Crytek: the PC is "a generation ahead," but PS3 and 360 holding it back

By on November 26, 2010, 2:42 PM
Crytek believes that because developers are focusing on the PS3 and the 360, the game quality on the PC is being held back. This is happening despite the company saying that the PC is already "a generation ahead" of Sony's and Microsoft's consoles.

Crytek is currently working on Crysis 2 for all three platforms. The original Crysis was an exclusive for the PC. That being said, Crytek has already stated that Crysis 2 will be graphically superior on the PC.

"As long as the current console generation exists and as long as we keep pushing the PC as well, the more difficult it will be to really get the benefit of both," Cevat Yerli, founder, CEO, and President of Crytek, told the latest issue of Edge, according to CVG. "PC is easily a generation ahead right now. With 360 and PS3, we believe the quality of the games beyond Crysis 2 and other CryEngine developments will be pretty much limited to what their creative expressions is, what the content is. You won't be able to squeeze more juice from these rocks."

Developers have very low sales expectations for the PC, compared to consoles. It's a vicious cycle: the PC market doesn't give the same revenue as the console market, so companies don't spend much on the PC version of a game. This is certainly true for games like Unreal Tournament 3: it would have been much better had it been released as a PC exclusive.





User Comments: 73

Got something to say? Post a comment
princeton princeton said:

Pfft. More like 3 gens ahead. IMO the 4000,5000 and 6000 series cards are each a new generation of hardware. Where as the xbox runs a slightly modified 7600GT.

Guest said:

Personally, I think games today look very good!

They should worry about making them run on 60+ fps on the current generation of PCs instead of making us buy new hardware for each new game.

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

What princeton said. 5+ year old technology in those consoles and all they do is continue to repackage them and sell millions more. Plus the fact that these console users think they are getting killer graphics. I go over to my friends' houses, look at their games and just shake my head, "you guys have no clue what good graphics and game mechanics are."

I think Crytek's comments are perfectly accurate. It's depressing being a PC gamer these days.

Guest said:

I wouldn't say 'depressing' but it's definitely irritating. Microsoft needs to get their PC butt in gear..discontinue the xbox line.. and push PC gaming.

Clrabbit said:

That's why you have settings on computer games....

Your system can't handle you drop the settings down to the crappy console equivalency.

The Power of the PS3 is a bad joke if you compare it to the current high end PC hardware which is what game's should be made to play on, then you just down grade and backport to the older PC and consoles.

What it really boils down to is money, it would take a lot more money to make a truly amazing game that was Optimized to take full advantage of the latests PC hardware not just toss bad poorly made code together that tap out the hardware.

Vs making stuff for consoles well you can ignore the newer coding, you don't have to deal with any real new features most of it's all been made for you by some other company you can just lease the engine from... etc ...etc

It wouldn't surpise me in the least to find a a fully optimized real high quality PC game that would be worth the money the charged us cost more then 10 times what it cost to make a PS3/360 game that was then just ported to the PC.

I mean really why spend 10 x more when you can spend so much less time and money and people are going to be happy with it.

If you ask me game quality per hardware quality today is totally UN-acceptable. There are only maybe 1-2 games a year actually worth their price tags.

I put off buying a X360/PS3 tell their were games that really took advantage of the hardware and I have to say.... it's pretty sad quality compared to what they could have done on a PC the same year.

Vrmithrax Vrmithrax, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Well, princeton and Tom are definitely right, it's multiple generations, not just 1. My guess is they Crytek guys were generalizing the concept of the PC being ahead of consoles, and decided not to split hairs. And, as much as I'm a pro-computer and apathetic-towards-consoles gamer, there is one little bright spot in things as they are. As game programmers have to push bigger/better/larger games into the consoles, they are actually re-learning a skill that has long been dormant: optimization. The hardware revolution that has produced orders of magnitude faster processors and exponentially larger storage mediums in recent decades has spoiled programmers, and let them throw lazy code in and let the hardware do the hard work. Bloat is evident in all aspects of computing and gaming - operating systems, productivity software, and gaming have all ballooned in size and sacrificed efficiency for profit and deadlines...

