Nvidia: Battlefield 3 shows PC is "dramatically better than consoles"

By Wesley Yin-Poole Published 11 November, 2011

"This happens every major game console cycle."

Graphics card maker Nvidia has pointed to games such as Battlefield 3 as evidence that the PC platform is way ahead of current generation consoles.

In a question and answer session with investors following Nvidia's financial earnings, CEO Jen-Hsun Huang said the growing disparity between PC and game consoles such as PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 fuelled much of the money it made.

"We're expecting GeForce desktop to be up, and we're expecting that to be up nicely, driven by the hit games," he said. "This is likely a multiyear cycle of growth for PC gaming.

"This happens every major game console cycle towards the second half of its product life, because PC technology advances on a regular basis instead of once every seven to ten years.

"And so you could imagine how PC technology is dramatically better than a game console today, and you're starting to see that now with a new generation of games that are coming out, such as Battlefield 3."

For the quarter ending 31st October, Nvidia posted revenue of $1.06 billion, up $843.9 million from the same quarter last year. Net profits were $178.3 million, more than double the previous year's total of $84.9 million. The majority of the company's revenue - $644.8 million - was generated by its GPU business.

Money made from desktop consumer graphics rose beyond usual seasonal increases, Nvidia said, and this was due to "strong global demand from PC gamers, driven by highly anticipated blockbuster PC games just starting to hit the shelves".

Nvidia singled out EA's Battlefield 3, which is the fastest-selling EA game ever, Activision's Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, likely the best-selling game ever, and science-fiction MMORPG Star Wars: The Old Republic, a PC-exclusive due out next month with impressive pre-order figures.

"We believe this surge of PC gaming demand will drive increased demand for Nvidia's GeForce products despite the soft consumer PC market," the company said.

"We expect a multiyear PC gaming cycle, as the PC becomes increasingly more powerful than five to six-year-old gaming consoles."

Last month DICE told Eurogamer the PC version of Battlefield 3 is what gamers can expect from the next-generation of consoles.

"There's some stuff in here that's truly next-gen," executive producer Patrick Bach said. "A lot of tech stuff, Frostbite 2. Rendering, the lighting, destruction, to me I'm mesmerised no one else has been trying to do it.

"I'm looking forward to see if other games can start to do some of the things we're doing. We have some really cool stuff."

Picture of Wesley.

About Wesley Yin-Poole

Wesley is Eurogamer's news editor. He likes news, interviews, and more news. He also likes Street Fighter more than anyone can get him to shut up about it.

Read more articles from Wesley by visiting the Wesley Yin-Poole archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (127) Latest comment 6 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Whatascoop #1 7 months ago

    Nvidia saying PC graphics are better? If I were a more cynical person I'd almost think they had a vested interest in it.

  • Wempler #2 7 months ago

    Why are nVidia playing Captain Obivious?

    The PC leaves the console in the dust a year or two after the consoles are released.

  • Evolution #3 7 months ago

    @Whatascoop As a long time reader of Eurogamer, I think I can speak for most of us here when I say cynicism has no place here.

  • Ultrasoundwave #4 7 months ago

    This is, quite frankly, a stupid comment.

    PC's can be upgraded. The 360 and the PS3 are six years old and cant be upgraded.

    :rolleyes:

  • Der_tolle_Emil #5 7 months ago

    "better" and "more powerful" are two very different things.

  • spekkeh #6 7 months ago

    Nvidia posted revenue of $1.06 billion, up $843.9 million from the same quarter last year.
    Surely this must be a bogus figure, shouldn't it be up from 843? Hard to imagine the company suddenly quintupling their output.

  • dadrester #7 7 months ago

    What he's saying is that the fact that PC games that take advantage of the better tech start appearing about now in the console cycle which creates a surge in business, not simply that PC is betterer than console. Remember Nvidia manufacture the PS3 GPU as well.

  • mrblonde #8 7 months ago

    Rubbish you can have all the powerful cards in the world but if no- one can afford to make games for the pc its pointless, Crysis was the last title to take advantage of expensive hardware 4 years ago, are pc gamers gonna play and go on about battlefield 3 for the next 4 years as well.

    The consoles offer the best gaming experience for the vast, vast majority of gamers out there, who wants buggy late pc releases anyway. I suspect in the next 5 years or so the platform will not be supported by the big publishers atall

  • paulf #9 7 months ago

    not surprising seems the last graphics card I bought cost more than a ps3 and xbox put together

  • Quixz #10 7 months ago

    Thank you very much for letting us know Nvidia :confused:

  • mrblonde #11 7 months ago

    If battlefield 3 is all the next consoles can equal, i for one will be disappointed , it is in no way a generational leap over say the 360"s rage or the ps3s uncharted 3.Its looks great but hardly xbox to 360 etc..leaps

  • consoledelight #12 7 months ago

    Its a moot point, of course their better they have the ability to upgrade the machine to fantastic levels.
    However, what the current gen of consoles gets from their restricted system kind of makes me think that the pc with their super systems could actually produce something far better if the gamemakers where to invest as much time on those sysems, but they wont will they, because why bother in 2 months a new driver/chipset/graphics card will be out.

    The big advantage of a pc is also, ironically the main restriction.

  • marmaduke #13 7 months ago

    Better, yes. Also more expensive and less sociable.

  • SpartanGR #14 7 months ago

    Nvidia

    Just you wait for the next consoles. As long as a console can do "true" 1080p at 60/120hz with everything max and in 3d pc will become obsolete. Upcoming consoles is my guess.

  • jonfon #15 7 months ago

    @marmaduke
    More Expensive, absolutely, but less sociable? I'm confused on that one.

  • DiamondIce #16 7 months ago

    I am enjoying Battlefield 3 on the obsolete Xbox 360 console. I am concentrating on the gameplay rather than how many pixels are being shifted around.

  • Arsecake_Baker #17 7 months ago

    I'm sorry EG but this has to be one of the most retarded articles i have ever read! Battlefield 3 shows PC is "dramatically better than consoles".....Well fucking duh!

  • marmaduke #18 7 months ago

    @jonfon - by 'less sociable' I mean that outside of LAN parties you can't really get a bunch of people to play in the same room.
    Edited by marmaduke at 11/11/11 @ 13:49

  • arcam #19 7 months ago

    Indeed, surely a PC is more sociable? Unless your talking about split-screen multiplayer, but that seems to be quickly disappearing from consoles too.

