A few truths about PC gaming.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I'm a PC Gamer and I can tell you right now, mods are not as great as you hermits claim it to be. For example everyone uses Oblivion mods as ownage. Total BS. Oblivion mods suck. I'll understand HL2 mods, those are great, but not all mods are good.Kayrod29
This is simply not true. Oblivion's mod extended the game by HUNDREDS of hours, you probably just haven't found any you like yet.Â
You can read my blog for more detail.
1st. PC gaming is more expensive anyway you look at it, but for PC users it's worth it.
2nd PC graphics only look better because our hardware cycles are 6 months long (that doesn't mean we upgrade every 6 months).
3rd gaming PCs are only effective for about 3 years (at best).
4th PC gaming isn't easy. You either have to spend a buttload of cash, or really understand about PCs and hardware.
5th can't buy used PC games, some places may sell them but it's often against the TOS, and quite risky to buy them.Â
6th you may be able to use a game pad on a pc to play console type games, but it's always a pain in the ass.
7th pc games have better, and more exclusives but also tend to have less diversity in genres.
8th If you're not a pc gamer you have no idea how awesome mods can be.
9th you can't host as many players on a PC game as you can an XBL game.
10th buying/renting/using a dedicated server is more expensive than XBL, but many are free.
11th Pc gaming tends to be for PC people. If you're not willing to be a computer "nerd" you probably won't have much luck with pc gaming.
jrhawk42
For the most part, you are fairly accurate but I take exception to point 11. To be knowlegable or seek knowledge about something shouldn't make someone be a "nerd". Are people that don't seek knowledge ignorant, lazy and somehow socially acceptable because of their stupidity?
In any event, one of the most amazing things is just how much better PC gaming is than console gaming.
Â
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Bg: Whether or not they decide to make use of this option doesn't matter. The fact of the matter is that the option is there, and PC gaming can be conceivablly cheaper than console gaming over the span of a generation. What is satisfactory is mere subjectivity. I don't want to deal with that. The fact of the matter is that the PC can be the same as a console, and be roughly the same face value. Even then, you have the price over the span of a generation.BgrngodWe are not talking about what it CAN be, we are talking about what it IS. PC gaming IS more expensive then console gaming. No, PC gaming IS less expensive than console gaming. The option is there. Whether or not the majority chose to use it does not matter. PC gaming has the option of being less expensive, just as it has the option of being more expensive. Of course, the same goes for consoles. Consoles have the option of being more expensive (like DHPs and stuff for highest quality). It also has the option to be less expensive. Either way, PC gaming IS less expensive. Nope. You can buy consoles when they are at a price point of $150 and console gaming instantly becomes much cheaper then even your lowest standard for PC gaming. Most people buy consoles when they are price dropped. So again... PC gaming is more expensive.
Â
Here in europe console gaming is more expensive...Â
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I haven't even gone into a discussion of mods yet. Games on the PC innately last longer even without mods. Why is this? I have no idea. I probably couldn't answer even if you ask me to. But games like Diablo are STILL being played to this vary day and are constantly offering diverging content not necessarily from mods. I pumped out over 400 hours in COD2 for the PC (check my xfire, vandalvideo) and only managed 40 hours in the console COD2. Why is this? Not sure, but PC games just tend to innately last longer with more diverging content even WITHOUT mods.BgrngodSo for you personally, PC games last longer. That very same argument could be used for console games as well though, in terms of providing value. Games like Gears of War, and Madden and Halo 2 have every bit of value with them for some people as COD2 did for you. We were playing games that make those games so special 10 years ago (Online) So i just blew your mind. that is exacally what we are talking about. we will always have more ram so we will always have more heckteic and filled battlefields than consoles. battlefield Wich is only 24 players online at a time compared to 62 for the PC. Console Online is nothing Like PC's sorry to break it to you.
[QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I haven't even gone into a discussion of mods yet. Games on the PC innately last longer even without mods. Why is this? I have no idea. I probably couldn't answer even if you ask me to. But games like Diablo are STILL being played to this vary day and are constantly offering diverging content not necessarily from mods. I pumped out over 400 hours in COD2 for the PC (check my xfire, vandalvideo) and only managed 40 hours in the console COD2. Why is this? Not sure, but PC games just tend to innately last longer with more diverging content even WITHOUT mods.peacebringerSo for you personally, PC games last longer. That very same argument could be used for console games as well though, in terms of providing value. Games like Gears of War, and Madden and Halo 2 have every bit of value with them for some people as COD2 did for you. We were playing games that make those games so special 10 years ago (Online) So i just blew your mind. that is exacally what we are talking about. we will always have more ram so we will always have more heckteic and filled battlefields than consoles. battlefield Wich is only 24 players online at a time compared to 62 for the PC. Console Online is nothing Like PC's sorry to break it to you. How did you blow my mind? By making a post that has nothing to do with what I was talking about? I guess in a way that did blow my mind yes..... "We"? I was playing the original Doom online back in '95 and have been playing PC games online ever since. And no you were not playing a game 10 years ago that has everything that makes Gears of War and Halo 2 special because such a game didn't exist. I am keenly aware of the differences between PC online and Consoles online. I've been playing them both for a really long time. Do you see how I made respondes to your statements? Please reply something that actually relates to what you are responding to next time.
Nope. You can buy consoles when they are at a price point of $150 and console gaming instantly becomes much cheaper then even your lowest standard for PC gaming. Most people buy consoles when they are price dropped. So again... PC gaming is more expensive.Bgrngod
That logic is flawed. Waiting till the console is at the lowest price point is waiting until the end of the generation to play any of the games you just missed. And by the time the purchase is made, the generation is about over anyway, and you miss next generation.
You can apply nearly the same logic to PC's. Not to mention with PC's you can stick to the same hardware and keep playing games into future generations. Where as the PS2/XB/GC can't play PS3/XB2/GC2 games.
You can wait it out until the great graphics cards are $100 as well, and slap it into your system and you are back in business.
The true advantage of the PC is the extendability it has. You can draw out an upgrade for 4 years easy, and even when you jump to the next level, you can generally get away with buy a handful of parts and not a whole system.Â
And again... to play next gen console games, you have NO CHOICE but to buy the new console but the PC will be able to play into future generations. (to an extent of course)
Â
[QUOTE="peacebringer"][QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I haven't even gone into a discussion of mods yet. Games on the PC innately last longer even without mods. Why is this? I have no idea. I probably couldn't answer even if you ask me to. But games like Diablo are STILL being played to this vary day and are constantly offering diverging content not necessarily from mods. I pumped out over 400 hours in COD2 for the PC (check my xfire, vandalvideo) and only managed 40 hours in the console COD2. Why is this? Not sure, but PC games just tend to innately last longer with more diverging content even WITHOUT mods.BgrngodSo for you personally, PC games last longer. That very same argument could be used for console games as well though, in terms of providing value. Games like Gears of War, and Madden and Halo 2 have every bit of value with them for some people as COD2 did for you. We were playing games that make those games so special 10 years ago (Online) So i just blew your mind. that is exacally what we are talking about. we will always have more ram so we will always have more heckteic and filled battlefields than consoles. battlefield Wich is only 24 players online at a time compared to 62 for the PC. Console Online is nothing Like PC's sorry to break it to you. How did you blow my mind? By making a post that has nothing to do with what I was talking about? I guess in a way that did blow my mind yes..... "We"? I was playing the original Doom online back in '95 and have been playing PC games online ever since. And no you were not playing a game 10 years ago that has everything that makes Gears of War and Halo 2 special because such a game didn't exist. I am keenly aware of the differences between PC online and Consoles online. I've been playing them both for a really long time. Do you see how I made respondes to your statements? Please reply something that actually relates to what you are responding to next time. oh so we agree.... you blew my mind.
Â
So for many many people, even though they can do it cheaply, the ongoing cost of being a PC gamer is more expensive then being a console gamer.