It's kind of funny, actually. I liken the netbook & mobile computing platforms to consoles in this respect. They are forcing the programmers to get better and make due with limits, rather than having overpowered hardware that will be more forgiving on sloppy code and inefficient management of resources. I keep hoping that the lessons they are learning will hold over and keep pushing gaming towards crispness and efficiency, but ironically even Crytek are some of the worst offenders. They tend to create games that current hardware chokes on, and I have to wonder how much of that is lack of optimization

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

I wouldn't say get rid of the Xbox, But I would definately market the PC as an "Upper Class" gaming experience and the Xbox as a good place to start.

If I was head at Microsoft anyway.

At least some developers notice this though (Valve, Crytek, Blizzard etc...)

And I completely agree with the UT3 statement, Once they put big old patches on there its coming together, but compared to UT2004 its still just a shadow of what it could have been

edison5do said:

Guest said:

Personally, I think games today look very good!

They should worry about making them run on 60+ fps on the current generation of PCs instead of making us buy new hardware for each new game.

Remeber taht if you dont want to upgrade, go and buy a console, dont talk about PCÂ's if you are not into it.

What he is talking about something that we already knew. Every Pc gamer that eventually read something now this. and about the PC games revenue, if they give some time to steam like platforms, the thing eventually could be better, and maybe this will bring to an end the whole PORTING of pc games. I have my hopes on that.

Guest said:

You see, the problem with Microsoft is tha they have all the resources in the world - yet the company is far too big to set a focus goal and have teams dedicated to achieving them, in terms of entertainment, Microsoft is all over the place!

They have the most prominant Operating System in the world, yet they do not push the capabilities entertainment wise of what it is capable of! Instead Microsoft pours millions of dollars in to pumping out consoles and console developed games, instead of having any train of thought or consideration towards things like Age of Empires, Flight Simulator, RARE Studios, etc.

All the resources in the world, yet too big to put them to the most efficient and productive use.

Mikymjr Mikymjr said:

Is this why AMD had said sometime ago that efficiency of software working with hardware would have to get better? Cause i definitly agree on the topic that most games were made for consols to make easy money. They were never really made for newer generation pc's. For example most software don't use the extra cores on processors. In this case most games don't actually use the extra cores on processors

Kibaruk Kibaruk, TechSpot Paladin, said:

This is probably because ONLY a new generation graphic card is worth WAY more than the game console + the game.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Pfft. More like 3 gens ahead. IMO the 4000,5000 and 6000 series cards are each a new generation of hardware. Where as the xbox runs a slightly modified 7600GT.

Were you illustrating a point ? or is that actually the case? (I never owned one)

Rage_3K_Moiz Rage_3K_Moiz, Sith Lord, said:

Were you illustrating a point ? or is that actually the case? (I never owned one)

It's actually closer to the truth than you can imagine; the PS3's GPU was claimed to have performance double that of a 6800 Ultra, and the RSX chip at the heart of it all is based on GeForce 7-series architecture.

To say that we're way beyond that in terms of PC hardware would be a gross understatement.

Guest said:

Those of you claiming it's more than one generation ahead are out of your minds. We're talking console generations here, not graphics card generations. Basically every new console generation has brought massive changes not only in graphical quality but even concerning gameplay as the new hardware brought new possibilities for game designers and have generally been over half a decade apart from each other.

bioflex said:

seriously?..u think microsoft would do something like that?...not gonna happen, we can only wish

bioflex said:

Guest said:

I wouldn't say 'depressing' but it's definitely irritating. Microsoft needs to get their PC butt in gear..discontinue the xbox line.. and push PC gaming.

seriously?..u think microsoft would do something like that?...not gonna happen, we can only wish

treetops treetops said:

I can run a wii simulator on my computer and have like 5 of the newest games loaded at the same time and my computer wont break a sweat, the xbox 360 or ps3 can barely handle 1 game. Computers are constantly getting better but consoles only get better every 5-8 years, so yeah right now they are on the low end.

Guest said:

So what else is new???

princeton princeton said:

guys. We should threaten MS and say we're gunna drop windows if they don't get their asses in gear. AKA pc releases first with no patches needed for playability. No DRM ect.

Gamers are where Microsoft's main revenue comes from in terms of OS upgrades. Corperations stick with XP and I bet a bunch of people threatening to give up windows would give them a scare.

Rage_3K_Moiz Rage_3K_Moiz, Sith Lord, said:

Those of you claiming it's more than one generation ahead are out of your minds. We're talking console generations here, not graphics card generations. Basically every new console generation has brought massive changes not only in graphical quality but even concerning gameplay as the new hardware brought new possibilities for game designers and have generally been over half a decade apart from each other.

It's all laid out in terms of raw processing power. It doesn't make sense to compare the PC in terms of "console generations" and vice-versa.

Processing power is, after all, one of the major factors that determines how good a game looks and how well it performs, innit?

princeton princeton said:

Rage_3K_Moiz said:

Those of you claiming it's more than one generation ahead are out of your minds. We're talking console generations here, not graphics card generations. Basically every new console generation has brought massive changes not only in graphical quality but even concerning gameplay as the new hardware brought new possibilities for game designers and have generally been over half a decade apart from each other.

It's all laid out in terms of raw processing power. It doesn't make sense to compare the PC in terms of "console generations" and vice-versa.

Processing power is, after all, one of the major factors that determines how good a game looks and how well it performs, innit?

It's basically the only factor :P.

princeton princeton said:

There's a reason people post as guest guys. They don't to gain a reputation of being a retard on one account so they stay anonymous.

mccartercar said:

In terms of the current console generation; The only thing that is optimized hardware wise is power usage, heat output, and durability. From the first fat ps3 at launch until the newest slim there is not one spec changed that increases or decreases throughput of any data, other than heat transfer. The same goes for the current generation of xbox360.

This means that software developers have to carefully manage memory, gpu ,cpu resources. Its very sad to think of how devs are forced to squeeze allocated resources to the tiny bit of ram in each console. A good example would be John Carmack's interview at Quakecon, talking about RAGE and the obstacles and challenges of managing resources in the tight constraints of console hardware.

One of the few positive sides to having one hardware specification is being able to learn it thoroughly and use new techniques and optimizations in firmware updates that helps free up precious few resources on an aging platform.

I prefer my own dream of console hybrids that are upgradeable al a carte. Radeon 6990 upgrade via Light Peak dongle anyone?.....daydreaming again..8X

Guest said:

Consoles have always held PC gaming graphics. The difference before was that consoles generally had a 5 year lifespan, sometimes 6 before being replaced. I used Nintendo as an example:

NES - October 18, 1985

SNES - August 23, 1991 (6 years)

N64 - September 29, 1996 (5 years)

Gamecube - November 18, 2001 (5 years)

Wii - November 19, 2006 (5 years)

Now, Sony and Microsoft want these consoles to last until 2013 or even 2015. This would put the lifespan of the current generation at 7-9 years.

So what Yerli is really saying is that we have to wait another 2-3 years of stagnat PC gaming graphics :(. Frankly, since Crysis (2007) and Metro 2033, we have had PC gaming graphics stagnation for the last 3 years. So I am not surprised.

Medal of Honor and Call of Duty series both sold 20:1 on consoles:PC. Therefore, it simply way too expensive to develop the most advanced PC game for a market of consumers that's 20x smaller. Also, PC games tend to fall to $19.99-$29.99 from $49.99 within 6 months of release outside of rare examples like Starcraft 2. On the other hand console games not only cost more to begin with, but they rarely fall to such low levels that quickly. As a result, publishers and developers simply makes more $$ from selling console games. This would explain why hardly any firm is developing PC exclusive games anymore, and esp. not ones with advanced graphics and effects. Nowdays with costs to develop a game probably approaching $60-100+ million, it's just not viable for the majority of developers.

princeton princeton said:

mccartercar said:

In terms of the current console generation; The only thing that is optimized hardware wise is power usage, heat output, and durability. From the first fat ps3 at launch until the newest slim there is not one spec changed that increases or decreases throughput of any data, other than heat transfer. The same goes for the current generation of xbox360.

