Play.tm/Weekly Blend interview Pete Hines

[Ar.Pi]

People just astound me how much they live in the past.

Moester, didn't you see what i write 2 posts before yours?

I just proved that you can build a PC that is better (much better) than console. RETAIL! not used!

Yes you need to build it yourself. But i saw some deals from cyberpower or other OEM's that offer similar budget GAMING PC's for approximately the same price you can build it yourself.

and wtf is "programing" you refer to? It takes me to install windows and optimize everything the way i want in 1.5 hours and it's ready to do my bidding! So it takes about a day to get the build and next day its all ready (one of the favorite things for me about getting a new comp is building it, so i dunno what is the problem if it takes "so long" to start playing, wow big deal).

And no you don't have to upgrade it next year! It will last you good 2-3 years with maximum FPS (aside from games like Crysis).

we didn't start talking about that nasty problem that X-Box been having that could last you several weeks of waiting to get a new box. (dunno if the problem is still there, not into consoles).

What are you talking about live in the past? Dude, I've build PCs too, and while you might enjoy it, there is a significant portion of the world that doesn't...and those people represent about 95% of the budget gamers.

You're saying that the machine you're talking about would be good for shooters for 2-3 years...sure as long as you turn half of the graphics off...No problem, you can run max FPS. Show me a three year old PC that was built using budget pieces that will play a game like Mass Effect with graphics and resolutions comparable to the XBOX 360. Because that's what you're saying can happen. In 3 years, spending the same money, your PC will still be better than the 360 and will be able to play the same game at the same speed and resolutions.

We are talking about current time. If you build a PC now, it will last you for 2-3 years with maximum settings on most games. Obviously in 2 years you won't be able to run it with full blown AA at mega resolution but it will always look better than on Console.

Now, my good friend, i took the time and picked up (fairly quickly) a budget gaming PC:

http://secure.newegg.com/Shopping/ShoppingCart.aspx?Submit=view

546$ total (+20$ MIR for 4850).

Shipping came to 9$ for me. Tax you say? (you do live in the past), its a good thing we have internet retailers so we can avoid these taxes. And if you live in California (Newegg tax) then just choose different site (there are plenty good ones), thats what i did when Newegg decided to charge NY TAX. You also have to pay Tax for Console no?

This comp will give you high FPS and much more eye candy than Xbox.


You say 95% don't like to build? no problem:

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/Mega_Special_III/

Cost a bit more, but still can be configured for a budget GAMING PC.

Beelzebud, word.

 

[junkevil]

Steam has on several occasions refused to load for me without a re-start (in offline mode as well).

I don't know why, and i don't particulary care either, steam can go fuck itself.

sorry that you suck. i've had steam for years, and while i have seen some glitches with it through time, i have never had that issue. i assume you needed to kill a process maybe?

PROTIP: you might consider pressing ctrl+alt+del and going to the task manager next time. looking for the steam process and killing it. then try reloading the software. still, i haven't seen that issue with steam but it happens to me with firefox about once a week.

 

[PaladinHeart]

The new Bionic Commando game sets out to do just that. ... It's done by ... PC developers, but is going to be a PC/X360/PS3 game...

Thanks for letting me know. I loved the original Bionic Commando (the NES version, not the arcade version.. eck!). It was one of the best adventure games of its time.

As for the PC vs X-Box 360 discussion.. well console buyers will have to upgrade to the X-Box 720 in just a few years. It's not like they're going to just stop. They're always making meaningless and unnecessary graphical hardware updates. The PS3 is nice, but they don't even know how to take full advantage of the hardware yet other than high definition cut scenes and uber graphics. The console systems may be cheaper, but you can't really upgrade them to play the new games, even if they could have been made to play on your current console (Halo 3 anyone?).

 

[Moester]

People just astound me how much they live in the past.

Moester, didn't you see what i write 2 posts before yours?

I just proved that you can build a PC that is better (much better) than console. RETAIL! not used!