Bgrngod
Â
Again, ONLY in US and even there the diffrence is much smaller than it was last genÂ
at 4: Most PC users find ways around this *wink* *wink* at 9: That isn't the truth, the biggest server i've seen on a console is a 64 player Black Hawk Down match, but come on, EVEN COUNTER STRIKE CAN HANDLE 64 PLAYERS! I belive they go even higher than that that.4th PC gaming isn't easy. You either have to spend a buttload of cash, or really understand about PCs and hardware.
9th you can't host as many players on a PC game as you can an XBL game.
jrhawk42
[QUOTE="jrhawk42"]at 4: Most PC users find ways around this *wink* *wink* at 9: That isn't the truth, the biggest server i've seen on a console is a 64 player Black Hawk Down match, but come on, EVEN COUNTER STRIKE CAN HANDLE 64 PLAYERS! I belive they go even higher than that that. no this is true that blackhawk game could have not had much to it for 64 players. it's the lack of ram that Limits XBL and PO to lower Numbers with good graphics.4th PC gaming isn't easy. You either have to spend a buttload of cash, or really understand about PCs and hardware.
9th you can't host as many players on a PC game as you can an XBL game.
Fragged131
I'm a PC Gamer and I can tell you right now, mods are not as great as you hermits claim it to be. For example everyone uses Oblivion mods as ownage. Total BS. Oblivion mods suck. I'll understand HL2 mods, those are great, but not all mods are good.Kayrod29I am 100% pc gamer and i can argue the points but what you say about mods is totally right. It amazes me on how many pc gamers use mods to justify the pc's superiority. I loved the natural environment effects but most did suck. Aswell as the fact that if you struggled to play oblivion without mods you damnn well will when you install a mod. I certainly would disagree with point 11 though.
The true advantage of the PC is the extendability it has. You can draw out an upgrade for 4 years easy, and even when you jump to the next level, you can generally get away with buy a handful of parts and not a whole system.Choad-WarriorNot true. Standards can change radically in just a few years in the PC world. Look at the jump from AGP to PCI Express, and now there's a PCI Express 2.0 standard upcoming. I bought my computer just a few years ago, and now modern cards (which will be required for Vista gaming) are basically out of reach since they're all PCI Express and I have an AGP motherboard. What about power demands? Processor sockets? Memory improvements (like from DDR to DDR2 to DDR3, and what if FB-DIMM becomes en vogue?)? Hard drives (from PATA to SATA) The result is a chain reaction. You want to improve one part, but you discover that to upgrade the part, you have to upgrade another...which means you have to upgrade another part. And usually along the way, two of the things you have to replace the way are the motherboard and the CPU, which usually forces you to upgrade the memory, power supply...you eventually discover that you're better off just buying a new machine.
BTW, I speak from firsthand experience. When I built my machine several years ago, Socket A, AGP, and basic DDR were still top end. Tell me I can upgrade to a Vista-Preferred rig (which I'd need to play games like BioShock and Alan Wake) without essentially buying a new computer?
Not true. Standards can change radically in just a few years in the PC world. Look at the jump from AGP to PCI Express, and now there's a PCI Express 2.0 standard upcoming. I bought my computer just a few years ago, and now modern cards (which will be required for Vista gaming) are basically out of reach since they're all PCI Express and I have an AGP motherboard. What about power demands? Processor sockets? Memory improvements (like from DDR to DDR2 to DDR3, and what if FB-DIMM becomes en vogue?)? Hard drives (from PATA to SATA) The result is a chain reaction. You want to improve one part, but you discover that to upgrade the part, you have to upgrade another...which means you have to upgrade another part. And usually along the way, two of the things you have to replace the way are the motherboard and the CPU, which usually forces you to upgrade the memory, power supply...you eventually discover that you're better off just buying a new machine.[QUOTE="Choad-Warrior"]The true advantage of the PC is the extendability it has. You can draw out an upgrade for 4 years easy, and even when you jump to the next level, you can generally get away with buy a handful of parts and not a whole system.HuusAsking
BTW, I speak from firsthand experience. When I built my machine several years ago, Socket A, AGP, and basic DDR were still top end. Tell me I can upgrade to a Vista-Preferred rig (which I'd need to play games like BioShock and Alan Wake) without essentially buying a new computer?