This means that software developers have to carefully manage memory, gpu ,cpu resources. Its very sad to think of how devs are forced to squeeze allocated resources to the tiny bit of ram in each console. A good example would be John Carmack's interview at Quakecon, talking about RAGE and the obstacles and challenges of managing resources in the tight constraints of console hardware.

One of the few positive sides to having one hardware specification is being able to learn it thoroughly and use new techniques and optimizations in firmware updates that helps free up precious few resources on an aging platform.

I prefer my own dream of console hybrids that are upgradeable al a carte. Radeon 6990 upgrade via Light Peak dongle anyone?.....daydreaming again..8X

It will ALWAYS be impossible to download hardware. It breaks the laws of...physics? I believe so :P

maddmatt02 said:

Treetops said:

I can run a wii simulator on my computer and have like 5 of the newest games loaded at the same time and my computer wont break a sweat, the xbox 360 or ps3 can barely handle 1 game. Computers are constantly getting better but consoles only get better every 5-8 years, so yeah right now they are on the low end.

well, I own a wii and a PS3, and by the way the wii games look compared to COD:BO(newest game I got), my PS3 could probably handle 5 wii games also. now realize I am NOT trying to say my PS3 can keep up with top PC's, because I have seen FC2 on both my PS3 and a PC and its not the same. but stretch the display from a ~20" lcd monitor to my 50" DLP and Im sure it wont look quite so good(plus my tv doesnt support 1920x(whatever number goes here... lol)

either way I know a PC will kill my PS3, and I plan on building a ncie gaming rig next year, but Ill still keep my consoles for big screen multiplayer fun with friends. I cant expect my friends to go build 1000 dollar computers as well just so we can play multiplayer games...

Tekkaraiden Tekkaraiden said:

I love it when developers state the obvious. If they feel so bad about the state of pc gaming why did the opt to make console versions? Oh wait because they can make a lot of money.

Guest said:

I'm astonished how dumb people are....really...I'm really REALLY disappointed in my fellow man.

/rage

chaboi390 said:

princeton said:

mccartercar said:

In terms of the current console generation; The only thing that is optimized hardware wise is power usage, heat output, and durability. From the first fat ps3 at launch until the newest slim there is not one spec changed that increases or decreases throughput of any data, other than heat transfer. The same goes for the current generation of xbox360.

This means that software developers have to carefully manage memory, gpu ,cpu resources. Its very sad to think of how devs are forced to squeeze allocated resources to the tiny bit of ram in each console. A good example would be John Carmack's interview at Quakecon, talking about RAGE and the obstacles and challenges of managing resources in the tight constraints of console hardware.

One of the few positive sides to having one hardware specification is being able to learn it thoroughly and use new techniques and optimizations in firmware updates that helps free up precious few resources on an aging platform.

I prefer my own dream of console hybrids that are upgradeable al a carte. Radeon 6990 upgrade via Light Peak dongle anyone?.....daydreaming again..8X

It will ALWAYS be impossible to download hardware. It breaks the laws of...physics? I believe so :P

When I looked at that, i just LOLed....

negroplasty negroplasty said:

princeton said:

Pfft. More like 3 gens ahead. IMO the 4000,5000 and 6000 series cards are each a new generation of hardware. Where as the xbox runs a slightly modified 7600GT.

The Xbox 360 runs an ATI chip, not nVidia. Perhaps you are referring to PS3?

Guest said:

the reason the pc gaming have been stagnat for the last two or three years is becase of home consoles. there a lot of talk about having a 10 or 15 years lifespans on home consoles but the hardware and software is moving to fast to bring out new consoles with that long of lifespan. the should keep with a 5 to 7 years lifespan or it will be to outdate to play the best games on the consoles.

hassaan said:

I think the way forward to this problem should be the development of a drive that reads directly from the disk without the need of installing the game. Casual PC gamers hate the hassle of installing the whole game. On top of that the cost of good computer hardware is way to high compared to consoles which are available at a fraction of the price.

