Jump to content

Nvidia: "PC platform is far superior to any console"


HarmonicEmotions

Recommended Posts

In an interview with MCV, Nvidia's Matt Wright has posited that there's a third option for a new gaming machine, and that it's the far superior choice: the PC.

In the midst of the PS4 and Xbox One frenzy this month, Nvidia has released some smaller, more living-room friendly PCs for the Christmas period. "We are proposing small form-factor PCs to be a viable alternative to the next-gen consoles," said Wright. "Enthusiast players want the ultimate games system and that is the PC."

“The PC platform is far superior to any console when it comes to gaming...

The message from the firm is that the choice this year shouldn't just be between PS4 and Xbox One. "The PC platform is far superior to any console when it comes to gaming, plus you get all the extra functionality that a computer brings," he says. "Steam now has more users than Xbox Live... There’s a huge community who love playing their games on PC.”

There is potentially a whole new generation of PC players coming to market, says Wright - whilst most twenty-somethings today grew up with consoles, many kids now are playing games like Minecraft and World of Tanks on PC, proving that the barriers to entry aren't as high as people may fear. "We want to make PC gaming as simple as possible and we think that it already becoming much more relevant and appealing to casual gamers."

Of course, high-end PCs are also vastly more expensive than any console, too, which I'd imagine would be a key factor for anyone considering what gaming system to buy. I'd have a new gaming PC, a PS4 and an Xbox One if I could, but I'd be eating beans three times a day for the next four years to pay for it.

Source: http://au.ign.com/articles/2013/11/29/pc-is-far-superior-for-gaming-says-nvidia

Saw this article and was kind of annoyed at what was said. Found it quite a stuck-up thing to say. This is the 3rd time Nvidia have randomly come out and bashed consoles while stating that PC is the best is a very blatant way.

So, thoughts on this?

Edited by HarmonicEmotions
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from stating the bleeding obvious in terms of raw grunt, this has more to do with AMD powering both the XB1 and the PS4 than Nvidia espousing the virtues of PC gaming.

Nvidia has teamed up with Valve to power the Steam Machines, which itself will be an under-powered gaming PC. So it's kinda the pot calling the kettle black.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that fact widespread. Hook up your PC to your TV and save the money.

 

My PC wont play new games at a respectable level at 1080p like the PS4 would.

If I bought a PC that matched a PS4, it would firstly cost more and secondly developers wouldnt optimise their games for it as long as they will with PS4.

 

on top of that I would have to put up with all the hackers that cant get banned from windows like they would on XBL or PSN, and to use the dualshock with a PC, I would need special drivers and even after that it wouldnt function properly (i tried it with BF3 on PC, sprint doesnt work like it should).

 

Finally, how am I going to get uncharted, the last of us , gran turismo, killzone, drive club and all the other PS exclusives running on a PC regardless of how much money I throw at it?

If I enjoyed mmo's and rts I would get a PC but those genres are not for me. I prefer action games and shooters (without aimbots and wallhackers) and I find those better on consoles which is why i switched from PC gaming.

 

no-one in the history of mankind has denied PC's (not all of them) are more powerful than consoles. Power does matter, it matters a lot, but not at the expense of a good gaming experience.

 

If MS controls PC gaming like they control the Xbox, I would consider it, but thats never going to happen because windows is far too open compared to the xbox. Its the same reason why PS3 had to ditch linux support, it opens doors to hackers which compromises the online gaming environment for everyone else.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, a good gaming pc costs loads of money

and second, a controller is much better than a mouse

If a controller is much better than a keyboard and mouse then why haven't all pc gamers bought a controller to use with their games? The Dualshock 3 works perfectly with a pc. Given that, the keyboard and mouse must have some advantages over the controller which keeps pc gamers using it as their preferred method of play.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While really gaming on Linux is still a pipedream, all you have to do is look at which of NVIDIA or ATI/AMD are embracing it, to see who is on what side.  AMD console, NVIDIA PC.  This attitude isn't too surprising.

 

 

Nvidia has teamed up with Valve to power the Steam Machines, which itself will be an under-powered gaming PC. So it's kinda the pot calling the kettle black.