  • neo7685 #20 7 months ago

    @SpartanGR I'm not sure how you can justify that statement. So the next generation of consoles will match what PCs can do right now, that's great and I honestly can't wait. But you seem to think that graphics rendering technology won't advance even further afterwards? PCs will always have superior hardware when compared to standardised console hardware because technology is constantly evolving. If anything will ever become obsolete from a pure hardware standpoint t's always going to be the console.

  • ollyn #21 7 months ago

    You would hope so really, given the 5 years they have had on the consoles. But until it gets to the point where one can't possibly make the game they want on current gen its a fairly moot point. Battlefield might be better on PC but it's still on PS3/Xbox360.

    There might be an argument that developers are holding back on what they can achieve to fit the limits but given that pretty much all of this years sequels improved on their predecessors I don't think that is the case yet. I don't think games have outgrown the current generation yet where as back when PS2 was running towards the end of it's life Half Life 2 was gunning on PC and really showing how old that hardware really was.
    Edited by ollyn at 11/11/11 @ 14:13

  • Stratix #22 7 months ago

    I grew up playing games on PCs instead of on consoles, so although I own an Xbox, it is not where my heart lies.

    With the job I have at the moment, I can afford a reasonably high end PC, probably once every 2-3 years. I prefer to play games with a mouse and keyboard because I feel I have more control.

    If games need patches the developers don't need to go through Microsoft to get them approved and there is also scope for player made patches, such as that made for Oblivion.

    A nice bonus is that games are generally cheaper on PC. This of course does not make up for the expensive hardware, but most people need some kind of PC anyway, and I am happy to pay the extra for a really good one.

    It is a shame piracy is such a problem for PC, I wish it was more lucrative for developers to make games for. Steam's deals I know have helped with this somewhat, if thousands of people buy a really cheap game digitally, it still can make lots of money.

    Games such as Battlefield 3 don't come around often, but when they do they absolutley blow me away, and it's times like that that I am glad I play PC.

    I wish more developers would make games with Direct X 11, because the difference is plain to see, and I can see why nVidia are doing so well at the moment. I dislike their monopoly they have with the PhysX drivers that they wont allow ATi cards to use (even though they could easily cope with it!). This does not pose a problem for most games, but one of them is Batman, so I was forced (sort of) to go nVidia for that reason.

    For the person that doesn't want any hassle, and just wants to sit down on the sofa, and know the game will run fine, I can absolutley see why someone would prefer a console, and on a budget, which many gamers are, it makes total sense.

  • Dismiss #23 7 months ago

    Quick note on semantics: Please substitute "better" with "more powerful". Thanks. Oh, and... duh.

  • Dizzy #24 7 months ago

    So does that also mean that AMD is better than nVidia since it seems better on AMD PCs.

  • ruddiger7 #25 7 months ago

    @Der_tolle_emil, mrblonde, spartan GR - those are some of the dumbest comments i have ever seen.

  • Darren #26 7 months ago

    It's a shame that every PC game doesn't look substantially better than their console equivalents instead of just the odd one such as Battlefield 3. Yeah, higher resolutions and framerate do count but we take them for granted.

    Most PC games are still using the seven year old DirectX 9.0c and while it can produce some very, very nice looking games (The Witcher 2 for example), it nevertheless lacks the performance improvements and features such as tessellation that DirectX 11 offers. That means you end up needing a more powerful PC to run the more demanding games instead of having games that make better use of the graphics hardware.

    Although more and more games seem to be using DX11, we're still seeing DX9 releases such as Skyrim and L.A. Noire. The former's engine is supposed to support DX11 for performance improvements according to Pete Hines yet the version released does not use it. Why? Even Crysis 2 had DX11 implemented late and in a less than optimal way (using tessellation on surfaces that actually don't benefit from it anyway for example).

  • UncleLou #27 7 months ago

    Rubbish you can have all the powerful cards in the world but if no- one can afford to make games for the pc its pointless

    Framerate, image quality, exclusives.

    The consoles offer the best gaming experience for the vast, vast majority of gamers out there

    Of course. Obviously, what the majority wants or enjoys has rarely something to do with quality.

    who wants buggy late pc releases anyway

    Noone. I for one am playing Skyrim atm though, looks great and runs at 60 fps.

    I suspect in the next 5 years or so the platform will not be supported by the big publishers atall

    No. More likely that consoles as we know them don't exist anymore at this point.


    Always weird how die-hard console-only gamers want the PC to die, but I guess that's what envy does to you. :)
    Edited by UncleLou at 11/11/11 @ 14:14

  • Flipper79 #28 7 months ago

    All well and good, but most devs aren't prepared to utilise the technology when developing games for multiple platforms, especially when the pc effectively becomes multiple platforms in it's own right with the number of cards the game has to be compatible with. Nvidia and AMD need to start limiting and standardising the cards suitable for gaming if the platform is to challenge the console market. And devs should stop trying to pander to everyone and give a clear list of cards on which the game has been fully tested to run so they can maximise support of the product. It may seem counter-intuitive to the pc mindset but it would also mean greater numbers of each card produced, decreasing costs and making it more bearable to upgrade on a more regular cycle.

  • Lunatic4ever #29 7 months ago

    most useless comment ever...nvidia shut up and produce graphic cards...

  • JJrabbit #30 7 months ago

    I don't think many people question whether PCs have better graphics than consoles. I think the problem is that people don't want to keep spending money on upgrading PCs every year so, just for the sake of graphics. But I'm sure nVidia would like that....

  • IronGiant #31 7 months ago

    And how much do you need to spend on a PC to achieve these astonishing visuals? You can get a PS3 or 360 for around 150 quid and they can achieve games like Gears3 and Uncharted3.

