156
rate

Shattered Horizon creator says "PCs are rapidly leaving consoles behind"

October 25, 2009 in News comments 21

Futuremark's Jukka Mäkinen recently stated that the graphical capabilities of PCs have surpassed consoles, which explains the relatively high system requirements for their upcoming zero-g FPS "Shattered Horizon".

“PCs are rapidly leaving the consoles behind when it comes to graphical capabilities. Because Shattered Horizon is being developed exclusively for the PC we haven’t had to make any compromises. Everything, from graphics and controls, through to the interface and dedicated server support, has been designed for PC gamers who love to play FPS games.”
primesuspect via gaming.icrontic.com »
Favourite this article Add source
| More
Report!
News story attached to:
Latest comment:
Most recently commented on by on Oct 28, 2009

Comments

Register as a member to subscribe comments.
  • 1
    chautemoc Oct 25, 09
    Um, I thought they always were, cause it's an open platform.
  • 2
    Daweii Oct 25, 09
    While PC's always have pulled ahead not as rapidly as this.

    I mean when the PS2 and Xbox had like 64Mb RAM up until the final years PC's barely had 512Mb themselves and only got 1-2Gb right before the PS3 and 360 were out. Already the 360 and PS3 are far behind with their 512Mb (I don't care how they split it internally.) Gaming PC's these days call 4Gb small with many modern ones bring 6-8Gb to the table. That is a huge difference and while people may say RAM isn't that important it really it for a game developer, the more RAM the consumer has the more technical shit they can add.

    Then we have the CPU's they are right up there with Quad Core's and soon to come 8-Core CPU's. These all allow developers to pump out visually flawless physics based titles like Shattered Horizon. Then the GPU's I remember when the PS3 on the whole with RAM, CPU and GPU was boasting 2 Teraflops of floating point performance. ATi's new GPU is 2 Teraflops by itself not including a super CPU. PC's are rapidly moving ahead which is a shame for PC gamers as PC gaming is being neglected more and more in favour of the lesser consoles.
  • 2
    tallteen86* Oct 25, 09
    Yeah, I mean, people can now get over 8GB of RAM on a desktop PC with the right Mobo (I have 4GB myself). Though for now, more than about 4GB isn't really useful at all, it's only a matter of time....

    ATI's DX11 GPUs support a great feature set (not to mention the GPUs themselves are no slouches, and are power efficient).

    BTW: Though you said you didn't care Daweii, I thought I'd comment on the PS3 and 360 memory allocation in case someone was wondering:

    PS3 = 256MB main memory (RAM), 256MB Video Memory (GPU).
    360 = 512MB Shared memory (RAM/GPU).
    • 0
      Moonrise Oct 25, 09
      What's funny is that despite everything you say the difference in graphics quality, etc. isn't nearly as high as you would like to make it seem.
      • 1
        Daweii Oct 26, 09
        Thats the thing it's kinda like HDTV once you've seen it you can't go back. Same thing with gaming, you know that feeling when you have been playing PS3 games for a few weeks, you plug in that old PS2 favourite and the graphics you once loved don't look so hot in comparison to what you are now used to. PC gaming is like that, even if the graphics in many games are only slightly better, the textures slightly better, the improved draw distance and the lack of jagged edges over the console versions. It all builds up and over time you get used to that standard and going back even if it is only half a step down to what the console is doing is still a pretty huge change. To some the quality is just that much better, take Crysis for example, it came out 2 years ago and only now is a game like Uncharted 2 close to it and Uncharted 2 isn't even at that standard.. Thats why PC gamers play PC games it's like being a beta tester to graphics many people won't see for sometimes 5 years until a new console is out.
  • 1
    Taker4ever Oct 25, 09
    It's also a far more expensive gaming hobby than a PS3 or a 360.

    For me, the PC is still lacking in one thing behind the PS3 - Blu-Ray support. OK, so a lot of modern PCs can play the movies, but I think modern PC gaming is still lacking a little something until it embraces Blu-Ray. There's PS3 games out there like Uncharted 2 and Metal Gear Solid 4 using between 25 and 50GB of data.
    • 1
      Daweii Oct 25, 09
      Not anymore it isn't. Most high end gaming computers can be found for £400 often less now. These are systems that will run Crysis maxed out, systems that will play almost anything for the next 2-3 years at a very high standard. PC gaming is very cheap these days and when you factor in the average PC game is between £19.99 and £29.99 the PC gamer also saves on games. The average console game is between £39.99 and £49.99. PC is far cheaper these days, yeah it may not compete with a console priced at £249.99 but graphically the PC kills it for a mere £150 more in many cases, not a lot really.

