GTA IV for PC

[MISTO]

http://www.techmixer.com/download-directx-10-for-windows-xp/

 

I don't know if it works well.

[007 RoadRunner]

I tried to play Assassins Creed with DirectX 10. Wasn't really succesfull. The framerate was like 2fps and with the blurry vison and flashing colors it looked like I had taken XTC. It was quite fun in the beginning but unplayable so I used DirectX 9 which works ferfectly.

[Buster23]

 

When discussing cost with PC, I think it's important to focus on INCREMENTAL COST; that is, how much extra does it cost you to take your current PC from where it's at right now to where it needs to be in order to make it "gaming ready"? This usually is a matter of upgrading some combination of CPU/Memory/Motherboard/Graphics card.

 

Other parts don't really need to be upgraded that often (power supply, optical drive, case, fans, etc.). This is in stark contrast to consoles which basically have you buying these parts over again when the NEW next-gen comes out! Woo hoo!

INCREMENTAL COST is key because most people have computers to do other things with regardless and whether they play games or not they will periodically upgrade their systems. So, you can't necessarily look at the cost of a part and say it's JUST because you want to play a game.

 

Shall I also mention that consoles have that wonderful EXCLUSIVITY.  Yippee! You won't find this on PCs, no sir. So, console owners have the luxury of buying BOTH the PS3 AND the Xbox 360 if they want to be able to play almost every game (except for those mind-blowing Wii games. Add the cost of the Wii if you want to play these exclusive titles as well). MS and Sony have their customers practically kissing their feet for the opportunity to take up the arse.

 

If that's not enough, console gamers get to pay more for their games. And WHO has their hands in console gamers' pockets snagging the royalties? You guessed it, Sony and Microsoft! Yay!!! Please give it to me up the back door again MS and Sony! Console gamers' bottoms must fit them like a glove.

 

Oh, and the only reason I'm fairly confident we will see a unpolished port of GTA IV on the PC is that R* has shown time and time again that they are driven purely by money. That's it! No more, no less. R* has a rich history of letting PC gamers down. If anyone knows of one favorable thing R* has done for PC gamers or PC gaming in general I'd love to hear it.

 

 

 

 

I'm a pc and console gamer and look forward to a pc version, but...

 

The average pc out there probably still has a single core cpu and an integrated graphics card or something like a Geforce 6100. So the average pc out there will need an upgrade that costs more than a console. The parts you named that dont need to be upgraded are the only inexpensive parts of a pc so thats irrelevant. Except for the power supply. Most pc's out there cant handle a gpu upgrade without upgrading the psu.

 

If you upgrade now your looking at 3 years tops before having to upgrade again.

 

A current prebuilt pc from Dell at the same cost as the 360 is a 1.6ghz Celeron with integrated graphics. This pc would last until the components wore out for web surfing and emailing. Add a 360 and you've got 5 years of playing current games and basic computer usage for $800.

 

Exclusivity? You speak as if pc gets every game. Where's the pc version of Drakes Fortune? Ninja Gaiden 2, Resistance, MGS, Bully, Killzone...I could go on.

 

It took at least a $1500 selfbuilt or $2000 prebuilt pc to match the 360's power in 2005. The consoles are sold at a loss and later on for very little profit. MS and Sony have to recoup the loss with higher priced games. $400 for 360 and $10 more for a game at 10 games bought a year for 5 years is still below the cost of pc gaming.

 

GTA series was mediocre before Sony stepped in. Look at the reviews for GTA 1 and 2. Is it a coincidence that the first console exclusive GTA is one of the best and most groundbreaking games ever? Maybe but probably not. Without Sony, Rockstar probably didnt have the budget to make GTA 3 the incredible blockbuster it was.

[GiveMeLiberty78]

A quick thought: mouse 'n keyboard has always been a better configuration (personally anyway). But something that was mentioned elsewhere was how the consoles have a great, albeit rather simple, advantage over the PC: something you can never do on the PC is control your speed variably via pressure-sensitive triggers. I've heard people mention the GTA:IV controls (official or not) and if all turns out to be true then the RT on Xbox 360 should make cruising possible. It's a simple thing really but it'd be mighty handy, rather than forever accelerating then hard-hitting the breaks. Hmmm. Just a thought that popped into me wee head.

[savatorius]

Im not really savvy on this.. but can XP run dx10 if the computer has a dx10 card?

yes, xp can run dx10 games if you have dx10 card but you wont have the same game details.

[Nemon]

 

I'm a pc and console gamer and look forward to a pc version, but...

 

The average pc out there probably still has a single core cpu and an integrated graphics card or something like a Geforce 6100. So the average pc out there will need an upgrade that costs more than a console. The parts you named that dont need to be upgraded are the only inexpensive parts of a pc so thats irrelevant. Except for the power supply. Most pc's out there cant handle a gpu upgrade without upgrading the psu.

 

If you upgrade now your looking at 3 years tops before having to upgrade again.

 

A current prebuilt pc from Dell at the same cost as the 360 is a 1.6ghz Celeron with integrated graphics. This pc would last until the components wore out for web surfing and emailing. Add a 360 and you've got 5 years of playing current games and basic computer usage for $800.

 

Exclusivity? You speak as if pc gets every game. Where's the pc version of Drakes Fortune? Ninja Gaiden 2, Resistance, MGS, Bully, Killzone...I could go on.

 

It took at least a $1500 selfbuilt or $2000 prebuilt pc to match the 360's power in 2005. The consoles are sold at a loss and later on for very little profit. MS and Sony have to recoup the loss with higher priced games. $400 for 360 and $10 more for a game at 10 games bought a year for 5 years is still below the cost of pc gaming.

 

GTA series was mediocre before Sony stepped in. Look at the reviews for GTA 1 and 2. Is it a coincidence that the first console exclusive GTA is one of the best and most groundbreaking games ever? Maybe but probably not. Without Sony, Rockstar probably didnt have the budget to make GTA 3 the incredible blockbuster it was.

If by average pc, you mean, including every old aunts pc, then maybe your statement is true. If you mean the average pc of potential buyers of GTA IV on pc then your statement is probably way off target. People interested in gaming usually have ok computers, and doesn't need to change that much of the parts, I believe CC has proven that point numerous times in this thread.

 

Your $ statements on selfbuilt vs console is bullsh*t, and proven wrong time and time again in this thread. But for all we care, keep on posting...

 

GTA 1 and 2 are ancient games, and criticizing them for not beeing like GTA 3 is like criticizing Wolfenstein 3d for not beeing like Doom 3. Times change, technical abilities change, and if a proper GTA III had been developed for pc we wouldn't have to do with a poor console port, with poor texturing, poor optimizing and useless customising options. By the time GTA IV is released, the PS3 is now one and a half year old, and the Xbox360 is two and a half year old. Anyone say outdated technology?

Edited April 16, 2008 by Nemon

[GTA_Godfather]

 

 

I'm a pc and console gamer and look forward to a pc version, but...

 

The average pc out there probably still has a single core cpu and an integrated graphics card or something like a Geforce 6100. So the average pc out there will need an upgrade that costs more than a console. The parts you named that dont need to be upgraded are the only inexpensive parts of a pc so thats irrelevant. Except for the power supply. Most pc's out there cant handle a gpu upgrade without upgrading the psu.

 

If you upgrade now your looking at 3 years tops before having to upgrade again.

 

A current prebuilt pc from Dell at the same cost as the 360 is a 1.6ghz Celeron with integrated graphics. This pc would last until the components wore out for web surfing and emailing. Add a 360 and you've got 5 years of playing current games and basic computer usage for $800.