Yes you need to build it yourself. But i saw some deals from cyberpower or other OEM's that offer similar budget GAMING PC's for approximately the same price you can build it yourself.

and wtf is "programing" you refer to? It takes me to install windows and optimize everything the way i want in 1.5 hours and it's ready to do my bidding! So it takes about a day to get the build and next day its all ready (one of the favorite things for me about getting a new comp is building it, so i dunno what is the problem if it takes "so long" to start playing, wow big deal).

And no you don't have to upgrade it next year! It will last you good 2-3 years with maximum FPS (aside from games like Crysis).

we didn't start talking about that nasty problem that X-Box been having that could last you several weeks of waiting to get a new box. (dunno if the problem is still there, not into consoles).

What are you talking about live in the past? Dude, I've build PCs too, and while you might enjoy it, there is a significant portion of the world that doesn't...and those people represent about 95% of the budget gamers.

You're saying that the machine you're talking about would be good for shooters for 2-3 years...sure as long as you turn half of the graphics off...No problem, you can run max FPS. Show me a three year old PC that was built using budget pieces that will play a game like Mass Effect with graphics and resolutions comparable to the XBOX 360. Because that's what you're saying can happen. In 3 years, spending the same money, your PC will still be better than the 360 and will be able to play the same game at the same speed and resolutions.

We are talking about current time. If you build a PC now, it will last you for 2-3 years with maximum settings on most games. Obviously in 2 years you won't be able to run it with full blown AA at mega resolution but it will always look better than on Console.

Now, my good friend, i took the time and picked up (fairly quickly) a budget gaming PC:

http://secure.newegg.com/Shopping/ShoppingCart.aspx?Submit=view

546$ total (+20$ MIR for 4850).

Shipping came to 9$ for me. Tax you say? (you do live in the past), its a good thing we have internet retailers so we can avoid these taxes. And if you live in California (Newegg tax) then just choose different site (there are plenty good ones), thats what i did when Newegg decided to charge NY TAX. You also have to pay Tax for Console no?

This comp will give you high FPS and much more eye candy than Xbox.


You say 95% don't like to build? no problem:

http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/system/Mega_Special_III/

Cost a bit more, but still can be configured for a budget GAMING PC.

Beelzebud, word.

I couldn't see what the first link was, but the second PC was still $635 without a monitor. And I've played PC games full res, compared to a PS3 or XBOX 360 with HDMI cables...not much difference anymore.

Besides, I love how you can predict the future...PCs have been becoming obsolete every two years or so since the dawn of time...but for the next two years it won't happen because you say so...Show me ONE unbiased article stating that fact and I will concede that I was wrong.

Besides, that "super deal" doesn't even have a 500 Watt power supply. The motherboard is pretty iffy...Biostar has a pretty hit and miss reputation. I don't consider 512MB of ram on a video card a "gaming card" The standard nowadays is pretty much 1GB HD and optical drives are more than acceptable...but that's not where you spend lots anyways. And at 2GB or ram, you're right at the limit if you run Vista...Its ok with XP though. But assuming that you want your PC to run for 3 years without problems you'll have to get Vista.

Basically, I would pump an extra $200-250 in parts to make it a machine that can run games at an accepable speed. Add a decent monitor, speakers, sound and network card to remove board load, and you've got a decent system. Not the best mind you, but decent. You're looking at close to $1300.00 That's 130% over budget. And WAY more than the $500 you were talking about.

Look, I get that you like PCs, but consoles are popular for a reason...And not all people who play consoles are idiots. Many of them know their stuff when its comes to PCs. But when you want to play games without having to upgrade every year or so to keep up to specs; you have to go console.

 

[Ar.Pi]

Besides, I love how you can predict the future...PCs have been becoming obsolete every two years or so since the dawn of time...but for the next two years it won't happen because you say so...Show me ONE unbiased article stating that fact and I will concede that I was wrong.

