Playstation 5/Xbox 4: do we already have a PC as powerful?

Avatar image for MK-Professor
#101 Edited by MK-Professor (4163 posts) -

You can put 4 290X OC and get 27 TFlops that is just crazy if you think about it.

27 > 1.84 or 27 > 1.31 LOL

in 5 years we should have single GPU's that can do that.

Avatar image for True_Gamer_
#102 Posted by True_Gamer_ (6737 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

Luckily for Sony and Microsoft they are run by intelligent people who know they won't be successful with a $600 console with no profit just to appeal some really rabid fanboys on the internet who wouldn't buy their products in the first place.

Thank god for that. No need to upgrade my 670 i5 PC in the forseeable future. Heck my brother's 650Ti will play FIFA 15 NG thanks to the lowest common denominator aka the Xbone. He wouldnt dream of running Xbox360's FIFA 8 on a x1550 GPU...

Avatar image for remics
#103 Posted by remics (25 posts) -

haha I still can't beleive they called it xbox 1

Avatar image for bezza2011
#104 Posted by bezza2011 (2729 posts) -

@FreedomFreeLife said:

@emgesp said:

@FreedomFreeLife:

Yeah, because the average PC gaming rig is loaded with dual GTX 780's. A very small minority of PC gamers are playing games in 4K. It isn't the standard. I highly doubt a $399.99 PC can play games at 4K with acceptable framerates.

avarage PC gamer for 400 dollars for PC? PC gamer uses usually at least 1000 dollar PC. For example. Go to Neogaf and 95% PC gamers PC costs over 1000 dollars.

This is standard. People are already playing 8K.

That's complete and utter tosh, 8k??? you can't even buy 8k monitors so your talking complete utter crap, a $1000 PC would just about do 1080p at 60fps maybe 120fps, to get a 4K gaming PC which gives you a decent frame rate, you have to spend at least $2500, people don't realize how much power it takes to push 4K in a PC, $1000 won't cut it, just laugh at your 8K announcement, to even game at 8K will require someone to spend at least $5000 and that isn't even considering how much a monitor would cost in 8K. Pc gaming is the hardest thing to get your head around so many combinations need to be right just to get a decent build.

Avatar image for PAL360
#105 Edited by PAL360 (29026 posts) -

PS4 and X1 are about 12 times more powerful than last gen consoles. They actually have 16x more RAM. Do standard PCs have 128GB RAM, TC?

Avatar image for ShoTTyMcNaDeS
#106 Edited by ShoTTyMcNaDeS (2784 posts) -

@True_Gamer_:

Consoles aren't just about graphical power. They are aiming to be the all in one entertainment hub in your living room. Console are about convienience as well. I personally don't know a single person that has a PC tower hooked up to their 65" flat screen. I do however know 100's of people that have a console hooked up to said TV!!

Avatar image for ShoTTyMcNaDeS
#107 Posted by ShoTTyMcNaDeS (2784 posts) -

You CANNOT buy a gaming PC set up for the cost of a X1 or PS4! A console runs $400 and is plug and play. A mid range gaming PC will run you atleast $500 and that doesn't include a monitor, M/KB, anti virus, OS and whatever else. Don't even start with the "who doesn't have monitors and M/KB's laying around" and those are not necessary costs. Yes, Yes they are! Who goes out and buys a brand spanking new PC tower and hooks it up to a 2008 monitor and a non gaming M/KB????

Avatar image for soulitane
#108 Edited by soulitane (15091 posts) -

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS said:

You CANNOT buy a gaming PC set up for the cost of a X1 or PS4! A console runs $400 and is plug and play. A mid range gaming PC will run you atleast $500 and that doesn't include a monitor, M/KB, anti virus, OS and whatever else. Don't even start with the "who doesn't have monitors and M/KB's laying around" and those are not necessary costs. Yes, Yes they are! Who goes out and buys a brand spanking new PC tower and hooks it up to a 2008 monitor and a non gaming M/KB????

I'll assume you'll factor in the cost of TV into the console purchase then?

Avatar image for m3dude1
#109 Posted by m3dude1 (2274 posts) -

@bezza2011 said:

@FreedomFreeLife said:

@emgesp said:

@FreedomFreeLife:

Yeah, because the average PC gaming rig is loaded with dual GTX 780's. A very small minority of PC gamers are playing games in 4K. It isn't the standard. I highly doubt a $399.99 PC can play games at 4K with acceptable framerates.

avarage PC gamer for 400 dollars for PC? PC gamer uses usually at least 1000 dollar PC. For example. Go to Neogaf and 95% PC gamers PC costs over 1000 dollars.

This is standard. People are already playing 8K.

That's complete and utter tosh, 8k??? you can't even buy 8k monitors so your talking complete utter crap, a $1000 PC would just about do 1080p at 60fps maybe 120fps, to get a 4K gaming PC which gives you a decent frame rate, you have to spend at least $2500, people don't realize how much power it takes to push 4K in a PC, $1000 won't cut it, just laugh at your 8K announcement, to even game at 8K will require someone to spend at least $5000 and that isn't even considering how much a monitor would cost in 8K. Pc gaming is the hardest thing to get your head around so many combinations need to be right just to get a decent build.

lol $1000 pc has no shot in hell at 120fps gaming at 1080p. and you cant even build a pc that can handle 8k gaming. gpus powerful enough dont exist. unless your talking about games like half life 2 or some other nonsense. just more of the typical inane mumbo jumbo hermits spout

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#110 Edited by MonsieurX (37417 posts) -

@soulitane said:

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS said:

You CANNOT buy a gaming PC set up for the cost of a X1 or PS4! A console runs $400 and is plug and play. A mid range gaming PC will run you atleast $500 and that doesn't include a monitor, M/KB, anti virus, OS and whatever else. Don't even start with the "who doesn't have monitors and M/KB's laying around" and those are not necessary costs. Yes, Yes they are! Who goes out and buys a brand spanking new PC tower and hooks it up to a 2008 monitor and a non gaming M/KB????

I'll assume you'll factor in the cost of TV into the console purchase then?

This.

Bought a brand new PC 2 years ago and re-used parts and mouse/keyboard.

Why include the cost for the monitor?

Who pays for a anti virus these days?

Avatar image for Wasdie
#111 Posted by Wasdie (53525 posts) -

@True_Gamer_ said:

@Wasdie said:

Luckily for Sony and Microsoft they are run by intelligent people who know they won't be successful with a $600 console with no profit just to appeal some really rabid fanboys on the internet who wouldn't buy their products in the first place.

Thank god for that. No need to upgrade my 670 i5 PC in the forseeable future. Heck my brother's 650Ti will play FIFA 15 NG thanks to the lowest common denominator aka the Xbone. He wouldnt dream of running Xbox360's FIFA 8 on a x1550 GPU...

PC games since the early 2000s have always been like this. It's rare that you need the absolutely most up-to-date hardware to run the latest games. Blaming the consoles for this is dumb. Building your game to only take advantage of a .01% of the market that keeps up to date is a surefire way to not make your money back and quickly go out of business.

It has taken over 2 years for GTX 760 and higher to get over 20% of the Steam marketplace. You can't be building your games with a requirement of 2 year old GPUs and expect to make your money back. Good thing devs know this or PC gaming would be dead.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#112 Edited by Wasdie (53525 posts) -
@MonsieurX said:

@soulitane said:

I'll assume you'll factor in the cost of TV into the console purchase then?

This.

Bought a brand new PC 2 years ago and re-used parts and mouse/keyboard.

Why include the cost for the monitor?

Who pays for a anti virus these days?

It's actually a safe assumption that a person new to PC gaming will need to buy a monitor. If they had a PC before there is a very likely chance that it was a laptop. TVs on the other hand are used by more than just gamers and nearly every household has one. That's part of why consoles exist in the first place. They are built and sold to the market that already has a TV.

People don't just have keyboard, mouse, an OS, a case, or a monitor lying around. Since laptops took over as the main computer seller, there has been no need for a lot of the accessories and PC parts in households have become a lot less common. HDTVs are now common place in people's homes and it's a safe bet that a household has a TV but does not have an extra monitor lying around anymore.

That's just logical. Even in 2007 I had to buy a monitor for my PC as I didn't have one yet I had an HDTV to play games on. When I bought my newest HDTV in 2011, I considered it as part of my home theater system for movies and TV and games, not just a direct necessity for my consoles.

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

probably, but there is not a single game to take advantage of that so called "power". so pc loses again. pay $$$ for a rig and you have nothing to play on it lol.

fail

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

@ps4hasnogames said:

probably, but there is not a single game to take advantage of that so called "power". so pc loses again. pay $$$ for a rig and you have nothing to play on it lol.

fail

The 100+ games I have on steam beg to differ

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#116 Posted by MonsieurX (37417 posts) -

@ps4hasnogames said:

probably, but there is not a single game to take advantage of that so called "power". so pc loses again. pay $$$ for a rig and you have nothing to play on it lol.

fail

I remember how PS4 hot all dem games

Avatar image for True_Gamer_
#117 Posted by True_Gamer_ (6737 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@True_Gamer_ said:

@Wasdie said:

Luckily for Sony and Microsoft they are run by intelligent people who know they won't be successful with a $600 console with no profit just to appeal some really rabid fanboys on the internet who wouldn't buy their products in the first place.

Thank god for that. No need to upgrade my 670 i5 PC in the forseeable future. Heck my brother's 650Ti will play FIFA 15 NG thanks to the lowest common denominator aka the Xbone. He wouldnt dream of running Xbox360's FIFA 8 on a x1550 GPU...

PC games since the early 2000s have always been like this. It's rare that you need the absolutely most up-to-date hardware to run the latest games. Blaming the consoles for this is dumb. Building your game to only take advantage of a .01% of the market that keeps up to date is a surefire way to not make your money back and quickly go out of business.

It has taken over 2 years for GTX 760 and higher to get over 20% of the Steam marketplace. You can't be building your games with a requirement of 2 year old GPUs and expect to make your money back. Good thing devs know this or PC gaming would be dead.

If someone told a guys with a 460 GTX in 2010: hey your GPU will run the next gen supermachines' FIFA 15 in late 2014! He would laugh at them....

Its like telling a guy in 2001 that his average GPU will run next gen FIFA maxxed....

Thank god for the weak consoles for we wont have to shell out a dime for upgrades AND NOT buy a console to play multiplats!

Amazing gaming times we live in!

Avatar image for gamecubepad
#118 Posted by gamecubepad (7742 posts) -

The power game isn't the way forward for pc gaming. The entry-mid segment is the battlefield.

That power only matters when content is being designed around it.

So the question is always how does a $600-700 PC match up to a console in ease of use, form factor, centralized online gaming and entertainment experience?

Avatar image for SambaLele
#119 Posted by SambaLele (5552 posts) -

Probably. I do hope though that that means one with top-tier GPUs in SLI.

Avatar image for Wasdie
#120 Edited by Wasdie (53525 posts) -

@True_Gamer_ said:

If someone told a guys with a 460 GTX in 2010: hey your GPU will run the next gen supermachines' FIFA 15 in late 2014! He would laugh at them....

Its like telling a guy in 2001 that his average GPU will run next gen FIFA maxxed....

Thank god for the weak consoles for we wont have to shell out a dime for upgrades AND NOT buy a console to play multiplats!

Amazing gaming times we live in!

You are a bastion of terrible logic, reasoning, and assumptions. I doubt you even realize how powerful a GTX 460 really is. It's not the fault of the hardware that it's taken software the better part of 4 years to finally start utilizing the hardware we've had.

There's really nothing to say to you other than your expectations are completely unrealistic for developers. Good thing they don't listen to you and you can continue being cynical and hating on the industry while the rest of us can enjoy our video games. The rest of the industry will keep pushing forward.

Avatar image for AM-Gamer
#121 Posted by AM-Gamer (8116 posts) -

@FreedomFreeLife: Are you slow? No current PC will run any modern looking game at 8k at a even remotely playable framerate.

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#122 Edited by MonsieurX (37417 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@FreedomFreeLife: Are you slow? No current PC will run any modern looking game at 8k at a even remotely playable framerate.

Pretty sure that PS5\Nextbox will struggle with 4k

Avatar image for AM-Gamer
#123 Posted by AM-Gamer (8116 posts) -

@MonsieurX: They will run 4k about as well as the current consoles run 1080p and they will be using far higher quality assets then in today's games. (Although there is honestly only so much more that can be done). The fact is he said current PCs are running games in 8k which is laughable. No pc could run any current gen game in 8k at a playable framerate.