Companies should figure out a way to increase the fun factor in PC gaming.

ruben1992 said:

He is just so right "respect"

ajd007 said:

chaboi390 said:

princeton said:

It will ALWAYS be impossible to download hardware. It breaks the laws of...physics? I believe so :P

When I looked at that, i just LOLed....

I believe that in the future (I give it 50 years or so) we will all have 3D printers, so that when we want a new product we will just buy the data that encodes it, download it through the internet and construct it from scratch. So, no it doesn't break the laws of physics

Regarding the article itself, this stuff is not new information. Considering that the xbox 360 and ps3 were designed 5 years ago and they only cost about $300, its a no brainer that they're a generation behind. Try building a gaming rig today for $300. What kind of performance would you get?

With that said, though, I agree that its a tragedy developers have not focused much on the pc given that it has orders of magnitude of greater capabilities. However, I think that a big part of the problem is that it is much easier to pirate a game on the pc than on the console (and I think pc gamers are more likely to pirate and more knowledgable on how to pirate vs your average casual xbox gamer). Thus, PC developers lose an even larger chunk of revenue, so that its just not worth it anymore.

I think a big part of the solution would be to develop a better DRM system that is unintrusive for legitimate buyers (no hoops to jump through, no continuous internet connections, etc), yet still prevents others from pirating the game.

Marketing also needs to improve. When you say videogame, the first thing that comes to mind is an xbox, nintendo or playstation. People need to start seeing their pcs as another medium for gaming A possible argument is that its cheaper as it doesn't require buying a console and the vast majority of people already have pcs at home.

bugejakurt said:

I think Crytek should worry about code optimization on different systems for the game to run smoother on most PCs and to reduce bugs. What are they complaining for? More graphics because of the PC version? So they expect users to have the latest Graphics card to support all this graphics with the latest CPUs on the market? How many people have the latest technology?

uttaradhaka said:

I agree completely. The PC gaming landscape changes on a yearly basis, while the console generation lasts for 10 years.

Consoles are going to seriously hamper the advancement of PC gaming in the future as well.

Guest said:

Actually, the Xbox runs off A modified ATI X1900 / X19xx, I rember this info very well, I had just got A X1950xt when the xbox frist came out. Was Amazed @ the X1950xt and more Amazed at the xbox at the time, However if you go by the X19xx info .. their Has been the X19xx / HD 29xx / HD 38xx / HD 4xxx / 5xxx and noiw we are at 6xxx. Whats odd too me is the if you look at RAGE running on the 360 ... it looks REALLY good for A game running off the x1900.

Johny47 said:

negroplasty said:

princeton said:

Pfft. More like 3 gens ahead. IMO the 4000,5000 and 6000 series cards are each a new generation of hardware. Where as the xbox runs a slightly modified 7600GT.

The Xbox 360 runs an ATI chip, not nVidia. Perhaps you are referring to PS3?

I'm very sure that the PS3's 'RSX'(reality Synthesizer) is a modified version of the 7900GT(has 256MB of GDDR3) and the 360 uses a modified ATI chip of some kind.

I've been gaming on PC since I built my own budget gaming PC(just had a decent dual core, 9400GT and 2GB DDR2) about 2 years ago now and since around Vista was released I knew that the PC was going to leave consoles in the dust with newer technology because of Direct X, you could easily notice this with multiplatforms more than anything and not just the higher resolution but added graphics settings with DX10.

Now the PC is on DX11, the main thing is tesselation that adds so much depth and realism it's just so far ahead of what the consoles can do(they run at DX9c I think).

And with 'PC's are limited because of consoles thing' I don't think so because exclusive PC games should really push ahead of what multiplatforms can show. Crytek said that PC version of Crysis 2 will be much more 'superior' in every way than the consoles so who cares =P

TeamworkGuy2 said:

There is a lot to say from every angle. I have very little experience with consoles, and my PC is fairly old, so I can't play anything newer than the AoE 3 (@ low) or Battlefield 2 (@ medium).