  • Lucodeath #32 7 months ago

    I rencently got a decent pc with an nvidia gpu after a 7 year absence from pc gaming. My xbox an ps3 which I still use from time to time doesnt impress me anymore due to low frame rates and sub hd stuff. Skyrim at 60 fps + I cant wait, Fallout 3 I replayed on pc and its like playing a new game compared to consoles.
    Price about £500 for a I5 2500 cpu and gtx460 including mbo an stuff
    Edited by Lucodeath at 11/11/11 @ 14:36

  • FogHeart #33 7 months ago

    Why is everyone berating NVidia for 'stating the obvious'? This was a Q&A session with investors. Looks like someone asked why the big leap in profits, and they provided the answer that you're reading. Were they supposed to say to the investor, 'Well duh'?

  • Gusdor #34 7 months ago

    @consoledelight See Carmack's keynote from quakecon 2011. He sheds some light one why its so hard to extract all the performance from all the PC hardware.

    A generic solution (runs on all configurations) is rarely the most performant solution.

  • 43n1m4 #35 7 months ago

    Jen-Hsun hopes that PCs will dominate because Nvidia doesn't have any next-gen console contracts with neither Sony nor MS.
    As for the visual quality of PC games compared to consoles, one has to know which PC you are comparing with... as there are thousands to millions of different configurations..
    Edited by 43n1m4 at 11/11/11 @ 14:46

  • Cherub007 #36 7 months ago

    The elephant in the corner at this investors meeting must surely be that the new gen of consoles will be out in around two years. So this 'multi-year' growth cycle stimulated by current PCs outperforming the current consoles may turn out to be... two years.

    Anyway, I for one like the fact that PC games are starting to make consoles look bad, even as a mainly (but not exclusively) console gamer. It means the bar which the new gen consoles will have to reach is set even higher.

  • bad09 #37 7 months ago

    "And how much do you need to spend on a PC to achieve these astonishing visuals? You can get a PS3 or 360 for around 150 quid and they can achieve games like Gears3 and Uncharted3."

    As already stated about 500 will get a PC that beat the consoles to a pulp peformance wise. Of course that is more than a console but then PCs do a hell of a lot more than just gaming which is why this gens consoles are trying to emulate PCs with media, browsers things like that.

  • UncleLou #38 7 months ago

    Anyway, not sure why many people are so up in arms about Nvidia's comments. It's not like it's any different to what Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo have been feeding us for years, PR-wise.
    Edited by UncleLou at 11/11/11 @ 14:55

  • MattRobson #39 7 months ago

    isn't this a no shit Sherlock kind of moment?

  • Zomeguy #40 7 months ago

    "And how much do you need to spend on a PC to achieve these astonishing visuals? You can get a PS3 or 360 for around 150 quid and they can achieve games like Gears3 and Uncharted3."

    You are all in denial...

    How much do you think a PC costs that matches PS/XBOX performance? Is it even possible to buy such old stuff new?
    You are upgrading too, only difference is Sony or MS decides when, whereas the PC gamer can upgrade whenever he wants.

  • Snake_2011 #41 7 months ago

    still staying with consoles just prefer them so do most by the numbers.

  • bad09 #42 7 months ago

    @Snake_2011

    Actually far more people game on their PCs just not with the types of games that are on the consoles.

  • SpartanGR #43 7 months ago

    @neo7685

    I'll explain myself. Let's say you own a cray machine for gaming. What's the point when xbox or ps3 is the LEAD PLATFORM? Consoles may we like it or not are the lead platforms in most games nowadays. Oh and it is a matter of time before bethesda drop the soap too.

    How many games take advantage of my 3000€ pc? almost all of them are ports.
    Edited by SpartanGR at 11/11/11 @ 15:09

  • couloir #44 7 months ago

    This goes beyond clutching at straws to basically misleading investors.

    In the entire lifespan of the current gen consoles, BF3 is pretty much the only game giving people a meaningful incentive to play on PC rather than console. This is no doubt a result of the fact that it's pretty much the only multi-format game that was developed to take advantage of a modern PC's power, rather than developed for primarily for consoles and then ported.

    With the next gen coming in 2012 or 2013, there's no reason to think the console first approach of most publishers is going to change, so how is this in any way a positive thing for sales of pc graphics cards?!

  • bad09 #45 7 months ago

    @SpartanGR

    Not sure what your point is even with consoles being lead platforms the PC versions, unless the dev is lazy (or Ubisoft) of course, always surpases the consoles in terms of performance.

  • FogHeart #46 7 months ago

    Once again, to dispel the fallacy of PC gaming being expensive:-

    - The games are £10 cheaper, sometimes more.
    - Over the course of a year the savings made on games equate to buying something new for the PC - processor, graphics card, hard drive etc, each a bit more than £100, don't go for anything over £150 or it's throwing away large monetary increments for small performance increments.

    There. Just one hardware treat each year to keep a PC that's constantly getting better than a console. Any more isn't worth it.

  • Freek #47 7 months ago

    The funniest thing ofcourse is that gaming is changing, graphics don't matter as much anymore. Even on PC, the biggest most hardcore games are not the ones with the flashiest graphics. It's MMO's and DOTA's. More then ever it's about the way a game plays and the community around it.

  • neo7685 #48 7 months ago

    @SpartanGR What does lead platform matter when I can run any game that exists at a far better resolution and framerate with AA and texture filtering on my 500 euro PC? I can play it with any control scheme I like and on any display I like.

    What does the "lead" version have over that experience? The 'privilege' to pay more money a couple of months earlier for ingame skins?

  • carrotcake #49 7 months ago

    Battlefield 3 is about the only game that is so far ahead though. Almost all games still use the DX9 feature set only and are identical to the consoles in content and everything, just with the option to up the resolution and anti-aliasing. The main reason I am favoring PC now is because Steam has a way better library of games at better prices than the console online services.

  • kinky_mong #50 7 months ago

    Well the game still looks stunning on the 360 and PS3, and I've great fun with the 360 version which is the most important thing.

    Can't we all just get along?

  • neo7685 #51 7 months ago

    @carrotcake The Witcher 2 more or less emulates a bunch of DX11 features - not as good as proper support but it looks amazing and, if you want it to, can certainly use the power of current graphics cards to their potential.

  • DeadlyByDesign #52 7 months ago

    In other news water is wet

  • Nephirion #53 7 months ago

    DX9 is so 2005

  • superbeast2010 #54 7 months ago

    Post deleted at 10:57:39 01-02-2012

  • bad09 #55 7 months ago

    "I just cant justify the cost of keeping a pc upgraded to play the latest games"

    Oh for gods sake when will this myth die???? Unless you have hardware extremely out of date you do not have to upgrade just to play the latest games, to think that is really the case is very silly and misinformed.