That is because lately the acceleration of PC technology has doubled since 2 years ago.
Now, you can squeeze out muscle from your cards. There are still some great performing AGP cards on the market. They may not run games at max, but they will still run games.
The biggest trick isn't hardware power, but language. Ala Open GL or DirecteX 9/10 standards. Unfortunately due to timing RIGHT NOW, it will be hard yes to upgrade a handful of components.
But my rig is still kicking after 4 years. I am running even current gen games right now. Sure it isn't running at max, but I am content. 4 years is ENTIRELY possible, and piece by piece upgrade is as well after that 4 mark.
I am just mad that PCI E2 is out, SATA2. Those are the biggest hurdles to avoiding system upgrades. Because DDR2+ RAM, you don't need to jump to those levels. DDR RAM still has kick to it.
Vista preferred doesn't mean Vista needed. And I am confused... are games requiring Vista to run? I have not heard that yet. Link?
 EDIT:spelling
There are two Vista standards: Vista-Capable and Vista-Preferred. Only Vista-Preferred allows DirectX10 (as in, you can use the new desktop system--it's build around DX10). And since DX10 is a black-and-white standard, you're either in or out. And Microsoft has already said that Games for Vista will require DX10. BioShock and Alan Wake are confirmed Games for Vista.That is because lately the acceleration of PC technology has doubled since 2 years ago.
Now, you can squeeze out muscle from your cards. There are still some great performing AGP cards on the market. They may not run games at max, but they will still run games.
The biggest trick isn't hardware power, but language. Ala Open GL or DirecteX 9/10 standards. Unfortunately due to timing RIGHT NOW, it will be hard yes to upgrade a handful of components.
But my rig is still kicking after 4 years. I am running even current gen games right now. Sure it isn't running at max, but I am content. 4 years is ENTIRELY possible, and piece by piece upgrade is as well after that 4 mark.
I am just mad that PCI E2 is out, SATA2. Those are the biggest hurdles to avoiding system upgrades. Because DDR2+ RAM, you don't need to jump to those levels. DDR RAM still has kick to it.
Vista preferred doesn't mean Vista needed. And I am confused... are games requiring Vista to run? I have not heard that yet. Link?
EDIT:spelling
Choad-Warrior
[QUOTE="Choad-Warrior"]There are two Vista standards: Vista-Capable and Vista-Preferred. Only Vista-Preferred allows DirectX10 (as in, you can use the new desktop system--it's build around DX10). And since DX10 is a black-and-white standard, you're either in or out. And Microsoft has already said that Games for Vista will require DX10. BioShock and Alan Wake are confirmed Games for Vista. With a little elbow grease you can run those games on XP. -_-. Games for Vista is a viral marketing campaign paid for by Microsoft which in no way gives them any jurisdiction over the game. There are set standards to be a "Games for Vista/Windows", but they do not actually control the development process of said games.That is because lately the acceleration of PC technology has doubled since 2 years ago.
Now, you can squeeze out muscle from your cards. There are still some great performing AGP cards on the market. They may not run games at max, but they will still run games.
The biggest trick isn't hardware power, but language. Ala Open GL or DirecteX 9/10 standards. Unfortunately due to timing RIGHT NOW, it will be hard yes to upgrade a handful of components.
But my rig is still kicking after 4 years. I am running even current gen games right now. Sure it isn't running at max, but I am content. 4 years is ENTIRELY possible, and piece by piece upgrade is as well after that 4 mark.
I am just mad that PCI E2 is out, SATA2. Those are the biggest hurdles to avoiding system upgrades. Because DDR2+ RAM, you don't need to jump to those levels. DDR RAM still has kick to it.
Vista preferred doesn't mean Vista needed. And I am confused... are games requiring Vista to run? I have not heard that yet. Link?
