Have consoles slowed the need to upgrade PCs?

sherpa · January 2011

e8200 2.8GHz
4GB RAM
512Mb 9800GT
Win7 64bit

...I've had this setup for 3ish years and started looking at building a new system. After a quick 10min wishlist on ebuyer, I came up with:

i7 950 3.06GHz
Sapphire HD 6870 1GB
8GB RAM

With the assorted PSU/mobo/HDD gubbins, totals Â£740.

The next step was justifying something that costs ~3 PS3s... And I decided against it: a decade ago, a mid-range system would struggle to run upcoming games after 3 years but now, I don't think I'd be able to play games I couldn't before. Granted- BFBC2 and NS2 run like dogs (put the former down to console port, latter to being a beta), and Crysis isn't pretty, but I <b>can</b> run all games at the moment.

Why is this? The best I could come up with is developers are making games for the 360/PS3 a priority, and bad ports-aside they don't tax my current system much.

Thoughts/advice?

A_Boojum_Snark · January 2011

My thought is it's simply that the CPU frequency climb has plateaued. Years ago every few months chips came out hundreds of megahertz faster than previous, over and over again. Now, it's not really efficient to go much past 3.X GHz, and the research is going sideways into other techs like multi-core/hyper-threading and smaller transistors. Granted those still have big improvements, but I don't think it has anywhere near the impact that raw speed did.

MOOtant · January 2011

Cevat Yerli said somewhere that they could move forward with Crysis 2 but if they want to have it running on current (let's be honest not at all next-gen, simply old) consoles they have to hold back.

Crispy · January 2011

Less games get made for PC only, so the bulk of dev is spent getting something technically impressive to fit within the constraints of hardware much, much lower than what PCs are currently capable of. While some games have been optimised to work on consoles, other PC-only developers have seen through statistics such as the Steam Hardware Survey that they can reach more customers by accomodating lower-spec PCs.

Another thing PC developers (or perhaps this is a more general phenomenon?) have started doing is overhauling their game engines less often. Instead they bolt on new features as optionals that can be enabled or disabled according to the customer's specs. This again means less time spent on development costs (less time spent on core tech R&D), and it also goes hand in hand with the change we've seen towards episodic/downloadable content, that extends the lifetime of the game at a minimum of developer time.

It's also worth adding that the current generation of consoles has been out for quite some time:
- PlayStation 2 was released in March 2000 - PlayStation 3 in November 2006 [79 months]
- Xbox was released in November 2001 - Xbox 360 in November 2005 [48 months]

It's been 62 months since the PS3 came out and 74 months since the 360 came out -roughly the same time as the previous generation gap- but the next generation is yet to be announced, or if it has already been announced, it's in the form of supplemental motion-sensor hardware accessories (<i>Move</i> and <i>Kinect</i>), not the traditional generation leap we have come to expect.

So the current trend is to extend the current gen's lifetime and reach a wider audience (following the Wii's incredibly profitable example), rather than boosting memory, graphics or processing power to impress hardcore gamers. In general, console manufacturers want to maximise the gap between generations because they can make more money through licensing while spending relatively little.

Furthermore, we've seen the lifecycle of current gen consoles increased through online, first-party sales and distribution (Virtual Console, XBLA, PlayStation Store). Another low-upkeep service that still brings in licensing revenue to the platform holders, or largely recycles existing content for maximum profit (e.g. <i>Super MegaDrive Ultimate Collection</i> on PS3/360, or the recent <i>Goldeneye</i> reboot for the Wii).

In short, PC development is becoming much more tied to the console development. The generation gap between consoles is widening as companies are learning how to maximise profit from existing hardware, impacting on the demands on PC titles also available on 360/PS3. PC developers/publishers are also learning to better understand their consumer base through market research and maximise profits by making their games scale better for a broader spectrum of PC specs.

In terms of advice, I'd bear in mind that PC games are much cheaper than on console so your 3x PS3 figure does somewhat justify itself in the long term depending on how often you buy games on release. On PC, certain genres are still going to totally outperform console versions (assuming the devs allow the game to scale up for PC). If you like FPS and RTS games and enjoy running games on 'highest' settings and framerate then I would go for the upgrade. If you're more strapped for cash or generally willing to compromise on performance, I'd wait it out a few years and see where the next console generation is headed, then get a PC that slightly outperforms it. If it looks like the next gen of consoles is still going to be fixated on motion control, then we will begin to see a clearer definition between PC and console games, and you'll be able to make your mind up then.

Kouji_San · January 2011

I think in the future we'll see this slow down even more. I mean games currently looks very nice and there is only so much we can do to make it look nicer. So in about 10 years (maybe even less), I guess we're at photo realistic and feel no need to go further in gaming processing power.

Next gen will be Holoconsole :P

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NS3 holographic scenario)</div><div class='quotemain'>An overwhelming force of Kharaa approaches the base.

<i>*Computer end program!*

*Cannot comply, the program is corrupted by an unidentified entity*

*Bacteria spreads from the console*</i>

Who are you gonnah call? I guess the TSA...</div>

MOOtant · January 2011

There's never too much of computing power. I think I estimated once that GTX 260 can simulate brain of fruit fly 10 or 30 times per second (1000 neurons I think). When it comes to AI games are as awful as real-time graphics 30 years ago.

Align · January 2011

I wonder though, after the Wii, will we get any consoles that push the envelope hardware-wise? Since it showed that expensive high-end makes much less money than cheap low-end. There was more to it than that ofc, but it certainly helped that the Wii was so affordable.

Thaldarin · January 2011

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MOOtant @ Jan 1 2011, 07:48 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1820756"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'>There's never too much of computing power. I think I estimated once that GTX 260 can simulate brain of fruit fly 10 or 30 times per second (1000 neurons I think). When it comes to AI games are as awful as real-time graphics 30 years ago.</div>

I don't know why but in this discussion that seems to make absolute no sense.

I'd probably agree consoles and the marketing of game types, MMO, online play, friends play etc. has slowed down the technological race. Current gen consoles 'hanging on' longer allows for better tech.

MOOtant · January 2011

Consoles have as much computing power as it's needed to get some "level of reality". Physics, sound, graphics and AI. There's a lot of computing power spent on graphics and almost nothing on AI. At some time in the future spending more computing cycles on graphics won't pay off. Gain will be too small because it'll be already realistic enough. Then games will differentiate themselves with physics/AI.

That's why I mentioned fruit fly brain which is neural network of around 1000 neurons. It takes a lot of computing power to simulate brain of such simple entity in real-time. We're very far from interesting simulations of intelligence. That interests me more than Move/Kinect.

lolfighter · January 2011

We're up to DirectX 11 now, but the Xbox 360 still uses DirectX 9. Any game intended to work on both PC and Xbox uses DirectX 9. Furthermore, consoles are notoriously RAM-deficient. Finally, while the PS3 had an impressive processor at launch, it hasn't gotten faster over the year, and the 360, while still powerful, lags behind.

I think it's safe to say that the stagnation on the console hardware front has had a lot of influence on hardware requirements for PC games as well. Also, indie games are starting to come out of the shadow now that there's less competition on the PC game market, and those aren't exactly known for bleeding-edge technology and ludicrous hardware requirements. I was VERY surprised to learn that Braid requires 2.0 shaders.

That_Annoying_Kid · January 2011

well said crispy

Have consoles slowed the need to upgrade PCs?

Comments