What I have seen is that console games get the better deal, developers work much harder on console games. PC hardware equal to XBox 360/PS3 hardware, can't play games that are graphically equivalent to the XBox 360/PS3. This happens mainly because PC developers have to take all possible hardware into account and have to spend more time on compatibility than on actual gameplay.

It would be cool to see PC developers move ahead in graphics and physics, but I would by far prefer if developers would concentrate on getting the most out of current hardware, and not waste resources. Some games take up ~2GBs of Memory and max out 2 CPU cores, this leaves people with older hardware out in the cold...

P.S.

When the next generation of consoles come out, it is going to be like night and day between the old and new.

Imagine what developers could do with an "XBox 720" (Imaginary name for the next gen XBox) if that "XBox 720" had a Radeon 6870 or nVidia GTX 460...

princeton princeton said:

Johny47 said:

negroplasty said:

princeton said:

Pfft. More like 3 gens ahead. IMO the 4000,5000 and 6000 series cards are each a new generation of hardware. Where as the xbox runs a slightly modified 7600GT.

The Xbox 360 runs an ATI chip, not nVidia. Perhaps you are referring to PS3?

I'm very sure that the PS3's 'RSX'(reality Synthesizer) is a modified version of the 7900GT(has 256MB of GDDR3) and the 360 uses a modified ATI chip of some kind.

I've been gaming on PC since I built my own budget gaming PC(just had a decent dual core, 9400GT and 2GB DDR2) about 2 years ago now and since around Vista was released I knew that the PC was going to leave consoles in the dust with newer technology because of Direct X, you could easily notice this with multiplatforms more than anything and not just the higher resolution but added graphics settings with DX10.

Now the PC is on DX11, the main thing is tesselation that adds so much depth and realism it's just so far ahead of what the consoles can do(they run at DX9c I think).

And with 'PC's are limited because of consoles thing' I don't think so because exclusive PC games should really push ahead of what multiplatforms can show. Crytek said that PC version of Crysis 2 will be much more 'superior' in every way than the consoles so who cares =P

Sorry guys I had the xbox and ps3 chips mixed up. I thought xbox was nvidia and ps3 ati but then I remembered xbox has that modded ati with better AA performance.

Guest said:

It's all laid out in terms of raw processing power. It doesn't make sense to compare the PC in terms of "console generations" and vice-versa.

Yet that's exactly what people in this thread and the actual article were doing. The original point was that the PC is far ahead of consoles to the point where an entirely new gen of consoles would be its equivalent. Then of course people started making idiotic comments about how "PC is x gens ahead because ATI has released three new graphic card revisions since the 360 came out" or whatever, as if it's actually quantifiable. Not only that but no, you can't simply use processing power as a method of comparison, since consoles are purpose built for running games and PC's are multifunctional and run a high level OS and various background services in addition the game you're running.

There's a reason people post as guest guys. They don't to gain a reputation of being a retard on one account so they stay anonymous.

Maybe you should have done this yourself as well then. Of course, it could be that they don't see the point in signing up to a new website every time they come across a news article that's worth commenting on, when there's a perfectly useable guest post feature.

Cota Cota said:

I had always gamed on PC, since i left my N64, and every single time an awesome game strikes the market, i make my friends QQ because they play PS3/Xbox, PC games can be moded and excuse me for this.... but the gameplay can flow faster. Also add the ability to update your performance and stay in the generation of the best gaming experience, srry PS3/360.... its not me its you!

Rage_3K_Moiz Rage_3K_Moiz, Sith Lord, said:

Yet that's exactly what people in this thread and the actual article were doing. The original point was that the PC is far ahead of consoles to the point where an entirely new gen of consoles would be its equivalent. Then of course people started making idiotic comments about how "PC is x gens ahead because ATI has released three new graphic card revisions since the 360 came out" or whatever, as if it's actually quantifiable. Not only that but no, you can't simply use processing power as a method of comparison, since consoles are purpose built for running games and PC's are multifunctional and run a high level OS and various background services in addition the game you're running.

