MS: Different resolutions are only a perceived difference.

[DaveJB]

I'm not even sure the whole resolution thing would have been a major issue had the Xbox One been the console with superior graphics. Then gamers would most likely have been saying "Well, duh, it's the most expensive console, of course it's going to have the best graphics." But because the PS4 has a superior GPU and is cheaper/equally priced to boot, it resulted in Sony's fanboys lording their advantage over the Xbox One, and Microsoft's fanboys trying to claim that no-one gives a crap about resolutions.

[bilateralrope]

Then fans (who emotionally sided with one studio) and corporate people (who were unsure how to advertise video games) got on to this and became a thing to point to.

The only problem with the graphics arms race is that companies are still trying to claim it's going on when console hardware can't keep up with it.
A recent Jimquisition video talked about how it's very hard to know what to think about the games shown at E3, because it's hard to know how much of what was shown will make it into the release version. Even when the truth doesn't hurt.

Except for Nintendo.

It's certainly important but in the end of the day, it still depends on how you use the graphics. There are old games that gone of their way to use a limited engine in an interesting way and there are games with the best engine and do nothing really interesting with it.

It's not just engine limitations that can do that. Games that go for a stylized ascetic, when they are done well, age much better than games that go for a realistic look.

I'm not even sure the whole resolution thing would have been a major issue had the Xbox One been the console with superior graphics. Then gamers would most likely have been saying "Well, duh, it's the most expensive console, of course it's going to have the best graphics." But because the PS4 has a superior GPU and is cheaper/equally priced to boot, it resulted in Sony's fanboys lording their advantage over the Xbox One, and Microsoft's fanboys trying to claim that no-one gives a crap about resolutions.

Then Sony fanboys get real angry when it's pointed out that the PS4 is only in second place.

[DaveJB]

Uh, second place to what, exactly? The PS4 has apparently been selling as much as the Wii U and Xbox One combined for the last six months or so, has already blown past the Wii U's install base by quite a margin, and the only console to have even possibly outsold it in any one week is the 3DS, which most people wouldn't consider to be a direct competitor.

[TheFeniX]

I personally think that the graphics arms race thing has been started between developers rather than consumers. They are certainly emotionally invested due to how much time and effort they put in to make the graphics better and more realistic. They probably even know what "realistic vexel lighting and bump map shadowing" or some such actually is just by hearing about it rather than having it explained to them.

It could go either way. When FPS was the domain of PCs, 60 FPS was a given (or really, whatever your monitor could put out, some crazy guys went 75hz for reasons...): it had to be due to the nature of the game. This was the same way with resolution: everything got axed for extra viewing space. The gamers themselves usually decided how much money was required to make the game not look like shit while running the 60FPS and keeping the maximum resolution they could because those were generally the two most important things.

This shit didn't really matter on consoles because the market was pretty well split. If anything, lower framerate makes certain games easier to play. But once genres started getting slammed together and an entirely new market opened up, you had a whole class of gamer that didn't/doesn't know anything about framerates or resolutions. So, they probably look at shinies more than anything because even stuff like "input lag" is pretty complicated for them.

But graphics whores have been a thing even back to people claiming the SNES version of MK was better than the Genesis version.

Really though, I think a lot of this has to do with people not wanting their numbers to go to waste for no good reason. If my monitor can do 1080p at 60FPS: I want to run that. As part of this, if my $2,000 TV can do the same, then I want my games/hardware to utilize that. A lot of this just didn't matter when TVs were doing 480i. You could push all the graphics you wanted and it didn't matter. But just like how PC hardware has hit rock bottom and you can get a "Gaming" PC for $500, pretty much anyone who fucks around with a console spent some money of a hi-def TV, or at least enough of them that they would get annoyed if your hardware can't utilize it.

The only problem with the graphics arms race is that companies are still trying to claim it's going on when console hardware can't keep up with it.
A recent Jimquisition video talked about how it's very hard to know what to think about the games shown at E3, because it's hard to know how much of what was shown will make it into the release version. Even when the truth doesn't hurt.

Except for Nintendo.

Nintendo does the same thing in a different way. Every year they seem to use Link as a way to show off great looking tech demos. Then they throw that all out for the actual game. I will grant that they are very upfront with the "this is just us fucking around, the game probably won't look like this." At this point, I honestly think they do it to fuck with fanboys, because as much as I love the games, Zelda fanboys are some of the worst kinds of people.

[bilateralrope]

Uh, second place to what, exactly?

In terms of graphics, PC. Not just the expensive, high end PCs. But PCs than don't cost much more, or can even cost less, than consoles in the long run.

While consoles used to have better performance for the same price, that has gone. The Xbox 360 was being sold at a loss, the PS3 was being sold at a loss in 2010. As far as I can tell, selling the hardware at a loss and making the money back via game sales was standard procedure for consoles. But that has ended, both the Xbox One and PS4 are sold at a profit or, at worst, break even.

