PC has loads of gens, lots of i5 i7 GeForce gens. More gens than you can shake a stick at :)

Simply wrong. There is no singular generational indicator for a PC. You guys are talking about individual components which is hardly a common identifier for PC overall. So yeah....if you want to talk about GPU generations then fine, talk about GPU generations. CPU gens. Sure. PC can have a mixture of all those individual "generations".

My statement is correct: PC, specifically, doesn't have gens. Case in point. Obscure says this is "true next gen". The minimum system requirements for FS is a GTX 770, i5 4460, DirectX 11, and Windows 10. What gen is that? Kind of baffling to me that this is "next gen" when it is using the previous version of DirectX, even in the recommended requirements.

https://www.microsoft.com/e...

So someone tell me. When did the current generation for PC gaming start? When does the "next gen" for PC gaming start?

The RTX 3000 series will be capable of steady native 4K 60fps/120fps 😁

"So someone tell me. When did the current generation for PC gaming start? When does the "next gen" for PC gaming start?"

Thats the difference between PC and consoles. Console generations start when new consoles hit and is an all in one solution...for PC its when new hardware hits like CPUs and GPUs that brings new features that wasnt previously there...and it happens at a much faster rate and is customizable. Example going from the 20 series to the 30 series in GPU. Next-gen is in the feature set...better SSDs, VRS, ML, DLSS, Ray Tracing and the like...consoles has to wait to upgrade the whole box at one time while on PC they are supported through hardware upgrades in the GPU and other hardware components.

The constant evolution of PC hardware isn't contained within generations outside of those individual components mainly by individual companies. RTX 3000, Intel i5 8700, AMD Ryzen 7, Amd RX 5700. These are all separate products with their own "feature sets". This does not make up a PC generation whatsoever. PC is entirely fluid and not defined in the same way consoles are at all. Thus, there are no PC gens.

It does

Don't listen to these people. Things have generations when it's convenient for their arguments and don't when it's not.

It's like sliders.

@olafu

It is a console mentality. These people are used to thinking in these terms:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

You have set hardware and each generation has a number that consists of those devices. You have set ecosystems. You have set policies and rules. You have individual corporations who are dictating every aspect of all this.

PC has none of this. Hardware is fluid. There are multitudes of ecosystems that often overlap. Policies and rules exist, but they vary from one instance or service to the next and sometimes don't exist at all. Most of all, there is no single corporation governing or guiding any of this. You have competition at the component and the system level where hundreds of companies are selling their products rather than 3. Advances continue often at a weekly or monthly basis, rather than years. You cannot put a start date or an end date on any of this. It never ends.

This is why no one above can give me a straight answer other than some ambiguous reference to "feature sets" and nothing concrete like the link above whatsoever.

PC does not have gens. Period.

I think both sides of the of this argument is correct. There is no pc generation. There is no pc1 or pc2 or pc3. But there is generations in cpu and GPU.

Like other than fps in games and power efficiency. What is the difference between say a GTX 780 ti and a GTX 1080 ti?

Noting much. The 780ti can still play the latest games I imagine just not at the highest settings or resolution and lesser fps than a 1080 ti spite being 7 years old.

I've been PC gaming for over a decade now and not once in my life have I ever heard anyone talk about PCs having generations until I came to this comment section.

You guys will argue anything for the sake of arguing. PC components are constantly evolving, and at some point, your components will not be able to keep up, however, you do not have to replace the entire PC in order for you to continue gaming. There are no generations in PC gaming as the games you own will continue to work on your PC hardware, and it's the same little PR Marketing move MS is trying to make with the Xbox family now.

Generations are a shift in hardware, like phones, consoles etc, PC arnt like thay a 2080ti will stil run anytjing a new console can you dont need new hardware, generations by consoles all so bring a new wave of gamds that cant be played on your previous generation, PCs dont have this issue.

A generation shift is a full shift in hardware upgrading ur gpu is not you changing to next gen as older xards will still easily play these are games

@imortus and tim

and I think the people that keep saying this is a game is going to lead to a lot of people disappointed in what this simulator actually is. MS hasn't really shown any game play outside a bit of actual flying. I don't think people realize what exactly the point of this title is, but I constantly see people refer to it as a game.

I'm buying it. I will go on at length about what I like about the series. But, people should be managing expectations more, because while the overall MSFS community doesn't care what you call it, I have a feeling this title is going to get a lot of negative feedback from those expecting something different.

I don't feel I'm hung up on syntax. Every game is a simulator. Not every simulator is a game. A game is a simulator which adds some sort of challenge scenario that results in a negative outcome if failed or reward for success. Sometimes this is inherent in success or failure of what is being simulated, like in this game, not crashing means you did something right, which means you can feel proud, but that's not the context of how games are defined.

MSFS can be presented with game play elements, but it certainly isn't, or hasn't been in the past, a part of its core design philosophy. There were some expansions which added this kind of stuff in on the last release, but it was not really as in depth as what we consider games nowadays.

@Obscure

"Yeah, Tim already got you covered with that GT cover"

I have no idea what you're referring to, but I'm glad you're enjoying yourself.

@Tim

I'm not calling you out here on my next statement, because I don't think you've done this, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most of the people I see going on about this being an amazing game for next gen, really have no experience with the title, nor care to take heed on what to expect from it.

I will wholeheartedly agree the game is immaculate in graphical design and detail, and I'm impressed with how they're using cloud tech to deliver visuals for this game. I'm also impressed with the quality of the plane models and overall look of the game. I will be playing this game, and am starting to look at new GPU's as mine is too old, and considering if I want to finally take the plunge to replace my rather old desktop. The reason for this is because I enjoy this series a lot, and I have a flight stick that will work with PC. I'd play it on Xbox if I had a flight stick, but don't want to invest in that for the console.

But, again, it's not technically a game, at least nothing suggest they added game play elements to it. If that changes in the near future(maybe the 23rd), then I'll change my tune. In the mean time, I'll try a bit to manage expectations so we don't have to wait 14 years for another title after the negative feedback comes from a group of gamers who have no clue what this title is supposed to be.

You really seem more concern about how the gamer perceives things lately on Xbox...interesting. I wouldn't worry about it. By the time it makes it to consoles...their will be plenty of reviews, twitch streams and word of mouth to inform any gamer that might be interested. If they want to call it a game, let them...if its something you can get Xbox achievements in, then some gamers will call it a game haha. No big deal.

But you never actually answer my question in your wall of text...simulator, game, or both???
https://pbs.twimg.com/media...

I'm probably more concerned for this title than any other MS game right now. Mostly because I'm actually interested in it.

I'm not concerned that it'll be good, I can tell a lot of care was put into making it that, I'm concerned that when it comes to discussion about it around here, it's going to end up being one about failing expectations of the player base who tries it, ends up crashing for hours because they don't realize that flying a plane isn't easy like in other flight type games(usually flight combat), and then we see a lot of talk about it being boring, repetitive, nothing to do, or impossible to play due to the learning curve required to simply taxi a plane down the runway.

I feel these kinds of games can be fulfilling experiences if people go into them knowing what they're getting into, but I also know that people love to criticize games for stuff they're not supposed to be. MSFS is being propped up as a major Xbox release. I'm fine with that, but some people are going too far with it, and we all know how hyped stuff gets bombarded with nonsense after it releases, and how minor infractions to basic things becomes something major that ruins the entire game. I can't think of anything more damaging than people expecting something akin to an actual game.

After responding to Atom elsewhere on this thread, i went and found this.

https://www.youtube.com/wat...

It shows an actual flight. It looks great. This is what I want from the title.

I'm cool with what I saw here. It's what I expected.

But, tell me honestly, would the average gamer on here, watch that, and see it as a game? The same people who would go on and call Death Stranding a walking sim....even to this day as the PC release starts it's marketing. Death Stranding has more actual game play interaction than MSFS, but MSFS is exponentially harder to learn how to actually play. Even with the tutorials that will likely be included(flight school in prior games), do you see this being the engaging awesome experience that the gamers around here tend to go for?

Have you ever played this title in the past? If so, how many times did you crash before you decided to learn to play, or did you just give up out of frustration? I did the latter way back when, and it was giving the game another chance, and thinking of it as what it was supposed to be for me to come to appreciate it.

And that's what I'd like to see. People appreciating this title for what it is. Not hating it because they were told it was something it isn't. I respect the series too much, and am eager to get back into it, and don't want to see yet another console war fight over this because it's now associated with Xbox.

To answer your question

It's a game. It was going to be a true simulator in it's original form, but it was changed, and made more forgiving in terms of crashing or other racing things like rubbing/bumping, because they found that being true to real life was not that much fun for the player. That's by the creators own admission.

But, in this instance, MSFS is named appropriately, while GT is more a marketing thing.

OK Rain...now I got the receipt on this. You could have said it was both...but you chose to say it was a game only...dont let me hear you bring up GT and simulator in the same sentence in future. Its not simulating anything according to you, its just a game...a non simulated game. Receipt is logged.

In case you don't know, Goat Simulator or Euro Truck Simulator aren't games, because the word "simulator" is in the name.

A simulator can be a game.

So, how many simulators or games are using real world weather data to render their environments world-wide? If that isn't next generation then I don't know what is for both the cloud and simulators. Next generation games aren't just resolution and frames per second you know. Just because they choose to make it run on older hardware doesn't make it any less next gen. With your definition a lot of games this generation would not be current gen because almost all games ship on PC and run on older hardware.

A perfect example is Bloodbourne... I can run it on a Windows 7 PC, i3, 2100 3.1 GHz, GTX 750 video card, and 4 GB RAM. I guess Bloodbourne wasn't a current generation game.

Just because a company does not ship its game on last generation hardware doesn't make it automatically next generation. That logic is not supported by facts in all cases as most games will ship on very old PCs even once this next generation starts.

Another example is the frirst TLOU game. Shipped on PS3... Yet they remastered it onto PS4 and it was considered amazing.... Guess it was just a washed out last gen game that got a second chance on PS4.

I mean.... yes the idea of any business that puts out a product is for it to get a return on the investment and grow the install base. Whether that's financial sales or a demonstration of tools to produce more content, the end goal is still to put out a product people like and are willing to buy to make money, so you can continue to put out more content.

I know what happened to Creative Assembly. Relic is more than just the old comprised team, and the studio has been around since the 90's. It still doesn't change that MS focus since the 360 was console gaming, up until the last 3 years or so. It's the reason their hasn't been a proper AoE games since 2005.

Have you been watching the Feature Discovery videos? They've been going through gameplay and features every month.

I'm not sure how much more gameplay is left to show.

@Monkey

I love sim games as well. SimCity is one of my all time favorites and I still play it regularly, although more a game than an actual sim. But roller coaster Tycoon, SimEarth, some train driving sim I can't recall the name of, MSFS, and I've dabbled in things like Zoo Tycoon. Most of those have more game play elements than pure sims, but I do like actual pure sims as well.

I can't tell you how many hours I can sink into SimCity if I get into the mood for it. I can play it religiously for weeks on end, every available waking moment and just lose myself in it.

@Atom

I've watched about half of them, and more recently I went through quickly on most of the others looking for more in depth full showings of flight. I saw them talking and showing things that appeal to the simulator fans of this game. To those that buy this title to be what it is. Precise recreation of flying a plane.

What I haven't seen is game play scenarios added in that make it go from being a simulator. What I haven't seen is a full simulation of flight from start to finish, or even a good chunk of it. I saw the thing about take off and landings, and some shorter segments with actual flight. It's those latter flight videos which show what you are doing in most of this game. You can do random things of course, which is cool, but it's a different experience to what I see most people seem to like around here.

If you know which video shows this, I'd be happy to watch it, because I don't want to keep misrepresenting what the game has to offer.

It's not that what this game has to offer can't be engaging. It's that people should go into it informed. I remember when I first played this series, I was insanely bored and frustrated. I either crashed, or wasn't doing anything at all. It wasn't until I realized what you were supposed to be doing that I came to appreciate it.

Some of the later ones are a bit more detailed, but overall they've shown pretty much what to expect imo. MP is interesting. Didn't know if you were looking for more detailed gameplay generally.

"Fans" from all sides are going to be reacting a certain way to this title. I just had an exchange with a PS "fan" on Twitter who thought that FS should have been exclusive to console. While I'm hopeful that it gets a console release to bring in new users, you and I know why FS is a PC title first and foremost.

Don't disagree that some people don't know what they're getting into with FS. I tend to think that you're more likely to see Xbox fans praise it without playing it while the PS camp rags on it for not being a "game" though. Basically just the usual nonsense we see every day.