      Also PC doesn't need Blu-Ray. It would benefit from it but it doesn't need it. Lets take Vanguard for example that game comes on 1 DVD once installed it is 32Gb on the HDD. How is that possible you may ask? Compression. The game itself on PC is uncompressed as it is installed which means a game like Vanguard and many others start on the DVD at 8.7Gb and finish on the HDD with staggering figures. PC has been doing that for years, large filesizes didn't start with the PS3.
      • 3
        Red 9* Oct 26, 09
        I found an Acer system the other day with 4GB RAM, a 640GB Hard Drive, an AMD Athlon processer with 3GHz, and a Nvidia somethin-somethin graphics card for only $599. A system like that would cost upwards of $1000 a few years ago.
        • 1
          Daweii Oct 26, 09
          Yeah and thats a pre-built system so some of that price is labour costs at Acer you could save even more building that same system yourself. With the money you save you could even upgrade some parts and get a better system than you were after for the same money. Thats the thing I enjoy about PC gaming even though I've been out of it for years, you only pay for what you are willing to use.
  • 0
    Gamesta100 Oct 25, 09
    Meh I don't care as I have VERY little interest in gaming on PC.I have GTA3 and Worms World Party for PC.IF I play on PC it's retro game Roms.
  • 0
    Tiger of Wu Oct 25, 09
    PC games have better graphical capabilities than those of consoles.

    THANK YOU Captain Obvious
  • 0
    Shinobi_razor Oct 25, 09
    of course they are better than consoles. theyre more expensive so they had better be better.
  • 0
    Play ISDF Oct 25, 09
    I'd hope PC's are more powerful than consoles considering top of the line computers can cost $2000-$3000(AU). Pretty big difference compared to the $300-$400 console.
    • 2
      Daweii Oct 26, 09
      So wrong... So so wrong. I don't even think the whole Aussies get raped price wise can be used as an excuse for how wrong your evaluation of price was. Perhaps $800 AU for the same spec computer Red 9 found for $599 US which is about £400 UK. It's all scalable I mean yes as Chautemoc so rightfully says below, you can spend $3000 AU hell $3000 US which is way more for you guys haha, but at the end of the day it's wasted technology. So as I said above even if it was $800 AU in comparison to a console at $400 AU, I would be inclined to say you get more for your money with a PC and I'm a console fan first and foremost.
  • 2
    chautemoc Oct 25, 09
    The comments here make it pretty apparent this is half the reason PC gaming isn't too popular: misconceptions.
    I am very cheap, and the PC is my primary platform. My rig will do a pretty good job of running most of the latest games at max settings, and cost me roughly $500 to build. It's about two years ahead of consoles, and of course affords me lots of other luxuries like web browsing, voice chat, television, music, etc.

    Point is: the expensive thing is a myth. It used to be expensive, but it's not anymore. You can blow $1000-3000 if you want to, but most of it will go to waste.
    • 0
      Shinobi_razor Oct 26, 09
      no its not a myth. $500 > $300, son.

      i have a PC with a decent enough video card and processor which i might upgrade in a while and around $850 so far.
  • 1
    tallteen86* Oct 26, 09
    I spent $1700CAN myself (probably about $1450US, or $2000AU) on my rig. It covered:

    Case, Monitor (1080p BenQ), 2.5GHz Dual Core processor, 500GB HDD (I've since added 2 1TBs though), 4GB ram, Vista x64, aftermarket cooler, 500wPSU, DVD-r drive, ATI Powercolor 4870 GPU (at the time, around top 5 GPU), etc. I'm going to get a BD-R drive next, but probably not for some months....The PSU can't handle more than that, unfortunately.

    This could probably be gotten for About $1200 or so now, with rebates. Technology depreciates pretty fast...This rig is only about 9 months old >_> It'll be good for a couple years yet though.

    I also read an article on Neo about how PC gaming isn't going to push the graphics so much in the future (there is only so much further the visuals can go). So GPUs should last a bit longer these days, especially since you can Crossfire/SLI them.
    • 0
      chautemoc Oct 26, 09
      A couple years??
      Monitor doesn't count, also (you don't incorporate the price of a TV in the console price).
      Not sure how you spent that much. Mine is close behind and cost me 1/3.
      • 0
        Shinobi_razor Oct 26, 09
        what are your specs?
      • 0
        tallteen86* Oct 27, 09
        Yeah, I'd like to know how yours could be about as good as mine, and cost so much less.
        • 0
          Shinobi_razor Oct 28, 09
          unless he got 2nd hand parts somewhere or got them from Newegg or somewhere on a MASSIVE discount. only Nvidia cards that can play any modern game (lets say Crysis) on full specs are the new 200 or 300 series, and those are $150-200 new.

This news story is archived and is closed to comments now.