NVIDIA on the supposed 'death' of PC gaming
by Scott Jon Siegel 
{ Jun 10th 2008 at 10:00PM }
According to Taylor, consoles have become the "baseline" for game development; PC-exclusive titles are a thing of the past, and more and more titles make the transition from console to PC, as opposed to the other way around. Luckily, Taylor believes that PC versions of those titles we always be superior, and as the baseline console versions improve, so too will the PC ports. Good to know, then.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Joeshie @ Jun 10th 2008 10:04PM
Hasn't it always been like this? Mods by themselves can take a decent game and make it fantastic (see Oblivion). PC gamers have had GTA multiplayer for years now thanks to mods.
NATO_Duke @ Jun 11th 2008 10:19AM
Oblivion was just decent? You have some high standards.
Lekko @ Jun 13th 2008 2:35AM
By comparison? Yes. Yes it was.
colin @ Jun 10th 2008 10:06PM
its weird, but lately I have been upgrading my computer and buying games via steam vs. playing them on my 360.
Co @ Jun 10th 2008 10:25PM
Hell yea thats the way to go right there. Between Wii and a high end PC, who needs those middle ground systems?
John McPoop (PSN:johnnynumber5) @ Jun 10th 2008 11:05PM
@Co
Are you admitting the Wii is the worst console on the market?
@Colin
My biggest problem with high end console gaming is the minimum specs always change. There is really no point in playing on a PC unless it is capable of running the top tier games on max settings. Also, you always have to upgrade components or purchase a new machine every year or so.
I prefer to just game on consoles because the games are comparable and expensive hardware upgrades are not required. Besides, I have 2 macintosh computers and a eeePC as my main computers. We have a couple of older PC's that could probably play these top PC games on lower settings.
colin @ Jun 10th 2008 11:28PM
well, pc gamers (like me) typically love to tweak their stuff. overclocking, benchmarking, upgrading, and modding is what we have the most fun doing. gaming is almost secondary to that hobby ... we play games to pass time. We really love to strip everything down, reinstall in a new case, add water-cooling, do some cable-management, troubleshoot, reinstall windows, and take screenshots with cpuZ showing an AMD Athlon 64 X2 3800+ (stock 2.0Ghz) @ 2.7Ghz each core, no voltage increase, and 2 instances of prime95 torture test showing 4 hours w/o error and counting ...
bm @ Jun 11th 2008 12:04AM
"well, pc gamers (like me) typically love to tweak their stuff."
And that's exactly why PC games are on the way out (or perhaps are going to get driven into a tiny niche), whether certain folks like to admit it or not. To make the dreaded car analogy: 99% of all people who buy a new car just want to drive it. PC games are like cars that require tinkering just to get them to run, and if you're in it for the games, you just don't want to put up with that.
eldee @ Jun 11th 2008 12:26AM
I'm a pc gamer, and I don't 'tweak my stuff'. I'm running the same hardware I bought 2.5 years ago and I play COD4, Crysis, etc.
"There is really no point in playing on a PC unless it is capable of running the top tier games on max settings."
What? That's like saying there's no point in driving a car unless it has chrome trim and a GPS. Not everybody needs 16x antialiasing and trilinear filtering, personally I always turn it off even though I could technically run it because I can't really tell the difference when things start moving around.
Personally I don't see what all the fuss is about.. to me it just looks like another system is added to the typical 'console flame wars', so instead of 360 vs PS3 vs Wii, it's now PC vs 360 vs PS3 vs Wii.
As usual people are making a big deal out of nothing.. you don't need a supercomputer to game on a PC. It's more expensive than a console, there's no doubt about that- but my console can't run photoshop/dreamweaver/etc. There's a flavor for everybody, the PC is just one of them.
eldee @ Jun 11th 2008 12:33AM
On a related note- I will agree that the game publishers should all get together and come up with some sort of standard for system specs- that way during any given 'generation' the recommended specs can deliver a comparable experience to the lowest common denominator of console systems. This will take the confusion out of gaming for pc illiterates (those that want to partake in PC gaming that is).