EDIT:spelling
HuusAsking
I'm a PC Gamer and I can tell you right now, mods are not as great as you hermits claim it to be. For example everyone uses Oblivion mods as ownage. Total BS. Oblivion mods suck. I'll understand HL2 mods, those are great, but not all mods are good.Kayrod29
Oscuro's Overhaul mod cripples your statement.Â
I played Counterstrike on the PC and mods never appeals to me. Also, it's true that PC gaming is ultraly expensive that's why I ditched PC gaming when I got my X360 (with exception of Battlefied and strategy games). gnutuxYou can read my blog for more detail.
1st. PC gaming is more expensive anyway you look at it, but for PC users it's worth it.
2nd PC graphics only look better because our hardware cycles are 6 months long (that doesn't mean we upgrade every 6 months).
3rd gaming PCs are only effective for about 3 years (at best).
4th PC gaming isn't easy. You either have to spend a buttload of cash, or really understand about PCs and hardware.
5th can't buy used PC games, some places may sell them but it's often against the TOS, and quite risky to buy them.
6th you may be able to use a game pad on a pc to play console type games, but it's always a pain in the ass.
7th pc games have better, and more exclusives but also tend to have less diversity in genres.
8th If you're not a pc gamer you have no idea how awesome mods can be.
9th you can't host as many players on a PC game as you can an XBL game.
10th buying/renting/using a dedicated server is more expensive than XBL, but many are free.
11th Pc gaming tends to be for PC people. If you're not willing to be a computer "nerd" you probably won't have much luck with pc gaming.
jrhawk42
[QUOTE="jrhawk42"]I played Counterstrike on the PC and mods never appeals to me. Also, it's true that PC gaming is ultraly expensive that's why I ditched PC gaming when I got my X360 (with exception of Battlefied and strategy games). gnutux Over a longer, extended period of time you could conceivablly spend more on a console gaming platform. Face value is kind of useless.You can read my blog for more detail.
1st. PC gaming is more expensive anyway you look at it, but for PC users it's worth it.
2nd PC graphics only look better because our hardware cycles are 6 months long (that doesn't mean we upgrade every 6 months).
3rd gaming PCs are only effective for about 3 years (at best).
4th PC gaming isn't easy. You either have to spend a buttload of cash, or really understand about PCs and hardware.
5th can't buy used PC games, some places may sell them but it's often against the TOS, and quite risky to buy them.
6th you may be able to use a game pad on a pc to play console type games, but it's always a pain in the ass.
7th pc games have better, and more exclusives but also tend to have less diversity in genres.
8th If you're not a pc gamer you have no idea how awesome mods can be.
9th you can't host as many players on a PC game as you can an XBL game.
10th buying/renting/using a dedicated server is more expensive than XBL, but many are free.
11th Pc gaming tends to be for PC people. If you're not willing to be a computer "nerd" you probably won't have much luck with pc gaming.
gnutux
[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Choad-Warrior"]There are two Vista standards: Vista-Capable and Vista-Preferred. Only Vista-Preferred allows DirectX10 (as in, you can use the new desktop system--it's build around DX10). And since DX10 is a black-and-white standard, you're either in or out. And Microsoft has already said that Games for Vista will require DX10. BioShock and Alan Wake are confirmed Games for Vista. With a little elbow grease you can run those games on XP. -_-. Games for Vista is a viral marketing campaign paid for by Microsoft which in no way gives them any jurisdiction over the game. There are set standards to be a "Games for Vista/Windows", but they do not actually control the development process of said games.Can you prove that? I've been told all Games for Vista will require DirectX 10, and DirectX 10 happens to be a black-and-white standard. You must have a DX10 card to play a DX10 game. Certian games like Crysis and UT3 are simply DirectX 10-enhanced. But they're not Games for Vista (simply Games for Windows).That is because lately the acceleration of PC technology has doubled since 2 years ago.
Now, you can squeeze out muscle from your cards. There are still some great performing AGP cards on the market. They may not run games at max, but they will still run games.
The biggest trick isn't hardware power, but language. Ala Open GL or DirecteX 9/10 standards. Unfortunately due to timing RIGHT NOW, it will be hard yes to upgrade a handful of components.