 

Exclusivity? You speak as if pc gets every game. Where's the pc version of Drakes Fortune? Ninja Gaiden 2, Resistance, MGS, Bully, Killzone...I could go on.

 

It took at least a $1500 selfbuilt or $2000 prebuilt pc to match the 360's power in 2005. The consoles are sold at a loss and later on for very little profit. MS and Sony have to recoup the loss with higher priced games. $400 for 360 and $10 more for a game at 10 games bought a year for 5 years is still below the cost of pc gaming.

 

GTA series was mediocre before Sony stepped in. Look at the reviews for GTA 1 and 2. Is it a coincidence that the first console exclusive GTA is one of the best and most groundbreaking games ever? Maybe but probably not. Without Sony, Rockstar probably didnt have the budget to make GTA 3 the incredible blockbuster it was.

To add to what Nemon wrote...

 

If you are going to compare apples with apples, we need to talk about an AVERAGE gaming rig of a PC gamer. Comparing a low-end non-gamer PC to a PS3 or 360 is not valid, because you're comparing someone who has invested NOTHING into the gaming aspect of their PC vs. a console player who has invested EVERYTHING into gaming, since that's basically ALL it's meant to do. You would have to compare a non-gamer PC with an OLD console (PS2, Xbox, or earlier). Then, both customers have invested little into their chosen hardware.

 

Upgrading a PC periodically is no big deal when you take into account the considerable outlay for a console or both. That's upwards of a $1000 JUST to "game" in a mediocre way on a television.

 

I think you missed my point on the EXCLUSIVITY. There are two platforms - consoles and PCs. With consoles some games are exclusive to the PS3, some to the Xbox 360, and some to the Wii. Now, why do we have deal with console fanboys? It's because of this very reason. MS, Sony, and Nintendo actively pit one gamer against another by buying rights to a game. So we have to hear console children go on and on about it in sheer stupidity. How often do we hear kids bitch and moan about how Halo 3 is exclusive to the 360 or that the exclusive GTA IV DLC is ONLY on the 360 or that Uncharted is ONLY on the PS3 or Pokemon is ONLY on the Nintendo. Damn, I wanted Pokemon for my Xbox too!

 

If I had a console I'd hate it too. I refuse to be dicked over like that though. In the end I usually just laugh (SORRY, console kids!), because THIS is what you get when you settle for a kids' toy. They should have figured it out by now. Not smart.

 

All you need to know is that a game is coming out for PC if you want to play it on a PC. There is no need to ask a follow-up question like, "Yeah, but for what brand of PC?" How ridiculous does that sound!? There are no games that are exclusive to one brand of computer or another (unless you are talking about a Mac or Linux-based computer, but those don't really count). It would be like PC gamers going back and forth as to whether GTA would be exclusive to a DELL or to an HP or to a (whatever brand of computer or motherboard you have). If I was involved with a console and had to deal with it, it would just drive me nuts and I'd have to buy both and feel like a complete sucker and nitwit. That's what it would come down to - AND MANY console gamers DO buy both The funny part is that they BRAG about owning both. They brag about be shafted and taken for granted. Sony and MS must think console gamers are morons. Sony, MS, and Nintendo FORCE gamers to either buy multiple systems OR to do without. That's communist in my book, especially when there is a platform that has no exclusive b.s. and offers superiority in pretty much every aspect of gaming.

 

I think you are way off on your $1500-$2000 figure. Sony and MS weren't eating THAT much when the NEW "next-gen" consoles came out. Most would agree that they took a loss on the hardware when it first came out, but come on. I'm sure it would only be $100-$200 at the absolute most. There is no way a console could stack up with a $1500 PC at that time, pound for pound (I'm talking about a game with the same low resolution, same low AA/AF, same low framerates, etc.). The performance difference is even more stark now between the two. Two years is an eternity in the PC hardware world.

 

 

 

[Buster23]

 

I'm a pc and console gamer and look forward to a pc version, but...

 

The average pc out there probably still has a single core cpu and an integrated graphics card or something like a Geforce 6100. So the average pc out there will need an upgrade that costs more than a console. The parts you named that dont need to be upgraded are the only inexpensive parts of a pc so thats irrelevant. Except for the power supply. Most pc's out there cant handle a gpu upgrade without upgrading the psu.

 

If you upgrade now your looking at 3 years tops before having to upgrade again.

 

A current prebuilt pc from Dell at the same cost as the 360 is a 1.6ghz Celeron with integrated graphics. This pc would last until the components wore out for web surfing and emailing. Add a 360 and you've got 5 years of playing current games and basic computer usage for $800.

 

Exclusivity? You speak as if pc gets every game. Where's the pc version of Drakes Fortune? Ninja Gaiden 2, Resistance, MGS, Bully, Killzone...I could go on.

 

It took at least a $1500 selfbuilt or $2000 prebuilt pc to match the 360's power in 2005. The consoles are sold at a loss and later on for very little profit. MS and Sony have to recoup the loss with higher priced games. $400 for 360 and $10 more for a game at 10 games bought a year for 5 years is still below the cost of pc gaming.

 

GTA series was mediocre before Sony stepped in. Look at the reviews for GTA 1 and 2. Is it a coincidence that the first console exclusive GTA is one of the best and most groundbreaking games ever? Maybe but probably not. Without Sony, Rockstar probably didnt have the budget to make GTA 3 the incredible blockbuster it was.

If by average pc, you mean, including every old aunts pc, then maybe your statement is true. If you mean the average pc of potential buyers of GTA IV on pc then your statement is probably way off target. People interested in gaming usually have ok computers, and doesn't need to change that much of the parts, I believe CC has proven that point numerous times in this thread.

 

Your $ statements on selfbuilt vs console is bullsh*t, and proven wrong time and time again in this thread. But for all we care, keep on posting...

 

GTA 1 and 2 are ancient games, and criticizing them for not beeing like GTA 3 is like criticizing Wolfenstein 3d for not beeing like Doom 3. Times change, technical abilities change, and if a proper GTA III had been developed for pc we wouldn't have to do with a poor console port, with poor texturing, poor optimizing and useless customising options. By the time GTA IV is released, the PS3 is now one and a half year old, and the Xbox360 is two and a half year old. Anyone say outdated technology?

Godfather made a statement about what it takes to make a pc "gaming ready". Have you seen the Steam hardware survey from Nov 2007? The survey from people who are already into pc gaming? Only 40% of those have a multi core cpu. Only about 15% had a graphics card capable of maxing a console port. Again these are people who are already into pc gaming so imagine what non pc gamers have.

 

Try to prove me wrong on the selfbuilt vs console. Pretty please.

 

Your comments on GTA and Wolfenstein shows a lack of simple comprehension. Wolfenstein was an incredible game for its time and undebatebly better for 1992 than Doom 3 was for 2004.

 

GTA 1 came out in 1998 and has an average score of 79% on pc. GTA 2 had an average score of 72%. Thats mediocre. Even in ancient times scores were out of 100. GTA 3 has a score of 93%. How did a mediocre franchise suddenly turn around like that and become the best selling action game franchise? We can all make assumptions but I'll stick to my theory and say that it was due in part to Sony helping with the budget on GTA 3. If Rockstar hadnt signed with Sony then maybe GTA would still be the mediocre franchise it once was.

 

Outdated technology? I'm currently on my 4th or 5th replay of Deus Ex and it still kicks the crap out of most current games.

 

GTA 4 being built around the consoles means my next graphics card which is the GT200 aka 9900 will easily run this game at 1920x1200 16xaf/8xaa at 60+ fps.