Obsolete? I have a 4 years old system and the only thing i need to upgrade in it is the graphic card (go for 3850,its AGP) and i'll run most games on medium-max settings on 1280X1024 res. I hardly see it as obsolete. The system i listed above will last 2 years without any problems. Then just need, maybe, to upgrade GPU.

I don't consider 512MB of ram on a video card a "gaming card" The standard nowadays is pretty much 1GB

If you think that the most important factor of a gaming card is the amount of RAM, than you have no idea what you are talking about. Only very few games will have a bit of improvement due to the huge textures that needs to be loaded.
Go check some benchmarks of 4850. This card can run COD4 at 1920X1200 with 4AA and 16AF with 55FPS average.
That is couple of generations over console. a 4850 with 1GB RAM will yield 1-3 FPS more in most games and maybe 5 more in few.

And at 2GB or ram, you're right at the limit if you run Vista...Its ok with XP though. But assuming that you want your PC to run for 3 years without problems you'll have to get Vista.

WHY? for DX10? no thanks. By that time Windows 7 will be available with DX11.

Basically, I would pump an extra $200-250 in parts to make it a machine that can run games at an accepable speed. Add a decent monitor, speakers, sound and network card to remove board load, and you've got a decent system. Not the best mind you, but decent. You're looking at close to $1300.00 That's 130% over budget. And WAY more than the $500 you were talking about.

Hey, we are talking budget here! I, obviously won't buy this comp, because i'm enthusiast. But if i want something cheap and more powerful than Console (that's the discussion here) i'll get that system i mentioned above. And that system is going to work flawlessly.

Look, I get that you like PCs, but consoles are popular for a reason...And not all people who play consoles are idiots. Many of them know their stuff when its comes to PCs. But when you want to play games without having to upgrade every year or so to keep up to specs; you have to go console.

Of course they are not. But from what you say i start to understand that you talk about non tech-savvy people that will just go to their local electronic franchise and see that "gaming" pc's just cost too much and will opt for console. And although there are plenty of knowledgeable people using Consoles, i think the majority are clueless/not tech-aware or just kids.

You know, i start to realize that that's why many previous PC titles are dumbed down. Publishers just trying to appeal and adjust to the mass market.

Well, if you know about computers, you can buy now a PC that is both cheap and powerful.

It wasn't used to be like that. When consoles just arrived, it would cost much more to build a PC capable of console power. But, like i said, its the past! You can buy now a graphic card for 150$ that would have cost 500$ 4 years ago. Not talking about all the other huge price drops in CPU and RAM, but GPU is whats most important when it comes to games.

 

[beverageleverage]

Besides, I love how you can predict the future...PCs have been becoming obsolete every two years or so since the dawn of time...but for the next two years it won't happen because you say so...Show me ONE unbiased article stating that fact and I will concede that I was wrong.

You need an article to tell you whether something is true or not? If you had any experience you would know how much you are exaggerating. Maybe your only experience is with prebuilt computers you have bought from bestbuy or whatever retail store is closest to you?

I don't consider 512MB of ram on a video card a "gaming card" The standard nowadays is pretty much 1GB

You don't have any idea what you are talking about.

Just because prices go down doesn't mean something is obsolete. Only fools think they must pay thousands of dollars for a "gaming pc." Go to newegg, tigerdirect, buy.com, etc and you can see for yourself how much it will cost. If you are still unable to understand that is unnecessary to spend over $1000 then you are only seeing what you want to see. For your $1000 figure you can probably even go to DELL and get a pc that is better than a console.

 

[Black]

PCs have been becoming obsolete every two years or so since the dawn of time...

That's cool, I guess I'm not sitting in the front of a 3 year old PC (and I only bought additional RAM for pocket money) and enjoying new games. Please, enlighten me some more about my PC that I'm currently using.

 

[Xenophile]

Wow...

An arguement about which is better was NOT what I intended when I posted those stats...

For myself I purchased the PC version of Fallout 3.

