Project Cars developer releases jaw-dropping screenshots

By on January 3, 2014, 6:15 PM
cars, screenshots, racing game, project cars, wmd

Remember back when you first loaded up Gran Turismo 4 for the Playstation 2? Were you astounded by “how far graphics had come?” What about the latest version of Forza, for the Xbox One, which boasts some amazingly realistic car designs and graphical elements. Some new screenshots from World of Mass Development are threatening to blow the top off the realistic racing scene, and their newest venture dubbed Project Cars is a shining example of just how far gaming has come in the last few decades.

The developer's newest blog post wrapped up 2013 by introducing a slew of visually stunning pictures. There are over 60 beautifully composed photos here, showcasing everything from cars, to tracks, to the tiniest of environmental details. WMD promises in their post that all of these screenshots are completely in-game footage and that no specialized photo software or game modes were used to create these images.

These snapshots were compiled by the WMD community, meaning they most likely came from a variety of computer types with varying graphical strengths. This would be welcome news to PC gamers, who wish to obtain this type of visual elegance without having to spend a fortune on PC upgrades.

Project Cars is slated to release on a variety of platforms, including Xbox One, PS4, Wii U, Windows, and the Steam OS. It will be very interesting to see where Project Cars goes in the future, and just what kind of PC-based requirements it will carry. Until then, just enjoy staring at these jaw-dropping pictures.




User Comments: 45

Got something to say? Post a comment
wastedkill said:

WOW I thought this were real screenshots at first xD

Graphics would be 3-5x better than what they are now if consoles didnt exist... thanks btw for making developers lazy over the years.

9Nails, TechSpot Paladin, said:

The camera field of depth and motion blur in some of those is fantastic. And the high resolution textures are so lifelike. I hope that it controls as good as it looks, if so it'll be a terrific game.

6 people like this | Ranger12 Ranger12 said:

Imo Cars in racing games have looked spectacular for years. What always throws me off is the surrounding scenery. The textures and models are bland. Trees and fans look like cardboard cutouts and the environmental effects are bland. I don't care how realistic the car looks I just can't get absorbed in the game if there is such a stark contrast between nice care and crappy environment.

2 people like this | Guest said:

I lucked out 9 months ago when World of Mass Development (WMD), the developers of Project Cars, re-opened enrollment to the public to raise "seed money" for pCARS development costs. I got in at the Team Member+ level (aprox $30USD back then), and have been playing the weekly builds as they are released. pCARS originally had their own downloader, but 4 months ago they moved to Steam thereby making the updating much easier (weekly build updates are large, typ. 400MB-1.5GB). WMD is *not* accepting new public members. As a Team Member+, I will get the released game for free.

And yes pCARS graphics are awesome! And the handling physics seem very real to me (albeit I have never driven any of the game cars IRL). Physics are biased toward simulation, a very welcome change from the many arcade-ish racing games on the market. Being strictly a PC gamer thus far, I wasn't aware that pCARS will also come out for consoles.

I encourage racing game enthusiasts to check out pCARS when it is released (later this year, when it's ready...), you will be impressed!

2 people like this | Guest said:

1. PCARS is an attempt to deliver a racing sim game to the market, but they don't know who exactly is their final client, since the game is being developed for multiple platforms, I.e. consoles, including the terrible "Wii U", and PC;

2. Since there's no focus on a platform, the game is a complete mess. They are trying to please hardcore sim racers and the casual, play-once-a-week-player from consoles. The game has both, real tracks and fantasy tracks. The worst thing about this is that the physics are not good and the main objective is to make some money. No commitment to the sim racing community. The developers don't have experience enough to deliver a true, genuine sim racing, something everybody thought it would be in the first place;

3. This game is cooking for years and God knows what they are making of this software. The game will be release in a market already dominated by the other companies with far more experience in racing games.

4. There are at least 3 options a lot better: iRacing, rFactor and Asseto Corsa, not to mention the titles from the Brazilian studio Reiza, with Stock Car Game and Formula Truck. The latter uses the same engine from original rFactor, so the graphics are not top notch, but the physics are spectacular, and that's what matter in this type of game!