Point is- almost everybody has a decent computer, one that is at least capable of wii-quality graphics (or higher if you count resolution). So coming to a base-line recommended system requirements should be a piece of cake. At that point, publishers could choose to certify a game as "high end" that would push it into a higher rating or something to that effect.
Vista has at least touched on this issue, with Games for Windows (and the User Experience Index), but Vista is such a shitty operating system that it's not really taking off as well as one would hope. They've got the right idea though- "Do not play this game unless your computer has a 3.8 rating", easy like pie.
colin @ Jun 11th 2008 1:45AM
"And that's exactly why PC games are on the way out (or perhaps are going to get driven into a tiny niche)"
IMO, it has always been a niche. But that niche has been driving the cutting edge of performance since inception. Your Xbox360/PS3/Multi-million dollar computer medical imaging equipment are made possible in no small part due to us obsessive upgraders who drive the industry (not games but hardware).
also, I didn't mean that you had to be a hardware enthusiast to be a pc gamer. that kinda came out wrong, but lots of us get new video cards at least every 2 years. for me its always like a rolling update. I bought an 8800GT a couple of months ago to replace my SLId 6800GTs, Liquid cooling components are in the mail so I'll be able to run overclocked 24/7. Next will probably be mobo/memory/cpu and that will be at least a year or two away (I can transplant the liquid cooling). Then we start over with the video card.
NATO_Duke @ Jun 11th 2008 10:32AM
I had been a PC gamer for years, and used my consoles far less. Yet, since I installed Vista on my system everything went to hell. That OS caused so many problems that I had to just stop messing with it after a while. Hence, I got used to consoles and spend most my time there now.
Bouille @ Aug 5th 2008 5:38PM
@John
The difference between us PC gamers and you Console gamers is that for a PC gamer gameplay matters most, as for you Console gamers graphics take the front seat. I don't give 2 shits about playing a game on minimum settings if that's what it takes to play the game at a steady frame rate; as long as gameplay doesn't suffer graphics are just for decoration. What you hear most out of console gamers is WOW GRAPHICS! Which seems to be the selling point of the PS3. CSS has "terrible" graphics with console standards but CSS is so much better then Halo for exemple.
DangerMouse @ Jun 10th 2008 10:11PM
Maybe PC gaming would sell better if there goddamn naming system was less confusing . You got the 8800GT, 8800GTS, 8800GTX, 8600GT blah blah blah. Actually, it probably wouldn't, I just had to get that off my chest. For an average, uninformed player wanting to get into PC gaming, they're sure giving them a tough time.
Einhanderkiller @ Jun 10th 2008 10:18PM
NVIDIA is revamping their naming scheme with their new series of videocards launching June 18th.
Vidikron (FU) @ Jun 10th 2008 10:23PM
Haha.. what's even worse is they made two GTS series. One fits below the GTs and one above.
colin @ Jun 10th 2008 11:00PM
If you sincerily wanted to get into pc gaming, all you would have to do is read a bit. There are plenty of communities online with members that really enjoy helping other people out, as long as you don't just sign up to ask a single question that you can google the answer to.
To somewhat answer your question, look here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_8_Series
basically GX2>GTX>GT>GTS>GS
The first number in a card name is the series number
so an 8600GT and a 8800GTX are both in the GeForce 8 series. The series changes about once a year, sometimes passing great milestones as far as performance goes. The last 3 numbers indicate its position in the series. An X800 or X900 (using X as variable, not to be confused with ATI's nomenclature system) is generally performance oriented in its series. 6800GT's were all the rage a few years ago, now their cousins the 8800GTs and 9800GTs are the new 'bang for your buck' performers. 600-700 are pretty middle of the road. They aren't top of the line, but certainly are not underachievers. Recommended for light-moderate or budget gamers. It is however impossible to compare 2 cards that are not in the same series on any linear scale. basically 8800>9600 but a 9600>7900, and an 8800 is leaps and bounds different (greater) than a 6800.
Thats a pretty basic outline. There may be some subjective information in there, its based on the gathering of some facts and many opinions.
Vidikron (FU) @ Jun 10th 2008 11:04PM
"basically GX2>GTX>GT>GTS>GS"
But, again, there are two different 8800 GTS series. You can see them on the chart at the Wiki link you provided and they are distinctly different. Just stupid, stupid, stupid to have named them that way.
colin @ Jun 10th 2008 11:06PM
forgot to mention the GTS refresh that fits above GT and below GTX. Thanks Vidikron ;)
GX2>GTX>GTS>GT>GTS>GS in single card scenarios.
In tri-SLI, I believe 3 9800GTX's outbench 2 9800GX2's in quad-SLI
HighFiveJesus @ Jun 10th 2008 11:13PM
no kidding, i was tempted to buy a radeon 2600 HD pro because it was clearenced down to 25 dollars from a couple hundred, only to do a research comparison and found out it is crap compared to my 1950 XTX. What the hell! the numbers are higher, it has higher resolution support and i believe the same amount of on board ram. But nooo.
colin @ Jun 10th 2008 11:33PM
@ Highfivejesus,
you should be folding @ home on that 1900, currently the ATI GPU client is optimized for the 1900 series, putting the most powerful quad-core processors to shame.
eldee @ Jun 11th 2008 12:37AM
It's called consumer research. Try it.
Seriously, when I wanted to buy a PS3 I had to dig through pages of shit on the 'net to find the system I wanted. Hard drive size? Check. Newer chipset? Check. Backwards Compatibility? Er.. no.
Or how about the 360? Elite, Core, Arcade.. Oh, but Core went away, now it's just arcade. It's the same concept, you don't just walk into a best buy with a fist full of cash and throw shit in your shopping cart. You read the box first, it's a novel concept I know..
Bobby S. @ Jun 10th 2008 10:17PM
I tend to agree with what Roy Taylor said.
I'm surrounded by people (in school) who live on their consoles. Very few of my friends are PC gamers, and even they have switched over after getting tired of CS.
Very few people that I know are still dedicated to the PC but the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM still lays with the infamous quote:
"You have to update your PC every 6 months."
Everyone knows that its absolutely not true but its something that is very well embroidered into people's head and sometimes the clerks at Gamestop and EB Games who are the ones that are suppose to educate the uneducated say that as well.
I have a 360 and a PC, I have spent way more money on my PC even though I have a game library that is 3x bigger on my 360 than on my PC BUT I don't care! I love PC gaming and games like Crysis, World in Conflict, Company of Heroes, and Battlefield 2 belong on the PC and can never be substituted onto the consoles.
I do quite often prefer sitting on my couch playing on my Samsung 32" HDTV but I "feel" a lot more lazy that way than I do with my PC. When I play my PC I feel way more involved with the game and more in command - so to say.
Its quite upsetting to see the PC losing exclusivity (check Crytek) but PC gaming can never die because some game are just better on it. There are organizations trying to make PC gaming more attractive and hardware manufacturers have realized that PC gaming is in a decline and is clearly evident with the MUCH cheaper hardware products available.
A VERY good gaming PC can be made with just a few bucks. Graphics cards have surpassed game requirements and its just absolutely ridcilous to say that you need to upgrade your PC every 6 months. I know a lot of people still playing new games with their freaking 7800GTs!
Vidikron (FU) @ Jun 10th 2008 10:25PM
I wish more people shared your view. I can't stand it when these PC vs Console debates break out. Each offers distinct experiences and I too game on and enjoy both.