It is quantifiable vis-a-vis GPU processing power, since the GPU architecture on consoles and PCs is more or less identical (moreso on the PS3, whose RSX GPU uses a traditional vertex shader + pixel shader approach). A console also runs similar to a PC, with a discrete CPU & GPU unit, as well as RAM and an HDD, and there's also an OS running, so the comparison is pretty valid upto a point, especially given the fact that the OS on consoles is so much less feature-packed and resource-intensive than on a PC, and yet a PC is always able to net better performance due to better hardware.

It's always been the case and it will remain so; image quality on consoles will continue to lag behind that capable on PCs. Also, games are usually far easier to port to consoles (at least for the X360) once they've been developed for the PC.

princeton princeton said:

Guest said:

It's all laid out in terms of raw processing power. It doesn't make sense to compare the PC in terms of "console generations" and vice-versa.

Yet that's exactly what people in this thread and the actual article were doing. The original point was that the PC is far ahead of consoles to the point where an entirely new gen of consoles would be its equivalent. Then of course people started making idiotic comments about how "PC is x gens ahead because ATI has released three new graphic card revisions since the 360 came out" or whatever, as if it's actually quantifiable. Not only that but no, you can't simply use processing power as a method of comparison, since consoles are purpose built for running games and PC's are multifunctional and run a high level OS and various background services in addition the game you're running.

There's a reason people post as guest guys. They don't to gain a reputation of being a retard on one account so they stay anonymous.

Maybe you should have done this yourself as well then. Of course, it could be that they don't see the point in signing up to a new website every time they come across a news article that's worth commenting on, when there's a perfectly useable guest post feature.

That must be why the majority of guest posts are incorrect in every sense,

Guest said:

Just because of that comment I will create a new account to comment against that. I do post often as a guest, but if that is how you feel, I will make a real account. earlier it was posted that people don't make real accounts(by you) because they feel embarrassed to post their opinion. I am the complete opposite. I will post, from now on, under the name yRaz, look for me.

yRaz yRaz said:

here, just for you(princeston), i made an account. I hope you feel proud of yourself since you piss me off enough to go through all the trouble of registering.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

haha! welcome yRaz, to techspot i'm glad you joined, I'll now take your comments into consideration when you have something to say rather than if you posted under the guest account.

Guest said:

It's always been the case and it will remain so; image quality on consoles will continue to lag behind that capable on PCs. Also, games are usually far easier to port to consoles (at least for the X360) once they've been developed for the PC.

That was never in question. The dispute was over princeton's eccentric and offbeat ideas about graphics card series being analogous with console generations, as if they're even remotely comparable, and then using that as a basis for some "PC is 3 generations ahead of consoles" argument, which is obviously laughable to anyone. A perfect example for the case that maybe some people should be using a guest account to save embarrassing themselves with hilariously wrong comments. The irony.

yRaz yRaz said:

Guest said:

It's always been the case and it will remain so; image quality on consoles will continue to lag behind that capable on PCs. Also, games are usually far easier to port to consoles (at least for the X360) once they've been developed for the PC.

That was never in question. The dispute was over princeton's eccentric and offbeat ideas about graphics card series being analogous with console generations, as if they're even remotely comparable, and then using that as a basis for some "PC is 3 generations ahead of consoles" argument, which is obviously laughable to anyone. A perfect example for the case that maybe some people should be using a guest account to save embarrassing themselves with hilariously wrong comments. The irony.

I have a hard time agreeing with that. There are so many features that come with each generation of videocards that it I would have to say going from X1900 series to HD 6X00 series is ATLEAST 3 generations ahead. consider DX9/10/11. Also, tessellation as-well-as eyefinity and the like. To say that PC's are 4-5 generations ahead is outlandish, but 3 is reasonable. Do not forget Moore's law, to which consoles do not apply

Guest said:

Well what you're suggesting then is that three generations of consoles from now, they'll be equivalent to where PCs are today. Considering this wont be until some time around 2025 at the earliest, that sounds just as outlandish to me.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.