likely solely based on physical sales.
PC games being cheap due to your reasoning is 100% speculation. You are linking piracy "statistics," but do any of those links infer lowering prices due to high piracy rates?
----
Seriously, your argument is flimsy at best, and you don't back it up well.
Is it me or the world has gone mad.? Is the physical copy actually cheaper than then downloadable one.?
Meh. Only 7 units left in stock. And what about shipping costs ? IF you live outside of US and Canada, you should include custom taxes as well. Plus 1 to 3 weeks of waiting for arrival if it doesn't get lost or something.
RIGHT NOW everything on greenmangaming goes with 25% discount which makes Watchdogs cost 45 bucks for PC.
Console Watchdogs $35 including shipping. Great deals on other recent games also.
@jun_aka_pekto: OK, so you admit the OS still has value even after you transfer it to a new computer. Why would you not include its value in the total of the PC?
Your sales numbers are likely solely based on physical sales.
PC games being cheap due to your reasoning is 100% speculation. You are linking piracy "statistics," but do any of those links infer lowering prices due to high piracy rates?
----
Seriously, your argument is flimsy at best, and you don't back it up well.
Is it me or the world has gone mad.? Is the physical copy actually cheaper than then downloadable one.?
Meh. Only 7 units left in stock. And what about shipping costs ? IF you live outside of US and Canada, you should include custom taxes as well. Plus 1 to 3 weeks of waiting for arrival if it doesn't get lost or something.
RIGHT NOW everything on greenmangaming goes with 25% discount which makes Watchdogs cost 45 bucks for PC.
Console Watchdogs $35 including shipping. Great deals on other recent games also.
You keep using ebay. What happened to your argument about "trusted" retailers?
Oh, right... you keep using "sales" of current-gen games and not next-gen games...
That's why i linked the feedback page. The few people who give negative feedback are the people who ordered wrong version or forgot that they cancelled order. You do realize that ebay will suspend seller accounts if they get too much negative feedback right?
Your sales numbers are likely solely based on physical sales.
PC games being cheap due to your reasoning is 100% speculation. You are linking piracy "statistics," but do any of those links infer lowering prices due to high piracy rates?
----
Seriously, your argument is flimsy at best, and you don't back it up well.
Is it me or the world has gone mad.? Is the physical copy actually cheaper than then downloadable one.?
Meh. Only 7 units left in stock. And what about shipping costs ? IF you live outside of US and Canada, you should include custom taxes as well. Plus 1 to 3 weeks of waiting for arrival if it doesn't get lost or something.
RIGHT NOW everything on greenmangaming goes with 25% discount which makes Watchdogs cost 45 bucks for PC.
Console Watchdogs $35 including shipping. Great deals on other recent games also.
You keep using ebay. What happened to your argument about "trusted" retailers?
Oh, right... you keep using "sales" of current-gen games and not next-gen games...
That's why i linked the feedback page. The few people who give negative feedback are the people who ordered wrong version or forgot that they cancelled order. You do realize that ebay will suspend seller accounts if they get too much negative feedback right?
He sells next gen version too. The first 4 games in the list are next gen but remember that most consolites haven't bought a next gen console yet.
Your sales numbers are likely solely based on physical sales.
PC games being cheap due to your reasoning is 100% speculation. You are linking piracy "statistics," but do any of those links infer lowering prices due to high piracy rates?
----
Seriously, your argument is flimsy at best, and you don't back it up well.
Is it me or the world has gone mad.? Is the physical copy actually cheaper than then downloadable one.?
Meh. Only 7 units left in stock. And what about shipping costs ? IF you live outside of US and Canada, you should include custom taxes as well. Plus 1 to 3 weeks of waiting for arrival if it doesn't get lost or something.
RIGHT NOW everything on greenmangaming goes with 25% discount which makes Watchdogs cost 45 bucks for PC.
Console Watchdogs $35 including shipping. Great deals on other recent games also.
You keep using ebay. What happened to your argument about "trusted" retailers?
Oh, right... you keep using "sales" of current-gen games and not next-gen games...
That's why i linked the feedback page. The few people who give negative feedback are the people who ordered wrong version or forgot that they cancelled order. You do realize that ebay will suspend seller accounts if they get too much negative feedback right?
Ahh. So because they have feedback they are fine, because ebay is the safest place to buy your goods. I'd like to know what kind of fetish this guy has with the cover art and manual. Anyways, these are not "next-gen" console games.
@jun_aka_pekto: OK, so you admit the OS still has value even after you transfer it to a new computer. Why would you not include its value in the total of the PC?
I do it from the perspective of balancing my checkbook. I paid for a Windows license once. I'm not going to enter it twice.
Your sales numbers are likely solely based on physical sales.
PC games being cheap due to your reasoning is 100% speculation. You are linking piracy "statistics," but do any of those links infer lowering prices due to high piracy rates?
----
Seriously, your argument is flimsy at best, and you don't back it up well.
3)NO PC games are cheap because piracy is rampant on PC,and developers most sell all they can fast before they lose the sales window,those games been download 4million times alone by torrent,which doesn't include FTP sites,sites like megaupload which still exist but now you have to pay a premium for speed,news groups it could have been even higher.
Is it me or the world has gone mad.? Is the physical copy actually cheaper than then downloadable one.?
I buy brand new release at 30 euros. Much cheaper.
As for piracy, lol, this bullshit again. That's why more and more publishers are putting their games on PC. Yes, prices are this way because of piracy. But ofcourse they are.
its like 90% of all PS2 ever sold were not modded to run pirate games
according to jackfrags PS4 is closest to medium settings
its now a perfect medium, it has some mixed elements from low medium end high
in the images below you can see that despite that awfull draw distance it has medium shadows, high details, high AA, some other elements are difficult to compare, like for example effects that are very weak on PS4, i think its medium
http://imgur.com/a/TWbnx
but what i and any other PC gamer can clearly see is that PS4 footage looks inferior to PC high settings, you can do it yourself on youtube, encoded video hide some defects like jaguies making the game look better than it will look on your tv, but you can still see PC high is better than PS4
so 600=400+50%, 600 dollars PC has the same performance-per-dollar of a 400 console, but only if you're stupid enough to buy a new OS on full price, put a pretty "gamer" case and useless optical drive on your PC,
it means PC is cheaper and outperforming a console of the same price, unless youre stupid, in either case you only get a machine with ugly PS4 graphics if youre stupid
Hmm, who to believe... Some guy on youtube that got a few minutes with an unfinished build 3 months before release, or Digital Foundry that test the retail versions and say,
"Elbowing into the tussle is, as always, the PC version with its higher-grade particle and alpha effects, superior object draw distance and more refined shadow detailing at ultra settings. But it must be commended just how much of this maxed-out experience translates to next-gen platforms. The textures on PS4 and Xbox One are equal to the PC's highest, and water shaders carry over as-is, where the current-gen versions really show us the plain, pared-back alternative. It's a very solid effort in this sense, and can only get better as DICE's understanding of the hardware grows."
That sounds more like high to me. Shame Tom's didn't test the system on high, or against anything other than a rushed PS4 launch game to compare.
yeah, its digital foundry, the same guys that spent 1 year trying to convince us that x1 / ps4 gap was minimal and almost impossible to notice
when they make a false statement they really stick to it, but recently they admited that textures on battlefield hardline at least are no way close to ultra, anyone can stay a few minutes checking some bf4 on pc high settings on youtube and them swtch to ps4 on the same MP map, you will see pc high is overall better
Your sales numbers are likely solely based on physical sales.
PC games being cheap due to your reasoning is 100% speculation. You are linking piracy "statistics," but do any of those links infer lowering prices due to high piracy rates?
----
Seriously, your argument is flimsy at best, and you don't back it up well.
Is it me or the world has gone mad.? Is the physical copy actually cheaper than then downloadable one.?
Meh. Only 7 units left in stock. And what about shipping costs ? IF you live outside of US and Canada, you should include custom taxes as well. Plus 1 to 3 weeks of waiting for arrival if it doesn't get lost or something.
RIGHT NOW everything on greenmangaming goes with 25% discount which makes Watchdogs cost 45 bucks for PC.
Console Watchdogs $35 including shipping. Great deals on other recent games also.
You keep using ebay. What happened to your argument about "trusted" retailers?
Oh, right... you keep using "sales" of current-gen games and not next-gen games...
That's why i linked the feedback page. The few people who give negative feedback are the people who ordered wrong version or forgot that they cancelled order. You do realize that ebay will suspend seller accounts if they get too much negative feedback right?
