GTA IV for PC

[Swiechu]

i think ur pc hardware just sux

Maybe, as well as 2 previous ones.

And smokey, was Halo 2 on PC a success?

[smokeythedemon]

i think ur pc hardware just sux

Maybe, as well as 2 previous ones.

And smokey, was Halo 2 on PC a success?

Nope, but it came didn't it?

[Swiechu]

Yep, but it sucked. Just like Mafia on PS2, it came out but it sucked, so [email protected] players don't really say that they also had Mafia as well as PC players.

[NAG3LT]

 

i think ur pc hardware just sux

Maybe, as well as 2 previous ones.

And smokey, was Halo 2 on PC a success?

No, because when it came on XBOX it was unique expirience for consoles (stolen from PC). On PC it was artificially made Vista-only, port with a bad perfomance and it's graphics were outdated for 6 years. And on PC there are a lot of other interesting shooters.

 

EDIT: Ports from consoles to PC are rarely worse than they were on consoles, because PC has hardware superiority and settings can be customized. Mafia used everything PC had to offer and dev's just couldn't scale all that experience down to PS2 and Xbox

Edited May 3, 2008 by NAG3LT

[Swiechu]

Maybe. And about Mafia, no, it's not that they couldn't "scale experience down". Evan if they could, why would they? It's just extremely bad steering.

[DZorro]

 

Maybe. And about Mafia, no, it's not that they couldn't "scale experience down". Evan if they could, why would they? It's just extremely bad steering.

Aren't you getting way off-topic here ?? We know you have GTAIV, so what the hell are you even doing in a pc thread ?? First i see you bashing other peoples opinion on GTAIV and now bashing at the pc player ?? Go get life man.

[Dhatz]

Well, must look like I have old data about player's age. But you won't convince me that you can buy a PC as powerful (or more) as an Xbox 360 for the price of it. (About 300$). And same about PS3. And even if you can. will ya be albe to play Virtua Fighter, Forza, Gran Turismo, MGS, PGR, Halo, MotorStorm, Tekken, and many single games on it?

 

EDIT:" And realism is improved by removing crosshair and making aiming accurate using sights." - What? Games in which you precise aim by sights have this feature on both consoles and PC.

Gran Turismo 5 is rumoured to come out for PC soon.. Rumoured by one of the devs. Oh and you mentioned Halo, didn't 1 and 2 already come for PC? Just a matter of time for Halo 3 to also come for the PC. Oh by the way MY upgrade which is better then a console cost about 500$. Which is a 8800GTS 640mb, E4600 @ 2.4ghz, and 3gb of ram, and this upgrade let's me play Crysis at high settings at about 20-40 fps, I didn't need to upgrade anything else.

8800GTS(except the 512MB) is not worth the cash,8800GT is better and my Zorac OC version of it runs Crysis on very high @ 25fps,Win XP.

 

I have to state,AA is exactly as expensive as the level of it.I was able to play Crysis with 16xAA or so,everything set to high.

Every other game has no problem runnin 16xAA with maxed out settings,I perhaps should check COD4 on my own metal.perhaps.

 

Crysis is in downgrading for current-gen consoles,that has to look so PS2-like when compared to the max on PC.I found that only the first part was the utterly detailed and finished,rest just weaks out(I havent come to it's half yet,so that's not final).

[nicotin3]

Why does everyone bring Crysis up all the time?

Wait till you see the end of it, you will realise how far from finished the game is .

It was shocking to play such a sweet demo and end up with such a bad full product...

 

 

[XLM1]

Hello together. I decided to join this Forum because there is nowhere else a good discussion going on about a PC version of GTA4. I´m from Austria, so sorry for my (upcoming ) typos.

 

I´ve followed this discussion in this thread since a week or two. The arguments brought up are ranging from stupidity to cleverness. Nevertheless, its kind of interesting to see all sorts of ppl and attitudes clashing together. So here are my 2Cents on this topic:

 

 

You can see this whole "consoles first, pc second"-thing from two perspectives: (1)historical one and a (2)causal one.

 

(1) Historically, talking about the beginning of gaming until now, its been always that way. Period. But Why?

 

(2) So lets try to differentiate reasons for this happening in now and in the past. First its logical to talk about the motivation of developers and publishers.

 

(2.1) Developers always try to realize their creative ideas and spread it to the ppl. Its like film makers trying to reach the ppl with their ideas and thoughts. Its not so important how they want to do it: by making fun-games, adventures or strategy games. So every developer hats it's ideas and individual motivations. But if we look at the process of how they are going to distribute their product you´ll see that there are quite a lot depenencies. They can´t just walk out, burn their game to CD and throw it at the ppl. We - in the western countires - live in high capitalistic countires. I don´t want to talk about capitalism, but thats why publishers exist - if the developer isn´t one himself.

 

(2.2) Since developers actually concentrate on makeing their game, the publishers take care of their capistalistic tasks, like marketing, cost analysis, distributing and so on. And since developers can´t efford just programing games in their free time, they need to be paid. The sponsor in this case is ofthen the publisher. Therefore a very important dependency is created between publisher and developer. At this point the motivations of developers and publishers collide. The developers just can´t concentrate on the making of the game, but they have also to stick to the rules and limits they get from publishers. Those rules depend - in every case - what the publisher wants to achieve: making profit out of a game product. Only a few have some other objectives, like concentrating on a special gerne or whatever. So basically a publisher wants to dominate the whole market or at least, a specific genre.

 

This being told, a developer has to follow the limitations and objectives set by a publisher. Thats the reason there are fixed release dates (being production deadlines), features taken out (to shorten the production), modifications to content (to reach a specific amount of buyers) and so on. I´ve speaken to many developers personally (mostly programmers and 3d-artists), and in every case they treat their own game like a baby: wanting it to be perfect and creating it in the way they want it. This also applies to rockstar and the current situations. It has nothing to to with the inferiority of console hardware, better graphics on pc, the age of console and pc users or alls other things with which other ppl here are argumenting with. This whole situation with GTAIV and all other games is about agreements, contracts, marketing, cost analysis, profit and so on. The times are over where a small group of programmers could do what and when they want to. Welcome to the world, where games became a game industrie and a market.

 

I do not deny that there are developers which like to develop either for console or pc, but i presume that R* wants to create most of their games on the leading systems (XBOX, PS3 and PC). Depending on agreements, contracts and pure marketing it was clear that they would plan diffrent release dates. So it makes no sense to talk about inferiority or superiority of a system or other flaming arguments, because that are not the facts in this case which decide on what system its gonna be released first or at all. Period!

 

 

Nevertheless i´d like to drop some words about the discussion about consoles vs pc. Its true, that consoles will be in the near future the leading system for a (mostly)specific kind of games. Its not clever to say, that those games will be somehow idiotic and simple and apply the same to its users. This are and will be games, which are only limited by technical and conceptional issues. Its the same for the PC. Just think about what games you play on the PC and what games on console. The PC will stay for a long time the platform for complex games in the term of simulation and calculating power. Its technical superiority to any other gaming system will be used for games which can´t be realized on consoles, which are currently lacking the power and interfaces. This diffrence between pc and console will be more presistens as the time progress. If you ask yourself why not release a game on a PC which was made for consoles, you will have to think about the following :

 

a) Developers view: The workload. Thats plain simple. Even if you say that its easy to port a game from XBOX to PC or other way around, its still workload. Only if they are willing to invest it, its gonna happen. No reason to talk about a betrayel towards a system. It´s their choice. Thay have to make this decision - if not already done by the publisher. But on the other hand i understand most of you, because many people don´t have the money to affort multiple gaming systems or prefer a specific kind of contol (mous, gamepad etc.). But its still no reason to flame around. One or two swarings are enough, but it should not result in a personal war towards the developers.

 

b) Developers and mostly publishers view: The target groups of ppl playing games are (to a specific point) differing. I´m not talking about intelligence (another stupid argument which is showing up in many discussion), but about interests and living circumstances. I don´t want to loose another 1000 words on this, but the thing is: It results in a specific spreading of a gaming system throughout society. Publishers will always try to catch many customers as possible and on the other side, the developers want to confront as many players as possible with their ideas and products. But like i said, its not always possible to do so (in terms of realeasing a product on ALL systems).

 

c) Product aspects: Its about what a game needs to be played. From a technical point of view we have currently the following situation: All games on consoles can be ported to the pc, if its only about power. But only a few PC-only games can be ported to consoles. I always try to imagine Flight Simulator X as a port for console - impossible Appliying this rule to GTAIV you have to say honestly: a console is enough - as it was thought to be played mostly on consoles. No game in the GTA franchise was meant to be played only on PC (maybe GTA1 only?). Thats why you simply can´t talk about "tradeoffs". There are no tradeoffs, because its mostly designed around consoles! F*****g simple!

 

 

Nevertheless i personally hope, that GTAIV will be ported for PC, since i won´t buy a console only to play this game. Never forget what i said before: PC´s are standing for complexity and calculating power. That means games like GTA will come sooner or later on PC (some similar already out - f*ck crappy as hell), but with much greater possibilities and features, which are currently not possible on consoles. The Problem is, that there is no developer a the moment, which is planing to make a true quality and sand-box style game. I know about Mafia(2), but personally i dislike games playing far in the past. But don´t give up, there may be one developer in the future wich will concentrate fully on the development on PC and will blow you away with possibilities and cut down limitations wich were made in GTAIV on consoles. On the long run, Rockstar will only progress together with the possibilities of consoles, so keep in mind that also future products will be limited by consoles and will never come close to the capabilities of PC´s. Sandbox-style games, like GTA franchise, are becoming more popular, and it will be adressed sooner or later by a developer. Just remember my holy words. Shazaaam (wasn´t it that word? I don´t even know the meaning *lol*)

 

 

Sorry for the long text and the massive amount of typos. But i hope it was a good reading.

 

 

[Chris4]

I don't see why there's such a big discussion about this. The answer is simple.

 

Like previous GTA games:

Yes there will be a PC version.

It will be released 6-8 months after the console release.

 

Unless R* state otherwise.

[smokeythedemon]

Well, must look like I have old data about player's age. But you won't convince me that you can buy a PC as powerful (or more) as an Xbox 360 for the price of it. (About 300$). And same about PS3. And even if you can. will ya be albe to play Virtua Fighter, Forza, Gran Turismo, MGS, PGR, Halo, MotorStorm, Tekken, and many single games on it?

 

EDIT:" And realism is improved by removing crosshair and making aiming accurate using sights." - What? Games in which you precise aim by sights have this feature on both consoles and PC.

Gran Turismo 5 is rumoured to come out for PC soon.. Rumoured by one of the devs. Oh and you mentioned Halo, didn't 1 and 2 already come for PC? Just a matter of time for Halo 3 to also come for the PC. Oh by the way MY upgrade which is better then a console cost about 500$. Which is a 8800GTS 640mb, E4600 @ 2.4ghz, and 3gb of ram, and this upgrade let's me play Crysis at high settings at about 20-40 fps, I didn't need to upgrade anything else.

8800GTS(except the 512MB) is not worth the cash,8800GT is better and my Zorac OC version of it runs Crysis on very high @ 25fps,Win XP.

 

I have to state,AA is exactly as expensive as the level of it.I was able to play Crysis with 16xAA or so,everything set to high.

Every other game has no problem runnin 16xAA with maxed out settings,I perhaps should check COD4 on my own metal.perhaps.

 

Crysis is in downgrading for current-gen consoles,that has to look so PS2-like when compared to the max on PC.I found that only the first part was the utterly detailed and finished,rest just weaks out(I havent come to it's half yet,so that's not final).

Yea, it isn't worth the cash NOW, but I got mine when the 8800's just came out.

[nicotin3]

Hello together. I decided to join this Forum because there is nowhere else a good discussion going on about a PC version of GTA4. I´m from Austria, so sorry for my (upcoming ) typos.

 

I´ve followed this discussion in this thread since a week or two. The arguments brought up are ranging from stupidity to cleverness. Nevertheless, its kind of interesting to see all sorts of ppl and attitudes clashing together. So here are my 2Cents on this topic:

 

 

You can see this whole "consoles first, pc second"-thing from two perspectives: (1)historical one and a (2)causal one.

 

(1) Historically, talking about the beginning of gaming until now, its been always that way. Period. But Why?

 

(2) So lets try to differentiate reasons for this happening in now and in the past. First its logical to talk about the motivation of developers and publishers.

 

(2.1) Developers always try to realize their creative ideas and spread it to the ppl. Its like film makers trying to reach the ppl with their ideas and thoughts. Its not so important how they want to do it: by making fun-games, adventures or strategy games. So every developer hats it's ideas and individual motivations. But if we look at the process of how they are going to distribute their product you´ll see that there are quite a lot depenencies. They can´t just walk out, burn their game to CD and throw it at the ppl. We - in the western countires - live in high capitalistic countires. I don´t want to talk about capitalism, but thats why publishers exist - if the developer isn´t one himself.

 

(2.2) Since developers actually concentrate on makeing their game, the publishers take care of their capistalistic tasks, like marketing, cost analysis, distributing and so on. And since developers can´t efford just programing games in their free time, they need to be paid. The sponsor in this case is ofthen the publisher. Therefore a very important dependency is created between publisher and developer. At this point the motivations of developers and publishers collide. The developers just can´t concentrate on the making of the game, but they have also to stick to the rules and limits they get from publishers. Those rules depend - in every case - what the publisher wants to achieve: making profit out of a game product. Only a few have some other objectives, like concentrating on a special gerne or whatever. So basically a publisher wants to dominate the whole market or at least, a specific genre.

 

This being told, a developer has to follow the limitations and objectives set by a publisher. Thats the reason there are fixed release dates (being production deadlines), features taken out (to shorten the production), modifications to content (to reach a specific amount of buyers) and so on. I´ve speaken to many developers personally (mostly programmers and 3d-artists), and in every case they treat their own game like a baby: wanting it to be perfect and creating it in the way they want it. This also applies to rockstar and the current situations. It has nothing to to with the inferiority of console hardware, better graphics on pc, the age of console and pc users or alls other things with which other ppl here are argumenting with. This whole situation with GTAIV and all other games is about agreements, contracts, marketing, cost analysis, profit and so on. The times are over where a small group of programmers could do what and when they want to. Welcome to the world, where games became a game industrie and a market.

 

I do not deny that there are developers which like to develop either for console or pc, but i presume that R* wants to create most of their games on the leading systems (XBOX, PS3 and PC). Depending on agreements, contracts and pure marketing it was clear that they would plan diffrent release dates. So it makes no sense to talk about inferiority or superiority of a system or other flaming arguments, because that are not the facts in this case which decide on what system its gonna be released first or at all. Period!

 

 

Nevertheless i´d like to drop some words about the discussion about consoles vs pc. Its true, that consoles will be in the near future the leading system for a (mostly)specific kind of games. Its not clever to say, that those games will be somehow idiotic and simple and apply the same to its users. This are and will be games, which are only limited by technical and conceptional issues. Its the same for the PC. Just think about what games you play on the PC and what games on console. The PC will stay for a long time the platform for complex games in the term of simulation and calculating power. Its technical superiority to any other gaming system will be used for games which can´t be realized on consoles, which are currently lacking the power and interfaces. This diffrence between pc and console will be more presistens as the time progress. If you ask yourself why not release a game on a PC which was made for consoles, you will have to think about the following :

 

a) Developers view: The workload. Thats plain simple. Even if you say that its easy to port a game from XBOX to PC or other way around, its still workload. Only if they are willing to invest it, its gonna happen. No reason to talk about a betrayel towards a system. It´s their choice. Thay have to make this decision - if not already done by the publisher. But on the other hand i understand most of you, because many people don´t have the money to affort multiple gaming systems or prefer a specific kind of contol (mous, gamepad etc.). But its still no reason to flame around. One or two swarings are enough, but it should not result in a personal war towards the developers.

 

b) Developers and mostly publishers view: The target groups of ppl playing games are (to a specific point) differing. I´m not talking about intelligence (another stupid argument which is showing up in many discussion), but about interests and living circumstances. I don´t want to loose another 1000 words on this, but the thing is: It results in a specific spreading of a gaming system throughout society. Publishers will always try to catch many customers as possible and on the other side, the developers want to confront as many players as possible with their ideas and products. But like i said, its not always possible to do so (in terms of realeasing a product on ALL systems).

 

c) Product aspects: Its about what a game needs to be played. From a technical point of view we have currently the following situation: All games on consoles can be ported to the pc, if its only about power. But only a few PC-only games can be ported to consoles. I always try to imagine Flight Simulator X as a port for console - impossible Appliying this rule to GTAIV you have to say honestly: a console is enough - as it was thought to be played mostly on consoles. No game in the GTA franchise was meant to be played only on PC (maybe GTA1 only?). Thats why you simply can´t talk about "tradeoffs". There are no tradeoffs, because its mostly designed around consoles! F*****g simple!

 

 

Nevertheless i personally hope, that GTAIV will be ported for PC, since i won´t buy a console only to play this game. Never forget what i said before: PC´s are standing for complexity and calculating power. That means games like GTA will come sooner or later on PC (some similar already out - f*ck crappy as hell), but with much greater possibilities and features, which are currently not possible on consoles. The Problem is, that there is no developer a the moment, which is planing to make a true quality and sand-box style game. I know about Mafia(2), but personally i dislike games playing far in the past. But don´t give up, there may be one developer in the future wich will concentrate fully on the development on PC and will blow you away with possibilities and cut down limitations wich were made in GTAIV on consoles. On the long run, Rockstar will only progress together with the possibilities of consoles, so keep in mind that also future products will be limited by consoles and will never come close to the capabilities of PC´s. Sandbox-style games, like GTA franchise, are becoming more popular, and it will be adressed sooner or later by a developer. Just remember my holy words. Shazaaam (wasn´t it that word? I don´t even know the meaning *lol*)

 

 

Sorry for the long text and the massive amount of typos. But i hope it was a good reading.

 

 

Entertaining... you forgot to talk about the numbers though (investment and revenue).

But good read, i expected no less from a fellow Arma fan .

[XLM1]

Well, i don´t think that numbers are needed here. Analysts also calculate with factors which can be derived from simple rules ArmA: Yeah, still playing it and waiting for the sequel, since i´m dedicated to tactical simulations ;-)

[Wis3boi]

Why does everyone bring Crysis up all the time?

Wait till you see the end of it, you will realise how far from finished the game is .

It was shocking to play such a sweet demo and end up with such a bad full product...

I have to agree and disagree at the same time. Crysis is an incredible work of art, with an amazing sandbox tool and all these great mods in the making for it....the singleplayer was half good half meh (koreans were the best part, IMO...aliens were still well done, but koreans were better).

 

But back on topic, I sense a GTAIV pc port by the end of the year no doubt. I think it would a great way for R* to cash in on more gamers, plus maybe they could do crossplatform...I don't think it would be as uneven as if it were an FPS where the mouse is > than a controller, but here it would work ok. It could be a great success

[DML]

Hey can someone from Australia help me here; How much will a new computer (without monitor, mouse, keyboard etc) that will be adequate for new games?

Something around $800 should get you a decent gaming PC.

Could you possibly expand on what the specs would be like for an ~$800 rig?

It's like this picture:

 

 

This was two months ago. Now, if you lowered the CPU in this machine (to a E4700 or AMD 6000), and got an 8600GT (AUD $99), you'd still be able to run GTA IV (not at maximum, although it will look better than the console version), and you'd be paying around $800.

[WolfenVic]

If GTA IV comes to PC then Good! Another game to get mods for.

 

Personally I think that consoles are the way of the future even if the PC is better.

 

I like my simulation games on the PC like Sim City,The Sims, Trainz, Flight Simulator, even the Roller Coaster Tycoon games can't be taken to the console.

 

The Sand Box games seem to be more of a console thing right now tho.

 

I hate to say this but have any of you watched the PC section in the game stores slowly decrease? I love PC gaming but living on a 100 dollar life scale it's hard to buy new equipment.

 

Crysis is a good tech demo. That is all it will ever be tho.

[GTA_Godfather]

Here's a US$500 PC (from April) Tom's Hardware put together that can put up some respectable numbers at resolutions better than or equal to that of consoles. Take a look at pages 4 and 5 for results with games. Yeah, it can run Crysis.

 

Keep in mind this is a very low-end PC. Even so, it's capable of besting a console. Spending a little bit more here should net you a nice jump performance. Shouldn't be much of an issue with all that you will save on games (No licensing fees going to MS or Sony and you have to love that. )

 

EDIT: I guess the link would be nice. Sorry.

 

$500 PC

 

 

 

Edited May 4, 2008 by GTA_Godfather

[freak2121]

Here's a US$500 PC (from April) Tom's Hardware put together that can put up some respectable numbers at resolutions better than or equal to that of consoles. Take a look at pages 4 and 5 for results with games. Yeah, it can run Crysis.

 

Keep in mind this is a very low-end PC. Even so, it's capable of besting a console. Spending a little bit more here should net you a nice jump performance. Shouldn't be much of an issue with all that you will save on games (No licensing fees going to MS or Sony and you have to love that. )

 

 

 

What?!?!!?!?!?!?!500 USD?!?!OMG where?

[MDub12]

Hey can someone from Australia help me here; How much will a new computer (without monitor, mouse, keyboard etc) that will be adequate for new games?

Something around $800 should get you a decent gaming PC.

Could you possibly expand on what the specs would be like for an ~$800 rig?

It's like this picture:

 

 

This was two months ago. Now, if you lowered the CPU in this machine (to a E4700 or AMD 6000), and got an 8600GT (AUD $99), you'd still be able to run GTA IV (not at maximum, although it will look better than the console version), and you'd be paying around $800.

Thankyou!

Thats the type of thing I was looking for, very helpful.

[Venturai]

 

It's like this picture:

 

 

This was two months ago.  Now, if you lowered the CPU in this machine (to a E4700 or AMD 6000), and got an 8600GT (AUD $99), you'd still be able to run GTA IV (not at maximum, although it will look better than the console version), and you'd be paying around $800.

The problem with putting together a new system is that you can always get a bit faster if you're willing to spend just a little more.

 

That system listed is pretty much as cheap as it gets, but doable. And note that even that climbed up to $950. But an extra $30 or so on top of that cpu gets you a quad core. An extra $50 or so gets you an 8800gt, which is actually faster across the board than the 9600gt.

 

Oh yeah, despite what was said, I don't for a second believe that a system with only an 8600gt would run GTA IV better than how the console version looks. No chance.

 

Doing things like spending even less on the cpu or video card are all fine if you don't mind dropping the quality in the game just to save yourself as much money as possible. If that's the most important thing, then yeah, if you could stomach running the game at pretty much it's lowest settings (which won't look pretty) then that's your perogative. But if you take that $800 system, add another $250 or so to it, the game you end up running could end up being worlds different.

 

It's up to you, of course, just wouldn't want to see you living with regret. This is one of those things where it really does pay to spend a little more.

 

Edit: And don't forget, too, that you'll be able to use that system for so much more than playing GTA IV. Infact, you'll be using it well past the time you've stopped playing the game, and a quad core/2 gig/8800gt setup would be a very fine system for running a lot of the other pc games that are out there, too.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Venturai

[DML]

 

Oh yeah, despite what was said, I don't for a second believe that a system with only an 8600gt would run GTA IV better than how the console version looks. No chance.

Depending on how well the port is done (the graphics are on-par with Half-Life 2...maybe a bit worse), I believe an 8600gt would be able to run the game at console quality (1280x720 with the same lower-res textures, level of detail, draw distance etc).

 

The configuration was for getting a system that was around $800, and no higher.

 

Realistically, if you have the extra money, then you'd spend it. I'd get a system with a Q6600 or an E8200, and anything from a 512MB 9600GT or 8800GT upwards.

Edited May 4, 2008 by DML

[Factor21]

I think all of you who are thinking of upgrading your rigs should wait to the beginning of 2009/end of 2008. That time Intel nehalem processors will come out and graphics cards with the nvidia gt200 core will be cheaper.

[stezza333]

Hey guys just wondering if you could tell me if my computer will be good enough to run GTA 4 when it comes out. I'm thinking of purchasing a Gigabyte 512MB 9800GTX later this year, along with the game of course.

 

If my motherboard can handle a 7600GS it should be able to work with a 9800GTX yes??? I don't know much about this stuff.

 

 

Windows Vista Home Premium Intel Core2 Duo 6400 @ 2 X 2.13Ghz nVidia GeForce 7600 GS2GB Ram (not sure what type)Intel High Definition Audio

 

[MadHammer]

I thought I could ask the same question as stezza. I can play crysis on my pc with highest rezoliution with low-mid textures.I'm thinking of buying a GeForce 8600GT but if my motherboard handles GeF7600GS can it handle a 8600GT ? And will I be able 2 play GTA IV on my pc with this specs but instead of 7600 a 8600 ?

AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual

Core Processor 3600+

2,01 GHz, 1,00 GB of RAM(thinking of buying another 2 gigs)

GeForce 7600GS

[Nemon]

I hate to say this but have any of you watched the PC section in the game stores slowly decrease?

Who buys their games at stores anyway?

[EntropicLqd]

...Sorry for the long text and the massive amount of typos. But i hope it was a good reading....

 

There's no need to apologise. I didn't see that many mistakes in there. Your grasp of English is better than most people on this forum I'm sorry to say.

 

It was a good read. And if I wasn't so hungover I'd probably have some more intelligent comments.

 

It wouldn't suprise me if the only time we'll see a sandbox style game that truly uses the power of the PC is when someone builds a monthly subscription based MMORPG. And that assumes that it's not R* who do it first.

 

Your point about R* only wanting to develop for the console platforms is well made. I think they do this deliberately to ensure that their games have the widest possible audience. It makes them more money in the end.

 

[bit89]

 

yeaaaaaaaaaaaa

[Democrab]

It's like this picture:

 

 

This was two months ago.  Now, if you lowered the CPU in this machine (to a E4700 or AMD 6000), and got an 8600GT (AUD $99), you'd still be able to run GTA IV (not at maximum, although it will look better than the console version), and you'd be paying around $800.

The problem with putting together a new system is that you can always get a bit faster if you're willing to spend just a little more.

 

That system listed is pretty much as cheap as it gets, but doable. And note that even that climbed up to $950. But an extra $30 or so on top of that cpu gets you a quad core. An extra $50 or so gets you an 8800gt, which is actually faster across the board than the 9600gt.

 

Oh yeah, despite what was said, I don't for a second believe that a system with only an 8600gt would run GTA IV better than how the console version looks. No chance.

 

Doing things like spending even less on the cpu or video card are all fine if you don't mind dropping the quality in the game just to save yourself as much money as possible. If that's the most important thing, then yeah, if you could stomach running the game at pretty much it's lowest settings (which won't look pretty) then that's your perogative. But if you take that $800 system, add another $250 or so to it, the game you end up running could end up being worlds different.

 

It's up to you, of course, just wouldn't want to see you living with regret. This is one of those things where it really does pay to spend a little more.

 

Edit: And don't forget, too, that you'll be able to use that system for so much more than playing GTA IV. Infact, you'll be using it well past the time you've stopped playing the game, and a quad core/2 gig/8800gt setup would be a very fine system for running a lot of the other pc games that are out there, too.

8600GT would run it around the same as a console (7800GTX is the PS3's GPU), PC is better than consoles in gaming except for price, but with all consoles and PC's, you get what you pay for.

[Swiechu]

 

873$ is not much to you? I can get an Xbox 360 for about around 250$, which is a little cheaper, eh?

[DML]

 

I can get an Xbox 360 for about around 250$, which is a little cheaper, eh?

An XBox is not a PC.

 

Can't do what a PC can do...can't match a PC...never will be a PC.