 

I haven't read the article but based on the quotes in the OP, I think they're praising the PC moreso for it's versatility than it's power.  Of which even your basic, lowest tier, Windows PC streaming "Steam Machine" has in spades... so I wouldn't jump on the hypocrite train too quickly.  Not to mention that they're clearly talking about the gaming on PC in general, and not necessarily their future endeavors in it.

 

 

 

First of all, a good gaming pc costs loads of money

and second, a controller is much better than a mouse

 

A controller is better than a mouse?  For what?  Certainly not RTS's, MMO's and any shooter ever made.

Edited by Dreakon13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While really gaming on Linux is still a pipedream, all you have to do is look at which of NVIDIA or ATI/AMD are embracing it, to see who is on what side.  AMD console, NVIDIA PC.  This attitude isn't too surprising.

 

 

 

I haven't read the article but based on the quotes in the OP, I think they're praising the PC moreso for it's versatility than it's power.  Of which even your basic, lowest tier, Windows PC streaming "Steam Machine" has in spades... so I wouldn't jump on the hypocrite train too quickly.  Not to mention that they're clearly talking about the gaming on PC in general, and not necessarily their future endeavors in it.

 

 

 

 

A controller is better than a mouse?  For what?  Certainly not RTS's, MMO's and any shooter ever made.

 

Racing, hack and slash, platformers among others. I much prefer a controller to a mouse and keyboard for everything but RTS's and MMO's. 

 

 

Parker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Racing, hack and slash, platformers among others. I much prefer a controller to a mouse and keyboard for everything but RTS's and MMO's. 

 

 

Parker

 

I agree actually, that's why I have a few Xbox 360 gamepads laying around for when I play games like that on the PC.  That being said... a sweeping statement that one is better than the other in all situations is preposterous.

 

Though I will say the difference between a gamepad and mouse/keyboard for shooters is insane.  Moreso than any other genre, I'd have to think.  I never actually beat Max Payne 3 on the console I got so frustrated, on the PC I beat it without breaking a sweat.  And I wasn't even a "PC gamer" at the time, I'd just built my first gaming PC in roughly a decade.  I was far more acclimated with the gamepad.  And I know, diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, but I'm a believer.

Edited by Dreakon13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nvidia can think what it likes, when I choose to game I'm still going for a gaming console because it's simpler. With a console, I can pull any PS3 game off a shelf, put it in a PS3, and (barring any developer errors) it will work at its advertised speed and graphic capacity. On a PC, I'll have to pull it off the shelf and scrutinize the system requirements to determine if my computer can even run it and if it can't then what additional software and hardware I need to make it run. Screw that. I've gamed quite a bit on PC and I still prefer gaming consoles.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nvidia can think what it likes, when I choose to game I'm still going for a gaming console because it's simpler. With a console, I can pull any PS3 game off a shelf, put it in a PS3, and (barring any developer errors) it will work at its advertised speed and graphic capacity. On a PC, I'll have to pull it off the shelf and scrutinize the system requirements to determine if my computer can even run it and if it can't then what additional software and hardware I need to make it run. Screw that. I've gamed quite a bit on PC and I still prefer gaming consoles.

 

On the PC, you don't even need to pull anything off of a shelf.  Steam library, baby. ;)  If you built your PC, and have some basic grasp of your specs and the hardware that's out there, there isn't much "scrutinizing" you need to do.  You know what your system can handle, and you probably know the best way to get it where you need it to be.  If you didn't build your PC or did it in such a way that you didn't retain any of that helpful knowledge you gained while researching it, then yeah, I guess you'd probably be a little oblivious.  It shouldn't be treated as a bad thing to actually know a thing or two about that expensive piece of hardware you're using every day.

 

I can appreciate the simplicity of a console, but lets not pretend that Skyrim on the PS3 never happened and they "just work" every time.  An average PC port of a broken game works better on a well-built, well-maintained PC than a broken game does on console.

Edited by Dreakon13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the article but based on the quotes in the OP, I think they're praising the PC moreso for it's versatility than it's power.  Of which even your basic, lowest tier, Windows PC streaming "Steam Machine" has in spades... so I wouldn't jump on the hypocrite train too quickly.  Not to mention that they're clearly talking about the gaming on PC in general, and not necessarily their future endeavors in it.

 

Nvidia doesn't care about versatility, they care about marketshare of which they currently have 0% on console. It's in their vested interest to bash consoles.

And I agree, even the low-end Steam Machines *should* beat the pants off of a next-gen console. The problem however is they're starting from scratch and the current Linux-supported Steam library is abysmal. That won't stop me from buying one though - I'm done with Windows and the PC upgrade circle-jerk. The only reason I own a PC is for my legacy Steam game collection.

 

 

A controller is better than a mouse?  For what?  Certainly not RTS's, MMO's and any shooter ever made.

 

Testify brother.

 

On the PC, you don't even need to pull anything off of a shelf.  Steam library, baby. ;)  If you built your PC, and have some basic grasp of your specs and the hardware that's out there, there isn't much "scrutinizing" you need to do.

 

Ah yeah, there is.

 

Try running Bioshock via Steam on a PC on an Nvidia SLi configuration with Creative X-FI soundcard. It's high-end gear, so theoretically it should be well supported. However, the audio drivers don't work so there's no sound, video drivers are jittery so the framerate is unplayable, permissions need to be amended to some weird backwards-compatible config to get the game to boot and tweaking is absolutely necessary if you run anything but a vanilla PC build. 

 

None of that is necessary on a console - pop in the disc and the game works, regardless of whether Bethesda sucks at console ports or not. That's why I play my games on console these days and it has nothing to do with ineptitude or unfamiliarity with hardware components on my part. When I need to spend more time hunting for compatible drivers, scouring forums for similar issues and reinstalling Windows to get that game to run on PC than it takes to complete the single-player campaign, there's definitely a problem. And that problem is not mine, it's PC gaming.

Edited by ant1th3s1s
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC is indeed the best platform to run games when it comes to performace. I believe that much should be obvious.

 

It's also easier to play certain types of games with mouse and keyboard, sure.

 

BUT

 

A good gaming pc goes into the 1000 euros, dollars, GBP, whatever..., it needs to be upgraded consistently to keep running new games.

 

What consoles are most fun for is not possible with a pc, not at the same level at least, which is couch co-op. (Yes you can have a Lan-party, still not the same thing, not by a mile...)

 

At the end of the line, they're completely different for intents and purposes, Which makes the argument which is better completely pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah yeah, there is.

 

Try running Bioshock via Steam on a PC on an Nvidia SLi configuration with Creative X-FI soundcard. It's high-end gear, so theoretically it should be well supported. However, the audio drivers don't work so there's no sound, video drivers are jittery so the framerate is unplayable, permissions need to be amended to some weird backwards-compatible config to get the game to boot and tweaking is absolutely necessary if you run anything but a vanilla PC build. 

 

None of that is necessary on a console - pop in the disc and the game works, regardless of whether Bethesda sucks at console ports or not. That's why I play my games on console these days and it has nothing to do with ineptitude or unfamiliarity with hardware components on my part. When I need to spend more time hunting for compatible drivers, scouring forums for similar issues and reinstalling Windows to get that game to run on PC than it takes to complete the single-player campaign, there's definitely a problem. And that problem is not mine, it's PC gaming.

 

To be fair, try running a retail copy of Bioshock on a PS4 and let me know how well that disc you popped in works.

 

I bet that PC you had when you bought Bioshock originally, and played it on the highest resolution at 60fps, probably could've handled any game that came out this generation well enough (kinda like a PS3)... but you had to go build a new PC, a fancy one with that newfangled two video-card kajigger you heard all the kids talking about.  It was supposed to be slicker, and faster, and more feature packed than your old machine (kinda like a PS4).  Turn on Steam to download Bioshock, only to find out it isn't backwards compatible. :(

 

...

 

You have a valid point though, complex PC builds can cause issues.  You wouldn't expect it to, being the latest and greatest, but you do find issues.  Especially with legacy support.  Crossfire and SLI are way more trouble than they are good right now, so honestly I'm not sure why people willingly go that route (probably a similar mindset of people who willingly drop Windows now for an operating system like Linux, at least from a gaming perspective).  And maybe I'm on an island here, but I personally don't see a need for anything more elaborate than the onboard sound chipset as well.  Some people might though.  Keep it simple if you don't like risks, or doing research.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with keeping your PC build simple.

Edited by Dreakon13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...