    Many PC gamers choose to upgrade to get the very best out of the latest games or take advantage of the tricks in newer DX versions true, but it isn't a requirement of PC gaming.
    Edited by bad09 at 11/11/11 @ 16:14

  • superbeast2010 #56 7 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:35:41 22-05-2012

  • bad09 #57 7 months ago

    @superbeast2010

    You gonna buy the next PS or Xbox?

    If yes then no it hasn't cleared things up...
    Edited by bad09 at 11/11/11 @ 16:21

  • superbeast2010 #58 7 months ago

    Post deleted at 10:57:39 01-02-2012

  • HAL9000 #59 7 months ago

    @marmaduke ...less sociable? You're on a forum site but I'm guessing it's not your console you're typing with but your PC? And PC gamers have TS, Ventrilo, Mumble, Skype...pretty sociable platform for me!!

  • bad09 #60 7 months ago

    @superbeast2010

    You haven't offended me but this whole "I need to upgrade to play games" is nonsense Your console cost 300 for 6 years, once you add in the extra cost of the games on consoles and you are not far off a decent PC that will last the same amount of time. Of course that PC will do a lot more for you than gaming to.
    Edited by bad09 at 11/11/11 @ 16:35

  • Ryboy #61 7 months ago

    So PC's are better than consoles. Cheers for clearing that up for me.

  • superbeast2010 #62 7 months ago

    Post deleted at 10:57:39 01-02-2012

  • bad09 #63 7 months ago

    @superbeast2010

    Well obviously it depends on the amount of games you buy for sure, but when you are buying games £10-£15 more expensive it soon adds up, a lot of people forget that when talking about the "higher" cost of PC gaming.

    Don't misunderstand me I'm not talking your own needs directly, just clearing up the whole "you need to upgrade to play" and "PC is so expensive" myths.

    Realistically most of us need a PC these days for music, photos, movies, work, internet etc. so if you buy smart the cost of a "gaming" PC is just a card and that is actually a lot cheaper than a console!

  • chrisola #64 7 months ago

    thats why i buy a decent PC at this point every console cycle.

    Or why i USED to...this one will probably be my last.

    The future will see this trend stopping as more and more developers lead with the consoles and shoddily port to the PC. ID for example.

    Sure, there will always be MMO's on the PC and Blizzard games but i can see the days of Crysis, Half Life, Half Life 2 etc fading, even BF3 was touch and go as to whether it'd let PC users get the most out of the hardware they had.

    Also the 'closed systems' games are becoming is more and more worrying, and will stop modders making new maps and such, which is one of the old key PC advantages.

    The time of modding communities seems to be fading out to be replaced by product life cycles and yearly updates.

  • superbeast2010 #65 7 months ago

    Post deleted at 10:57:39 01-02-2012

  • arcam #66 7 months ago

    Honestly, half the reason I initially got into PC gaming was to save money, and that's one of the reasons I've stuck with it. Console gaming is very expensive IMO. People sometimes laugh when I say that, but believe me, I have worked it out (in Excel, on my PC ;))

    But then I have always needed a decent PC for work and entertainment reasons anyway, so that makes a big difference to the value.

  • 43n1m4 #67 7 months ago

    @bad 09

    Realistically most of us need a PC these days for music, photos, movies, work, internet etc. so if you buy smart the cost of a "gaming" PC is just a card and that is actually a lot cheaper than a console!

    But most of "us" (talking about all the people I know, anyway) buy laptops, and then you can't upgrade them anyway. A console is a far more reliable (drivers, software stability etc.) solution in the long-term, and that's coming from a guy with a 400+ PC games collection.

  • bad09 #68 7 months ago

    @chrisola

    I agree with you there, modding is one of key if not the biggest benefits of PC gaming which does seem to be dying replaced with DLC they can sell you like on the consoles. It's not all doom and gloom though. Crysis 2 allows mods, BLOPS does now the DLC whoring is over, Skyrim has mods confirmed, and there is always the older games with new life, look at the new GTA graphics stuff. Why only the other day I was dusting off my modded out Christmas GTA4 ready for next month :)

  • bad09 #69 7 months ago

    @superbeast2010

    True there but getting to know your system is getting better. Geforce has optimal settings on the website and sites like CanYouRunIt or game-debate help massively, not for everyone I absolutely agree but it's not the guessing game of the past so much.

  • arcam #70 7 months ago

    Agreed, laptops have done more to contribute to the decline of PC gaming than consoles IMO.

  • bad09 #71 7 months ago

    @43n1m4

    Hmmm, different debate there! Some have been speculating the death of the desktop ever since laptops came along, they are still doing now even though tablets are here as well. I think there is still a market for desktops I know many (myself included) that prefer the performance of a desktop over a laptop.

  • super_monty #72 7 months ago

    I prefer it on the 360 , I find that the pc versions are too crowded on the maps and damaging to gameplay IMO . The slightly better graphics don't interest me.

  • bengaming #73 7 months ago

    PC gaming is better for anyone who wants the best graphics, doesn't mind spending money on hardware once in a while to keep up, and has the patience and technical knowledge required for keeping it running smoothly. Consoles are better for people who want to spend money once and be set for the "lifespan" of that system, and never have to worry if they'll need to tweak their settings to get a game running satisfactorily.

    It's apples and oranges.

    Cool to see Eurogamer try to add fuel to the stupid PC vs. Console fight with a headline like that, when the guy is clearly talking purely about technology, and how happy he is to be making lots of money from people buying Nvidia cards.

  • tangoownage #74 7 months ago

    Pc's will always evolve and overshadow consoles for performance.

    Consoles are more mass market and a lot of old school pc gamers have ditched Pc's to xbox live.

    I agree with the article because lately their has been a good crop the pc arena.

    I. of games that warrant updating hardware.

    I get the impression there is currently a resurgence of the old school back to the pc arena. I for one am currently enjoying bf3 and skyrim at much higher standards than console gamers

  • dorkacle #75 7 months ago

    graphics shhmafics..... meh

  • makeamazing #76 7 months ago

    I used to play all the time on PC's and hardly ever on consoles (Ps1 and 2 i only had about 5 games in total)... but these days i hardly buy games on PC, because sitting at one all day and then checking email /surfing at night, i just don't feel that i want to play on it as well.

