For quite a while consoles have been moving in the direction of PCs (disks, installations, browsers etc). Some kind of standards for various HW components would be fine.
Rating HW from 1-10 and having the game list the requisite rating is not very "future-compatible". For instance, when released, the Geforce 9800 GTX would have been a 9, but now it would probably rank a 7.
I don't know. I've always seen PC hardware innovation as driven by continuously-updating standards; someone makes a more detailed game, and then someone else makes a better video card to play that game at 60 fps, etc. In contrast, you have consoles, which are only updated once in several years.
Obviously, the game developers win with hardware spec-standardization. Furthermore, there is a point at which technical specifications will not improve games by that much. However, have we reached that point yet? If not, would this movement eventually result in customizable PCs being replaced with more versatile versions of video game consoles?
Can it play Crysis? You could use it as a toaster when gaming.
Although, after reading the Kotaku article, wouldn't a little disclosure on the Futuremark scores required of a game, and the scores of various hardware configurations be sufficient?
On second though, this is far less complicated than it appears.
the composite benchmarks, like futuremark, don't really reflect a good measure of how a computer will run any game in question.
This is something that sites like Anandtech and THG and others have been fighting for a LONG time. . . if there were such a thing, their jobs would become MUCH easier.
do a search at either site for developing benchmarks and you'll get a great discussion about how complex it really is to come up with something that a: works, b: works across multiple GPUs and CPUs, etc. and c: works consistently across multiple games, drivers, etc.
@CaliBoom: There is great truth in what you say. But, isn't that a reflection on the state of the development community.
Unlike the console world, which targets an exact hardware specification, the PC gaming community does not. Sounds to me like that situation is as easy to fix as developing for a predetermined system.
I don't feel sorry for game developers, who through their willingness to create utterly wanktastic visuals, render(pun intended) their games unplayable by vast portions of their target market. But, then again, I'm an Ubuntu user not a gamer.
It's really not that hard to predict gaming performance from those benchmarks. All that's needed is a common frame of reference(a baseline system), and some understanding of the points at which said game is GPU or CPU dependent. It's all about setting targets, and hitting them.
@sweenish: The US economy is expected to contract 3% this year, and the number of people who lost their jobs in February (Over half a million) would likely disagree with you.
Next year's economy growth is expected to be 0%. So, if by upswing you mean we won't contract any further, you'd be correct.
@Lite: Sounds like someone has got a bad case of the Mondays...
The "Market" as a generic term is typically used in reference to the DOW Jones Industrial Average, which has been on a general up-swing since January.
The DOW Jones does not specifically take into account the overall expansion or contraction of the GDP, nor does it take into account month to month joblessness numbers. The DOW Jones is none-the-less considered to be the key indicator, and it's general trend over time will typically forecast the trends subsequently observed in other indicators.
In closing I would just like to mention that I know full well that I am being a pedantic jackass, I just wanted to make sure that you knew you were too. ;)
seems worth while, but i didn't know there was a big issue with folks buying games and not reading the system requirements that are printed on the box. seems pretty standard to know if something will or not blend.
@hu_hu_cool: So that I can play a game based upon computer assisted aiming and movement because the controller's ability to be accurate and precise doesn't come close to rivaling that of the PC's?
Not to mention the quality of the graphics that the PC is capable of producing, at higher resolution, than the console?
04/27/09
04/27/09
04/27/09
Rating HW from 1-10 and having the game list the requisite rating is not very "future-compatible". For instance, when released, the Geforce 9800 GTX would have been a 9, but now it would probably rank a 7.
04/27/09
04/27/09
Obviously, the game developers win with hardware spec-standardization. Furthermore, there is a point at which technical specifications will not improve games by that much. However, have we reached that point yet? If not, would this movement eventually result in customizable PCs being replaced with more versatile versions of video game consoles?
I'm still pondering, hence the rambling.
04/27/09
Can it play Doom? It might be a toaster.
Can it play Crysis? You could use it as a toaster when gaming.
Although, after reading the Kotaku article, wouldn't a little disclosure on the Futuremark scores required of a game, and the scores of various hardware configurations be sufficient?
On second though, this is far less complicated than it appears.
04/27/09
the composite benchmarks, like futuremark, don't really reflect a good measure of how a computer will run any game in question.
This is something that sites like Anandtech and THG and others have been fighting for a LONG time. . . if there were such a thing, their jobs would become MUCH easier.
do a search at either site for developing benchmarks and you'll get a great discussion about how complex it really is to come up with something that a: works, b: works across multiple GPUs and CPUs, etc. and c: works consistently across multiple games, drivers, etc.
04/27/09
Unlike the console world, which targets an exact hardware specification, the PC gaming community does not. Sounds to me like that situation is as easy to fix as developing for a predetermined system.
I don't feel sorry for game developers, who through their willingness to create utterly wanktastic visuals, render(pun intended) their games unplayable by vast portions of their target market. But, then again, I'm an Ubuntu user not a gamer.
It's really not that hard to predict gaming performance from those benchmarks. All that's needed is a common frame of reference(a baseline system), and some understanding of the points at which said game is GPU or CPU dependent. It's all about setting targets, and hitting them.
04/27/09
04/27/09
market's been on an upswing since january.
04/27/09
Next year's economy growth is expected to be 0%. So, if by upswing you mean we won't contract any further, you'd be correct.
04/27/09
04/27/09
The "Market" as a generic term is typically used in reference to the DOW Jones Industrial Average, which has been on a general up-swing since January.
The DOW Jones does not specifically take into account the overall expansion or contraction of the GDP, nor does it take into account month to month joblessness numbers. The DOW Jones is none-the-less considered to be the key indicator, and it's general trend over time will typically forecast the trends subsequently observed in other indicators.
In closing I would just like to mention that I know full well that I am being a pedantic jackass, I just wanted to make sure that you knew you were too. ;)
04/27/09
"will it blend?"
errr. I mean:
"will it play crysis."
seems worth while, but i didn't know there was a big issue with folks buying games and not reading the system requirements that are printed on the box. seems pretty standard to know if something will or not blend.
04/27/09
So a simple game will require a machine that can run 0.5 Cryses.
But a very complex, graphics intensive game would require a machine that can run 2.75 Cryses.
04/27/09
04/27/09
Not to mention the quality of the graphics that the PC is capable of producing, at higher resolution, than the console?
No thanks.
04/27/09