Avatar image for darkangel115
#124 Posted by darkangel115 (4449 posts) -

The correct answer is yes. I can't see next gen consoles being on par with a gaming PC that has 32GB RAM, dual titans, and an I7 processor. The thing is that PC would cost around 2000 dollars right now

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#125 Posted by MonsieurX (37417 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@MonsieurX: They will run 4k about as well as the current consoles run 1080p and they will be using far higher quality assets then in today's games. (Although there is honestly only so much more that can be done). The fact is he said current PCs are running games in 8k which is laughable. No pc could run any current gen game in 8k at a playable framerate.

Not bad.

11520x2160 is 24mp,8k is 33mp.

To achieve 35 FPS on a single GPU at 11520x2160, they used medium high overall settings, with MSAA turned off. Microsoft played with 6 virtual 4K displays, all linked into an Eyefinity group to achieve 11520x2160 @ 60Hz. With three-way CrossFire enabled, and the help of a custom version of driver from AMD, Microsoft were able to reach an average of between 62-67 FPS in Dirt 3 at 11520x2160 with all settings on "high" apart from shadow details and particles. Read more at http://www.tweaktown.com/news/31981/how-is-gaming-on-triple-4k-displays-check-out-dirt-3-at-11520x2160-/index.html

Avatar image for ps4hasnogames
#126 Edited by PS4hasNOgames (2620 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@ps4hasnogames said:

probably, but there is not a single game to take advantage of that so called "power". so pc loses again. pay $$$ for a rig and you have nothing to play on it lol.

fail

The 100+ games I have on steam beg to differ

but do they take advantage of the "powah" of your rig? I have not yet seen any PC game that was mind-blowing graphically superior over a console version. The only thing I seen impressive so far was the Unreal Tournament work in progress, and thats not out yet.

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

@MonsieurX: Not bad? The pc cost them $5000 and they couldn't even max the graphics settings.

That's also a last gen title. Current gen racers will use far higher quality assets.

Avatar image for gamecubepad
#128 Posted by gamecubepad (7742 posts) -

@ShoTTyMcNaDeS:

A year ago you could do a complete, quality build including 3 games for under $500. It would be about as powerful as PS4.

When you factor online paywall, it's hundreds of dollars cheaper than PS4/X1.

Avatar image for AM-Gamer
#129 Posted by AM-Gamer (8116 posts) -

@gamecubepad: A 500$ pc more powerful then a PS4? This has been debunked countless times.

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#130 Posted by MonsieurX (37417 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@MonsieurX: Not bad? The pc cost them $5000 and they couldn't even max the graphics settings.

That's also a last gen title. Current gen racers will use far higher quality assets.

Considering it was done over a year ago and with a single gpu,that's not bad.

And you said no pc,never talked about the price

@AM-Gamer said:

@MonsieurX: No pc could run any current gen game in 8k at a playable framerate.

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#131 Posted by MonsieurX (37417 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@gamecubepad: A 500$ pc more powerful then a PS4? This has been debunked countless times.

http://pcpartpicker.com/p/ZssTpg

Over by 13$

Avatar image for bldgirsh
#132 Edited by BldgIrsh (3044 posts) -

@ps4hasnogames said:

@lostrib said:

@ps4hasnogames said:

probably, but there is not a single game to take advantage of that so called "power". so pc loses again. pay $$$ for a rig and you have nothing to play on it lol.

fail

The 100+ games I have on steam beg to differ

but do they take advantage of the "powah" of your rig? I have not yet seen any PC game that was mind-blowing graphically superior over a console version. The only thing I seen impressive so far was the Unreal Tournament work in progress, and thats not out yet.

So, since we're not talking about games that aren't out yet. What games are you talking about? I:SS photo mode is impressive sure, but that's not gameplay graphics, KZ:SF? Lol

Avatar image for AM-Gamer
#133 Posted by AM-Gamer (8116 posts) -

@MonsieurX: How is that relevant when there all last gen games? Let me be more clear . No pc can run PS4 quality visuals at 8k

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#134 Edited by MonsieurX (37417 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@MonsieurX: How is that relevant when there all last gen games? Let me be more clear . No pc can run PS4 quality visuals at 8k

What is that exactly? Pre-rendered cgi?

Anyway

Now, before you get excited that just because you have a GTX Titan you will play games in 8k, there are some things you should consider. First of all, that no graphics card yet has the processing power to render the 25+ million pixels at a steady and playable rate.The guy who posted the screens got a measly 2 FPS with his overclocked Radeon HD 7950 (not playable obviously). The pictures are just a glimpse of what 8k would look like. Keeping in mind that 8k is twice the pixels of 4k, we would need at least 8 top of the line graphic cards (GTX 780Ti etc) to run it on stable 30+ fps (ignoring sync issues)

Secondly, you wouldn’t find an 8k screen easily because even the 4k screen aren’t mainstream yet. And lastly, overclocking and putting your computer under so much load could seriously damage it so do this at your own risk! So there is still a long way to go before we can ‘actually play’ in this resolution but hey, the future looks bright

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

@ps4hasnogames said:

@lostrib said:

@ps4hasnogames said:

probably, but there is not a single game to take advantage of that so called "power". so pc loses again. pay $$$ for a rig and you have nothing to play on it lol.

fail

The 100+ games I have on steam beg to differ

but do they take advantage of the "powah" of your rig? I have not yet seen any PC game that was mind-blowing graphically superior over a console version. The only thing I seen impressive so far was the Unreal Tournament work in progress, and thats not out yet.

Taking advantage of the "powah" and "you have nothing to play on it" are two different things.

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

@bldgirsh: LMAO how many more times do hermits need to own themselves. PHOTO MODE IN INFAMOUS SS IS GAMEPLAY GRAPHICS! How does changing camera angles no longer make it gameplay. I've played with it for hours and it offers no visual enhancements. You can add more DOF if you want but it makes stale pictures look worse.

Avatar image for CrownKingArthur
#137 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -
@AM-Gamer said:

@bldgirsh: PHOTO MODE IN INFAMOUS SS IS GAMEPLAY GRAPHICS!

no its not

Avatar image for AM-Gamer
#138 Posted by AM-Gamer (8116 posts) -

@MonsieurX: infamous SS, KZ SF and DC are not pre rendered. And you proved my point with your post. We need about 8x the power of high end GPUs of today to run current gen titles in 8k.

Avatar image for MonsieurX
#139 Posted by MonsieurX (37417 posts) -

@AM-Gamer said:

@MonsieurX: infamous SS, KZ SF and DC are not pre rendered. And you proved my point with your post. We need about 8x the power of high end GPUs of today to run current gen titles in 8k.

But who cares about 8k?

4k is not even mainstream and won't be for several years. You'll be lucky to play your games at that resolution with the next consoles.

And neither of those games are impressive visually

Avatar image for AM-Gamer
#140 Posted by AM-Gamer (8116 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur: Yes it is

Avatar image for CrownKingArthur
#141 Edited by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -
@AM-Gamer said:

@CrownKingArthur: Yes it is

lol

when you exit the photo mode, that's gameplay.

otherwise in photo mode you're moving only the camera about, in a static 3d scene, so there isn't motion blur happening inter-frame, there isn't any gameplay happening. those DOF filters can be applied. other tone filters and stuff.

i've watched gameplay footage of infamous ss (gamersyde) and it looks very good, but to declare "PHOTO MODE IN INFAMOUS SS IS GAMEPLAY GRAPHICS" seems dishonest to me. i wouldn't say that. i'd say photo mode produces images enhanced above and beyond what you'd see during gameplay, which it does.

Avatar image for AM-Gamer
#142 Posted by AM-Gamer (8116 posts) -

@MonsieurX: He said Modern pcs are running games at 8k and its only because they are games with low assets. Lol not impressive visually? They match are trounce the vast majority of what pc offers. We have herms saying INFAMOUS SS photo mode is not representatives of gameplay. Yet the game moves seamlessly into gameplay right when you snap a shot only moving the camera.

Avatar image for AM-Gamer
#143 Posted by AM-Gamer (8116 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur: You Watched gameplay? On what compressed you tube videos? NO AA, NO lighting enchantments nothing is added. You can choose to add DOF if you want but I promise you it will make the shots look worse. As I said before in photomode the game moves seamlessly from photomode to gameplay. That would be impossible if it added assets. The most impressive shots are taken adding nothing only moving the camera.

Avatar image for CrownKingArthur
#144 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -
@AM-Gamer said:

@CrownKingArthur: You Watched gameplay? On what compressed you tube videos? NO AA, NO lighting enchantments nothing is added. You can choose to add DOF if you want but I promise you it will make the shots look worse. As I said before in photomode the game moves seamlessly from photomode to gameplay. That would be impossible if it added assets. The most impressive shots are taken adding nothing only moving the camera.

@CrownKingArthur said:

i've watched gameplay footage of infamous ss (gamersyde)

i said gamersyde. what's the point in reading and responding to your posts, if you won't grant me the same courtesy?

i never said aa or lighting enhancements were added.

"As I said before in photomode the game moves seamlessly from photomode to gameplay. That would be impossible if it added assets. The most impressive shots are taken adding nothing only moving the camera."

the best part of this is how you say 'moves seamlessly from photomode to gameplay', which implies photomode isn't gameplay, which is great - because it's not.

you don't have to add / takeaway assets in order to create a method of taking screens you couldn't otherwise take. eliminating motion blur by freezing the scene will help a lot.

Avatar image for AM-Gamer
#145 Posted by AM-Gamer (8116 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur: Gamersyde is still compressed footage. I don't know why I'm arguing with you as you are simply incorrect and you already admit to never seeing the game in person. All photomode does is pause the game and allow you to move the camera around and add DOF. All motion blur doesn't suddenly diseapear when you pause the screen. Whatever was going on during gameplay stays just as it was. And if you want to say the camera angle enhances the image that's fine as gameplay would be impossible with a cinematic camera in an open world game. It's no different how certain camera shots make a movie look Better. Regardless there is no reason to try to persuade anyone who simply refuses to believe what is true especially when he's never seen it in person.

Avatar image for m3dude1
#146 Posted by m3dude1 (2274 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

@AM-Gamer said:

@MonsieurX: How is that relevant when there all last gen games? Let me be more clear . No pc can run PS4 quality visuals at 8k

What is that exactly? Pre-rendered cgi?

Anyway

Now, before you get excited that just because you have a GTX Titan you will play games in 8k, there are some things you should consider. First of all, that no graphics card yet has the processing power to render the 25+ million pixels at a steady and playable rate.The guy who posted the screens got a measly 2 FPS with his overclocked Radeon HD 7950 (not playable obviously). The pictures are just a glimpse of what 8k would look like. Keeping in mind that 8k is twice the pixels of 4k, we would need at least 8 top of the line graphic cards (GTX 780Ti etc) to run it on stable 30+ fps (ignoring sync issues)

Secondly, you wouldn’t find an 8k screen easily because even the 4k screen aren’t mainstream yet. And lastly, overclocking and putting your computer under so much load could seriously damage it so do this at your own risk! So there is still a long way to go before we can ‘actually play’ in this resolution but hey, the future looks bright

8k is 33 MP, thats a big step up from 24. and lol dirt 2 at medium high settings. like seriously? yeah you lose again.

Avatar image for blueinheaven
#147 Posted by blueinheaven (4185 posts) -

Well my PC that cost close to 2k can run pretty much anything I want to throw at it in ultra high resolution and PS4 and X1 are not match for it. Just thought I'd join in the general internet penis-waving with the rest of the PC crowd.

Thing is though, I have lots of games to play on it that I really love but try as I might I can't get it to run Uncharted, The Last Of Us, most of the Halo Games and any number of games in a very long list of console exclusives.

Whether or not you give a flying f*** about how powerful your PC is compared to a console depends simply on one thing and one thing only: whether you're a gamer or not.

I'm a gamer and I have a killer PC, a PS3, a 360, a PS4 in a week or two and I'll have an X1 at Christmas. Why? Because I love games and I want to play ALL the good ones.

Avatar image for Dragerdeifrit
#148 Posted by Dragerdeifrit (499 posts) -

we have PCs as powerful as a playstation 8, the problem is there's no big deveopers who would take the risk to make a game that fully uses that power. and indies don't have the resources

Avatar image for Dasein808
#149 Edited by Dasein808 (791 posts) -

@Cranler said:

Do you have another theory for why the pc decimation thread got deleted?

Because: you are incapable of supporting any of your trolling using legitimate evidence, your incessant need to try and derail / reframe a thread any time that you are proven wrong, and the fact that you never stfu?

Just some wild guesses...

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

@Dasein808 said:

@Cranler said:

Do you have another theory for why the pc decimation thread got deleted?

Because: you are incapable of supporting any of your trolling using legitimate evidence, your incessant need to try and derail / reframe a thread any time that you are proven wrong, and the fact that you never stfu?

Just some wild guesses...

I back up all my claims with reputable websites. Show where I derailed a thread.