[pimpinpenguin?]

I'm a pc and console gamer and look forward to a pc version, but...

 

The average pc out there probably still has a single core cpu and an integrated graphics card or something like a Geforce 6100. So the average pc out there will need an upgrade that costs more than a console. The parts you named that dont need to be upgraded are the only inexpensive parts of a pc so thats irrelevant. Except for the power supply. Most pc's out there cant handle a gpu upgrade without upgrading the psu.

 

If you upgrade now your looking at 3 years tops before having to upgrade again.

 

A current prebuilt pc from Dell at the same cost as the 360 is a 1.6ghz Celeron with integrated graphics. This pc would last until the components wore out for web surfing and emailing. Add a 360 and you've got 5 years of playing current games and basic computer usage for $800.

 

Exclusivity? You speak as if pc gets every game. Where's the pc version of Drakes Fortune? Ninja Gaiden 2, Resistance, MGS, Bully, Killzone...I could go on.

 

It took at least a $1500 selfbuilt or $2000 prebuilt pc to match the 360's power in 2005. The consoles are sold at a loss and later on for very little profit. MS and Sony have to recoup the loss with higher priced games. $400 for 360 and $10 more for a game at 10 games bought a year for 5 years is still below the cost of pc gaming.

 

GTA series was mediocre before Sony stepped in. Look at the reviews for GTA 1 and 2. Is it a coincidence that the first console exclusive GTA is one of the best and most groundbreaking games ever? Maybe but probably not. Without Sony, Rockstar probably didnt have the budget to make GTA 3 the incredible blockbuster it was.

If by average pc, you mean, including every old aunts pc, then maybe your statement is true. If you mean the average pc of potential buyers of GTA IV on pc then your statement is probably way off target. People interested in gaming usually have ok computers, and doesn't need to change that much of the parts, I believe CC has proven that point numerous times in this thread.

 

Your $ statements on selfbuilt vs console is bullsh*t, and proven wrong time and time again in this thread. But for all we care, keep on posting...

 

GTA 1 and 2 are ancient games, and criticizing them for not beeing like GTA 3 is like criticizing Wolfenstein 3d for not beeing like Doom 3. Times change, technical abilities change, and if a proper GTA III had been developed for pc we wouldn't have to do with a poor console port, with poor texturing, poor optimizing and useless customising options. By the time GTA IV is released, the PS3 is now one and a half year old, and the Xbox360 is two and a half year old. Anyone say outdated technology?

Godfather made a statement about what it takes to make a pc "gaming ready". Have you seen the Steam hardware survey from Nov 2007? The survey from people who are already into pc gaming? Only 40% of those have a multi core cpu. Only about 15% had a graphics card capable of maxing a console port. Again these are people who are already into pc gaming so imagine what non pc gamers have.

 

Try to prove me wrong on the selfbuilt vs console. Pretty please.

 

Your comments on GTA and Wolfenstein shows a lack of simple comprehension. Wolfenstein was an incredible game for its time and undebatebly better for 1992 than Doom 3 was for 2004.

 

GTA 1 came out in 1998 and has an average score of 79% on pc. GTA 2 had an average score of 72%. Thats mediocre. Even in ancient times scores were out of 100. GTA 3 has a score of 93%. How did a mediocre franchise suddenly turn around like that and become the best selling action game franchise? We can all make assumptions but I'll stick to my theory and say that it was due in part to Sony helping with the budget on GTA 3. If Rockstar hadnt signed with Sony then maybe GTA would still be the mediocre franchise it once was.

 

Outdated technology? I'm currently on my 4th or 5th replay of Deus Ex and it still kicks the crap out of most current games.

 

GTA 4 being built around the consoles means my next graphics card which is the GT200 aka 9900 will easily run this game at 1920x1200 16xaf/8xaa at 60+ fps.

The problem with the Steam Survey is it's not very accurate, firstly it doesn't count people who have upgraded, i upgraded my PC 2 months ago, yet the survey doesn't know. Also Valve games are very well optimized meaning people who like Valve games don't need to upgrade as often Also your statement about only 15% of users have the graphics card required to max it is bullsh*t, this is no were near Crysis quality and Console graphic cards are no were near the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 which i guessing you got that figure from. i would say it's more like 60%, GTA 4 is not that good looking there are far better looking games that don't require that good of graphics card.

 

Also comparing GTA 1 &2 to 3 is not fair, the first 2 were a simple 2D overhead game, running on basic technology not capable of proper 3D support. You make it sound like it's thanks to Sony paying Rockstar lots of money that the game turned out good, but sorry i think you are way off.

[TruXter]

 

I mean logic has set me to this Idea since we first found out that the cities will never be felt by those people who are dying to mod them, and or morph them with past versions of the same cities.

 

There have been two games that have not made pc. it has been four years since we got to w.a.s.d. up down left right space bar shift ctrl 0 e-q and of course "R" to change to the closest lazlow show.

left click right click and spin the scroll wheel to find our favorite gun, or just hit the hot key we assigned.

 

It has been to long .

I'm not really seeing this happen this time around.

 

The only way I could any hope or faith, is if there was an announcement of the cities being released for pc while we wait for a better graphics and bugs fixed version of IV to be ported .

 

And for the last.

[SynTerro]

Godfather made a statement about what it takes to make a pc "gaming ready". Have you seen the Steam hardware survey from Nov 2007? The survey from people who are already into pc gaming? Only 40% of those have a multi core cpu. Only about 15% had a graphics card capable of maxing a console port. Again these are people who are already into pc gaming so imagine what non pc gamers have.

 

From steam HW survey

about 40% has multicore CPU correct and that is not that bad, and the that number will obviousky just increase in the future(3 guys has 127 cores)

But on GPU you are way off, I counted all the cards that is equal or better then the console counterparts and I got about 30%, there are probably 20-30% more cards that is close but not better, and 18,02% categorized as others here is allot of ati cards that is more capable than the console counterparts, including all HD3000 series cards.

 

61% are atleast DX9 shader model 3 capable

another 18% are atleast DX9 shader model 2 capable

 

81% runs XP

14% runs Vista

9% runs Vista with DX10 capable GPU(9% of all not 9% of the 14% vista users)

 

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

[CharmingCharlie]

I see where you are coming from about the lawsuit and yes it is a very real concern that it will put Rockstar off from bringing out a PC version. However there are various ways Rockstar can ensure that doesn't happen again. Firstly they could stop being idiots and releasing content that is easily unlocked, that smacks of sloppiness and the Hot Coffee fiasco was 100% Rockstars fault and could've been avoided.

 

The second thing Rockstar could do is push for an AO rating for the PC version. Now as far as I am aware there is no rule that says AO rated games cannot appear on the PC, unlike consoles where MS and Sony will not allow AO games. Yes I am aware that some shops will refuse to stock AO games, that is no big loss since the majority of PC owners are highly unlikely to buy the game from those places. Infact I would say the majority of PC gamers would get GTA 4 from steam if it is released and I believe Steam doesn't prohibit AO games.

 

I guess it comes down to whether Rockstar has the will to meet the challenges. However I think it is telling that there has been NO statement whatsoever from Rockstar about the PC version, I mean if they are not going to be doing a PC version why not come out and say so ? They have nothing to gain by keeping quiet about there being no PC version. Infact the reverse is true by stating that there will be no PC version they could force more users into buying the console version.

 

I am not saying a PC version is definately ON, but I would say it is too soon to write it off just yet. Let's see what happens a couple of months after the console version. I personally think they will have to do a PC version to get the numbers up since they are only expected to sell 9 million copies as opposed to the 25 million copies GTA SA sold.

[Jops]

a year after release would f*cking suck. I am patient but my gut is telling me something is fishy here. Theres no way I'm investing in a console just to play this game (unless its 5 years from now and a ps3 is worth 50 bucks )

 

 

I know its just a video game but I think theres enough of us nerds here with plenty of downtime to write a petition and maybe yield some results

[Buster23]

 

I'm a pc and console gamer and look forward to a pc version, but...

 

The average pc out there probably still has a single core cpu and an integrated graphics card or something like a Geforce 6100. So the average pc out there will need an upgrade that costs more than a console. The parts you named that dont need to be upgraded are the only inexpensive parts of a pc so thats irrelevant. Except for the power supply. Most pc's out there cant handle a gpu upgrade without upgrading the psu.

 

If you upgrade now your looking at 3 years tops before having to upgrade again.

 

A current prebuilt pc from Dell at the same cost as the 360 is a 1.6ghz Celeron with integrated graphics. This pc would last until the components wore out for web surfing and emailing. Add a 360 and you've got 5 years of playing current games and basic computer usage for $800.

 

Exclusivity? You speak as if pc gets every game. Where's the pc version of Drakes Fortune? Ninja Gaiden 2, Resistance, MGS, Bully, Killzone...I could go on.

 

It took at least a $1500 selfbuilt or $2000 prebuilt pc to match the 360's power in 2005. The consoles are sold at a loss and later on for very little profit. MS and Sony have to recoup the loss with higher priced games. $400 for 360 and $10 more for a game at 10 games bought a year for 5 years is still below the cost of pc gaming.

 

GTA series was mediocre before Sony stepped in. Look at the reviews for GTA 1 and 2. Is it a coincidence that the first console exclusive GTA is one of the best and most groundbreaking games ever? Maybe but probably not. Without Sony, Rockstar probably didnt have the budget to make GTA 3 the incredible blockbuster it was.

If by average pc, you mean, including every old aunts pc, then maybe your statement is true. If you mean the average pc of potential buyers of GTA IV on pc then your statement is probably way off target. People interested in gaming usually have ok computers, and doesn't need to change that much of the parts, I believe CC has proven that point numerous times in this thread.

 

Your $ statements on selfbuilt vs console is bullsh*t, and proven wrong time and time again in this thread. But for all we care, keep on posting...

 

GTA 1 and 2 are ancient games, and criticizing them for not beeing like GTA 3 is like criticizing Wolfenstein 3d for not beeing like Doom 3. Times change, technical abilities change, and if a proper GTA III had been developed for pc we wouldn't have to do with a poor console port, with poor texturing, poor optimizing and useless customising options. By the time GTA IV is released, the PS3 is now one and a half year old, and the Xbox360 is two and a half year old. Anyone say outdated technology?

Godfather made a statement about what it takes to make a pc "gaming ready". Have you seen the Steam hardware survey from Nov 2007? The survey from people who are already into pc gaming? Only 40% of those have a multi core cpu. Only about 15% had a graphics card capable of maxing a console port. Again these are people who are already into pc gaming so imagine what non pc gamers have.

 

Try to prove me wrong on the selfbuilt vs console. Pretty please.

 

Your comments on GTA and Wolfenstein shows a lack of simple comprehension. Wolfenstein was an incredible game for its time and undebatebly better for 1992 than Doom 3 was for 2004.

 

GTA 1 came out in 1998 and has an average score of 79% on pc. GTA 2 had an average score of 72%. Thats mediocre. Even in ancient times scores were out of 100. GTA 3 has a score of 93%. How did a mediocre franchise suddenly turn around like that and become the best selling action game franchise? We can all make assumptions but I'll stick to my theory and say that it was due in part to Sony helping with the budget on GTA 3. If Rockstar hadnt signed with Sony then maybe GTA would still be the mediocre franchise it once was.

 

Outdated technology? I'm currently on my 4th or 5th replay of Deus Ex and it still kicks the crap out of most current games.

 

GTA 4 being built around the consoles means my next graphics card which is the GT200 aka 9900 will easily run this game at 1920x1200 16xaf/8xaa at 60+ fps.

The problem with the Steam Survey is it's not very accurate, firstly it doesn't count people who have upgraded, i upgraded my PC 2 months ago, yet the survey doesn't know. Also Valve games are very well optimized meaning people who like Valve games don't need to upgrade as often Also your statement about only 15% of users have the graphics card required to max it is bullsh*t, this is no were near Crysis quality and Console graphic cards are no were near the NVIDIA GeForce 8800 which i guessing you got that figure from. i would say it's more like 60%, GTA 4 is not that good looking there are far better looking games that don't require that good of graphics card.

 

Also comparing GTA 1 &2 to 3 is not fair, the first 2 were a simple 2D overhead game, running on basic technology not capable of proper 3D support. You make it sound like it's thanks to Sony paying Rockstar lots of money that the game turned out good, but sorry i think you are way off.

You upgraded since Nov but how many non pc gamers upgraded since Nov? I wouldnt go as far as to say Valve games are well optimized since most of the levels are very small and the lighting is outdated in the HL episodes. Steam does sell other games as well and I know of many Crysis owners who buy off Steam.

 

Only the x1950 and above can perform better than the 360's gpu. A 7900gtx may be a better card than the 360's gpu but no pc game is optimized specifically for it and thus performs about on par. That card dipped into the 20's quite often in Bioshock at 1280x960 for me. Bioshock has better graphics than GTA4 but its a linear shooter.

 

You cant just look at the graphics and make a conclusion on how demanding a game will be. I played Gears of war on 360 for awhile and never noticed a slowdown. GTA4 OXM review mentioned fps issues when things get really hectic. So its safe to say the pc version will be more demanding than Gears of War. How many non-gaming pc's out there can run Gears? Or even have the psu to facilitate a gpu upgrade? A cpu that wont bottleneck that gpu upgrade?

 

I'm just comparing scores throughout the series. Fallout was from the same era with the same 2d overhead angle and its heralded as a classic aaa game. Why wasnt GTA 1 a aaa game?

 

GTA3 cost a sh*tload more to make than GTA 1 and 2 combined but what do you think caused the series to turn around?

 

 

[Buster23]

 

Godfather made a statement about what it takes to make a pc "gaming ready". Have you seen the Steam hardware survey from Nov 2007? The survey from people who are already into pc gaming? Only 40% of those have a multi core cpu. Only about 15% had a graphics card capable of maxing a console port. Again these are people who are already into pc gaming so imagine what non pc gamers have.

 

From steam HW survey

about 40% has multicore CPU correct and that is not that bad,

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

It is bad for people who claim that all you need to do is slap in an 8800 to a non gaming pc and your good to go.

 

That survey is for gamers and I used it as a gauge for what non gaming systems might have since I dont know of a survey that includes all pc's.

[Jops]

 

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

It is bad for people who claim that all you need to do is slap in an 8800 to a non gaming pc and your good to go.

 

what do you consider a non-gaming rig?

[CharmingCharlie]

 

Only the x1950 and above can perform better than the 360's gpu. A 7900gtx may be a better card than the 360's gpu but no pc game is optimized specifically for it and thus performs about on par. That card dipped into the 20's quite often in Bioshock at 1280x960 for me. Bioshock has better graphics than GTA4 but its a linear shooter.

 

You cant just look at the graphics and make a conclusion on how demanding a game will be. I played Gears of war on 360 for awhile and never noticed a slowdown. GTA4 OXM review mentioned fps issues when things get really hectic. So its safe to say the pc version will be more demanding than Gears of War. How many non-gaming pc's out there can run Gears? Or even have the psu to facilitate a gpu upgrade? A cpu that wont bottleneck that gpu upgrade?

 

Ok lets not judge the system requirements on graphics lets look at a game that is already out on the 360 then. Let's look at the specs for Mass Effect :-

 

Minimum requirements :-

-----------------------------

2.4+GHZ Intel or 2.0+GHZ AMD < ---- Note that is SINGLE core processor NOT dual core processor

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

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

 

Recommended System Requirements

-------------------------------------------

2.6+GHZ Intel or 2.4+GHZ AMD <- Again Single core processor

2 Gigabyte Ram

NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX or higher.

ATI X1800 XL series or higher

 

Hard Drive Space - 12 Gigabytes

 

Now Mass Effect pushed the 360 pretty hard from what I heard, in some cases too hard there was pop up all over the place. Yet here we are a console port that doesn't even require a dualcore cpu. If anyone out there doesn't have a PC that meets those minimum requirements then I would say there aren't really interested in PC gaming. I would even say the Recommended specs are not all that crazy to meet. I should also state that you said your card dipped below 20fps during bioshock when you ran it at 1280 x 960 !!!!! How about you run the game at the consoles resolution which is 1280 x 720 before you judge your PC. You may also want to take a look at your PC because my crappy 8600gt ran the game at 1280 x 800 and very rarely dropped below 60fps and the 8600gt is a crapper card than your 7900gtx.

Edited April 17, 2008 by CharmingCharlie

[SynTerro]

 

Godfather made a statement about what it takes to make a pc "gaming ready". Have you seen the Steam hardware survey from Nov 2007? The survey from people who are already into pc gaming? Only 40% of those have a multi core cpu. Only about 15% had a graphics card capable of maxing a console port. Again these are people who are already into pc gaming so imagine what non pc gamers have.

 

From steam HW survey

about 40% has multicore CPU correct and that is not that bad,

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

It is bad for people who claim that all you need to do is slap in an 8800 to a non gaming pc and your good to go.

 

That survey is for gamers and I used it as a gauge for what non gaming systems might have since I dont know of a survey that includes all pc's.

The survey has about 1,5 million unique samples (about 10% off all steam users), if this survey is accurate to the steams 15 million userbase there are about 6 million multicore machines on steam, and I will guess that another 4 million has a capable singel core CPU to run GTA IV, so I guess about 10 million potential GTA customers on steam. That is Steam only and they do not represent all PC gamers so I guess we look at far bigger number on non steam side.

 

Lets say that GTA IV comes to PC in october, then steam might represent 20-25 million users, and the number of multicore CPU may have reached 60-70%(if they reset the survey), then we might look at 15 million potential customers on steam only.

 

Will R* ignore that?

Edited April 17, 2008 by SynTerro

[TruXter]

I see where you are coming from about the lawsuit

 

I would say it is too soon to write it off just yet.

Too soon?

Two games have already come out

from the Grand theft auto line up. Two games

that pc gamers would buy right now at this moment

a bit more than a week away from the release of gtaIV

I would rush out to get Grand theft auto liberty and vice city stories

on the pc and just totally ignore the forums (to prevent spoilers)

untill I completed , and modded and swapped gtaIII with lcs and

vice city with vcs engine and or graphics. Rockstar knows we would.

But it has not come out.

 

There are groups like sa mp

mta that would run out to go multi player mod for both of the games

and put "survivor" to work.

 

 

There are millions of reasons they should but still do not release two easy ports

to the pc.

 

In my opinion and educated guess, there will be no pcIV

[chrisxpred]

I see where you are coming from about the lawsuit

 

I would say it is too soon to write it off just yet.

Too soon?

Two games have already come out

from the Grand theft auto line up. Two games

that pc gamers would buy right now at this moment

a bit more than a week away from the release of gtaIV

I would rush out to get Grand theft auto liberty and vice city stories

on the pc and just totally ignore the forums (to prevent spoilers)

untill I completed , and modded and swapped gtaIII with lcs and

vice city with vcs engine and or graphics. Rockstar knows we would.

But it has not come out.

 

There are groups like sa mp

mta that would run out to go multi player mod for both of the games

and put "survivor" to work.

 

 

There are millions of reasons they should but still do not release two easy ports

to the pc.

 

In my opinion and educated guess, there will be no pcIV

Totally wrong. Period.

[SynTerro]

I see where you are coming from about the lawsuit

 

I would say it is too soon to write it off just yet.

Too soon?

Two games have already come out

from the Grand theft auto line up. Two games

that pc gamers would buy right now at this moment

a bit more than a week away from the release of gtaIV

I would rush out to get Grand theft auto liberty and vice city stories

on the pc and just totally ignore the forums (to prevent spoilers)

untill I completed , and modded and swapped gtaIII with lcs and

vice city with vcs engine and or graphics. Rockstar knows we would.

But it has not come out.

 

There are groups like sa mp

mta that would run out to go multi player mod for both of the games

and put "survivor" to work.

 

 

There are millions of reasons they should but still do not release two easy ports

to the pc.

 

In my opinion and educated guess, there will be no pcIV

LCS and VCS would sell some on PC but not much, I never heard anybody crying about no PC version of those two games. I honestly NEVER heard of LCS and VCS until the GTA IV annoucement, even though I'm a huge GTA fan. From what I know about it they don't bring anything new to the GTA series, same cities, just more stories(correct me if i'm wrong), and thats why I don't have much interest in a PC version of those two. if they come I will atleast look at it.

[CharmingCharlie]

 

Too soon?

Two games have already come out

from the Grand theft auto line up. Two games

that pc gamers would buy right now at this moment

a bit more than a week away from the release of gtaIV

I would rush out to get Grand theft auto liberty and vice city stories

on the pc and just totally ignore the forums (to prevent spoilers)

untill I completed , and modded and swapped gtaIII with lcs and

vice city with vcs engine and or graphics. Rockstar knows we would.

But it has not come out.

 

There are groups like sa mp

mta that would run out to go multi player mod for both of the games

and put "survivor" to work.

 

 

There are millions of reasons they should but still do not release two easy ports

to the pc.

 

In my opinion and educated guess, there will be no pcIV

So you are reasoning that because we didn't get the GTA stories on the PC there will be no GTA 4 for the PC, am I right ??? Have you ever thought there might be other legitimate reasons WHY the stories never appeared on ANY OTHER platform except the Playstation platform ??? I mean why didn't Rockstar release the Stories as a quick knocked up version on the 360 to grab a bit of cash ? Oh wait because it would have looked bloody ugly on the 360, just like it looked god awful on the PS2 and it would have looked even worse on a decent spec PC. The Stories series were truly awful, they didn't even sell that well on the PSP and they completely BOMBED on the PS2. Basically there was little incentive to bring the Stories to the PC because they were dire. It doesn't matter how much YOU want to play them, the gaming public would have taken one look at the Stories on the PC and just left them on the shelf.

 

The problem we have here is you can give me a load of reasons why GTA 4 shouldn't come to the PC, I could counter it and give you loads of reasons why it will come to the PC. In the end it would be a 50/50 split. The stories series were never going to come to the PC just like the PC never got the game boy advanced version of GTA. To come to the conclusion that "oh we didn't get the stories so we won't get GTA 4" is a bit loopy to say the least.

 

Surely you must find it iffy that there is NO record ANYWHERE of Rockstar saying "we are no longer developing for the PC". Don't you find that a little bit strange ? I mean just look at Lucasarts they have made it QUITE clear that Starwars Force Unleashed is not coming to the PC, yet not a whisper from Rockstar about GTA 4 for the PC, so why would they not come out and state "there is going to be NO pc version" ? It is actually to their benefit to come out and say there will be no PC version, yet they don't, have you ever wondered why ?

[Buster23]

Godfather made a statement about what it takes to make a pc "gaming ready". Have you seen the Steam hardware survey from Nov 2007? The survey from people who are already into pc gaming? Only 40% of those have a multi core cpu. Only about 15% had a graphics card capable of maxing a console port. Again these are people who are already into pc gaming so imagine what non pc gamers have.

 

From steam HW survey

about 40% has multicore CPU correct and that is not that bad,

http://www.steampowered.com/status/survey.html

It is bad for people who claim that all you need to do is slap in an 8800 to a non gaming pc and your good to go.

 

That survey is for gamers and I used it as a gauge for what non gaming systems might have since I dont know of a survey that includes all pc's.

The survey has about 1,5 million unique samples (about 10% off all steam users), if this survey is accurate to the steams 15 million userbase there are about 6 million multicore machines on steam, and I will guess that another 4 million has a capable singel core CPU to run GTA IV, so I guess about 10 million potential GTA customers on steam. That is Steam only and they do not represent all PC gamers so I guess we look at far bigger number on non steam side.

 

Lets say that GTA IV comes to PC in october, then steam might represent 20-25 million users, and the number of multicore CPU may have reached 60-70%(if they reset the survey), then we might look at 15 million potential customers on steam only.

 

Will R* ignore that?

Where did I say that there wasnt a huge market for GTA on pc? 8800 series has sold millions and millions.

 

I simply brought up Steam to show that the average gaming pc is fairly weak which means that your average pc bought for regular use would need a mjor overhaul to make it gaming ready. Keep things in context.

[Buster23]

 

Only the x1950 and above can perform better than the 360's gpu. A 7900gtx may be a better card than the 360's gpu but no pc game is optimized specifically for it and thus performs about on par. That card dipped into the 20's quite often in Bioshock at 1280x960 for me. Bioshock has better graphics than GTA4 but its a linear shooter.

 

You cant just look at the graphics and make a conclusion on how demanding a game will be. I played Gears of war on 360 for awhile and never noticed a slowdown. GTA4 OXM review mentioned fps issues when things get really hectic. So its safe to say the pc version will be more demanding than Gears of War. How many non-gaming pc's out there can run Gears? Or even have the psu to facilitate a gpu upgrade? A cpu that wont bottleneck that gpu upgrade?

 

Ok lets not judge the system requirements on graphics lets look at a game that is already out on the 360 then. Let's look at the specs for Mass Effect :-

 

Minimum requirements :-

-----------------------------

2.4+GHZ Intel or 2.0+GHZ AMD < ---- Note that is SINGLE core processor NOT dual core processor

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

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

 

Recommended System Requirements

-------------------------------------------

2.6+GHZ Intel or 2.4+GHZ AMD <- Again Single core processor

2 Gigabyte Ram

NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX or higher.

ATI X1800 XL series or higher

 

Hard Drive Space - 12 Gigabytes

 

Now Mass Effect pushed the 360 pretty hard from what I heard, in some cases too hard there was pop up all over the place. Yet here we are a console port that doesn't even require a dualcore cpu. If anyone out there doesn't have a PC that meets those minimum requirements then I would say there aren't really interested in PC gaming. I would even say the Recommended specs are not all that crazy to meet. I should also state that you said your card dipped below 20fps during bioshock when you ran it at 1280 x 960 !!!!! How about you run the game at the consoles resolution which is 1280 x 720 before you judge your PC. You may also want to take a look at your PC because my crappy 8600gt ran the game at 1280 x 800 and very rarely dropped below 60fps and the 8600gt is a crapper card than your 7900gtx.

Once again this was about what it takes to make a regular pc "gaming ready" not about what the average gamer has. But since you brought it up.

 

Min specs means about 10-20fps on low at a res that lcd's cant even handle. I dont see how anyone could enjoy a game below recommended reqs.

 

How much performance difference do you really think there is between 1280x960 and 1280x720? 1-2fps maybe?

 

I said Bioshock dipped into the 20's not below.

 

Bioshock has almost the same reqs. Take a look at these benches

 

The x1950pro is comparable to the 7900gtx and averaged 41fps on high. I was usuually in the mid 40's but certain areas did drop into the 20's.

 

More benchmarks

 

1280x1024 medium settings

 

6800gt 18fps (6600 is the min req for Bioshock)

 

8600gt 37fps you should send Firing Squad some performance tips. Even on low I dont see how you could average in the 60's. Do you have a magical 8600?

 

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/biosho...mance/page8.asp

Edited April 17, 2008 by Buster23

[TruXter]

 

So you are reasoning why ?

There is more to my theory but it is buried back a page.

Where Rockstar messed up with the cities is they kept

saying "exclusive" each time they ported it.

Of course that killed the sells.

Another is everyone was dropping their ps2 to upgrade to ps3

and 360.

and seeing that you have been a member here for a while, you might recall how

everyone flipped out when they found out it would not be brought to pc.

 

Seeing how high the traffic is to this board, I would say that a large amount of

GTA gamers out there, have a computer (this is in many thread prior to this one)

So that would clearly be a reason to try and sell the games on pc.

Just the simple port + skinned with old version of game would solve your issue with

appearance. Heck there are a couple hundred 15 year old kids that swarm in the mods

section of gta forums who could do the skinning in one night.

I myself can do it alone in about three .

Maybe more if it doesn't go so smooth.

 

Rockstar knows this.

Modding got them sued before. I would feel comfortable in saying they are a bit gun shy now.

Edited April 17, 2008 by TruXter

[mkey82]

 

Where Rockstar messed up with the cities is they kept

saying "exclusive" each time they ported it.

Of course that killed the sells.

My first reaction for LCS was "OMG, where can I get it for my PC?". Then I played it at friends house (on PS2) and by the time I realized it's not coming for the PC, I didn't want it anymay. Since it was waste of money and time. IMHO.

 

 

Another is everyone was dropping their ps2 to upgrade to ps3

and 360.

PS2 sold almost 118 millions of units. PS3 sold 11.8 million. So how does that reflect your statement? I realize that PS3 is being sold only for year and a half, but I don't see it reaching PS2 numbers.

 

 

Rockstar knows this.

Modding got them sued before. I would feel  comfortable in saying they are a bit gun shy now.

ONLY R* regarding ONLY GTA SA has issues with modding. Check Half Life 2. There are so many high quality mods, you almost can't even tell which was the original game. Check PES2008, Mount&Blade, Max Payne, X3, Free Lancer (these are games I play(ed) and know about); all of those got heavily modded and people kept playing them for years. Modding didn't get R* in a pinch, they did it themselves. R* is a pathetic little bunch of scared pussies with an bad itch which can't admit when they are wrong, but just push forward and lash out on unsuspecting innocent people (modders).

 

If someone made a porno mod for GTA SA, would R* take the heat? No. Why no? Because that material would not be on the original disc. Someone would have to make it available through a unofficial downloadable package. All the stuff from Hot coffee WAS ON the original disc so they needed to change the rating.