Ahh. So because they have feedback they are fine, because ebay is the safest place to buy your goods. I'd like to know what kind of fetish this guy has with the cover art and manual. Anyways, these are not "next-gen" console games.
He has 99% positive rating out of almost 2000 sales and you still think he's shady?
What do you mean they're not next gen console games? This guys selling all the most popular recent games at unbeatable prices and this guy has a high rating.
He's selling the next gen versions of Watchdogs and Wolfenstein. If you mean next gen exclusives well there aren't many yet. But there's lots of great deals on Infamous and KZ Shadowfall from reputable sellers.
@jun_aka_pekto: OK, so you admit the OS still has value even after you transfer it to a new computer. Why would you not include its value in the total of the PC?
I do it from the perspective of balancing my checkbook. I paid for a Windows license once. I'm not going to enter it twice.
Yeah, this isn't a balance your budget workshop. When comparing the cost of a system, every part in the system is included, no matter when it was bought. It's more, what would this cost to replace or for someone else from scratch. Otherwise, it's completely useless info and no better than someone saying, "just put it on your Christmas wish list, then it's free!"
Hmm, who to believe... Some guy on youtube that got a few minutes with an unfinished build 3 months before release, or Digital Foundry that test the retail versions and say,
"Elbowing into the tussle is, as always, the PC version with its higher-grade particle and alpha effects, superior object draw distance and more refined shadow detailing at ultra settings. But it must be commended just how much of this maxed-out experience translates to next-gen platforms. The textures on PS4 and Xbox One are equal to the PC's highest, and water shaders carry over as-is, where the current-gen versions really show us the plain, pared-back alternative. It's a very solid effort in this sense, and can only get better as DICE's understanding of the hardware grows."
That sounds more like high to me. Shame Tom's didn't test the system on high, or against anything other than a rushed PS4 launch game to compare.
yeah, its digital foundry, the same guys that spent 1 year trying to convince us that x1 / ps4 gap was minimal and almost impossible to notice
when they make a false statement they really stick to it, but recently they admited that textures on battlefield hardline at least are no way close to ultra, anyone can stay a few minutes checking some bf4 on pc high settings on youtube and them swtch to ps4 on the same MP map, you will see pc high is overall better
When (and where) was this? Why can you not find any legitimate source putting the PS4 version at medium PC settings?
Hmm, who to believe... Some guy on youtube that got a few minutes with an unfinished build 3 months before release, or Digital Foundry that test the retail versions and say,
"Elbowing into the tussle is, as always, the PC version with its higher-grade particle and alpha effects, superior object draw distance and more refined shadow detailing at ultra settings. But it must be commended just how much of this maxed-out experience translates to next-gen platforms. The textures on PS4 and Xbox One are equal to the PC's highest, and water shaders carry over as-is, where the current-gen versions really show us the plain, pared-back alternative. It's a very solid effort in this sense, and can only get better as DICE's understanding of the hardware grows."
That sounds more like high to me. Shame Tom's didn't test the system on high, or against anything other than a rushed PS4 launch game to compare.
yeah, its digital foundry, the same guys that spent 1 year trying to convince us that x1 / ps4 gap was minimal and almost impossible to notice
when they make a false statement they really stick to it, but recently they admited that textures on battlefield hardline at least are no way close to ultra, anyone can stay a few minutes checking some bf4 on pc high settings on youtube and them swtch to ps4 on the same MP map, you will see pc high is overall better
When (and where) was this? Why can you not find any legitimate source putting the PS4 version at medium PC settings?
(Looks at specs, compares them to today's PC.) Yup, these are definitely flagship PC's. The PS4 is truly a godsend console that can run all the games on 4k.
Hmm, who to believe... Some guy on youtube that got a few minutes with an unfinished build 3 months before release, or Digital Foundry that test the retail versions and say,
"Elbowing into the tussle is, as always, the PC version with its higher-grade particle and alpha effects, superior object draw distance and more refined shadow detailing at ultra settings. But it must be commended just how much of this maxed-out experience translates to next-gen platforms. The textures on PS4 and Xbox One are equal to the PC's highest, and water shaders carry over as-is, where the current-gen versions really show us the plain, pared-back alternative. It's a very solid effort in this sense, and can only get better as DICE's understanding of the hardware grows."
That sounds more like high to me. Shame Tom's didn't test the system on high, or against anything other than a rushed PS4 launch game to compare.
yeah, its digital foundry, the same guys that spent 1 year trying to convince us that x1 / ps4 gap was minimal and almost impossible to notice
when they make a false statement they really stick to it, but recently they admited that textures on battlefield hardline at least are no way close to ultra, anyone can stay a few minutes checking some bf4 on pc high settings on youtube and them swtch to ps4 on the same MP map, you will see pc high is overall better
When (and where) was this? Why can you not find any legitimate source putting the PS4 version at medium PC settings?
you expect a credible source from someone who believes a 265 is 50% faster than ps4?
@jun_aka_pekto: OK, so you admit the OS still has value even after you transfer it to a new computer. Why would you not include its value in the total of the PC?
I do it from the perspective of balancing my checkbook. I paid for a Windows license once. I'm not going to enter it twice.
Yeah, this isn't a balance your budget workshop. When comparing the cost of a system, every part in the system is included, no matter when it was bought. It's more, what would this cost to replace or for someone else from scratch. Otherwise, it's completely useless info and no better than someone saying, "just put it on your Christmas wish list, then it's free!"
It's not useless info when you provide proper context. In my case, I do not include the price of Windows 7 in the costs of my current PC because it doesn't reflect my actual expenditures as a veteran PC gamer. However, I also mention the reason for not doing so. Obviously, a totally new PC gamer will include all the costs for the initial PC build. That's fine because that's the context of where he's coming from.
It doesn't work in my case because adding expenditures that weren't made would introduce inaccuracies, especially when talk turns to cost over time. I had this problem occur when I participated in a thread about how much I spent on PCs during the previous decade. I had the same retail Windows XP (from 2001) across three different PCs. Should I have included the cost of a Windows license for each PC or be accurate with actual expenditures (one license only)? I chose the latter because it's the correct amount ($100) rather than adding an extra $200 out of thin air.
Trying to shoehorn gaming PCs into the same mold as mass-produced consoles is simply not going to work because there are perks in the former that are not present in the latter. Being able to reuse the OS (and other hardware components, for that matter) has long been a part of PC DIY.
its like 90% of all PS2 ever sold were not modded to run pirate games
Link...
h yeah you are use to making sh** up which you can't back up,on PC you don't require anything to pirate a game on PS2 you need it hardware,or software and the piracy penetrations wasn't even close to 90%,i would not say it was close to 10%,.
Hell no even on Dreamcast where you could practically used no hardware at all and the copies would run directly without modification.
Piracy on PC is match by any other device on this planet period.
@jun_aka_pekto said:
My PC from 2009 does not have the Windows 7 that I bought for it. It's now running a retail version of Vista. The 2009 Windows 7 is now installed on my current PC. It activated fine. MS has no problems with it. I already included the cost of that Windows license with my 2009 PC. Why should I include it in the cost of my latest PC?
Since I'm the one paying my bills, it would look like I bought WIndows 7 twice when in reality, it's still the same Windows 7 license.
Again i already prove my point with links from MS own site not anecdotal evidence from crazy ass poster on a forum you need an extra license period.
@deadline-zero0 said:
I buy brand new release at 30 euros. Much cheaper.
As for piracy, lol, this bullshit again. That's why more and more publishers are putting their games on PC. Yes, prices are this way because of piracy. But ofcourse they are.
I have a link i posted it nice spin...
Piracy on PC is not bullsh** stop trying to cover the fu**ing sky with your hand the only way to do that is by covering your eyes with your hands and that is what you are doing now..
There is no place for piracy bigger than PC it has been that way since PC started period is the means by what all software,movies,music and even console get pirate by PC.
More and more days you see an invasion of PC developers making games for consoles,games that were solely on PC now appear on consoles like Metro and many others.
Why you think that all the most extreme types of DRM were born on PC.?
@jun_aka_pekto said:
Beats me. I never sold my old PCs. I've handed them down to relatives minus the retail OSes I paid for. I never gave away my retail OSes because I know I can reuse retail OS licenses on a different PC.
On a related note, I grabbed a couple of this for $78 apiece. MS didn't continue the practice too long. Good thing I got on it when I did:
Yeah you grab that for $78 where is the receipt.?
That sh** cost $144 dollars NOW a few years back is was even more expensive and yes it is still been sold,so i wonder why you say MS didn't continue the practice..