But my rig is still kicking after 4 years. I am running even current gen games right now. Sure it isn't running at max, but I am content. 4 years is ENTIRELY possible, and piece by piece upgrade is as well after that 4 mark.
I am just mad that PCI E2 is out, SATA2. Those are the biggest hurdles to avoiding system upgrades. Because DDR2+ RAM, you don't need to jump to those levels. DDR RAM still has kick to it.
Vista preferred doesn't mean Vista needed. And I am confused... are games requiring Vista to run? I have not heard that yet. Link?
EDIT:spelling
Vandalvideo
HuusAskign: Its not a matter of proving it, its a matter of doing it. All software is merely code. Code can be altered. Its not like the PC is some static platform that can't be chagned like consoles. You control your PC. Its totally conceivable that you could reverse engineer a game to play on any operating system. Not to mention that Bioshock is also on the 360 and is a Games for Vista title. OOPS the 360 doesn't support dx10.VandalvideoYou're talking about reverse engineering software that is designed from the ground up to support such things as integer instruction sets, geometry shaders, Shader Model 4, and other features that are in DirectX 10 but not in DirectX 9 (remember, DX10 is a big jump from DX9). That's a lot more work than you think (and I do know a bit about programming). If a game has DirectX 10 as the minimum standard, how would you go about reverse-engineering it to make it work in DX9?
And BioShock on the 360 is a bad example. It may have been coded from the ground up to use the 360's architecture--IOW, developed separately from and simultaneously with its PC counterpart.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"] Depends on what you mean by that big subjective "acceptable standard". You could easily build a PC using rebates and refurbed parts that for all intents and purposes can outperform a console for the exact same price. But I really don't see the point of this arguement. Face value is such a shallow arguement. Its only meaningfull if you look at the extended price of a platform over the span of a generation. and I'll repeat this as many times as I have to. It doesn't matter if the option is used, the option exists.BgrngodAlrighty then. I will throw you a bone here. It can be done cheaper "conceivably" but it is more expensive in practice. There, both our points in one nice sentence.
Â
once again...only in USÂ
Thats funny. My acceptable standard is 800X600 at 30 FPS. I guess it is subjective and changes from person to person. As far as upgrading every 2 years? WRONG! You can scale down any game to work on any 3D accelerator card within reason to the point where you do not have to upgrade over the span of ageneration. If you purchase a rig that outperforms consoles in 2006, you can scale down any and all games to that level where the average still look better, and perform well on that same rig over the span of a generation. I repeat, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO UPGRADE.VandalvideoWrong again. What if a game's minimum is above your maximum? Games will reach that point eventually. I for one would not be able to handle Crysis--no way, no how. My computer has too many shortcomings.
You're talking about reverse engineering software that is designed from the ground up to support such things as integer instruction sets, geometry shaders, Shader Model 4, and other features that are in DirectX 10 but not in DirectX 9 (remember, DX10 is a big jump from DX9). That's a lot more work than you think (and I do know a bit about programming). If a game has DirectX 10 as the minimum standard, how would you go about reverse-engineering it to make it work in DX9?[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]HuusAskign: Its not a matter of proving it, its a matter of doing it. All software is merely code. Code can be altered. Its not like the PC is some static platform that can't be chagned like consoles. You control your PC. Its totally conceivable that you could reverse engineer a game to play on any operating system. Not to mention that Bioshock is also on the 360 and is a Games for Vista title. OOPS the 360 doesn't support dx10.HuusAsking
And BioShock on the 360 is a bad example. It may have been coded from the ground up to use the 360's architecture--IOW, developed separately from and simultaneously with its PC counterpart.
It may have, it may not have. I don't like to deal with inferences. How much work is it? About a days worth if I don't use my handy dandy automated software that compiles the code for me. At my school almost every single person could probably do an individual game ina bout an five hours.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Thats funny. My acceptable standard is 800X600 at 30 FPS. I guess it is subjective and changes from person to person. As far as upgrading every 2 years? WRONG! You can scale down any game to work on any 3D accelerator card within reason to the point where you do not have to upgrade over the span of ageneration. If you purchase a rig that outperforms consoles in 2006, you can scale down any and all games to that level where the average still look better, and perform well on that same rig over the span of a generation. I repeat, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO UPGRADE.HuusAskingWrong again. What if a game's minimum is above your maximum? Games will reach that point eventually. I for one would not be able to handle Crysis--no way, no how. My computer has too many shortcomings. Thats the thing, you can scale down any and all games to run relatively well on any 3D accelerator card. It doesn't matter if the mimunum is above the maximum as you so put it. Its matter of coding it to work that way. Yay CVARs and Tweak software.
[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Choad-Warrior"]There are two Vista standards: Vista-Capable and Vista-Preferred. Only Vista-Preferred allows DirectX10 (as in, you can use the new desktop system--it's build around DX10). And since DX10 is a black-and-white standard, you're either in or out. And Microsoft has already said that Games for Vista will require DX10. BioShock and Alan Wake are confirmed Games for Vista. With a little elbow grease you can run those games on XP. -_-. Games for Vista is a viral marketing campaign paid for by Microsoft which in no way gives them any jurisdiction over the game. There are set standards to be a "Games for Vista/Windows", but they do not actually control the development process of said games.Can you prove that? I've been told all Games for Vista will require DirectX 10, and DirectX 10 happens to be a black-and-white standard. You must have a DX10 card to play a DX10 game. Certian games like Crysis and UT3 are simply DirectX 10-enhanced. But they're not Games for Vista (simply Games for Windows).That is because lately the acceleration of PC technology has doubled since 2 years ago.
Now, you can squeeze out muscle from your cards. There are still some great performing AGP cards on the market. They may not run games at max, but they will still run games.
The biggest trick isn't hardware power, but language. Ala Open GL or DirecteX 9/10 standards. Unfortunately due to timing RIGHT NOW, it will be hard yes to upgrade a handful of components.
But my rig is still kicking after 4 years. I am running even current gen games right now. Sure it isn't running at max, but I am content. 4 years is ENTIRELY possible, and piece by piece upgrade is as well after that 4 mark.
I am just mad that PCI E2 is out, SATA2. Those are the biggest hurdles to avoiding system upgrades. Because DDR2+ RAM, you don't need to jump to those levels. DDR RAM still has kick to it.
Vista preferred doesn't mean Vista needed. And I am confused... are games requiring Vista to run? I have not heard that yet. Link?
EDIT:spelling
HuusAsking
GFW has many requirements(altough MS is making exceptions from them), two biggest are: dx10 support and 360 pad support. Now it does not mean the game will be Dx10 only, only MS' own games will be like that. If they would try to enforce it on 3rd party devs then those devs would simply not support GfW brand and stick to traditional "PC DVD" logo, heck, most actualy are sticking, GFW is struggling like hell right now. Aside from few MS own games you won't see any Vista-only games for the next couple yearsÂ
[QUOTE="HuusAsking"]You're talking about reverse engineering software that is designed from the ground up to support such things as integer instruction sets, geometry shaders, Shader Model 4, and other features that are in DirectX 10 but not in DirectX 9 (remember, DX10 is a big jump from DX9). That's a lot more work than you think (and I do know a bit about programming). If a game has DirectX 10 as the minimum standard, how would you go about reverse-engineering it to make it work in DX9?[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]HuusAskign: Its not a matter of proving it, its a matter of doing it. All software is merely code. Code can be altered. Its not like the PC is some static platform that can't be chagned like consoles. You control your PC. Its totally conceivable that you could reverse engineer a game to play on any operating system. Not to mention that Bioshock is also on the 360 and is a Games for Vista title. OOPS the 360 doesn't support dx10.Vandalvideo
And BioShock on the 360 is a bad example. It may have been coded from the ground up to use the 360's architecture--IOW, developed separately from and simultaneously with its PC counterpart.