Or lets look at new game prices (NZ prices, so regional price gouging is in effect, prices in $NZ). Watch Dogs:
- $118 on PS4 and Xbox one
- $108 on PS3 and 360
- $98 on PC. ($82 if I buy from Steam)
Sniper Elite III:
- $120 on PS4 and Xbox one
- $100 on PS3 and 360
- $70 on PC. ($55 from Steam)
Then there are the discounts PC users get if they wait for a Steam sale or humble bundle, but I don't know enough about sales of console games to compare them.

Then comes the cost of playing online. To play anything online on the Xbox One or the PS4 requires paying a subscription. On PC, online play is usually included in the purchase price.

Gone are the days when console gaming was cheaper.

The PS4 has apparently been selling as much as the Wii U and Xbox One combined for the last six months or so, has already blown past the Wii U's install base by quite a margin, and the only console to have even possibly outsold it in any one week is the 3DS, which most people wouldn't consider to be a direct competitor.

PC Dominates Gaming Hardware Sales

When we are talking about which platforms to play games on, the PC can't be ignored.

[TheFeniX]

From your IGN link:

yes sure u can build a pc for the cost of a ps4 but u will never even come close to the graphics of a ps4 (the pc for 500) oh yes and i dont have to deal with driver problems and all of u guys are forgeting than u have to pay for an antivirus supscription and dont all of u go omg u can get a very good one for free but if u build a good gaming pc it will cost you more then 1500 and i dont think u whould want to risk it and stop going omg pc gaming is cheaper and it has better graphics and better fps if that was the case why dont you thing that everyone would just get a pc and obviously more people whould have pcs but more then 70 percent of them dont game on it

Man, that is like a cornucopia of just bad information and SDF insanity, topped off with a 5 year-old's grasp of keyboard use. Paid Anti-virus in 2014? Maybe he should stop visiting dodgy porn sites on his mom's Dell. And $1,500 for a gaming rig? Once again, this is 2014 and people who spend that much to game have their own issue because it's generally wasted horsepower in the current market and with the atrociously bad optimization for PC ports. Still, a point that is always ignored is that the PC gamers gets to chose how much his/her hardware goes over the required specs to (hopefully) improve the experience. Console games are lucky to get a button remap option.

Yea, yea, I know bothering with the comments section is stupid on my part, especially IGN, but that comment was too much desperate justification of a purchase for me to ignore.

[Gaidin]

I think the driver comment was my favorite part considering how much easier and streamlined every hardware company has made finding the right drivers for the hardware you have in on aspect of attempt to convince you that they're the way to go.

[Mr Bean]

I think the driver comment was my favorite part considering how much easier and streamlined every hardware company has made finding the right drivers for the hardware you have in on aspect of attempt to convince you that they're the way to go.

Even better since driver downloads today consist of what?

Motherboard? Okay there is one
Sound? Part of the motherboard
Network? Part of the motherboard
Storage? Part of the motherboard
Accessories? Self installing because it's USB, built into the OS or possibly comes with the bit of hardware so lets count that as .5 of a driver
Video card? That's two
Mouse/Keyboard? No unless it's a gaming verison then yes

So at the end we have 2.5 to 3 drivers we need to install, no game needing DirectX does not come with it on the disk or via the USB install, Any Flash or other video codecs come with it in the game install as well so the most I've ever had to do was something like download SQL and that was for running a server...

So at the end of the day, unless you have a 150$ flight stick or a racing wheel which you only MIGHT need drivers for... the most you'll have to download is four assuming you shelled out extra for gaming accessories otherwise it's 2, the motherboard drivers and the video card drivers. If you buy all Asus or MSI ect you might get that down to one driver since the update utility for Asus will handle all of that (Plus video card) for you.

This is not 1995 when I did have to install 11 drivers to get going.

[bilateralrope]

Man, that is like a cornucopia of just bad information and SDF insanity, topped off with a 5 year-old's grasp of keyboard use.

That's not as bad as some that I have seen. At least everything, except maybe the antivirus subscription, used to be true and the poor grammar should make him as an idiot. It's not as bad as the Microsoft guy saying things that have never been true.

[Terralthra]

The MS guy is being paid to say untrue things, at least.

[TheFeniX]

What's weird to me is that the class of person who makes these complaints likely wasn't even there when a lot of this shit was actually a problem. Looking at the Device Manager of a fresh install of Windows 98 was nothing but yellow !s. I used to keep a USB network card in my bag along with a CD and 3.5" floppy containing the driver just so I could get internet to download more drivers. I also kept copies on a flash drive and some other regular use drivers on a USB HDD, but you couldn't even count on Windows to pickup the USB port drivers support was so bad.

At the least, W7 will install a driver for pretty much everything. I've had some issues with certain laptop NICs, but that's about it. Even the crappy WHQL video card drivers for Windows7 will work with only a performance hit on gaming. These guys don't know about the pain of using an ATI video card when W2k Pro popped. My buddy couldn't play any OpenGL game for like 2 months because MS were dicks and ATI driver support was fucking terrible. So, real gamers used Nvidia, but then they all died because their homes burned down.

Anyways, morons, fanboys, and marketters are just quoting shit they heard about PC gaming over a decade ago and thinking it's all that relevant even back then.