In MS UK side is 144 pounds that more than $200 US dollars as well dude.
You can't re use OS licenses on another PC stop lying dude..
In fact when you fu**ing active your windows copy is paired to your freaking hardware,MS knows in what hardware,it was install on how the hell do you think they know,you can't install it on a AM dual core and all off the sudden have a 8 core AMD with DDR3 when your board was DDR2,MS know this is not the same making a HDD change because it got damage where you can still re use your windows on a new HDD on the same PC as changing CPU mother board,and basically building a new PC..
If I activated Windows, why is Windows on my computer non-genuine?
Genuine Windows is a recurring process that checks your product key to ensure it's being used with the hardware it was paired with during activation. If the product key is found to be non-genuine, or not valid, it's likely that the product key is either being used on another computer or is counterfeit.
Can I use my product key on more than one computer?
You can't use the same Windows product key to activate Windows 7 on more computers than the Microsoft Software License Terms allow. Usually, the license terms allow the product key to be used on only one computer.
If you use your installation disc or a USB flash drive to install Windows 7 on a second computer, you'll need to buy an additional copy of the same edition of Windows 7 to obtain a new product key. For more information, see Get a new
Again i already prove my point with links from MS own site not anecdotal evidence from crazy ass poster on a forum you need an extra license period.
I don't need a new license. This is in the EULA for Windows 7 Home Premium. No. 17a. That's been verified by MS allowing activation of my standalone copy of Windows 7. It's the same for my retail versions of Windows Vista. I tried using the Vista that shipped with my old laptop on another PC. It didn't work. That also shows 17a is being implemented.
What I cannot do is have that license on more than one PC at a time.
That above EULA is from my retail (non-OEM) Win 7. Here is the same section from the OEM version. There is no transfer to another computer. This is probably what you're referring to:
Yeah, this isn't a balance your budget workshop. When comparing the cost of a system, every part in the system is included, no matter when it was bought. It's more, what would this cost to replace or for someone else from scratch. Otherwise, it's completely useless info and no better than someone saying, "just put it on your Christmas wish list, then it's free!"
It's not useless info when you provide proper context. In my case, I do not include the price of Windows 7 in the costs of my current PC because it doesn't reflect my actual expenditures as a veteran PC gamer. However, I also mention the reason for not doing so. Obviously, a totally new PC gamer will include all the costs for the initial PC build. That's fine because that's the context of where he's coming from.
It doesn't work in my case because adding expenditures that weren't made would introduce inaccuracies, especially when talk turns to cost over time. I had this problem occur when I participated in a thread about how much I spent on PCs during the previous decade. I had the same retail Windows XP (from 2001) across three different PCs. Should I have included the cost of a Windows license for each PC or be accurate with actual expenditures (one license only)? I chose the latter because it's the correct amount ($100) rather than adding an extra $200 out of thin air.
Trying to shoehorn gaming PCs into the same mold as mass-produced consoles is simply not going to work because there are perks in the former that are not present in the latter. Being able to reuse the OS (and other hardware components, for that matter) has long been a part of PC DIY.
And it would be fine in that other thread. That's not what this thread is about. This thread is based on an article by Tom's Hardware that tested what capabilities you could get from building a PC from scratch at different budget levels. In this case, every part needs accounted for.
As far as texture and world detail go, normal mapping on the ground is identical in quality with the PC's maxed-out setting, even on larger areas where you might expect a compromise. However, draw distances for plants and geometry are noticeably better-rounded on PC: appearing in higher density when up close, we see buildings rendered in during cut-scenes that simply don't manifest on next-gen platforms. This is backed up by a more liberal use of particle effects on PC around explosions, and while alpha for fire is comparable up close, flames in the distance suffer from a downgrade in quality on PS4 and Xbox One.
Is not pixel by pixel equal to PC but is not mid settings man. Digital Foundry...
Eh, it's just probably a mix of medium and high. Besides, DF already proved that a £100 graphics card can match (or, at times, even exceed) what the PS4 is capable of. Of course exclusives will always be better on the PS4, that's a given. As for the Xbox One, it's a piece of cake for the R7 260X. But I'm not going to claim victory over that because even though it may benefit my arguments, it's still a piece of shit. I actually consider it irrelevant in hardware discussions, which is sad.