It may have, it may not have. I don't like to deal with inferences. How much work is it? About a days worth if I don't use my handy dandy automated software that compiles the code for me. At my school almost every single person could probably do an individual game ina bout an five hours. So far your explanations for why PC gaming could be cheaper have been the following: 1) Reverse engineering 2) Rebates/refurbs on hardware 3) Get used to playing games at 800x600 at the end of the PC's life cycle 4) Buy fewer games for the PC then you would for the console So great, you have corrected a few "misconceptions" by introducing a whole lot of sacrifices.[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"]You're talking about reverse engineering software that is designed from the ground up to support such things as integer instruction sets, geometry shaders, Shader Model 4, and other features that are in DirectX 10 but not in DirectX 9 (remember, DX10 is a big jump from DX9). That's a lot more work than you think (and I do know a bit about programming). If a game has DirectX 10 as the minimum standard, how would you go about reverse-engineering it to make it work in DX9?[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]HuusAskign: Its not a matter of proving it, its a matter of doing it. All software is merely code. Code can be altered. Its not like the PC is some static platform that can't be chagned like consoles. You control your PC. Its totally conceivable that you could reverse engineer a game to play on any operating system. Not to mention that Bioshock is also on the 360 and is a Games for Vista title. OOPS the 360 doesn't support dx10.Bgrngod
And BioShock on the 360 is a bad example. It may have been coded from the ground up to use the 360's architecture--IOW, developed separately from and simultaneously with its PC counterpart.
It may have, it may not have. I don't like to deal with inferences. How much work is it? About a days worth if I don't use my handy dandy automated software that compiles the code for me. At my school almost every single person could probably do an individual game ina bout an five hours. So far your explanations for why PC gaming could be cheaper have been the following: 1) Reverse engineering 2) Rebates/refurbs on hardware 3) Get used to playing games at 800x600 at the end of the PC's life cycle 4) Buy fewer games for the PC then you would for the console So great, you have corrected a few "misconceptions" by introducing a whole lot of sacrifices. Well yeah, I didn't necessarily say it was the wisest thing to do. I'm saying you can do it. I don't like people saying the PC can't do something. -_-[QUOTE="Bgrngod"][QUOTE="Vandalvideo"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"]You're talking about reverse engineering software that is designed from the ground up to support such things as integer instruction sets, geometry shaders, Shader Model 4, and other features that are in DirectX 10 but not in DirectX 9 (remember, DX10 is a big jump from DX9). That's a lot more work than you think (and I do know a bit about programming). If a game has DirectX 10 as the minimum standard, how would you go about reverse-engineering it to make it work in DX9?[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]HuusAskign: Its not a matter of proving it, its a matter of doing it. All software is merely code. Code can be altered. Its not like the PC is some static platform that can't be chagned like consoles. You control your PC. Its totally conceivable that you could reverse engineer a game to play on any operating system. Not to mention that Bioshock is also on the 360 and is a Games for Vista title. OOPS the 360 doesn't support dx10.Vandalvideo
And BioShock on the 360 is a bad example. It may have been coded from the ground up to use the 360's architecture--IOW, developed separately from and simultaneously with its PC counterpart.
It may have, it may not have. I don't like to deal with inferences. How much work is it? About a days worth if I don't use my handy dandy automated software that compiles the code for me. At my school almost every single person could probably do an individual game ina bout an five hours. So far your explanations for why PC gaming could be cheaper have been the following: 1) Reverse engineering 2) Rebates/refurbs on hardware 3) Get used to playing games at 800x600 at the end of the PC's life cycle 4) Buy fewer games for the PC then you would for the console So great, you have corrected a few "misconceptions" by introducing a whole lot of sacrifices. Well yeah, I didn't necessarily say it was the wisest thing to do. I'm saying you can do it. I don't like people saying the PC can't do something. -_- I agree. PC's kick @$$.3rd gaming PCs are only effective for about 3 years (at best).
4th PC gaming isn't easy. You either have to spend a buttload of cash, or really understand about PCs and hardware.
Decent list but two more points. My inital rig lasted me for about five years. I then dumped about 150USD on a new graphics card and PSU six months ago. Still runs great.
 I learned all I needed to about PC's from a couple of post on tom's hardware and tweakguides. PC's are extremely simple to maintain and operate.Â
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment