A GTX 950 isn't exactly what this guy was talking about when he said consoles were holding games back. Lol
A GTX 950 isn't exactly what this guy was talking about when he said consoles were holding games back. Lol
so what? Never said it was, that build and the comments it was in response to were completely irrelevant to the article, Pig only read the headline, and im not quite sure of Cossners point other than to seem edgy. Also, that article is also from today and that build from over a year ago, even if it was. The only point of showing that build was saying that it is capable to build a PC the same if not better for the same price range when someone unmistakeably just claimed the opposite. The point of the article is that PC's potential isnt being reached - and to do so would be impossible financially, not because its expensive design but because it literally would make these games unplayable to a massive portion of the market with the current state of console tech.
The point is, thats not as good as it gets - thats as good as you think it gets. It's as good as it has been getting simply because thats what console tech is capable of, but much much more is capable for PC but developers can't afford to build games better than when it's wasted investment on 2/3 platforms and often has to be scaled back regardless for PC as a result, and thats what the article is saying. Developers would like to make much more graphically amazing games, and the tech is there for them to do so. Certain platforms make this unfeasible though.
how are you missing that this is exactly the point? Games, especially multiplatform ones, will only ever be as strong as the weakest link in platforms. PC might look a bit better at the end of the day due to consoles losing some quality through the optimisation process for the weaker tech, but as you say its not going to be too different in most cases. The point is that it could be, and the games we have the potential to be playing on a PC can't be made until the console can play them too, because investments into something that PCs are capable of are just wasted funding for 2/3 consoles, or even worse would stop them from being able to run on it in a playable state at all. BTW 780ti is pretty outdated tech nowadays, that is not a 1500 dollar pc today if that is your platform you personally are obviously being held back by nothing. That doesnt mean that PC gaming as a whole is not being held back however.
I guess you missed that Metro reveal huh
That's as good as it needs to be for console in current gen. Developers need to start focusing on making quality, lasting gameplay rather than making a super duper shiny turd.
you act as if it comes at the expense of quality. Have a look at Witcher 3, before it was scaled back for a commercial release.
Yeah, but when they say the consoles are holding them back, I think they're referring to more enthusiast-level rigs/builds -- which as people pointed out, are indeed more expensive.
PM me and tell me your price range and intended use and any other preferences
Never played it. So I don't know how to respond to this.
10/10 for me please. Thanks for taking the ugly one.
definitely, and ive addressed the topic of the article many times in this thread
7/10 is ugly?
Alright well it's an incredibly well recieved RPG that many people are fans of for pushing the genre forward in terms of writing and substance.
For a guy named Juggs you seem to care more about personality than juggs.. 7/10 is ugly. That is C tier and that means Swamp Thing. I do not want a girl that looks like Swamp Thing.
Who is even arguing this point though? Most serious gamers realize PC is objectively superior in almost every way. Consoles are cheaper and more convenient, you get what you pay for.
Thats not even half of what we took out of the game to make it run fine on PS4/X1. And while over time we added some of those things to PC version it's not even close to how the game looked with all the bells and whistles at the beginning. There is no shame in admitting we couldn't release it in that state on PC and gutted on PS4/X1, coz it would hurt our sales. So we toned down PC version a lot. Business.
Actually we knew exactly what we were talking about. The point was, they are still incredible games -- as *games*. Making a subpar game with amazing graphics (The Order, anyone?) really doesn't count for much in an era where there are so many legitimately great games coming out each year.
I care about substance. You'll get bored and tired of the 10/10 far more quickly than you think. And 7/10 is not ugly, what are you even saying? 7/10 is your average chick who you see and say "she's pretty hot". Nothing amazing about 7's, but nothing wrong either. Ugly is 5/10 and below. 6/10's are 7's with some kind of flaw (too fat, too skinny, too tall, too short, etc).
I know what juggs are buddy I wasn't born yesterday. I know the difference of a 7/10 and a 10/10. I would never say a 7/10 is hot. ALSO, if they are too fat they are not in the 7 category.
The only thing more "powerful" here would be the 980, and you're missing stuff like the OS and fans. Also 450 is not 15% more than 250. The point of the article was to shit on the console specs. Nobody cares about the specs everyone just cares about quality games, plus the PC market is different than the console market. My cousins are not gonna build a custom PC. I have no idea what any of your responses are or your point is besides being edgy.