What I meant to show is that the market has shifted signifigantly, while someone pointed out WOW revenue.. yes that game has pulled buttloads of revenue in for Blizzard. But outside of a game where you can pull in $10-20 a month per active subscriber, it is becoming increasingly harder to pour large amounts of resources into a PC game and still make a decent profit unless you have a market hit. Also WOW sales were box sales were a huge portion of that figure in that I quoted.. it was the 2 of the top 3 spots if I remember correctly.

I do think it is possible, don't get me wrong, but I understand why you are seeing more games built on third-party multi-platform frameworks.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Steam has on several occasions refused to load for me without a re-start (in offline mode as well).

I don't know why, and i don't particulary care either, steam can go fuck itself.

Indeed, I have no love for Steam. Steam is a resource hog which offers nothing that any web browser can't accomplish. If I want to buy a game online I can just go to the developer's website (assuming they support downloadable products) and do so, it's nothing special and Steam does it no better. Steam is also always running and eating up resources, resources which I would rather have devoted to the game and not some elaborate DLC software. Not to mention that you can't play Steam games without an internet connection which does happen, especially with laptops.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

Not to mention that you can't play Steam games without an internet connection which does happen, especially with laptops.

I'm going to assume you're talking out of your ass and have never actually tried playing your steam games without an internet connection, because it asks you if you'd like to start steam in OFFLINE MODE.

 

[PaladinHeart]

My Steam is only using 24,148 K at this moment. Firefox is using 100,648 K. Then again, I also have YouTube in another window.. (for music). But anyways.. I don't think 24,248 K is all that much for these days, especially considering Windows Vista is much worst monster. And yes, I do have Vista. I had to get a new graphics card to run Vista better... because the better graphics card was cheaper than Windows XP... (the computer had Vista already installed)

And if Steam does bother me (never happens but sometimes I close it just in case it miiiiight be hogging some memory I need), I just right click the little icon and close it. It's a great tool but I'll never actually use it to purchase a virtual copy of a game.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Not to mention that you can't play Steam games without an internet connection which does happen, especially with laptops.

I'm going to assume you're talking out of your ass and have never actually tried playing your steam games without an internet connection, because it asks you if you'd like to start steam in OFFLINE MODE.

I haven't tried in a few years, no, but it didn't used to let you. Granted, I've used Steam since 1.6 was still in beta and dealt with enough of it's problems that I avoid it like the plague. Regardless, it still eats up resources and still doesn't offer anything not already available through a web browser.

 

[ArmorB]

Offline mode is a lie, it still access the internet before proceeding. Or at least it tries. But you can kill your LAN connection and it will work properly, it just takes longer as it tries to connect and eventually fails and then opens the game.

 

[Moester]

PCs have been becoming obsolete every two years or so since the dawn of time...

That's cool, I guess I'm not sitting in the front of a 3 year old PC (and I only bought additional RAM for pocket money) and enjoying new games. Please, enlighten me some more about my PC that I'm currently using.

I'm not saying that you're not. But here's the question, can you play every game that's come out last year at max FPS? Did you spend more than $1000 for the whole system including monitor and software at the time? If you plunk down $400 on a video card, then sure it'll last you 3-4 years...but that's more than the price of the 360, and most of the price of a PS3.

"budget gaming PCs" came out with 1GB of ram back in those days and most could offer you 2GB if you were willing to spend and extra few hundred bucks.

The fact is that if you invest in a good machine it can keep you in the top end for 3-4 years and in the middle of the pack for another 2-3...but you're talking today's top of the line pretty much. When you're talking budget PC even with the best available parts chances are that your system won't be able to run today's powerhouse games.

Take Mass Effect for example. Granted the PC version looks better, the graphics on a HDMI XBOX are REALLY nice, and just a step under a PC IMO

Minimum System Requirements for Mass Effect on the PC

Operating System:
Windows XP or Vista

Processor:
2.4+GHZ Intel or 2.0+GHZ AMD

Memory:
1 Gigabyte Ram (XP)
2 Gigabyte Ram (Vista)

Video Card:
NVIDIA GeForce 6 series(6800GT or better)
ATI 1300XT or better (X1550, X1600 Pro and HD2400 are below minimum system requirements)

Hard Drive Space:
12 Gigabytes

Sound Card:
DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card and drivers

That's minimum...not reccomended. Sure a three year old PC can run those requirements...but not at max FPS, not even at the same level a 360 does. Would 3 years' ago budget game PC be able to play that? Maybe...maybe not. Would a top end machine from 3 years ago? Sure...but just PC in of itself would have cost you over $1000. For someone Saavy who can assemble the kit himself you're talking about $1200-1300 for the hardware to run this game well three years ago.

I'm NOT bashing PCs, but I do think that consoles are the new Budget PCs. They have a cost/quality ratio that PCs just can't match with a small inital investment. There is no way that a console can match a top-end PC even when they're both brand new.

Consoles will never replace PCs, nor will they ever replace them as the premier gaming machines. But when it comes to simplicity, ease of use and cost...consoles can't be beat.


On the other hand you can get an XBOX 360 or a PS3 for under $1000 including a television...although with the PS3 you'll probably be more in the $1200 range that will absolutely play every game the system has without a problem for the next 3-4 years.

 

[Ar.Pi]

But here's the question, can you play every game that's come out last year at max FPS?

A game has to be played with about 40FPS average to be pretty smooth. For some it's about 60...

If you plunk down $400 on a video card, then sure it'll last you 3-4 years...but that's more than the price of the 360, and most of the price of a PS3.

Once again, you miss the point. These days you don't have to spend 400$ anymore. All you need is to upgrade your video card for 150$ and you be playing with your "maximum FPS" on maximum settings.

"budget gaming PCs" came out with 1GB of ram back in those days and most could offer you 2GB if you were willing to spend and extra few hundred bucks.

You have some kind of false sense that RAM is the most important part in video cards or in system. Most games can be played with 1GB of ram on XP. And again, these days RAM is DIRT CHEAP!

The fact is that if you invest in a good machine it can keep you in the top end for 3-4 years and in the middle of the pack for another 2-3...but you're talking today's top of the line pretty much. When you're talking budget PC even with the best available parts chances are that your system won't be able to run today's powerhouse games.

Listen, do you even read what i write? I just listed you a budget gaming PC that can run most new games (except games like Crysis) on high settings (not on mega resolution though).

Take Mass Effect for example. Granted the PC version looks better, the graphics on a HDMI XBOX are REALLY nice, and just a step under a PC IMO

Why you keep on coming back to Mass Effect? Don't forget that it's mostly a ported game.


Take a game like The Witcher that was initially developed for PC and see that this game is running sweetly with a 150$ VGA card and max settings.

If you like Mass Effect so much just take a look at this:

http://www.tomshardware.com/charts/gaming-graphics-charts-q3-2008/Mass-Effect,773.html

OMG, is that a 4850 150$ card that runs Mass Effect on Ultra Quality on 1080P Res on almost 60 frames per seconds? But it has only 512MB RAM...

This test was probably ran on a high end system (i cant find the test setup), but on a budget components with this graphic card would still give you no less than 40FPS. And to game on a budget PC on 1920X1200 is a great luxury don't you think?

Only game type i can think of that will not run so well with a budget CPU for instance is Supreme Commander type of games that need a lot of processing power. But you can always overclock and budget CPU's overclock very well

Would a top end machine from 3 years ago? Sure...but just PC in of itself would have cost you over $1000. For someone Saavy who can assemble the kit himself you're talking about $1200-1300 for the hardware to run this game well three years ago.

You are right. But, now its different. Prices have dropped drastically. I bought my comp 4-5 years ago for around 2000$. It lasted me good 3 years without any upgrade.