    I do think that i want the next gen of consoles though, because i am tired of the console graphics (they are looking a bit long in the tooth now in some cases)...

  • JumpinJackFlash #77 7 months ago

    neo7685

    So the next generation of consoles will match what PCs can do right now, that's great and I honestly can't wait.

    They won't though, don't go expecting a "beast" of a system, Sony and MS want to reduce the costs of manufacturing their next gen systems, not to over spend on them like they did this generation and lose money from day one.

    http://www.computerandvideogames.com/303367/playstation-4-cheaper-to-make-than-ps3-sony

    Gamers expecting 8/16 GB of RAM and a 580 GTX level of GPU in SLI mode, etc, for the next gen systems need to get their head out of numptyland.
    Edited by JumpinJackFlash at 11/11/11 @ 20:03

  • wattsn26 #78 7 months ago

    1st in graphics...last in multiplatform sales

  • Raiten #79 7 months ago

    What just about everyone seems to forget here when talking about the prices regarding pc and consoles is, that when xbox360 and ps3 launched, they weren't any cheap consoles, especialy the ps3.
    Top models for both cost nearly the same as good gaming pc back then, well in all honesty, ps3 cost even more.
    Both consoles have more additional costs from games or service like xbox live gold, which make consoles overall quite expencive.

    Unless one wishes to argue, that the consoles _currently_ cost less.. eh? if you'd go and buy a pc hardware that was released around same time or year-two later, it'd be about as cheap.
    If you buy a compleatly new PC now, ofcourse it'd be more expencive than the consoles are right now, but remember, while consoles get price cuts over the years, same hapens with pc hardware, besides you can expect next xbox and playstation to have high price tags on them yet again.

    Like said there's huge savings made from buying pc games, be it from steam sales where you can at best buy literaly tens of games for the price of one console game, or brand new game from shop 10-20€ cheaper than the console version.
    This is where you latest make the savings towards any future upgrades on pc, or towards a compleatly new pc.

    Not to mention, console-only gamers who've bought at any given time a newer model of their chosen console, would've spent far more cash on just console alone than it'd have cost them to buy a good gaming pc.

  • ThePissartist #80 7 months ago

    I hope the next gen looks much better than that....

  • vizzini #81 7 months ago

    Raiten: “Like said there's huge savings made from buying pc games”

    Not really,

    By the time a game releases on PC the console version is £17, and that is assuming it isn't an exclusive which goes platinum, etc.

    And no one in their right mind buys a PC off the shelf for gaming unless it is a workstation class system, and they cost at least +£1,500 for something decent with a good GPU.

    For self builds the cost of a legitimate copy of Windows Professional (you can install and use, has to be Retail) is the cost of a consoles alone.

    Stealth costs that get passed on in the cost DirectX (games for windows) certification on graphics cards or online passes for Gfw really make it fools gold. Especially when the people with the fastest systems aren't the target platform, and games are designed for a lowest common denominator, that is inferior to at least the PS3, if not both systems.

    If steam existed on linux, then that would be a step in the right direction, but a gaming PC, means windows professional, and that is just at costly open ended console model, with very few polished or bug free exclusives, and buggy multi platform ports.

    Yes they can run in high frame rates, high levels of AA and higher resolutions. But given the sound of fans,etc or power consumption issue, PCs are best for tiny monitors, stereo speakers in a spare room imo.

  • Ternon #82 7 months ago

    What a bizarre article!

    What next....water is wet, sky is blue?

  • BlinkeredAxis #83 7 months ago

    I love console gaming, but this will always happen. Now that PC has technical superiority again, players and developers will get interested. In technology, the money will move to the leading edge. It's all good as long as games keep getting better.

  • mrblonde #84 7 months ago

    @couloir well said , the pc"s last high end, title was crysis november07 , which was effectively the death knell for big budget exclusive games on powerful PCs. Nothings appeared to think any different in those 4 years. CRYSIS AND BATTLEFIELD 3 ONLY! hardly worth the hassle of pc hardware and the loss of all the brilliant console exclusives, gears, uncharted, halo etc....Even console RAGE is arguably better than the pc version(lack of bugs/hassle)

    "Big to medium size budget gaming "on home computer is more or less dead. Better cloth effects in batman just isnt worth it for anyone except people who enjoy building rigs,( but have fewer things to play each year)

    RTS,FLASH, WOW will obviously always make money / be at home onm pc.
    Edited by mrblonde at 11/11/11 @ 22:17

  • Raiten #85 7 months ago

    vizzini, why're you brining workstations to the discussions? as if anyone would buy such a computer to be their personal gaming pc. Besides, most pc fans these days run more silent or as silent as the latest xbox360 model, heck even my gaming pc generates same amount of noice as my ps3 or the new 360.

    Not to mention, when you go and purchase a new pc, like i did last year for 712€, slightly on the expencive side, but that included legit windows 7 x64 install disc also, the price of it? 110€, retailers sell you legit windows copies cheap when you buy a new pc, unless you hapen to buy a new windows seperatly, then it's another matter, but you can purchase just a upgrade disc then for around same price point if you feel the need to upgrade your windows to a new one. More often than enough, windows is bundled with your new computer on disc. Unlike you seem to imagine, windows professional isn't even requirement for gaming. So why would you even pick one of the more expencive windows versions if you had to buy the full version seperatly?

    You do also realize that while only a few such multiplatform games actualy come so late for pc, they're allready at a pricepoint of 30-40€, if you got the patience to wait a month or two, look up in steam and it'll be on sale, again making it cheaper or the same price as the discounted console version.

  • danidrums #86 7 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:51:24 12-12-2011

  • danidrums #87 7 months ago

    @vizzini
    "Yes they can run in high frame rates, high levels of AA and higher resolutions. But given the sound of fans,etc or power consumption issue, PCs are best for tiny monitors, stereo speakers in a spare room imo."