5. Nobody wants to see pictures, we need a video showing the gameplay of the game. This is basic. Enough cutscenes, enough pictures. The most important thing in a game is the gameplay and nothing better to show it than a video.

IKROWNI said:

WOW I thought this were real screenshots at first xD

Graphics would be 3-5x better than what they are now if consoles didnt exist... thanks btw for making developers lazy over the years.

Agreed consoles do nothing but hold back the gaming industry. Problem is people are to dull to understand it and just want to be spoonfed advertisements about the newest crappy consoles.

2 people like this | Nobina Nobina said:

WOW I thought this were real screenshots at first xD

Graphics would be 3-5x better than what they are now if consoles didnt exist... thanks btw for making developers lazy over the years.

Agreed consoles do nothing but hold back the gaming industry. Problem is people are to dull to understand it and just want to be spoonfed advertisements about the newest crappy consoles.

Or they can't afford/don't want to spend $2000 on a PC that could run newest games on max settings.

SirChocula said:

Or they can't afford/don't want to spend $2000 on a PC that could run newest games on max settings.

Where does this idea that a "$2000 PC" is needed to run newest games on maximum? What a horrible proliferation of an asinine idea that has no basis in reality. Depending on resolution, you only need about a $1k PC to run 95% of games on max settings at 1080p, and that's being very generous. Not to mention great AAA titles routinely go on sale on steam/gog/gmg/amazon, etc for a few bucks, which saves tons of money in the long run compared to 40-50$ console titles.

Nobina Nobina said:

Where does this idea that a "$2000 PC" is needed to run newest games on maximum? What a horrible proliferation of an asinine idea that has no basis in reality. Depending on resolution, you only need about a $1k PC to run 95% of games on max settings at 1080p, and that's being very generous. Not to mention great AAA titles routinely go on sale on steam/gog/gmg/amazon, etc for a few bucks, which saves tons of money in the long run compared to 40-50$ console titles.

For the best PC gaming experience you need more than $1k, including peripherials. See the TechSpot PC buying guide. For the best console experience you just need a console and a monitor/TV. Plus, you have to upgrade your PC often while the same consoles will be able to run all games for a couple of years. If I had money coming out of my ass, I could say the same thing you guys are saying.

wastedkill said:

Or they can't afford/don't want to spend $2000 on a PC that could run newest games on max settings.

I am sorry but where on earth do you live that requires you to spend $2k on a pc to max out games? You are either new to this whole computer gaming thing or you just are a big troll.

You only need to spend $600-800 on a pc to run it at max settings for the newest games, I recently build a gaming pc for a friend that cost $718 it can currently run everything at max settings 1080P with 40-60FPS even BF4, Crysis etc.

Nobina Nobina said:

I am sorry but where on earth do you live that requires you to spend $2k on a pc to max out games? You are either new to this whole computer gaming thing or you just are a big troll.

You only need to spend $600-800 on a pc to run it at max settings for the newest games, I recently build a gaming pc for a friend that cost $718 it can currently run everything at max settings 1080P with 40-60FPS even BF4, Crysis etc.

I'm looking at this: http://www.techspot.com/guides/buying/page4.html

You all forget the peripherials cause you already have them.

wastedkill said:

I'm looking at this: http://www.techspot.com/guides/buying/page4.html

You all forget the peripherials cause you already have them.

Are you serious...... well if you mentioned 1440P then its obvious you need to spend $2k+ to run games at that setting I mean come on its like what twice as demanding as 1080P?

Anyone that wants to build a good pc that can run games at max with 40-60FPS will only need to spend around $600-800 WITH peripherials and no not a costly 1440P monitor you can just deal with 1080P its still good....

Nobina Nobina said:

Are you serious...... well if you mentioned 1440P then its obvious you need to spend $2k+ to run games at that setting I mean come on its like what twice as demanding as 1080P?

Anyone that wants to build a good pc that can run games at max with 40-60FPS will only need to spend around $600-800 WITH peripherials and no not a costly 1440P monitor you can just deal with 1080P its still good....

Yes, I was talking about high resolutions. It's something that separates PC from consoles, quality. Now you said that 1080p gaming can be done with $600-$800 with peripherials, while I agree with that, I still think that you will have to upgrade that kind of PC often to keep up with the newest games, right? It's still cheaper and requires less hasle to get a console. And don't think I'm a console fanboy, I'm not, never had one, I'm all for PC. But still consoles look like a better solution right now.

wastedkill said:

Considering consoles are currently what 3-4yrs old already I dont see how they are a better solution, support for new hardware on pc games would be tons better if consoles wernt sapping everything.

What we need is new studios/developers that only do pc games with the kind of quality that puts hardware to the test.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

To build a machine from the ground up for less than $900, you must have used the cheapest of parts. That is usually what I do. And by the time I removed all unnecessary items from the tally, it still cost over $900.

JC713 JC713 said:

Imo Cars in racing games have looked spectacular for years. What always throws me off is the surrounding scenery. The textures and models are bland. Trees and fans look like cardboard cutouts and the environmental effects are bland. I don't care how realistic the car looks I just can't get absorbed in the game if there is such a stark contrast between nice care and crappy environment.

Yeah I hate how the crowds are like flat blobs xD.

I really think the rain in the first screenshot is well done. Imagine this with ray tracing.

Thirdly, I find it interesting how they are developing for Wii U and Steam OS. They must have a huge team of devs.

m4a4 m4a4 said:

WOW I thought this were real screenshots at first xD

Graphics would be 3-5x better than what they are now if consoles didnt exist... thanks btw for making developers lazy over the years.

It has nothing to do with consoles. Tech is moving forward for CPU's and GPU's regardless if gaming consoles (you know, something more simple than a PC to have fun on) are popular or not -_- If anything they supply funding (this time around to AMD) to research more powerful and cheap GPU's...

I hate it when graphics whores bash on stuff like this. It can be the most realistic simulation out there, but the tech is not cheap enough for the masses to play it (or admire it, assuming that the gameplay is sub-par) on full graphics settings.

1 person liked this | wastedkill said:

Ye because game devs developing for 7yr old tech is moving forward right then porting to pc.... ye thats really helping gaming evolve...

The new consoles might be new but they are already out of date, ye the console will get optimized but how long will they hold tech back this time? last gen consoles are what 7-8yr old now whats the xbox one and ps4 gonna last for 10-12yrs?

All I am saying is without consoles, technology wouldnt have been held back like it is graphics cards and cpu's wernt exactly stressed not like when crysis first came out anyway. If consoles were gone developers would be able to make some amazing games that got better each year on the plus side no crappy console ports...

IKROWNI said:

Or they can't afford/don't want to spend $2000 on a PC that could run newest games on max settings.

Or just like them your uninformed and think it costs that much for pc. Cause last month when I checked $500 pc runs better than the consoles do. Then the 85% you save on games in 1 year can boost your pc performance massively. You know with gddr6, ddr4, mantle, rift, and all the other great things coming to pc this year.

IKROWNI said:

Where does this idea that a "$2000 PC" is needed to run newest games on maximum? What a horrible proliferation of an asinine idea that has no basis in reality. Depending on resolution, you only need about a $1k PC to run 95% of games on max settings at 1080p, and that's being very generous. Not to mention great AAA titles routinely go on sale on steam/gog/gmg/amazon, etc for a few bucks, which saves tons of money in the long run compared to 40-50$ console titles.

For the best PC gaming experience you need more than $1k, including peripherials. See the TechSpot PC buying guide. For the best console experience you just need a console and a monitor/TV. Plus, you have to upgrade your PC often while the same consoles will be able to run all games for a couple of years. If I had money coming out of my ass, I could say the same thing you guys are saying.

Once your pc is capable of handling intense graphics games much better than the consoles do there is no need to upgrade. The pc will still play every game that the consoles play but much better with no need to upgrade. Upgrading is only needed if 4-5 years from now there are major improvements in games that desire those upgrades, but still you could always turn down AA, shadows, and what not to achieve still great gameplay.... The consoles come with very little if no AA at all. And the sliders that are on pc for graphics are all turned down to medium. The crap argument about costing $2000 for the pc and needing to upgrade every year is a myth created by console fanboys.