Zach @ Jun 10th 2008 10:31PM
I still have my 7900GTX! It still plays all the games I want what more could I ask for?
DangerMouse @ Jun 10th 2008 10:50PM
I agree, and i think that the argument that PC gaming is too expensive is overly exaggerated. You can build an excellent gaming PC for 800-1000 dollars. While twice as much as the PS3 and 360, the functionality is far beyond what the consoles can do. If you want top of the line, then fine, but that's not always the best option. Everyone needs a PC these days, so why not just get everything bundled into one.
I have yet to build a new PC, but the 5 1/2 year old one i've been using can still run games like CoD4 and the Orange Box quite well (not that the orange box is anything high-tech, but still). I even played through Gears of War, though not spectacular quality, at least still very playable. Not to mention that backwards compatibility goes back 20 years.
Turkish Superman @ Jun 10th 2008 11:17PM
Exactly.
Very good gaming computers and components can be had pretty cheaply if you do your research and know what you're looking for.
People need to get out of the "You need a $3000 PC to run Crysis!/You have to upgrade your PC every six months to play the newest games!" mindset that plagues the industry.
John McPoop (PSN:johnnynumber5) @ Jun 10th 2008 11:21PM
@Turkish
But to play the games at their max setting you do need to constantly upgrade!
Bobby S. @ Jun 10th 2008 11:28PM
@ John McPoop
That is not true. I think you were trying to say that you do need to upgrade but to say you need to upgrade "constantly" is very over exaggerated.
Graphics cards are very flexible and can play many games that are released followings its purchase. You do know that from the day you get your graphics card, it is being constantly improved with drivers. By the time its obsolete it'll have seen a 10 - 15% increase in overall performance (minimum).
I can see what your trying to say but from time to time, you get games that set a certain benchmark. Last year it was Crysis which has set a benchmark for both AMD and nVidia to beat (meaning smooth framerate and all resolutions and settings).
You don't see a game like Crysis come out very often to demand so much from your card. Even if you had a 7800GTX which is now 3 years old; you could still play Crysis, World in Conflict, and other newer games at high settings but maybe at a lower resolution. If you have a 24" monitor than you are automatically settings yourself up for more frequent upgrades.
Slayer @ Jun 10th 2008 11:38PM
Most people that complain about upgrading every six months, are most likely settling on low end hardware and budget video cards just to play a handful of games. This happens all the time. I have a few friends that wanted to upgrade their computers just to play one game.
I think anyone building a computer should do so with the intentions of future proofing it.
bm @ Jun 11th 2008 12:12AM
"While twice as much as the PS3 and 360, the functionality is far beyond what the consoles can do. "
lol
I always see this mentioned, what functionality are you talking about exactly? Internet? Word? All the other thousand-and-one little things that can all be done on a low-end PC without any graphics card to speak of?
Face it, the ludicrous amount of money you're paying is to run games, nothing else.
Bobby S. @ Jun 11th 2008 12:41AM
@bm
You said:
"I always see this mentioned, what functionality are you talking about exactly? Internet? Word? All the other thousand-and-one little things that can all be done on a low-end PC without any graphics card to speak of?
Face it, the ludicrous amount of money you're paying is to run games, nothing else."
If you want to get into specifics, how about video editing that will make your life A LOT easier if you have a graphics with a great decoder with it. Or how about even graphics design, creating animation on applications like 3D Max. I can go on and on about this topic.
I'm not arguing with you, but if you bring up ludicrous points than I have no choice but counter you with other points that will probably upset and cause you to further reply which gets into a fanboy war.
As mentioned by other PC enthusiasts, we also own current gen consoles.
Vidikron (FU) @ Jun 11th 2008 12:41AM
@bm
"I always see this mentioned, what functionality are you talking about exactly? Internet? Word? All the other thousand-and-one little things that can all be done on a low-end PC without any graphics card to speak of?"