    Sorry, I can't hear what you saying, my hdtv with my pc and 7.1 creative speakers blew my ears yesterday on a random BF3 battle.
    Edited by danidrums at 12/11/11 @ 00:52

  • Lemming81 #88 6 months ago

    @Whatascoop ps3 has an nvidia chipset you realise?
    Edited by Lemming81 at 12/11/11 @ 01:30

  • vizzini #89 6 months ago

    @Raiten

    The point I'm driving at is this. You need windows by virtue of driver support, and anything less than Windows Professional is only for those who don't place computer security high on their list of PC priorities, and it is expensive to buy for a self build, compared to a console, or running Fedora or Ubuntu, etc.

    Workstations are the realistic way to have a super fast, and stable PC for running games.

    Why? Well that is because good developers program on workstations, and GPUs always start life as workstation cards, hence the high quality drivers that developers work with are far from what the public use. Take Rage on PC as a recent example.

    Workstation class systems also represent the cutting edge of PC performance at optimum wattage and heat and noise characteristics. A PS3 uses just 80Watts of power, yet your so-called cheaper PC (by Total cost of ownership) is burning 10x that amount if it has a reasonably modern CPU and GPU and power supply.

    Pound for pound, gaming on a console is a much cheaper past time than on a PC; by electric, software cost, and hardware costs and hardware upgrade cycles. And it has better developed software that utilises the system to the full potential and has far more stringent QA for stable and less buggy software.

  • stegabba #90 6 months ago

    consoles are a much bigger gaming platform than the pc, suck that nvidia

  • dsmx #91 6 months ago

    You keep telling yourself that stegabba, whatever helps you sleep at night. Just ignore those 10 million subscribers on WoW and all the smaller mmo's out there, all the unreleased sales figures for the various digital distributors of PC games on the internet, all that money spent on facebook "games".....you get the idea

    I'm sure the possibly hundreds of millions of people using a PC right now all over the world in every country playing games right at this very second ranging from the simple solitaire right up to the latest in the forms BF3, Skyrim and MW3 are a tiny market.

    But again it has to be said there are no hard figures for the size of the PC game market and nobody collects those figures anyway due to the highly fragmented nature of the PC game market, but saying that the PC market is smaller than the console market is totally inaccurate at best.

  • uninspiredcup #92 6 months ago

    The problem here is that while pc gaming is capabable is so much more, developers are lazy and are simply tacking on stuff like DX11. Skyrim for example uses DX11, but no actual features. The pc interface is horrible, clearly designed for the pad. Come to think of it, Bethesda suck.

  • AnotherIdiot #93 6 months ago

    So they claim the shitty onboard nvidia chip in my PC is better than the shitty nvidia chip in my PlayStation? I don't think that's true somehow, whilst they are both a heap of shit, atleast i can play games on my console.

  • sonsonate #94 6 months ago

    @mrblonde Well, take into consideration that consoles struggle to run anything at HD-level with a min of 30FPS.

    Play on a PC for a while and you'll enjoy the clarity, improved FPS and higher resolution.

    TBH: I really don't see how you guys don't notice the incredible amount of blur, sluggishness, and jagged edges on all the geometry and shadows. I love and enjoy some of the exclusives, believe me, I do. I would enjoy them more if they were easier to look at and in full HD.

  • Trigg3rHippie #95 6 months ago

    The consoles haven't changed in 6 years, are they high?

  • Kengro #96 6 months ago

    Yeah right. A 360 with 2 games are 299$. So if a pc are that much better i guess nvidia can make a pc for 299$ with a 250gb hdd and 2 games that can do the same as a 360. Price is something they seems to forget all the time, and a pc is massively more expencive

  • vizzini #97 6 months ago

    Trigg3rHippie: "The consoles haven't changed in 6 years, are they high?"

    The 360 is six I believe, but the PS3 is nearly five, hence why PS3 multiplatform games have visuals comparative to a mid range PC that nobody seems to be able to distinguish in faceoffs.

    But this generation has raised the lowest common denominator so high, and it is getting really hard for GPU performance on PCs to provide any noticeable visual delta in using Rasterization techniques now.

    PS3 exclusive tend to look much better than PC games, because of blu-ray data capacity that gets used, artwork, animation and game direction.

    These are becoming a better measure of true HD visuals that people can actually appreciate now imo.

  • davisorle #98 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 20:44:35 16-04-2012

  • Inmediasress #99 6 months ago

    This is true but since developing is done for the consoles and the PC is an aftertought if at all.
    There is really nothign to discuss here apart from that when next gen consoles hit the market PC will be forgotten for some 3-4 years again, because of the money sony and M$ will put behind exclusives and console marketing, while PC won't have any.

  • Snaggletooth #100 6 months ago

    "I don't think many people question whether PCs have better graphics than consoles. I think the problem is that people don't want to keep spending money on upgrading PCs every year so, just for the sake of graphics. But I'm sure nVidia would like that...."

    I think this is a common misconception...why do you have to upgrade it every year? Yes a lot of PC users do upgrade every year, but most of these people have more money than sense. You can build a powerful system and it will last and play most games perfectly fine for around 3yrs, if not more. I have owned a high end i7 system overclocked to 4GHz, 6GB Ram and a Nvidia 480GTX DX11 graphics card for just over 1yr & 6 months now and it still runs most games at 1080p Ultra settings 60fps. Granted, over the next couple of years as more demanding games come out, I may need to drop the detail down to High, from Ultra to retain frame rates, but realistically this really doesn't look that different and still leagues ahead of any console. By the time my PC is running games to a point where they no longer look as good as current gen console, or are unplayable, it is still years away. The point is PC games are scalable. You can buy a high end PC and get many happy years of gaming out of it without having to upgrade a single thing.

  • Flipper79 #101 6 months ago

    @Kengro

    Since most people would want a pc aswell as having a console, to make it into a gaming pc the only costs most desktop owners really need to factor in are for the graphics card and increased power supply. If you're so inclined there are plenty of cards that come with 1 or 2 new release games to add to the many f2p games that you already have access to on a pc. When you take that into consideration there really isn't much of a gap in costs. And if anything the pc probably works out as cheaper and certainly wins in terms of what you can do on it in terms of applications.

    That's not to say pc gaming is necessarily better, clearly many games are optimised for consoles...but many are also optimised for pc. It all just comes down to preference in the end, or if you can afford it why not have the best of both worlds. Seems most arguments on here are motivated by jealousy rather than knowledge.

  • Ultraman1966 #102 6 months ago

    @IronGiant Well, assuming that you've already got a basic PC for every day browsing (most people) do, all you need to do is drop in a graphics card like a 5770/GTS 450 (about 70 quid?) and it'll play the game at 720p (console resolution).

  • vizzini #103 6 months ago

    Flipper79: "If you can afford it why not have the best of both worlds. Seems most arguments on here are motivated by jealousy rather than knowledge."

    I'm not sure that makes sense, in a world where fuel is in ever decreasing supply with rising cost per KWhr, and demand through population growth is ever increasing. Imo no one, other than people who need computing for business or creative needs, should really burning ten times the power for PCs that can do gaming.

    We've been forced to use power saving light bulbs in Europe in recent year, that only have a four fold saving, and barely produce enough light for general use, and take 5 minutes to reach adequate illumination; yet there are millions of consumers blowing excess electric and cash for higher frame-rates, resolution and some AA for multiplatform gaming.

    Imo most people should buy a tablet, netbook or workstation class laptop or iMac that runs off <105watts for computing, and buy a console for gaming. It is much, much cheaper over a few years running, and is better for the planet and the future price of fuel.

  • jaec #104 6 months ago

    @arcam Actually, split-screen multiplayer seems to making a bit of a revival as of late.

  • JumpinJackFlash #105 6 months ago

    PC gaming is healthy and continuing to grow. Simple as that really. Also, consoles only offer a baseline experience, on the PC the game is the best it can be.

  • Flipper79 #106 6 months ago

    @vizzini

    That is the most ridiculous argument I have ever heard in my life.

    1) a pc is unlikely to cost 10x as much in power consumption. An xbox runs at about 150 watts full load. You're mistakingly thinking a pc with a 700 watt psu runs at 700 watts. It doesn't. Most of the time it will be running at most at half that even whilst gaming so it's not a huge deal different to your scenario of running a laptop and a console.

    2) if you also factor in that a monitor is considerably cheaper to run than a tv you're bringing the total wattage even more level.

    3) to go down the environmental route for something as unnecessary as gaming is just downright hysterical. If you want to be environmentally conscious don't play games at all.

    And it's possibly worth adding that at the beginning of the 360's lifecycle it would have been running at a higher wattage than the average gaming pc of the time. Also environmentally speaking it's not great that it was also being sold at a loss devaluing the natural resources used to make it.
    Edited by Flipper79 at 12/11/11 @ 13:46

  • vizzini #107 6 months ago

    @Flipper79

    If you think a decent PC doesn't pull a much heavier load when gaming than a laptop, then might I suggest your PC is inferior to an 360 in the visuals department. Full sized GPU boards are extremely power hungry under heavy load(200-300Watts easy for any non workstation board), and between a reasonably priced CPU/Motherboard, hard drive, and DVD drive you will be drawing at least an additional 150Watts.

    Common advice to prevent self build PCs crashing is to increase the power supply to as large as you can get to ensure adequate supply for a demanding graphics card.

    The monitor or TV discussion is irrelevant, as a good PC LCD monitor use the same power as the best equivalent LCD TVs.

    You might think power is an endless resource for burning, but green computing, like greener motoring has been a big issue around the world for a decade now, and is something that any have decent company would factor into their operational running costs and total cost of ownership when choosing hardware solutions. Why should consumers not do the same? Or is that "just downright hysterical" to use common sense?

  • Flipper79 #108 6 months ago

    @vizzini

    I use a 6870, at the top end of the mid-range cards, which will play pretty much anything at at least high settings. That's 128 watts running idle and about 250 running full load which it rarely needs to do so you're looking on average about 200 for most games. Add that to the draw from other components and gaming wise you're looking at between 300-400 watts max. That's about 100-200 more than a combined xbox and laptop. But then I save another 20-40 watts using a monitor over a TV making it between about 60-180 more.

    That's not such a huge amount cost-wise since the price of pc games is considerably lower than console, in fact I can say with certainty that I would save money over your suggested set up each year. Environmentally wise, again I would point out that on release the xbox was less efficient than the average comparable gaming pc at the time and your set up would have been using about 100-200 watts more than just having a gaming pc for about 2 years after the xbox's release. And when you add in the devalued natural materials to build an xbox sold at a loss the gaming pc is at least as environmentally sound as your setup over the consoles entire lifecycle.

  • vizzini #109 6 months ago

    @Flipper79
    You'll be using at least 400watts in the base unit when gaming, and a laptop is typically 80-90Watts, workstation laptops are 145watts I believe. The PS3 slim at maximum peak performance is also 80-90Watts; which was the PS3 model when your 2010 AMD GPU was new.

    Ball park figure, the PS3 and laptop or netbook/tablet(which charges while plugged in and can then be used for free for a duration) will be saving 250watts versus just compared to your PC tower. And games on PS3/360 get very cheap after just a month or two, even exclusives when go platinum quick.

    And have you checked the power consumption on flagship LCD/LED tvs of the same size as your monitor? I don't think you are saving power, and if you are, not getting a comparative quality picture.

    Sony's flagship TVs are very green and use very little power whether on or on standby even compared to many other brand's competing panels, LG, Samsung. Unlike monitor brands they make the latest panels from their own R&D, and don't use a previous generation panel re-badged from another manufacturer that are commonly found in most PC monitors.

    As an example my 2009 22” Sony KDL-22E5300 uses just 37watts when on, and 0.37watts on standby. And even my old 2007 46” KDL46X3000 is comparative to many of today's screens using 285watts when on and 0.3watts on standby.

  • Spazdarn #110 6 months ago

    @UncleLou Always weird how PC nerd and Console gamers feel the need to defend either.

    Consoles have done very well this generation as far as sales go, Wii, PS3 and 360.

    PC Games have been hit with DRM issues and piracy (as usual)

    I don't think PC gaming is going anywhere but it's not a ludicrous idea, given some developers deem it not worth the investment.

  • Flipper79 #111 6 months ago

    Not getting a comparative picture? You can buy the most expensive tv on the market to play your xbox if you want, but the picture won't be as good as if you're playing on a gaming pc with a £150 monitor at 1080p with settings at max. The monitor will only be using around 30 watts. Sure 22 inch led tv's may be comparable in wattage but I'd guess most people playing on consoles are going to be using a larger tv, and possibly older models pushing more towards 100 watts.

