What? Where can you buy a gaming rig that's better than a PS4 for under $350 with a game and a controller?
Also, you can't rent PC games like you can for consoles. I've played 25+ games last year thanks to gamefly. Purchased for PC I could have afforded <4 at the same price. That's the best reason I can think of for consoles over PC. Don't get me wrong, for pure quality, PC's have had it over consoles for quite a while, but consoles are pure game machines (well, kind of pure), they do 1080p these days (on some games), and they run on my TV without a cable running across the floor!

@SDGundamX yeah, consoles used to "just work", when they were actually dedicated games machines.

This console generation is just shit PCs. There's really no reason to buy a console anymore.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they exist. They subsidise games that are better on the pc and console controllers are absolutely better for some games.

But now you can buy a PC for less than the cost of a new xbone/ps4 and run your games in full 1080p using the same controller. And there's no faffing about required.
Plus you get way more games than are available on console.

Fuck yeah, it's GPCGMR time!

I hate consoles...

...but a full Xbox 1 setup including 70" 1080p widescreen and a decent surround sound would cost about as much as the monitors.

Add in half the Titans, and you've got yourself a PS4 too. Plus most of the games ever made for both.

The Ti DLP chip is the most commercially successful MEMS device created. I own a DLP projector(720p) and a rear projection Mitsubishi DLP TV (1080p). I like that DLP chips can give you 3D (in a checkerboard pattern) basically for "free", and it looks better, IMHO, than other 3D displays which also use active-shutter glasses.

Some nitpicking - most home DLP projectors use a 6-color wheel, not 3.

He also didn't mention that most digital movie theaters use DLP - although this is a a more expensive system, because there are 3 light sources and 3 DLP chips (RGB) instead of having a color wheel - and they are larger chips with more mirrors.

Basically I'll throw in my opinion, which is really just to parrot someone else's... I'm guessing me and @eric3579 have fairly close to the same layout--screen wise (size or perspective), resolution wise, and so on. Since I have the same issues and concerns eric has (like channels and other "inclusions" a video belongs in). Right now it is harder to find some of the details for the videos posted--or they need to be in a more simpler and easier to access spot (but, as noted--this may be due to a size/resolution issue; since I don't know if everything scales correctly yet); which makes me hesitant to make any changes to any videos. But, as noted (and as I found out later on) the opt-in opt-out buttons are found nearby, allowing me to figure out what I need to, until we decide on a fully finished product.

One question I might ask is, does the new site--as of right now--already scale correctly no matter what resolution you are at? So if you go WAY up into the "4K" range, will the site look really bizarre (I know that there will already be far more "space"; but, is it setup right now to arrange all the site items to display in their correct positions)? Inversely, for a long time cellphones were forcing site admins to create a mobile edition of their website(s); but, thanks to smartphones (plus their fast CPUs, and 1080p screens) this is being phased out.

Keep chomping at the bit @lucky760; I'm sure with our feedback and your willingness to get this finished so quickly will indeed help us get more than likely a bit of what we all want out of this (making the community as a whole basically happy with the finished product; and as mentioned, hopefully helping newer users). Keep up the good job.

I have a R9 280x and to be honest I've never really seen it get past about 60% GPU & 2ish Gig of the Vram.

However I'm only running a single 1080p monitor, nor am I running any kind of upscaling based anti aliasing.

The future seems to be 4k monitors and for the serious psychos 4k eyefinity and maybe even that silly Nvidia 3D thing.

When you start to get into anything like that (and 4000p will inevitably come down to consumer level in price), coupled with the recent push for texture resolution in AAA games, all your're futureproofing starts to go out of the window.

The reason people are pissed off is because this card could have easily seen users through the next few years of monitor and games tech and they artificially gimped it such that anyone that wants to stay reasonably cutting edge will have to buy new cards in 2-3 years.

4 gig is fine for now, but it's a joke that a new top end card would have less Vram than some medium weight cards from two generations ago. Even my 280x has 3.

Long story short resolution eats Vram for breakfast and resolution is where most of the next gen game developments are likely to be biased. It's frustrating but as some others have suggested, it's really nothing new.

I agree it seems shady to advertise the 4 GB if only 3.5 GB is full bandwidth... there should have at least been an asterisk on it. Not sure the complaints about the ROPs is as big a deal... I mean if I purchased just off specs I would perhaps be, but really, I look at performance for the dollar. The two articles linked still say they stand by the recommendation due to performance for the dollar, which is the main metric I look at. Then again, if I was running more than 1080p I'd probably be a bit more concerned... That or if the few games that require 4GB to run in ultra wouldn't run in ultra on my card that supposedly has 4GB...

Maybe time for an upgrade..? I set it to 4k and it loaded fine. Despite only having a 1080 monitor (just wanted to see if it downsampled, no appreciable difference over 1080p stream).

Low-spec PC? Around the same as XBone/PS4? Get real. This stuff was rendered on an i7-3770 / GTX670. The XBone can barely handle Diablo 3 at 1080p.

Meh, all of those things (lounge, controller, etc) can be done with a gaming PC. Plus you'll actually get 1080p, whereas the PS4 version probably won't.

I have no problem with consoles, when they were consoles, but the ps4 and xbone are just shittier PCs.

Really? That doesn't say much for your imagination. I'll try to help.

1. You don't have a gaming PC
2. You want to play in on your home theater from your easy chair
3. You prefer a controller to a keyboard and mouse
4. You want to play on your 60' plasma and 1080p is good enough.

I could think of more but hopefully that helps.

Honestly , I have a gaming rig but my GTX560ti is about obsolete and the last time I priced new cards the crypto-currency miners had driven up the prices. If I don't buy a nice card before this releases I will enjoy the hell out of this game on PS4. If it has a good multiplayer I'll play it on PS4 regardless.


PC master-race...sheesh.

So good. Best watched in 1080p full screen *doublepromote

I think its supposed to run at 900p at launch, maybe hit 1080p on a patch later down the line. At least so go the rumors, won't know till it actually launches. Seems like a better game to play on the PC anyways.

It was one of the best games I've ever played. Certainly the best shooter. That PC beta period didn't last nearly long enough and can't wait to play it again. I had an i3 530 and nVidia 450 GTS at the time and still got fairly good graphics on my 1600x900 monitor... By March 11th I should have a new i7 4770k and an nVidia GTX 770 and a 1080p monitor so win there... Quad Titans on the system shown though is insane... And can the XBox One even do the game on 1080p or was it locked to 720p like most other titles? Which is the crazy part... I mean, I might get an XBox One Titanfall edition since you get the game and a headset for no additional cost, and Destiny sadly isn't coming to PC for some odd reason.

This video has been seconded as a duplicate; transferring votes to the original video and killing this dupe - dupeof seconded with isdupe by eric3579.