That's actually a pretty good point. These days even your halfway decent cell phone can do these tasks and I think that may be part of the issue. It's gotten to the point where the more powerful PCs are completely unnecessary to the average person. For most people, it's really only games that drive need for faster hardware. But there are some of us that do use out there to do use PCs for more intensive tasks. I do quite a bit of video transcoding so I push my quad core to the limit quite often. And when I can get more cores a reasonable price, I will. But that's that not the not average and I fully understand that. PCs of all power levels have their place, as do consoles.
Vidikron (FU) @ Jun 11th 2008 12:43AM
Wow... I butchered one sentence in there. That should read:
"But there are some of us out there that do use PCs"
I started typing one thing, then stopped for a second, and then started again and screwed it all up.
eldee @ Jun 11th 2008 12:45AM
I always see this mentioned, what functionality are you talking about exactly? Internet? Word? All the other thousand-and-one little things that can all be done on a low-end PC without any graphics card to speak of?
For a 13 year old bouncing between pokemon and cartoon network, yes- you can get by with just an basic low-end walmart special computer. But for those of us with jobs (you know, like.. work?) we use other software besides internet explorer. Things like Visual Studio, SQL Server Manager, Photoshop, VNC Server, virtual private networking, remote desktop, etc. You can certainly install apps like these on a shitty computer, and you might even be able to open them- but if you want to run them all simultaneously and actually use them without throwing something through a wall,you'll need to get a better computer. One that, incidentally, will also allow you to play decent games on it as well.
bm @ Jun 11th 2008 1:49AM
@Eldee: "You might be able to open them"? LOL. You're talking to someone who used to do his print resolution images in PS with about 30 or more layers, on a single core 2 ghz pc with 512 mb ram, smooth as butter without any trouble. For years, professionals have been producing, print, movies, 3D models and what have you on PC's you can find in a yardsale today. Assuming you need a beowulf cluster of supercomputers from the future just to efficiently produce any kind of work... that's pretty silly, to say the least.
But, let's just say for the sake of argument, maybe if you need to squeeze every last drop of money out of your precious seconds of work time it may be worth investing in the most powerful hardware available. But for a -gamer- to justify paying that price by saying "you can do other things with it too!", that's complete bullshit.
@Bobby S.: "but if you bring up ludicrous points than I have no choice but counter you with other points that will probably upset and cause you to further reply which gets into a fanboy war."
Haha wow, you flatter yourself too much.
eldee @ Jun 11th 2008 2:42AM
Software is upgraded, Hardware is upgraded. You *USED* to do print-resolution stuff with that system. Keep in mind the past tense here.. The market has evolved, and the envelope is constantly being pushed. And before you start bitching about that- keep in mind it was PC hardware (and it's enthusiasts) that made all of the consoles you enjoy possible. Every single one of them is built off of technologies that were birthed on PC's, and every one of the games you play on said console were programmed on a PC.
So before you assume that the only reason people need a PC is to run MS Office, keep in mind that not everybody works in an Office Max print shop.
bm @ Jun 11th 2008 3:12AM
Since you keep talking about professional requirements, I assume you realize that when you're -really- looking for the best machine for the job, a gaming PC often isn't even suited for those purposes. Look up the differences between regular 3D cards and Nvidia's Quadro line for example.
But I don't feel like taking this conversation in different directions any further. You fail to respond to my main point, which is that it's ridiculous for a gamer to use as an argument for PC gaming the side benefits of the hardware, which are available in every single household PC, which is as common as washing machines this day and age. You might as well tell people "this console is better because it does my laundry too".
...wait, I may be on to something here...
Jhongerkong @ Jun 10th 2008 10:34PM
PC gaming is dead?
Tell that to Korea
Ninjakamster (PS360 FTW!) @ Jun 10th 2008 10:44PM
Well, their happy still playing a 10 year old game. ; )
Ninjakamster (PS360 FTW!) @ Jun 10th 2008 10:45PM
Stupid smiley getting chopped in half!