Eh, it's just probably a mix of medium and high. Besides, DF already proved that a £100 graphics card can match (or, at times, even exceed) what the PS4 is capable of. Of course exclusives will always be better on the PS4, that's a given. As for the Xbox One, it's a piece of cake for the R7 260X. But I'm not going to claim victory over that because even though it may benefit my arguments, it's still a piece of shit. I actually consider it irrelevant in hardware discussions, which is sad.
Eh, it's just probably a mix of medium and high. Besides, DF already proved that a £100 graphics card can match (or, at times, even exceed) what the PS4 is capable of. Of course exclusives will always be better on the PS4, that's a given. As for the Xbox One, it's a piece of cake for the R7 260X. But I'm not going to claim victory over that because even though it may benefit my arguments, it's still a piece of shit. I actually consider it irrelevant in hardware discussions, which is sad.
In terms of graphical fidelity, I mean. PS4's exclusive games will look better than what the R7 260X will be able to achieve. In terms of how the game actually plays/whether or not consoles have better exclusives, it's subjective.
As far as texture and world detail go, normal mapping on the ground is identical in quality with the PC's maxed-out setting, even on larger areas where you might expect a compromise. However, draw distances for plants and geometry are noticeably better-rounded on PC: appearing in higher density when up close, we see buildings rendered in during cut-scenes that simply don't manifest on next-gen platforms. This is backed up by a more liberal use of particle effects on PC around explosions, and while alpha for fire is comparable up close, flames in the distance suffer from a downgrade in quality on PS4 and Xbox One.
Is not pixel by pixel equal to PC but is not mid settings man. Digital Foundry...
Eh, it's just probably a mix of medium and high. Besides, DF already proved that a £100 graphics card can match (or, at times, even exceed) what the PS4 is capable of. Of course exclusives will always be better on the PS4, that's a given. As for the Xbox One, it's a piece of cake for the R7 260X. But I'm not going to claim victory over that because even though it may benefit my arguments, it's still a piece of shit. I actually consider it irrelevant in hardware discussions, which is sad.
They really didn't prove that, though. All they proved is that the R7 260X can match or slightly exceed the PS4's performance on some rushed launch games. The first games at launch never actually do a good job at showing what the hardware is capable of. They even state that it will not likely be this way in the future.
"Clearly the consoles have more to give - especially in exclusive titles - and we wouldn't be surprised at all to see the gap widen over time, particularly as the R7 260X clearly faces some bandwidth problems owing to its 128-bit bus."
As far as texture and world detail go, normal mapping on the ground is identical in quality with the PC's maxed-out setting, even on larger areas where you might expect a compromise. However, draw distances for plants and geometry are noticeably better-rounded on PC: appearing in higher density when up close, we see buildings rendered in during cut-scenes that simply don't manifest on next-gen platforms. This is backed up by a more liberal use of particle effects on PC around explosions, and while alpha for fire is comparable up close, flames in the distance suffer from a downgrade in quality on PS4 and Xbox One.
Is not pixel by pixel equal to PC but is not mid settings man. Digital Foundry...
Eh, it's just probably a mix of medium and high. Besides, DF already proved that a £100 graphics card can match (or, at times, even exceed) what the PS4 is capable of. Of course exclusives will always be better on the PS4, that's a given. As for the Xbox One, it's a piece of cake for the R7 260X. But I'm not going to claim victory over that because even though it may benefit my arguments, it's still a piece of shit. I actually consider it irrelevant in hardware discussions, which is sad.
They really didn't prove that, though. All they proved is that the R7 260X can match or slightly exceed the PS4's performance on some rushed launch games. The first games at launch never actually do a good job at showing what the hardware is capable of. They even state that it will not likely be this way in the future.
"Clearly the consoles have more to give - especially in exclusive titles - and we wouldn't be surprised at all to see the gap widen over time, particularly as the R7 260X clearly faces some bandwidth problems owing to its 128-bit bus."
How didn't they prove that? It's 2014, almost all multiplats are better on that mid-range graphics card. Next year will be a different story.
@faizan_faizan: Quite simply, because they didn't put it up against what the PS4 is truly capable of.
Oh so somehow the specs in the PS4 that are equal to a 7850~ now can do more than what a 7850 can do? Man, Sony needs to patent this majestic self upgrading gpu or apu wtv it is.
Log in to comment