Carmack says market is going consoles

[phide]

+1 that's why the ones who chastise the consoles for running at lower resolutions with weaker gpus forget that the guys that run them are playing on large screens while sitting over 8 feet away, making higher pc resolutions powered by faster gpus a moot point

So you're saying it's a moot point that PC gamers running at a high resolution see more detail than the console gamers running at 720p (or frequently less -- as low as 540 vertical lines upscaled to 720)?

That's interesting, to say the least.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

so if you are using steam and buy 6 or 7 games, you plan would be to have those games all tied to separate accounts so you can sell them on a per account basis? that is pretty much the definition something that no one wants to deal with. trading and reselling physical media for games has proven itself to be extremely easy and pratical for the huge majority of gamers.
Posted via [H] Mobile Device

I don't care. Somoene argued you cannot sell games second hand and they're wrong.

If what you really mean is you can't be arsed to enter a different username in steam everytime you want to play a game then...so what? I can't be arsed to swap discs everytime I want to play a cosnsole game, is that a reason not to get a console?

So you're saying it's a moot point that PC gamers running at a high resolution see more detail than the console gamers running at 720p (or frequently less -- as low as 540 vertical lines upscaled to 720)?

That's interesting, to say the least.

Depends how far you are from the screen I suppose.

Low resolution is just one aspect of why console games look shit, low resolution textures and lack of decent AA and AF as well as toned down effects all play a part.

Console gamers are just used to lower standards *shrug*

 

[kumquatsrus]

So you're saying it's a moot point that PC gamers running at a high resolution see more detail than the console gamers running at 720p (or frequently less -- as low as 540 vertical lines upscaled to 720)?

That's interesting, to say the least.

no, im saying that the fact that a pc can run at higher resolutions than consoles is negated by the limitations of the human eye when it comes to screen size and viewing distance in regards to large television monitors, making the lower resolutions of consoles irrelevant at normal seating distances. it's not to say that there aren't visual benefits for the pc, because there obviously is such as higher graphic options and additional aa in games, etc. only pointing out the ridiculous criticism of having lower resolutions for consoles, which wouldn't even apply to most setups/ situations. 720p gaming is fine for consoles since most would be playing on large screens at longer viewing distances (furthermore, 1080p will more than likely be the standard for next gen consoles making this discussion inconsequential). 1080p is mostly beneficial for larger 50"+ screens and 10' - distances when it comes to big screen gaming. 4MP gaming is only relevant at 3' or less, considering the only consumer grade monitors that i know of this resolution come with 30" screens. again, there are exceptions for those with above average sight, those of whom would be in the minority of the population. now if one were to desire to play a console at a desk with a smaller screen size, then i would say yes, the console would essentially need to have a high-end gpu incorporated into it to be able to play at a 4MP resolution for most games.

 

[RadXge]

A 20m VGA cable was about £13 from scan.co.uk, a quick google search tells me people run 50m without problem.

And how would you connect the keyboard/mouse since USB 2.0 cable length is limited to a mere 5m (15')?

Great post kumquatsrus!

 

[Baker]

i dont even know why they make RTS games on a console. pointless IMO. cant use a mouse and keyboard for that shit

PS3 can use a Mouse and Keyboard... UT3 allows it. It works and is completely up to the dev if they want to implement M&K on the PS3.

name me a RTS game that uses M&K. wait a minute, name ANY other game that uses mouse and keyboard?

Good point, and apparantly the UT3 mouse implimentation is really bad, a friend said it felt like they just mapped the axis to dpad which presumably doesn't gives you some really awkward movement.

First of all, I was just pointing out that it can be used on the PS3. It's up to the dev to implement it. Just because no RTS games out today on the PS3 use a M&KB, doesn't mean the system won't allow it.

As for UT3 on the PS3. I own it, have used M&KB with it, and your friend is wrong. It feels no different than playing an FPS on a PC.

 

[kumquatsrus]

And how would you connect the keyboard/mouse since USB 2.0 cable length is limited to a mere 5m (15')?

Great post kumquatsrus!

thx man

 

[jonneymendoza]

And how would you connect the keyboard/mouse since USB 2.0 cable length is limited to a mere 5m (15')?

Great post kumquatsrus!

jesus your making me laugh more and more LOL. as if you cant buy wireless keyboard and mouse. i saw one for £10 the other day LOL.

Conveniance? more like fucking lazy

 

[jonneymendoza]

First of all, I was just pointing out that it can be used on the PS3. It's up to the dev to implement it. Just because no RTS games out today on the PS3 use a M&KB, doesn't mean the system won't allow it.