 

Buster23 you insist on this "regular PC". Why is that? There is only one way to make a "regular PC" gaming ready and that would be to replace it. This heavily depends on the monetary status of people in specific country, but where I live a lot of people have sorry ass machines for "regular PC". I know since I work as a PC maintance guy. "Regular PC" is crap (gaming wise) old at least ten years.

 

I believe that GTA_Godfather was talking about "older gaming PCs" when talking about incremental costs. There is no point in upgrading "regular PCs" because you would need to replace the whole thing. The motherboard is too old, the power supply is antique. The only part you could keep is the case - but who would want that old sad piece of crap with all the new gear inside? The "regular PCs" owners do not think of gaming, only some office and home work tasks. As you know, PCs excel at various tasks like surfing, multimedia, burning, transcoding and various other sh*t (to all the console die-hard-boys out there). This is why a lot of people don't game on their machines so we need to talk about "gaming PCs" which have been upgraded from time to time (like once in 4 to 6 years).

 

Also, I think that the survey at Steam if anything proves that a lot PC gamers are ready to face a game like GTAIV. As has been said before, it's an demeaning task to talk about graphics for some game that hasn't been released yet, but based on what has been seen in trailers and the fact that R* games never had breathtaking graphics, GTAIV, if ported decently, should run nicely on most of those PCs steam users are gaming on. IMHO.

 

I don't know if I understood correctly your statement about the celeron and x360. When comparing hardware prices two things have to bee taken into account

• when you buy a PC you get your money worth (that is if you don't get scammed on some crappy prebuilt piece of sh*t). When you buy a consoles (X360 especially) you get a piece of hardware with HIGH failure rate and LOW reliability.
• nobody, and I do mean nobody, is heavily subsidizing PC. Sony and MS are poring a lot of money into their children of darkness just to make it's price reachable to all the kids and their parents out there.

For 600$ or so you can get a PC which outperforms the consoles (maybe there are some unleashed powers in consoles but it's well hidden, even from the programmers eyes) and does a wonderful job at it. Here where I live, 600$ is the price of a PS3, don't know about x360 and, frankly, I don't care. Of course, I wouldn't buy that 600$ PC because when I will upgrade (replace) my 6 year old PC I will do it in a proper manner. By proper I mean something like 1300$ for the whole deal (something like that I spent on my PC 6 years ago and have invested another 200$ during those years on memory (back then when it was expensive, heh those mofos) and "new" graphics card 9800 Pro (couple of years back).

[Nemon]

 

Godfather made a statement about what it takes to make a pc "gaming ready". Have you seen the Steam hardware survey from Nov 2007? The survey from people who are already into pc gaming? Only 40% of those have a multi core cpu. Only about 15% had a graphics card capable of maxing a console port. Again these are people who are already into pc gaming so imagine what non pc gamers have.

 

Try to prove me wrong on the selfbuilt vs console. Pretty please.

 

Your comments on GTA and Wolfenstein shows a lack of simple comprehension. Wolfenstein was an incredible game for its time and undebatebly better for 1992 than Doom 3 was for 2004.

 

GTA 1 came out in 1998 and has an average score of 79% on pc. GTA 2 had an average score of 72%. Thats mediocre. Even in ancient times scores were out of 100.   GTA 3 has a score of 93%. How did a mediocre franchise suddenly turn around like that and become the best selling action game franchise? We can all make assumptions but I'll stick to my theory and say that it was due in part to Sony helping with the budget on GTA 3. If Rockstar hadnt signed with Sony then maybe GTA would still be the mediocre franchise it once was.

 

Outdated technology? I'm currently on my 4th or 5th replay of Deus Ex and it still kicks the crap out of most current games.

 

GTA 4 being built around the consoles means my next graphics card which is the GT200 aka 9900 will easily run this game at 1920x1200 16xaf/8xaa at 60+ fps.

Ok, you think game ratings are a non variable factor? That a game reviewed years ago at 79% is, say 5 % worse than a game rated at 84 % today just to set an example? And you missed completely my Wolfenstein 3d Doom 3 point. You criticized Gta 1 and 2 for not looking like Gta 3, which happened to appear on a console first. But then I might ask an obvious question that would justify your aforementioned "point": Wasn't Gta 1 and 2 released quite some time BEFORE Gta 3, and then suited for pc specs older than what Gta 3 pc specs used? And we all know Gta 2, like Gta London was no advancement in technology, but that's only because the developer started sucking even before Sony plungded their dicks ahead...

 

***

"Outdated technology? I'm currently on my 4th or 5th replay of Deus Ex and it still kicks the crap out of most current games. "

***

 

Yes, but that is because Deus Ex is a good game. A really good game. But its graphics, physics and texturing is extremely outdated. Then we got the consolified Deus Ex IW, which sucked. Half Life 1 is also a good game, luckily Valve didn't whore themselves off to consoles like the Deus Ex developers did...

 

***

"GTA 4 being built around the consoles means my next graphics card which is the GT200 aka 9900 will easily run this game at 1920x1200 16xaf/8xaa at 60+ fps."

***

 

That's not even an argument againts me. It's just a statement on your videocard. And yes, a one and a half year old console is outdated. It was outdated already at launch, since every component had been chosen long before then.

Edited April 17, 2008 by Nemon

[Democrab]

I see where you are coming from about the lawsuit

 

I would say it is too soon to write it off just yet.

Too soon?

Two games have already come out

from the Grand theft auto line up. Two games

that pc gamers would buy right now at this moment

a bit more than a week away from the release of gtaIV

I would rush out to get Grand theft auto liberty and vice city stories

on the pc and just totally ignore the forums (to prevent spoilers)

untill I completed , and modded and swapped gtaIII with lcs and

vice city with vcs engine and or graphics. Rockstar knows we would.

But it has not come out.

 

There are groups like sa mp

mta that would run out to go multi player mod for both of the games

and put "survivor" to work.

 

 

There are millions of reasons they should but still do not release two easy ports

to the pc.

 

In my opinion and educated guess, there will be no pcIV

Is LCS and VCS on Xbox?

 

No, therefore, Point proven wrong.

 

Buster23:Knowing the other GTA PC ports, My X1600Pro will run it at 60fps @ 1440x900 on High/Medium.. (Intel Pentium Dual Core E2180 is my CPU btw, and its clocked at 2.8Ghz atm)

[Buster23]

 

I'm a pc and console gamer and look forward to a pc version, but...

 

The average pc out there probably still has a single core cpu and an integrated graphics card or something like a Geforce 6100. So the average pc out there will need an upgrade that costs more than a console. The parts you named that dont need to be upgraded are the only inexpensive parts of a pc so thats irrelevant. Except for the power supply. Most pc's out there cant handle a gpu upgrade without upgrading the psu.

 

If you upgrade now your looking at 3 years tops before having to upgrade again.

 

A current prebuilt pc from Dell at the same cost as the 360 is a 1.6ghz Celeron with integrated graphics. This pc would last until the components wore out for web surfing and emailing. Add a 360 and you've got 5 years of playing current games and basic computer usage for $800.

 

Exclusivity? You speak as if pc gets every game. Where's the pc version of Drakes Fortune? Ninja Gaiden 2, Resistance, MGS, Bully, Killzone...I could go on.

 

It took at least a $1500 selfbuilt or $2000 prebuilt pc to match the 360's power in 2005. The consoles are sold at a loss and later on for very little profit. MS and Sony have to recoup the loss with higher priced games. $400 for 360 and $10 more for a game at 10 games bought a year for 5 years is still below the cost of pc gaming.