Now I can buy a comp that will last me for 3 years for a 1000$. And you can buy a budget comp for ~500$ that will last you 2 years without any problem (albeit not on highest resolution).

But when it comes to simplicity, ease of use and cost...consoles can't be beat.

For me it's not. For someone who doesn't have a clue about PC's it is. For me, it's just install, get a no-cd crack and game on, can't get any simpler than that.


The argument that Consoles are much cheaper for just playing games is not valid anymore! Forget it!

Yes you can save a 100-150$ (on Xbox360). But i think for 100-150$ i'll take everything else that comes with owning a PC.

Peace.

 

[thefalloutfan]

Well I played Mass Effect averaging 15FPS throughout the game, 20FPS on the uncharted worlds

Believe it or not, it was playable, the citadel slowed everything down though. The rest was smooth-ISH.

 

[Moester]

Quotecat is long. Seriously, people, trim or separate your quotes as appropriate. -Per

Peace.

What you don't seem to realise is that most people already own a PC, its like a television nowadays, everyone has one. 99% of people with a console have a PC, like 99% of people with a PC own a TV.

So you save $100-$150 have all the capabilities of a pc like blogging and going on the net...and have similar performance for less.

Like I said, with the same budget, the XBOX 360 buyer gets his system, a HDTV, a couple of games and still has money left over for some Burger King.

The PC buyer has a PC, a monitor and still needs to buy software, configure and assemble at the end of the day. It might be fun for you, but a chore for the 90% of the population who don't know how to, or prefer not to assemble and configure a PC.

 

[pkt-zer0]

Would a top end machine from 3 years ago? Sure...but just PC in of itself would have cost you over $1000. For someone Saavy who can assemble the kit himself you're talking about $1200-1300 for the hardware to run this game well three years ago.

The problem is, you're constantly talking of three-years-ago. When the X360 intially came out, it probably really was better in terms of performance/cost. But as the performance of hardware increases exponentially, the price lowers accordingly. So nowadays the balance has shifted in the other direction, especially with this HDTV nonsense.

But when it comes to simplicity, ease of use and cost...consoles can't be beat.

The cost part is a lie. Simplicity and ease of use is debatable. It's not like playing games on PC requires some sort of herculean effort. (This sort of rhetoric reminds me of the people defending the simplifications Fallout 3 employs, because apparently Fallout 1/2 were some incredibly fucking complex monstrosities, btw)

On the other hand you can get an XBOX 360 or a PS3 for under $1000 including a television...although with the PS3 you'll probably be more in the $1200 range that will absolutely play every game the system has without a problem for the next 3-4 years.

Ever considered that on consoles, the games don't get more hardware-demanding as time goes by, since the hardware is fixed? On PC, you won't be able to run everything on max. settings even 4 years later, but you likely don't need those settings to achieve the level of graphics 4-year-old games had, either.
Not to mention that a PC gets you access not only to games of the next 5 years, but games of the last 20.

The PC buyer has a PC, a monitor and still needs to buy software, configure and assemble at the end of the day.

PC games have always cost less than console ones, though. On the long term, the savings can be pretty significant. Here console games cost about twice as much as PC ones.

 

[Ar.Pi]

Moester, i really don't understand why you keep on saying the same things over and over again just after the fact that i proved you otherwise.

pkt-zer0 already replied with most of what i wanted to say.

If you like to nitpick so much, then consider that Console games cost 10$ more than PC games (and sometimes even more), so 10 games = 100$. There is your extra "burger king" money.

When Consoles were released it was very appealing (although PS3 didn't see games for like a whole year after) price-wise and somewhat performance-wise. Right now you can buy a much better COMPUTER (not one dimensional console) for just a bit more money.

The things that Console is better than PC is for playing with friends some sports games or playing some racing games, and maybe fighting games (although my Arcade Controller cannot be beaten there).

FPS, RTS and RPG's is absolutely NO with a controller.
And since we are in the Fallout forums, with PC you'll be able to fix FO3