As for UT3 on the PS3. I own it, have used M&KB with it, and your friend is wrong. It feels no different than playing an FPS on a PC.

my point is simple. you cant use mouse and keyboard on MOST games. Shit you cant even use it in ANY RTS game on the ps3 unless you can name me even one

 

[Baker]

my point is simple. you cant use mouse and keyboard on MOST games. Shit you cant even use it in ANY RTS game on the ps3 unless you can name me even one

....

Your original post was saying you "don't know why they make RTS games on a console, it's pointless because you can't use a M&KB."

I'm simply pointing out that the PS3 is capable of using M&KB, thus it can be done if a developer chooses to. I'm not saying there are currently any RTS games on the PS3 that allow it, yet this doesn't mean it can't be implemented for future titles.

 

[defiant007]

no, im saying that the fact that a pc can run at higher resolutions than consoles is negated by the limitations of the human eye when it comes to screen size and viewing distance in regards to large television monitors, making the lower resolutions of consoles irrelevant at normal seating distances. it's not to say that there aren't visual benefits for the pc, because there obviously is such as higher graphic options and additional aa in games, etc. only pointing out the ridiculous criticism of having lower resolutions for consoles, which wouldn't even apply to most setups/ situations. 720p gaming is fine for consoles since most would be playing on large screens at longer viewing distances (furthermore, 1080p will more than likely be the standard for next gen consoles making this discussion inconsequential). 1080p is mostly beneficial for larger 50"+ screens and 10' - distances when it comes to big screen gaming. 4MP gaming is only relevant at 3' or less, considering the only consumer grade monitors that i know of this resolution come with 30" screens. again, there are exceptions for those with above average sight, those of whom would be in the minority of the population. now if one were to desire to play a console at a desk with a smaller screen size, then i would say yes, the console would essentially need to have a high-end gpu incorporated into it to be able to play at a 4MP resolution for most games.

Utter bullshit, I can easily tell the difference. You are clearly deluded, because nearly every console game I have seen suffers from significant aliasing and low textures which are discernible from ANY viewing distance, and which are magnified when playing on larger viewing screens. For instance, I was playing Bad Company the other day and could not believe how butt ugly it was, same goes for Army of Two and BF1943.

 

[jonneymendoza]

....

Your original post was saying you "don't know why they make RTS games on a console, it's pointless because you can't use a M&KB."

I'm simply pointing out that the PS3 is capable of using M&KB, thus it can be done if a developer chooses to. I'm not saying there are currently any RTS games on the PS3 that allow it, yet this doesn't mean it can't be implemented for future titles.

doesnt matter, what i meant is what i said above mate.

 

[jonneymendoza]

well look here. console version of cod4 being hacked LOL http://gaming.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=19572

 

[Spewn]

Utter bullshit, I can easily tell the difference. You are clearly deluded, because nearly every console game I have seen suffers from significant aliasing and low textures which are discernible from ANY viewing distance, and which are magnified when playing on larger viewing screens. For instance, I was playing Bad Company the other day and could not believe how butt ugly it was, same goes for Army of Two and BF1943.

Of course. The graph he posted was obviously using HD video sources like television shows or movies, not games. That didn't stop him from drawing the conclusion he did though lol

 

[silz]

Market going to consoles has been said a long long time already since the days of PS2 was launched. Back then, many claimed that PS2 hardware beats PC hardware hands down. The death of PC gaming. But look where we are now 10 years later? Even PS3 can't hold a candle.

If everyone had believed the naysayers then ATI and nVidia would have stop their video card development alltogether and would have ceased to exist.

 

[RadXge]

jesus your making me laugh more and more LOL. as if you cant buy wireless keyboard and mouse. i saw one for £10 the other day LOL.

Conveniance? more like fucking lazy

Wireless technology used by mouses and keyboards are generally limited to 15m...
And what about some severe input lag?

You say it is feasible for all.
I say it is feasible for some.
But the real issue is that the average Joe will not do it because of the hassle.
Call them lazy if you want but the mass will not do it.

 

[RadXge]

Market going to consoles has been said a long long time already since the days of PS2 was launched. Back then, many claimed that PS2 hardware beats PC hardware hands down. The death of PC gaming. But look where we are now 10 years later? Even PS3 can't hold a candle.

If everyone had believed the naysayers then ATI and nVidia would have stop their video card development alltogether and would have ceased to exist.

Carmack did not say that it was the end of PC gaming. He said that the market future lies principally with consoles. That is not the same thing.

Claiming that something will not happen because previous forecast were wrong is not a very strong argument. The market has changed, the world has evolved.

You know that ATI and nVIDIA make the video cards for the consoles?
Furthermore, some say that nVIDIA is pushing CUDA due to the lack of PC gaming growth. I am not sure about that one but one thing is certain CUDA may open a new market for NVIDIA.

 

[jonneymendoza]

Wireless technology used by mouses and keyboards are generally limited to 15m...
And what about some severe input lag?

You say it is feasible for all.
I say it is feasible for some.
But the real issue is that the average Joe will not do it because of the hassle.
Call them lazy if you want but the mass will not do it.

so their too lazy to open up their new console and hook it into their tv because thats the exact same effort as doing so for a htpc. nice try

 

[kumquatsrus]

Utter bullshit, I can easily tell the difference. You are clearly deluded, because nearly every console game I have seen suffers from significant aliasing and low textures which are discernible from ANY viewing distance, and which are magnified when playing on larger viewing screens. For instance, I was playing Bad Company the other day and could not believe how butt ugly it was, same goes for Army of Two and BF1943.

hence why i said why the pc was better if you read - graphic options (textures) and aa in my post. again, i was only commenting on the fact that the human eye can not differentiate between higher resolutions at a given screen size and a given distance, not higher graphic detail and sharpness. how much it makes a difference is relative to someone's sight limitations and his/her particular viewing arrangement.

 

[Baker]

If you honestly believe that PC market is churning more revenue from games sales, I want what ever you’re smoking. Consoles have already begun taking a huge portion of the market share. Why do you people think, Microsoft, a company which makes PC operating systems introduced the XBOX. They want some of that console gaming market share. The only reason you people are in denial, is that for some reason if you come to terms with reality, it may some how hamper your PC gaming experience. There are enough gaming development companies out there, others trying to get their feet off the ground, that there will always be PC gaming.

 

[guppy]

Carmack did not say that it was the end of PC gaming. He said that the market future lies principally with consoles. That is not the same thing.

What he is really saying is 'ID games are going console exclusive because PC gamers are too demanding so we can make shit games for the console and make millions more - please buy our ID console games'. That's the gist of it and Carmack can go fuck himself. ID games are highly overrated.

 

[defiant007]

hence why i said why the pc was better if you read - graphic options (textures) and aa in my post. again, i was only commenting on the fact that the human eye can not differentiate between higher resolutions at a given screen size and a given distance, not higher graphic detail and sharpness. how much it makes a difference is relative to someone's sight limitations and his/her particular viewing arrangement.

Well I must be super human, or at least a demi god, because my eyes can definitely distinguish different resolutions for any given screen size or distance.

Fact of the matter is that console visuals are not on par with PC's irrespective of any which way console owners twist their arguments to feel better about their investments.

 

[Raptor007]

Well I must be super human, or at least a demi god, because my eyes can definitely distinguish different resolutions for any given screen size or distance.

Fact of the matter is that console visuals are not on par with PC's irrespective of any which way console owners twist their arguments to feel better about their investments.

I guess that makes me super human too. My desktop PC has a 19" CRT at 1600x1200, and my consoles have a 46" HDTV at 1080p that I sit about 6-7 feet from. I don't see how anyone can argue that you can't see the difference between upscaled 720p (or less) and a nice native high-resolution image. Depending on the level of anti-aliasing used, my console games either look blocky, blurry, or both.

On the plus side, I can hook up my laptop to the TV and play PC games at 1920x1080 with whatever controls I want, and it's gorgeous.

 

[shansoft]

I guess that makes me super human too. My desktop PC has a 19" CRT at 1600x1200, and my consoles have a 46" HDTV at 1080p that I sit about 6-7 feet from. I don't see how anyone can argue that you can't see the difference between upscaled 720p (or less) and a nice native high-resolution image. Depending on the level of anti-aliasing used, my console games either look blocky, blurry, or both.

On the plus side, I can hook up my laptop to the TV and play PC games at 1920x1080 with whatever controls I want, and it's gorgeous.

same here, that is why I don't play console if I don't need to, graphic is just too crappy for me...

I only play console for Japanese RPG which is anime style, no realism to begin with, so no worry on graphic...

 

[kumquatsrus]

Well I must be super human, or at least a demi god, because my eyes can definitely distinguish different resolutions for any given screen size or distance.

Fact of the matter is that console visuals are not on par with PC's irrespective of any which way console owners twist their arguments to feel better about their investments.

if you can tell the difference btw. moderate resolutions of a 20" monitor 10 feet away you get my props, superman . of course, that is an exaggerated situation but still shows the physiology of the human eye, just like when you are on the road and a sign is blurry from a far distance and doesn't become visible to you until you get closer to it. the larger the screen size, the more easily it will be to distinguish at a fixed distance.

I guess that makes me super human too. My desktop PC has a 19" CRT at 1600x1200, and my consoles have a 46" HDTV at 1080p that I sit about 6-7 feet from. I don't see how anyone can argue that you can't see the difference between upscaled 720p (or less) and a nice native high-resolution image. Depending on the level of anti-aliasing used, my console games either look blocky, blurry, or both.

On the plus side, I can hook up my laptop to the TV and play PC games at 1920x1080 with whatever controls I want, and it's gorgeous.

6 feet away on a 46 inch monitor you will be able to notice the difference btw. 720/1080p.
and of course a native image will always be better looking than an upscaled one, due to lcd tech. hence the blocky or blurry nature of a non native upscaled image coupled with low/no aa for games, etc. but others might be sitting 12ft away from that same 46" screen and not notice the difference, not necessarily in the image quality but the shift in resolution.

and i already mentioned that i am in the minority, since i use a 40" 1080p screen as a monitor for my pc and consoles from a seating/ viewing distance of 3-6 feet away most of the time; so yes, this also makes me a superhuman being who can see the difference, lol.

 

[kumquatsrus]

Of course. The graph he posted was obviously using HD video sources like television shows or movies, not games. That didn't stop him from drawing the conclusion he did though lol

it can be applied to any source, however games are a bit different due to 3d rendering and the myriad of video options. it is still relevant nonetheless.

 

[kumquatsrus]

If you honestly believe that PC market is churning more revenue from games sales, I want what ever you’re smoking. Consoles have already begun taking a huge portion of the market share. Why do you people think, Microsoft, a company which makes PC operating systems introduced the XBOX. They want some of that console gaming market share. The only reason you people are in denial, is that for some reason if you come to terms with reality, it may some how hamper your PC gaming experience. There are enough gaming development companies out there, others trying to get their feet off the ground, that there will always be PC gaming.

yep, i been playing pc & console games for over 20 years and there is definitely a shift happening. the pc market went from innovative, fun, tech. pushing games to a flood of console ports and the occasional diamond in the rough. there are still plenty of unique games to be had, but that pool seems to have shrunk dramatically over the past several years. couple that with more prolific piracy due to ease of access and much longer development times for major commercial titles and the market begins to feel kind of sparse with the dearth of interesting titles and the migration of pc developers to the consoles. look at what happened to alan wake. not to say the console market is much better in that regard but you have to be blind not to see that the majority of games are being developed with the consoles exclusively or as the lead platform, unlike in the past where there would be platform exclusives eventually ported both ways. it will probably continue to get worse next gen. but i guess we should be content with console ports. *shrug* pc gamers should not be relegated to being content with shoddy console ports, we deserve better than that. at least there is still blizzard and valve, but they take forever to make games.

http://pc.ign.com/index/release.html

where are all the exciting, innovative, big name pc exclusives this fall/winter? pretty depressing to me. take what you can get, i say. at least i don't have to spend as much anymore, lol.

otoh, loving the heroes of newerth beta, so that's gotta count for something.

 

[theNoid]

Well I must be super human, or at least a demi god, because my eyes can definitely distinguish different resolutions for any given screen size or distance.

Fact of the matter is that console visuals are not on par with PC's irrespective of any which way console owners twist their arguments to feel better about their investments.

Its ok to like one over the other, but theres no denying the console option is much cheaper. Most people simply don't have the money/time/know-how/patience to build a gaming pc, then lock themselves in a room to play on it.

I have both, so I never feel let down. I suggest you try it.

 

[kumquatsrus]

Its ok to like one over the other, but theres no denying the console option is much cheaper. Most people simply don't have the money/time/know-how/patience to build a gaming pc, then lock themselves in a room to play on it.

I have both, so I never feel let down. I suggest you try it.

i agree, i have a pc and a ton of consoles. the majority of the time, i will buy a game because it is exclusive to a platform, so i don't miss out. you shouldn't restrict yourself to a specific platform, or you may never get to play some really cool games/ future classics.

 

[defiant007]

Its ok to like one over the other, but theres no denying the console option is much cheaper. Most people simply don't have the money/time/know-how/patience to build a gaming pc, then lock themselves in a room to play on it.

I have both, so I never feel let down. I suggest you try it.

We are not arguing over affordability.

P.S. I do own both, which is why I can make the statements I do based on first hand experience.

 

[guppy]

I have both, so I never feel let down. I suggest you try it.

I have both too and my PC is still used for 99% of gaming. They just do not make my kind of game for the consoles. My PS3 is used 99% as a BluRay player and that suits me fine.