    And do you not think it's somewhat hypocritical to tell people they shouldn't use pc's for gaming because it's an unnecessary drain on the environment whilst you've been knocking about with a 46" tv that uses 285 watts? Having such a large power hungry tv is hardly necessary now is it?

  • vizzini #112 6 months ago

    @Flipper79
    The screen size issue is a fair comment now the TV is older and maybe we could make an argument on those grounds for Wii or hand held gaming, if the visual delta was smaller. But comparative TVs of the time were using double or treble that amount of power, and even new flagship plasmas are only just reaching or passing that power consumption level.

    With half the gaming population still using CRTs that use 200 watts upwards for +22”, I'm not sure I'm a hypocrite on an old 46" screen using 285Watts.

    When a 4K or 8K OLED model replacement (that uses less) is available, I'll definitely be replacing it, looking at that criteria again. But I did at least choose something with efficiency in mind, which is my point; PC gaming versus console gaming now fails every time on that measure, especially when the visual delta is small for most gamers, and the power saving is 4x 60 watt light bulbs at the very minimum.

    But by the way, what make and model of PC monitor have you got that uses only 30watts? I'm intrigued.

  • Flipper79 #113 6 months ago

    To be honest I'd be inclined to agree with you if the options are the same. My original point was that each system has it's own benefits and it's mostly down to jealousy and poor knowledge that people critisise others' choices.

    I want to play things that you can't get on other platforms, and some games that work as well on pc as the other platforms I'd prefer to play at a higher level of quality.

    You can argue for the environment as much as you like but at the end of the day people want what suits them. It can be argued by your same logic that actually you don't need a console at all since you can play browser games at least on your laptop. Presumably you have a console because you don't just want to play what you can on the laptop.

  • weebl #114 6 months ago

    Zelda shows console is dramatically better than pc's

    Not all of us are graphics whores

  • HAL9000 #115 6 months ago

    @bad09 ...and then there's the console 'micro-transactions' which can become extremely expensive!

  • Kengro #116 6 months ago

    @Flipper79
    Well... I got a gaming rig, I7, 8gb ram, 2 x 6950, OCZ revodrive +++.
    But for those who is thinking abount converting theyr existing pc into a BF 3 rig there is some rather big problems. Older mobo's can't support PCI EX 2,1, so the best graphics cards won't help a bit. Today's games also demands a lot from ram and cpu, wich can't be changed if you haven't got the right sockets. Newer psu's have 8 pin mobo hookups, older mobo's got 4 pin +++

    So many of those with a pc got to replace the whole lot if theyr to run todays games. Everyone of us will have to replace the whole pc atleast once if we are to play the freshest games in the lifespan of a console. A gameing pc won't last 6 - 7 years. Even if consoles are hellish expencive when they arrive they are still much better than pc's costwise.

    I got nothing against either platform, but nvidias comparison was so braindead it hurt.
    Edited by Kengro at 13/11/11 @ 10:55

  • Obli #117 6 months ago

    Obvious statement. Comparing current hardware to five / six year old hardware.

  • TheMoonRat #118 6 months ago

    First of all I don't really understand the PC hate; the reality is, console this gen are the closest they've ever been to PC's, in technology with Nvidia and ATI supplying the hardware in the consoles, and in systems; online play (good), patching (bad). Where the PC leads, the consoles eventually follow, which is what you'd expect when consoles have a long life cycle!

    Onto the gaming itself; the difference between the two are definitely not on cost. If you bought a 360 near launch, you're talking £250. Add in £30 a year to play online, and that's £180 over the 6 years. Could you get a decent (not the best) gaming PC for that £430 price? Definitely. PC games are also a good deal cheaper, so if you bought only 5 games a year, at a tenner cheaper per pop on the PC, that's an extra £300 you're paying to play on a console. Could you get a great (one of the best) gaming PC for that £700 cost? Hell yeah! Indeed, get a £600 and then leave that other £100 to upgrade graphics card mid way through the life of the machine if you want.

    The issue with PC gaming, is not in the cost, it's due to the fact that it's not where the money is for developers! Consoles get more games, often released earlier, with more care given to them, get exclusives; all sorts! PC Gamers get... well, we have Valve and Steam.

    So, when it comes down to it, gaming is all about.... the games! Consoles are where you can guarantee all the games being, so it makes sense why most people would rather buy one and get on with gaming!

  • cobaltfram #119 6 months ago

    I've never understood the debate between PCs and consoles like this. I don't worry about upgrading my console, and I like it that way. Some people really like upgrading their PC, and that's great for them. Why do we need to say that one is "better" than the other?

  • SirRodSpode #120 6 months ago

    Haha, if any of you guys think there's a big difference between console and PC graphics, you clearly weren't there in the 80's! In fact I have new dictionary definition for you:

    DISAPPOINTMENT - noun - the feeling you get when you compare graphics in your new ZX Spectrum game with the Amiga screenshots that were on the box.

  • TheMoonRat #121 6 months ago

    @SirRodSpode I've noticed that on an advert for the new Need for Speed game they put that it's the PC version of gameplay being shown :)

  • gudnikristinn #122 6 months ago

    What is wrong with me...Here i am playing Modern warfare 3 on my Wii because i like the controls and yet i have great gaming PC and i totally forgot to even consider that there is a difference in graphics.

  • ndbsolar #123 6 months ago

    Post deleted at 09:51:24 12-12-2011

  • layleeloo #124 6 months ago

    Who cares - the games AI makes it flat out far worse than BF2. I'd rather have a game that works than a 'pretty' one

  • username84 #125 6 months ago

    Graphics card maker Nvidia has pointed to games such as Battlefield 3 as evidence that the PC platform is way ahead of current generation consoles.

    Current technology better than that from five years ago? Well blow me...

  • LiBoud #126 6 months ago

    @Whatascoop Ain't nVidia making the GPU for PS3 as well? (and probably involved in designing GPU for next gen consoles...)

  • Ultraman1966 #127 6 months ago

    @vizzini Up to half the gaming population uses CRT?? Where did you get that statistic???

    I've got an LG W2486L monitor which uses typically less than 30W.