The ps4 has what's equivalent to a 7870 in it. So by your argument my 7970 won't be able to play the same games at higher settings than the console. You see how dumb that sounds right?

IKROWNI said:

I am sorry but where on earth do you live that requires you to spend $2k on a pc to max out games? You are either new to this whole computer gaming thing or you just are a big troll.

You only need to spend $600-800 on a pc to run it at max settings for the newest games, I recently build a gaming pc for a friend that cost $718 it can currently run everything at max settings 1080P with 40-60FPS even BF4, Crysis etc.

I'm looking at this: http://www.techspot.com/guides/buying/page4.html

You all forget the peripherials cause you already have them.

What peripherals? A keyboard and mouse are cheap man! You can hook your pc straight to your TV. So if by peripherals you mean that a pc needs a monitor your uninformed. I guess your console will just hook right up to thin air right?

Lionvibez said:

Or they can't afford/don't want to spend $2000 on a PC that could run newest games on max settings.

Where does this idea that a "$2000 PC" is needed to run newest games on maximum? What a horrible proliferation of an asinine idea that has no basis in reality. Depending on resolution, you only need about a $1k PC to run 95% of games on max settings at 1080p, and that's being very generous. Not to mention great AAA titles routinely go on sale on steam/gog/gmg/amazon, etc for a few bucks, which saves tons of money in the long run compared to 40-50$ console titles.

While I think the $2000 amount is on the high end Nobina it not 100% wrong.

I think a more realistic number is around $1500.

Playing games at max settings will depend on the monitor res aswell.

You need to speed $300-$500 on the Gpu.

If you decide to put a haswell cpu in that build that is another $200-$300

lets just say you spend $200-$300 on the monitor that will be a lowerend1080p screen with a TN panel and for my standards that would be garbage.

Next a SSD 128GB drive is too small for a gaming rig so your going to be looking at 256GB or higher.

Then we need a keyboard, mouse, headphones or speakers then the OS.

And if you care about sound you won't be using onboard audio so some more money for a discreet sound card.

Maybe you can build a rig for $1000 but to say it will play all games maxed out is far from the truth.

however what Nobina is overlooking is the upgraded ability of the computer.

If I only throw in a new Gpu 3 years into the build that brings the whole system up to speed, I can sell the old videocard to cut the cost of the upgrade. if I only buy my games from steam and I wait for sales I'm not stuck paying $60 a pop for the console games and that price stay the same for the whole life of the console. So you will be paying $60 bucks a game for the full 5-7 years you own that console.

And the end its not a cut and dry answer cause everyone needs will be different. What some of you considering an acceptable gaming experience for you may not cut it for someone else.

Lionvibez said:

Or they can't afford/don't want to spend $2000 on a PC that could run newest games on max settings.

I am sorry but where on earth do you live that requires you to spend $2k on a pc to max out games? You are either new to this whole computer gaming thing or you just are a big troll.

You only need to spend $600-800 on a pc to run it at max settings for the newest games, I recently build a gaming pc for a friend that cost $718 it can currently run everything at max settings 1080P with 40-60FPS even BF4, Crysis etc.

What GPU did you put in that $718 build that runs crysis 3 at "max settings"?

http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU13/709

These numbers are at high quality so they are not max settings because you can go up one to very high quality in crysis 3.

Lionvibez said:

Considering consoles are currently what 3-4yrs old already I dont see how they are a better solution, support for new hardware on pc games would be tons better if consoles wernt sapping everything.

What we need is new studios/developers that only do pc games with the kind of quality that puts hardware to the test.

The consoles this game will be released on are the ones that were released a month ago, that is what people are referring to.

PS4 and Xbone only there is no mention of the xbox 360 or the PS3 which is what your speaking about so your point it not even valid.

wastedkill said:

The consoles this game will be released on are the ones that were released a month ago, that is what people are referring to.