Now if PC gaming is dying, there's few sales compared to console games, etc etc etc, then why are more console games coming to PC? I'm not complaining but wondering why?
J.Goodwin @ Jun 10th 2008 10:45PM
And yet, Nvidia is hedging their bets with integrated transition entry-level/mobile processors.
In 5 years, where is their money coming from?
colin @ Jun 10th 2008 11:04PM
forgot to mention the GTS refresh that fits above GT and below GTX.
GX2>GTX>GTS>GT>GTS>GS in single card scenarios.
In tri-SLI, I believe 3 9800GTX's outbench 2 9800GX2's in quad-SLI
John McPoop (PSN:johnnynumber5) @ Jun 10th 2008 11:19PM
My big problem with PC gaming is the expense of a true high end system that will last the test of time (2 years). I like consoles because they actually last a long time. Not to mention they are more affordable. The line is becoming blurred with gaming console and entertainment PC. The PS3 is really a high end entertainment PC at an affordable price. Obviously a high end PC will allow you yo get work done as well as play but PC's don't really cut it for me anyway. I have 2 macs one with XP if I need to get something done on a PC. However, for work I use an HP all in one desktop and an HP tablet PC. I have the eeePC for road trips and the portability when I need them in the field.
Oh hell I forgot the point I was making ... Building a top of the line gaming rig is not practical for everyone especially with the flexibility of these modern consoles ...
PunchyMcJunk @ Jun 11th 2008 1:23AM
What every console gamer seems to forget is the $500-600 piece of $#!+ PC that they have in their house to check their e-mail and write their term papers on. The cost of the console and the POS PC are equal to or greater than the cost of one extremely high end gaming PC.
Not to mention the software is cheaper, the graphics are often better, the sound is awesome, you get free custom maps and mods, great chat and voice options... plus you can listen to your own MP3s while you game.
You have almost unlimited control schemes for every game, as opposed to the default controller options and limitations. Like the precision of a mouse? Bingo. Want your favorite flight stick? Steering Wheel? game pad? You got it.
And yet nobody mentions the ratty-@$$ PC in the office that can barely run MS Office, yet still cost the household $600.00.
I'm not ragging on you. I love console gaming too. It's just naive for people to say PC gaming is dead and that it is too expensive... HOGWASH!
Tim The Enchanter @ Jun 11th 2008 10:32AM
Agreed. I love PC gaming but it's just not financially viable for me to keep up. With Consoles, I'll have the same one for 2+ years.
And for productivity, my IPAQ/Blackberry do alot of the email, for the rest I have a decent PC and an Ibook.
I use my PC(laptop actually) and my Mac for studio recording. Multi-tracking while plugging in all kinds of effects can be demanding, but I don't find that I need anything more than what I have. So I prefer to keep the consoles for gaming.
Tim The Enchanter @ Jun 11th 2008 10:39AM
And of course, that was meant as a reply to John.
colin @ Jun 10th 2008 11:31PM
@ Highfivejesus,
you should be folding @ home on that 1900, currently the ATI GPU client is optimized for the 1900 series, putting the most powerful quad-core processors to shame.
MuToiD_MaN @ Jun 10th 2008 11:33PM
I spent $2k on a PC that was near top-of-the-line about 18 months ago. While games like Crysis have come along and insulted my machine, I was still able to play those games at what I would still call decent detail level at 1080P. Having said that, I still can't justify the cost of building an up-to-date rig without calling it a "hobby." Consoles are just a better cash-to-fun ratio and that's why it's so attractive.
colin @ Jun 10th 2008 11:41PM
Did you buy it for 2000 or build it for 2000? Theres a sliding scale of cost vs. performance on both levels. Right now you could spend $5000 buying the best components out there to build a p.c. You could also spend $1000 on carefully researched components and come very close to the performance of that $5000 computer for 1/5th of the price.