 

GTA series was mediocre before Sony stepped in. Look at the reviews for GTA 1 and 2. Is it a coincidence that the first console exclusive GTA is one of the best and most groundbreaking games ever? Maybe but probably not. Without Sony, Rockstar probably didnt have the budget to make GTA 3 the incredible blockbuster it was.

To add to what Nemon wrote...

 

If you are going to compare apples with apples, we need to talk about an AVERAGE gaming rig of a PC gamer. Comparing a low-end non-gamer PC to a PS3 or 360 is not valid, because you're comparing someone who has invested NOTHING into the gaming aspect of their PC vs. a console player who has invested EVERYTHING into gaming, since that's basically ALL it's meant to do. You would have to compare a non-gamer PC with an OLD console (PS2, Xbox, or earlier). Then, both customers have invested little into their chosen hardware.

 

Upgrading a PC periodically is no big deal when you take into account the considerable outlay for a console or both. That's upwards of a $1000 JUST to "game" in a mediocre way on a television.

 

I think you missed my point on the EXCLUSIVITY. There are two platforms - consoles and PCs. With consoles some games are exclusive to the PS3, some to the Xbox 360, and some to the Wii. Now, why do we have deal with console fanboys? It's because of this very reason. MS, Sony, and Nintendo actively pit one gamer against another by buying rights to a game. So we have to hear console children go on and on about it in sheer stupidity. How often do we hear kids bitch and moan about how Halo 3 is exclusive to the 360 or that the exclusive GTA IV DLC is ONLY on the 360 or that Uncharted is ONLY on the PS3 or Pokemon is ONLY on the Nintendo. Damn, I wanted Pokemon for my Xbox too!

 

If I had a console I'd hate it too. I refuse to be dicked over like that though. In the end I usually just laugh (SORRY, console kids!), because THIS is what you get when you settle for a kids' toy. They should have figured it out by now. Not smart.

 

All you need to know is that a game is coming out for PC if you want to play it on a PC. There is no need to ask a follow-up question like, "Yeah, but for what brand of PC?" How ridiculous does that sound!? There are no games that are exclusive to one brand of computer or another (unless you are talking about a Mac or Linux-based computer, but those don't really count). It would be like PC gamers going back and forth as to whether GTA would be exclusive to a DELL or to an HP or to a (whatever brand of computer or motherboard you have). If I was involved with a console and had to deal with it, it would just drive me nuts and I'd have to buy both and feel like a complete sucker and nitwit. That's what it would come down to - AND MANY console gamers DO buy both The funny part is that they BRAG about owning both. They brag about be shafted and taken for granted. Sony and MS must think console gamers are morons. Sony, MS, and Nintendo FORCE gamers to either buy multiple systems OR to do without. That's communist in my book, especially when there is a platform that has no exclusive b.s. and offers superiority in pretty much every aspect of gaming.

 

I think you are way off on your $1500-$2000 figure. Sony and MS weren't eating THAT much when the NEW "next-gen" consoles came out. Most would agree that they took a loss on the hardware when it first came out, but come on. I'm sure it would only be $100-$200 at the absolute most. There is no way a console could stack up with a $1500 PC at that time, pound for pound (I'm talking about a game with the same low resolution, same low AA/AF, same low framerates, etc.). The performance difference is even more stark now between the two. Two years is an eternity in the PC hardware world.

 

 

 

I was referring to this :When discussing cost with PC, I think it's important to focus on INCREMENTAL COST; that is, how much extra does it cost you to take your current PC from where it's at right now to where it needs to be in order to make it "gaming ready"? Sounds to me your comparing the cost of upgrading a basic pc to play games. Why else would I bring up a basic pc?

 

Who says you need a $1k tv? Consoles can be used with computer monitors.

 

360 and PS3 are the same platform?

 

Exclusivity communist? Its as capitalist as you can get. Again you speak as if the pc gets every game. Uncharted is only on PS3, Pokemon is only on Wii, Stalker is only on pc. If you want to play all the great games then you have to buy every console and have a pc. I get a kick out of the pc and console fanboys.

 

The 360 launched in fall 2005. Only the highest end pc's could match the 360. Remember all the COD2 comparisons? We all know high end pc's are $1500+

 

Top of the line pc from 2005 gets 55fps at 1024x768 on COD2 with no aa or af. 360 did a constant 60fps at 720p with 2xaa.

x1800xt was $550 at the time. The fx57 used in the test was about $1k. http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/call_o...vidia/page4.asp

Edited April 17, 2008 by Buster23

[Buster23]

Godfather made a statement about what it takes to make a pc "gaming ready". Have you seen the Steam hardware survey from Nov 2007? The survey from people who are already into pc gaming? Only 40% of those have a multi core cpu. Only about 15% had a graphics card capable of maxing a console port. Again these are people who are already into pc gaming so imagine what non pc gamers have.

 

Try to prove me wrong on the selfbuilt vs console. Pretty please.

 

Your comments on GTA and Wolfenstein shows a lack of simple comprehension. Wolfenstein was an incredible game for its time and undebatebly better for 1992 than Doom 3 was for 2004.

 

GTA 1 came out in 1998 and has an average score of 79% on pc. GTA 2 had an average score of 72%. Thats mediocre. Even in ancient times scores were out of 100.    GTA 3 has a score of 93%. How did a mediocre franchise suddenly turn around like that and become the best selling action game franchise? We can all make assumptions but I'll stick to my theory and say that it was due in part to Sony helping with the budget on GTA 3. If Rockstar hadnt signed with Sony then maybe GTA would still be the mediocre franchise it once was.

 

Outdated technology? I'm currently on my 4th or 5th replay of Deus Ex and it still kicks the crap out of most current games.

 

GTA 4 being built around the consoles means my next graphics card which is the GT200 aka 9900 will easily run this game at 1920x1200 16xaf/8xaa at 60+ fps.

Ok, you think game ratings are a non variable factor? That a game reviewed years ago at 79% is, say 5 % worse than a game rated at 84 % today just to set an example? And you missed completely my Wolfenstein 3d Doom 3 point. You criticized Gta 1 and 2 for not looking like Gta 3, which happened to appear on a console first. But then I might ask an obvious question that would justify your aforementioned "point": Wasn't Gta 1 and 2 released quite some time BEFORE Gta 3, and then suited for pc specs older than what Gta 3 pc specs used? And we all know Gta 2, like Gta London was no advancement in technology, but that's only because the developer started sucking even before Sony plungded their dicks ahead...

 

***

"Outdated technology? I'm currently on my 4th or 5th replay of Deus Ex and it still kicks the crap out of most current games. "

***

 

Yes, but that is because Deus Ex is a good game. A really good game. But its graphics, physics and texturing is extremely outdated. Then we got the consolified Deus Ex IW, which sucked. Half Life 1 is also a good game, luckily Valve didn't whore themselves off to consoles like the Deus Ex developers did...

 

***

"GTA 4 being built around the consoles means my next graphics card which is the GT200 aka 9900 will easily run this game at 1920x1200 16xaf/8xaa at 60+ fps."

***

 

That's not even an argument againts me. It's just a statement on your videocard. And yes, a one and a half year old console is outdated. It was outdated already at launch, since every component had been chosen long before then.

Where did I criticize GTA 1 and 2 for not looking like GTA 3? I brought up the fact that they werent highly rated like GTA 3 even on console. I never brought up graphics. All the Half Life games have high ratings. Why not GTA?

 

Half Life didnt have to be dumbed down. HL2 already had an oversized hud, tiny levels and simple gameplay.

 

Bringing up that graphics card was looking at GTA 4 being console 1st in a more positive way. You wont get incredible graphics but you'll get great performance.