PS4 and Xbone only there is no mention of the xbox 360 or the PS3 which is what your speaking about so your point it not even valid.

xbox one and ps4 are 3-4yr old already...

Lionvibez said:

xbox one and ps4 are 3-4yr old already...

You are going to have to explain this to me cause I don't follow?

Nobina Nobina said:

Don't flame me cause I showed you a build here at TechSpot that costs over 2k

You are going to have to explain this to me cause I don't follow?

He probably means that their hardware is 3-4 years old.

Nobina Nobina said:

Or just like them your uninformed and think it costs that much for pc. Cause last month when I checked $500 pc runs better than the consoles do. Then the 85% you save on games in 1 year can boost your pc performance massively. You know with gddr6, ddr4, mantle, rift, and all the other great things coming to pc this year.

New PC costs $5000. Don't lie.

Lionvibez said:

Don't flame me cause I showed you a build here at TechSpot that costs over 2k

He probably means that their hardware is 3-4 years old.

hmm well the gpus in both new consoles are based off the 7 series radeon's.

And the released date for that series was January 9, 2012

so even the 3-4 years number is wrong :P

wastedkill said:

xbox one and ps4 are 3-4yr old already...

Well Xbox one specs 3-4yr old PS4 specs 1-2yr old if the rumours were true about the consoles using 7000 version GPU's.

Lionvibez said:

Or they can't afford/don't want to spend $2000 on a PC that could run newest games on max settings.

Or just like them your uninformed and think it costs that much for pc. Cause last month when I checked $500 pc runs better than the consoles do. Then the 85% you save on games in 1 year can boost your pc performance massively. You know with gddr6, ddr4, mantle, rift, and all the other great things coming to pc this year.

you cannot build a $500 pc and for that price it has no monitor.

That will runs games better than a ps4 or Xbone that has far more optimization and no OS overhead to deal with.

I understand your a pc gamer as am I but alteast speak the truth bro.

Ranger12 Ranger12 said:

Well this thread really went somewhere...

AnonymousSurfer AnonymousSurfer said:

WOW I thought this were real screenshots at first xD

Graphics would be 3-5x better than what they are now if consoles didnt exist... thanks btw for making developers lazy over the years.

I feel it's quite the opposite. If there were no consoles, every developer would be lowering the graphics to perform on shitty PC's because people can't afford to upgrade every year. Think about all of the people you know with shit PC's and gaming consoles. Parents wouldn't be willing to drop 1000 bucks every two years, where as now they can buy a $400 console and let the kid play it for 6-8 years.

hahahanoobs hahahanoobs said:

lol@PC vs console fights still going on.

Clearly you never heard of different MARKETS. People buy consoles because it's an attractive option for them. PERIOD!

The same people that are saying we would be better off without consoles, are the same people that say we need [insert underdog company here] to keep prices low and innovation going forward.

You are truly a confused bunch of people.

wastedkill said:

lol@PC vs console fights still going on.

Clearly you never heard of different MARKETS. People buy consoles because it's an attractive option for them. PERIOD!

The same people that are saying we would be better off without consoles, are the same people that say we need [insert underdog company here] to keep prices low and innovation going forward.

You are truly a confused bunch of people.

Your telling me you wouldn't buy a i7 4960X for $10 if you could? lol couldn't resist and if prices are the same then I am fine with that you get what you pay for currently any higher then it would be... a rip off...

Guest said:

How about a playable demo? one car, one track, with a replay feature.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Just thought I'd chime in here, This Christmas, me and my brother wanted to get our youngest brother a new gaming machine, he's had a Xbox 360 for years now and thought we'd update it with something else (PS4, Xbox One or PC). Guess what we did?

PS4: £350

Xbox One: £430

PC:£450

PC was a Micro ATX build, 430 watt PSU, Small case, 640gb WD Black HDD, Core i3, 8GB 1600MHz RAM and Nvidia GTX660. This runs Battlefield 4 on High at 60fps at 1080p. The game also cost £20 as it was on sale. Only other thing we added to the setup was an adapter to allow his 360 controllers wirelessly. That means an Xbox One plus game (£60 still) would have cost more!

I'm sorry folks, but anyone who buys a console these days must be either very special, Love to talk to machines or just want Halo / Forza / Gran Turismo / Naughty Dog games. I'm the latter, only reason I got a PS3 was for The Last of Us. But if your looking to buying a gaming machine right now, you'd have to be crazy not to go the PC route, Get the console later when it's a reasonable price and has the games worth playing.

Steams big screen mode is just fantastic, for the odd moment he needs a mouse (usually to get into Uplay/Origin games) he already had a wireless keyboard+touch pad combo to do so. He started with no games, with £45 he now has a little over 30 games. To add to this, the PC stays quieter than the PS4 and produces less heat than both the PS4 and Xbox One (I've tested this myself with BF4).

Now don't get me wrong, I'm hearing all you people who are claiming they are for "different markets" but if you are looking to replace your current console, the cheapest route is a PC, end of story, hardware costs are a tiny bit more but games are 75% cheaper easily making the PC cheaper, no need for new controllers and can be upgraded with a new Graphics card is 1-2 years time IF (a big if there) you want to keep up with the latest graphics. You can play games from 1996 and still work today plus the modding community, all free online services and pretty much all games save to the cloud these days.

Now we're getting down to the real reason you'd buy a console right now:

Console is for the person who is not smart enough to install Windows or build a PC, It turns out, there is a shocking amount of people out there that can't and just don't care, That's also fine with me, keeps me in a Job and I get to enjoy my games in a superior graphics quality for less money, as the saying goes "no skin off my back"...

Or something like that xD

Dukenukemx Dukenukemx said:

I wonder why we aren't using Ray Tracing yet for video games? Anyone remember that tech?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLte5f34ya8

Guest said:

Wow you chat some shit don't you?

1. They have known from the beginning what platforms they were aiming for. It was always going to be a multiplatform game with the PC being the lead platform. You can't make a high end big budgeted game such as a racing simulator and only have it on the PC as you wont be able to make a profit. Iracing has its subscription fees and most pc simulators aren't big budget games.

2 Erm these guys have 20 years of experience of making simulators and majority of the people were in simbin and made classics like GT legends and GTR series. Essentially this is the real "simbin" people making the spiritual successor to GTR2. And just because the game is on consoles as well doesn't mean its can't be a full blooded simulator.

3. Games take a few years to produce, so I'm struggling to see your point?

4.The aim of this project is to be the best of the best in every department. And you really think rfactor engine is able of producing good graphics? you need glasses.

5. Look on youtube there are thousands of trailers and gameplay videos.

SirGCal SirGCal said:

While I will give them that it's a nice looking setup; the broad focus will also be interesting. PCs may just be bored with the content at that point, we'll see.

However the one big issue I have other then the fade textures, is the rain drops. Looking at the blog, one that jumped out at me was the nose shot of the blue McLaren, wet. Water droplets do not sit on a car in that fassion. Looks like it has the mumps or something. Especially high-performance rigs which would have a type of RainX on the windows, those would be nearly clean; aside from that, the droplets wouldn't stick to a properly waxed car at all, and a poorly one would only have droplets on the more horizontal surfaces. And then the wheels and tires are bone dry. Should be darker marks on the rubber and... well guess that's all moot. At best, it looks like someone sprayed clumped up silicone to the vehicle body. At least to me, it looks VERY bad. Dry shots look amazing.

ffllame12 said:

Just thought I'd chime in here, This Christmas, me and my brother wanted to get our youngest brother a new gaming machine, he's had a Xbox 360 for years now and thought we'd update it with something else (PS4, Xbox One or PC). Guess what we did?

PS4: £350

Xbox One: £430

PC:£450

PC was a Micro ATX build, 430 watt PSU, Small case, 640gb WD Black HDD, Core i3, 8GB 1600MHz RAM and Nvidia GTX660. This runs Battlefield 4 on High at 60fps at 1080p. The game also cost £20 as it was on sale. Only other thing we added to the setup was an adapter to allow his 360 controllers wirelessly. That means an Xbox One plus game (£60 still) would have cost more!

I'm sorry folks, but anyone who buys a console these days must be either very special, Love to talk to machines or just want Halo / Forza / Gran Turismo / Naughty Dog games. I'm the latter, only reason I got a PS3 was for The Last of Us. But if your looking to buying a gaming machine right now, you'd have to be crazy not to go the PC route, Get the console later when it's a reasonable price and has the games worth playing.

Steams big screen mode is just fantastic, for the odd moment he needs a mouse (usually to get into Uplay/Origin games) he already had a wireless keyboard+touch pad combo to do so. He started with no games, with £45 he now has a little over 30 games. To add to this, the PC stays quieter than the PS4 and produces less heat than both the PS4 and Xbox One (I've tested this myself with BF4).

Now don't get me wrong, I'm hearing all you people who are claiming they are for "different markets" but if you are looking to replace your current console, the cheapest route is a PC, end of story, hardware costs are a tiny bit more but games are 75% cheaper easily making the PC cheaper, no need for new controllers and can be upgraded with a new Graphics card is 1-2 years time IF (a big if there) you want to keep up with the latest graphics. You can play games from 1996 and still work today plus the modding community, all free online services and pretty much all games save to the cloud these days.

Now we're getting down to the real reason you'd buy a console right now:

Console is for the person who is not smart enough to install Windows or build a PC, It turns out, there is a shocking amount of people out there that can't and just don't care, That's also fine with me, keeps me in a Job and I get to enjoy my games in a superior graphics quality for less money, as the saying goes "no skin off my back"...

Or something like that xD

The last part is what got me. Some people don't have the funds to build their own computers. some people are only kids and don't have the knowledge to build one of these things. you can't just learn how to build a computer magically, you are taught whether by video or however you learned it.

Also, PC games have nothing to do with platforms, the reason why you don't get your stunning games made only for PC is because the cost of making such a game would be more expensive to make and not everyone has a supercomputer.The intended audience would be about 15% of gamers.

Guest said:

You have made a lot of "fact" statements there, but then say you need video to see what it's really like. So your statements above are merely your opinion, which you are entitled to. The fact is the game is being developed as a hardcore racing sim for PC, it will then be made accessible using driving aids and joypad filtering for console users. That has been clearly stated since day one. Also, your comment regarding the "sim community" not being involved is bizarre given that thousands of sim racers download and have contributed to WMD and pCars, including Kunos who is responsible for Assetto Corsa, although obviously he is mainly there to spy. 2014 is going to be a great year for racing games and sim racers alike, celebrate that rather than slagging off pCars with your biased and uninformed opinion.

Burty117 Burty117, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

The last part is what got me. Some people don't have the funds to build their own computers. some people are only kids and don't have the knowledge to build one of these things. you can't just learn how to build a computer magically, you are taught whether by video or however you learned it.

Ok first of all the computer setup quoted was £20 more than an Xbox One, if you can afford an Xbox One, you can afford the PC quoted as it equaled less than the Xbox One overall, Secondly, if Money is tight, why the hell are you buying a console in the first place? At least with a PC you could use it for more productive work as well thus making it the better investment.

My last part was exactly that, people just don't want to build a computer because they can't be bothered to learn or just plain out right don't want to, again as per my post, I don't care, these people to me seem like the only people who would spend more than £300 on a console at launch when no decent games are on the platforms yet.

Also, PC games have nothing to do with platforms, the reason why you don't get your stunning games made only for PC is because the cost of making such a game would be more expensive to make and not everyone has a supercomputer.The intended audience would be about 15% of gamers.

Ok the bit about platforms doesn't quite make sense, care to elaborate?

You do get your stunning games on PC though, PC games have the ability to change quality level for the setup you have, BF4 we'll take for example, my bro has a core i3 and nVidia 660, I have a Core i7 and Nvidia 780, he can play on high, I can play on Ultra, It's that simple. If developers felt not enough people would use the higher graphical settings, why developers ever bothered with anything more than what Doom II could conjure up is beyond me... (yes that was sarcasm)

Guest said:

Assetto Corsa.

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.