It's impossible for next-gen consoles to match PC

Updated:05:42 PM CEST Sep,21

NEWS / RSS
CHEATS

REVIEWS

ARTICLES

HARDWARE

DEMOS

FORUMS

LINKS (new)

66 lottery login

91 club

okwin

bdg game

55 club

CONTACT

Please e-mail us if you have news.

Gameguru Mania News - Feb,18 2013 -

It's impossible for next-gen consoles to match PC - tech
(hx) 03:04 PM CET - Feb,18 2013 - Post a comment / read (9)
Crytek boss Cevat Yerli told Eurogamer it's impossible for consoles to match the performance of a powerful PC. Crytek boss Cevat Yerli, restricted by non-disclosure agreements with both Microsoft and Sony, told Eurogamer Crysis 3 running on a powerful PC looks better than next-generation games due to be announced. Indeed, he said it is "impossible" for consoles to match gaming PCs.

The chief reason behind this, Yerli said, is cost.

"Without breaking NDAs that are in place, realistically, from purely a price point perspective, it is impossible.

"It's impossible to package $2000-3000 into a mainstream, let's say $500 console. I'm not saying they are $500 consoles. They may launch a console at $2000, but the consumer pricing is usually much lower than that.

"So, given consumer pricing, and given the cost of production of a gamer PC and the amount of watt of power it needs, which is like a fridge, it's impossible."

last 10 comments:

djnforce9

(04:33 PM CET - Feb,18 2013 )

I knew this already. For one thing, PC's are constantly getting better technologically whereas consoles only take a leap every have a decade. Secondly, you cannot possibly except a $400-$500 box to compete with a multi thousand dollar gaming PC.

You pay far more for a higher gaming PC and it lasts you a lot longer (thereby offseting the extra cost in relation to usage) while giving you a better playing experience AND being fully backward compatible with previous generations of games.

Csimbi

(04:43 PM CET - Feb,18 2013 )

@djnforce9
Dunno about that.
Some gaming PCs are cheap as ass - provided that you take the time to build them.
No need for much RAM and good CPU: 4G and a dual-core will do (as you can overclock).
Same with the motherboard: a small ITX board with a single PCI-E slot is fine.
The largest investment is the video card. A 150$card will do - GTX650 or GTX660.
So, you can get 1080p HD gaming for $600.
Very much in the competition range.

But I agree, still consoles will never be able to compete with the PC - for PC parts you can swap and PCs do not limit you in any way.

Those 2000$ PCs you speak of - those are not gamers, those are geeks, pros and enthusiasts with a lot of money.

Apathy Curve	(04:51 PM CET - Feb,18 2013 )
Filed under: Blatantly Obvious Statements

Csimbi	(04:53 PM CET - Feb,18 2013 )
Apathy Curve> Filed under: Blatantly Obvious Statements Yeah, I wonder how much he's paid for stating the obvious. I wish I could get a job like that.

Sabot

(06:02 PM CET - Feb,18 2013 )

What a plank! He just stated the difference between a Porsche and a ford... If money was no object we would ALL have one!!!
There's very few gamers out there shovelling 2k into a gaming machine, so there's very,very few that will be looking at visuals that he's bumping his gums about... Maybe in a couple years when the hardware is classed as 'yesterday's' but this is always the case. No one plays a PC that has every bit of hardware that is brought out weekly, fitted to it.
I've just built a lovely rig for about 750-800 but I wouldn't go pumping cash into it. Did all that for about 15years, every Xmas spending easily 1200-1500. Then I smelt the coffee!
Visuals are hardly much to write about in gaming today, I have Far Cry 3 which has brilliant visuals and i can play on full settings, but the majority of games on PC are very average graphics wise. They hardly make use of dx11 features. They certainly haven't exactly leaped forward!
Crisis 3 is a game stuck in its own world, it certainly isn't the norm.
Gameplay always wins over visuals.
Cevat should be more concerned about making it playable for sales sake, rather than boasting about shallow facts.
I can play it easily on my system, but not full visuals, but guess what? I'm not exactly jumping thrilled at Crysis 3, cause I'm bored of the same old......
So stick that in yer pipe cevat and smoke it
:lol:

Kompressor	(07:08 PM CET - Feb,18 2013 )
Something like a Ford GT and a Porsche has comparable performance, so I don't see your point in respect to Ford and Porsche.

tiamat

(07:30 PM CET - Feb,18 2013 )

Stumpus> I have Far Cry 3 which has brilliant visuals and i can play on full settings, but the majority of games on PC are very average graphics wise. They hardly make use of dx11 features. They certainly haven't exactly leaped forward!

The main reason for this is because the majority of PC games are developed primarily for consoles. As the xbox is weakest in terms of power everything is stuck in that era and the PC ports are just not improved in any way. Take The Witcher 2 for example which was developed for PC and made most other games look pretty poor in comparison visually. I haven't seen the xbox port but I can guarantee it is a second class experience as they had to crank the visuals way down just get get a reasonable frame rate.

Penetreitor	(09:00 PM CET - Feb,18 2013 )
Consoles are just for kids, o people that doesn't know how to use a computer...

Sabot	(09:35 PM CET - Feb,18 2013 )
Kompressor> Something like a Ford GT and a Porsche has comparable performance, so I don't see your point in respect to Ford and Porsche. Ok let's be annal, a Ford Escort was my comparison. I didn't say Ford GT didn't I ? Neither did I need to since I didn't say a Porsche cayenne s... :roll: