I agree with that. I built my computer last year for $1280 not including new heat sinks for my CPU and GPU just to play COD2 and F.E.A.R at an acceptable frame rate. While today it can play most PC games like Bioshock, UT3, WIC, COD 4,and Graw just find at FPS's ranging from 25-45 FPS with resolutions at about 1280 X 720P to 800P without any hitches. But then there are poorly coded games like Stalker, RB6, Overlord, Quake ET, Supreme Commander, and Crysis that takes $2000 to run ruins it for most PC gamers. But for $400 and $400 is what I paid for the 360 and PS3 I get the same performance at the same resolution and med level textures. The added factor with consoles games is you can trade them in after your done with or just rent the game if you do not want to take the risk. I also think DX 10 is killing the industries as well with high price cards and piss poor performance. I much perfer Open GL because games can be ported across OS's without having all MS stupid limitations.

Do you realize that every single of your points are COMPLETELY tied to the experience of the user in PC gaming or basically how n00b you are with PC gaming, many of the hardcore and even "medium" PC gamers will tell you that your points are not valid or don't apply to them, I for example being a PC gamer all my life can tell you non of those point make any sense in my case given my experience in that field

hell if you want I could even comment in each one individually

The reason you "need" to upgrade so often is because technology changes. When a console launches it is already a pretty obsolete piece of machinery, but due to it's dedicated nature it is able to keep up with PC games for quite some time. PC games always come with more features and more flexibility, and you don't have to put up with any dumbed down graphics (especially resolution) and the like. Simply put, the PC will always be the most powerful gaming machine and a good PC is an absolute necessity for those that care about being on the leading edge of gaming technology and the game experience. Those of you who are able to run Crysis on high or very high settings understand what I mean, it's as simple as more horsepower = greater possible experience, of course it does still rely on what the developers do.

I have all settings to Very High except special effects and water is at high and I get avg 40 FPS using an HD2900XT.

Note: ATi just released the HD3870 that is the same power as the HD2900XT but half the cost and half the power consumption. Buy two of those and suddenly you have 1gb of video memory and two very powerful GPU cores.

Conversely, I could argue that there is no console that could even handle Crysis on Medium/High settings, and there is no way any console would run it at 1440x900 like I am.

I forgot to mention: The HD2900XT or HD3870 are not even the most powerful GPUs available.

You do not need a "super super" PC. A decent processor with a high end graphics card and 2GB of ram is all you need to max out Crysis.

A friend of mine with a Core 2 Q6600, 2GB DDR2 800mhz and a 8800GTX runs it all Very High in DX10 with over 30fps on a 1600x1200 resolution.

Simply put, a sub-$1500 gaming machine can max out Crysis if you know what to put in it and how to set it up.

need a super computer to run Crysis, but you won't get the best experience with it if you don't have a competent system. The thing to consider is: what's going to happen next year? What are the requirements for playing a graphically challenging game going to be? It's been the same for years. Computer gaming isn't dead, the games just leap ahead of current technology. Consoles are a closed system, and can't be upgraded every few months, but with the advanced processors in the current gen systems we'll have good looking games that will only get better in the coming years. The console manufacturers take into account that a system will be on the shelf for years, hence the development of technology like the Emotion Engine, Cell, or the 360's multicore processor and graphics card. They try to jump a little ahead of the norm in computers at launch so they stay relevant longer. The technology is good, but different, and developers just need to get used to it to maximize the potential.

I think for a couple of years I was buying an new GPU every 8-13 months to go from playing Giants to Splinter Cell, from UT2003 to HL2, from HL 2 DOD to F.E.A.R to playing games like UT3 and COD 4. Since 2000 I have brought 8 video cards with my last one being only about 17 months old.

complete agree but the most overused but classical comment of all time has to be "not everyone can afford to spend 5000$ on a new pc"...my 800$ pc runs crysis at verh high but at low res but i dont care cause even at low rez it looks better than any game out today

Its bugging me as well its over assumed that if a new item is out the other is useless and wont play any game good.
and who keeps disagreeing with the pro pc gaming comments?

totally agree,

exactly what i wrote below, its about sales not about favors or better gfx power.

It kinda sucks that most ppl who haven't been pc gamers and have absolutely no idea how the pc gaming world works just make uneducated assumptions and draw conclusions by comparing pc gaming to console gaming, they can not be compared in most ways, it's not until this generation that consoles are trying to be like pcs and hence a few similarities arise and pc gaming is becoming more popular to the console world, even then consoles are starting to suffer the same consequences pcs face despite uniform hardware architecture, i've never heard of any previous gen consoles with as many framerate and engine issues and yet alone even patches as this one, most console gamers just came to light about pc gaming because more pc exclusive titles started coming to consoles, vice versa and multiplatform development became more mainstream, it was not until a few years ago that pcs were actually put on the same league with consoles,even now gaming sites are reporting pc news along with console news,
Now to my main point, let me clear some myths:
1. Crysis is poorly optimized because it can't be maxed out on current hardware, and it most definitely has to be played at max max settings:
If u've been a pc gamer as long as i have, u would know that it's always been this way even from the time 4mb integrated video cards were available to voodoos 3dfx and so on,games like terminal velocity lagged like hell on latest hardware. PC games with stunning visuals could never be maxed out on current gen hardware. It has been like this for years yet most console gamers have just been introduced to this concept so they think its odd and they are bashing the games. It's a known fact that ppl hate stuff they don't understand. But true pc veteran gamers know this for a fact. From half life one days, where u had to run on 640x480 resolution and lowest settings to be playable on the latest voodoo/oxygen card, to the even more current half life 2(source engine) released in 2004 which was struggling to run at high resolutions on the beasty 6 series cards which were the top of the line that time.
The fact is unlike consoles, pc games don't have to maxed out to be played or enjoyed to the fullest and that is what most of u console owners think. This might be because console games run at max all the time but pc games are different. Lower graphic settings barely change a thing about gameplay. Actually, the standard or should i say majority of pc gamers enjoy their games on medium settings and the games are still awesome nontheless and look as good as most other games. Extreme maximum settings is for the niche hardcore who just want the ultimate gaming experience. The whole concept which I will explain to most of you is that, pc games are not like console games, pc gamers don't feel the obligation to rush out and buy the next best game out there, they get very attached to their older games so the timeline of maxing out goes about a year or two after the game has been released. As hardware upgrades come out and drop in price, games become very playable even on the most mediocre hardware. Take half life 2, nobody in 2004 would have even dreamed of running it 16xAA with an extreme resolution and expect it to be a fluid 60fps yet today most medium end rigs can achieve this. Half life 2 is a last gen game for pc and yet couldn't run on last gen consoles and could not be maxed out until a year. This was because the source engine was new and hardware was yet to be capable of fully handling it. Half life 2 on medium or low settings looked just as good as most xbox/ps2 titles and looked just as good as unreleased next gen games to come on high settings. This is called scaling the game forward to the future so it has more value in the future. This keeps sales going for the game even after hype has died down. Sales sky-rocketed later into its life cycle and it went on to sell 4 million copies despite selling measly 200,000 in its first month. So people call the source engine more optimized than the cryengine 2 because it runs better but it is 3 year old engine meanwhiles cryengine 2 just came out. It is a new engine just like the ps3 was new for developers, it takes time to get the full potential out of something new. People will say the same about cryengine 2 as they said for the source engine when some other engine comes out that cant be maxed on current gen hardware.
The only games that can be maxed upon release are games that are based on older engines. Unreal engine is much much older than cryengine 2. Crysis is the first game running on this new engine so it's only obvious that current hardware is yet to be capable of fully handling the engine. Games on unreal engine and source engine may look just as good as crysis but it doesn't change the fact that they are older engines and demand much less. That is why multiplatform games like cod4 run really good on pc because they are based either on dumbed down console engines or older pc engines. Now this is no attack to console games, because a dumbed down console engine can run and look just as good as a new pc engine, they just have different requirements in terms of memory. So you can't really compare optimizations on 2 engines from different timelines, newer engines raise the bar and show the possibilities that can be incorporated into future engines, cryengine 2 does alot of advanced stuff that ppl don't notice which cause it be so demanding, it's not just about how good it looks but the mechanics, did u know it is the first engine to do real time volumetric tactile clouds, it may not be relevant for a game like crysis but for another game in the future, this may help for more realism, parallax occlusion mapping, dynamic depth of field, insane texture detail along with edge AA, enhanced motion blur, since crysis is the first, it is only obvious that all these features may not seem that significant in it but they are breakthroughs that can really bring interesting concepts to future games in general, it is more like a sample than a revolution.
Finally, the biggest hindering factor of crysis performance is vista and its current state. Vista is not yet ready to be used as a gaming OS considering it is not even yet in Service Pack stage and most video card drivers have horrible problems and glitches, it also has terrible memory hogging issues, so the cryengine 2 as optimized as it is, is bottlenecked by the OS, so it runs terrible, microsoft could not meet the launch window that crytek was expecting for sp1 which fixed most of these issues so the game wasn't made efficiently use multiple cores and graphic cards just yet even though the engine fully supports them, hence, in practicality, crysis doesnt support sli and multiple cores ye t because of Vista, so tri sli/sli or quad cores shouldn't really give performance boosts as they are now.
In a couple of years along the line, when crysis can be maxed on standard medium end gaming hardware, cryengine 2 will just become like the source engine.
My final counterpoint is for ppl who say that crytek developers are not efficiently making use of less hardware. Consoles are different from pcs. Consoles are made for one sole purpose besides movies, to game, the GPU and CPU of consoles can be practically maxed out when running a game that is why they can do so much with so little because that is all they were made to do, PCs do a whole lot more running the OS, kernel, system processes so they demand alot more from the same games, so the argument that PC gaming is more expensive is very relative and arguable, because you can do a million other things with a pc that would make up for the extra cost, if u just want a gaming machine, get a console, if u want an all in one solution however and a high end pc for work, a pc becomes ideal because high end pcs offer superior gaming experiences and also have other capabilities such as video editing, animation rendering, designing, networking and multimedia capabilities,
so it depends on the person whether pc gaming or console gaming is more expensive, but most ppl make a one sided argument like if u buy that $2000 pc, u are only going to game on it and not do anything else like a console, meanwhile u can check ur email, do all that stuff on a great pc. Plus the ability to mod, and hardware tweak like using the wiimote, 360 pad and ps3 sixaxis on all one platform, some ppl have always wanted next gen graphics for wii ports, well guess what, if it's on pc like most cases, u can mod the wiimote to work perfectly with games like cod4, bioshock and what have u. I can go on and on but it all balls down to you the individual and ur background.

2. Crysis sold poorly because uncharted and other console games sold a whole lot more than it.

This is not really true. PC gaming sales in general may have declined but it is not too significant considering the other factors such as increased online distribution where are rarely included in sales. You can't compare pc games sales figures to console raw figures for several reasons. For one, online distribution which is very big these days is not included. Just so u know before u say online sales doesn't make a difference, half life 2 sold even more on steam than it did on shelves and more pc gamers are migrating to this method of buying games. There is also the factor of piracy but that doesnt really cause a huge dent in sales because the fact of the matter is If the game is really good, it will sell regardless. Half life 2 and Oblivion didnt have any copy write protection at all, meaning very easy to pirate, yet they are best selling games on pc, meanwhile games that had very tough cracking systems such as starforce and weren't anything special flunked in sales.
PC Games sell in a different pattern. When a revolutionary pc game comes out, first off it cant be fully maxed on current hardware, so its only obvious that it will sell less. This is different for consoles. Consoles peak their sales rates when the game is still fresh and hype is still hot, very rarely do they see surges in sales months after it has been released. Sales die down with hype. So the comparison between consoles and pcs in sales is not logical. Half life 2 which has sold 4 million copies to date and approximately 3 million steam purchases seperate sold a meagre 200,000 worldwide in its first month. Yet Crysis sells 86,000 in NA alone in its first 2 weeks and it's a failure? Especially considering the fact the bulk of pc games sell in EU, except for WOW, every pc game sells way better outside US, pc games make it big in EU and bomb in US, so if crysis sales in US alone from shelves no online included(which is a very fast growing market today) is 86,000, u do the math, why do u think EA expected 40,000 units to be sold in the first two weeks? Do u think they expected crysis to flop? NO,
PC games dont use hype to sell, they use hardware to sell, so when hype dies down and hardware comes out, sales go up, expect crysis sales to go up when the 9 series come in february and expect even better sales when newer processors and come out and hardware becomes cheaper, expect it to sky-rocket like half life 2 when the average joe gamer rig can play it on considerable high settings, this may not be the case for games like Uncharted because nothing besides advertisement of the game is going to prompt current ps3 owners who didnt have any previous interest in the game to buy it later on, on the other hand, there are tons of pc gamers who are just waiting it out patiently for hardware and price cuts before upgrading to buy crysis, Plus for Uncharted and other console games, newer games will overshadow them in 2008 so this will even hurt sales further.
Get it straight, Crysis sales wasnt the best but it wasnt a flop either. It will continue to sell without the hype as time goes on. This happens with most pc games.
In conclusion, if indeed pc games are selling less and dying and becoming a less profitable markets, why are more console exclusives/franchises coming to pc or becoming multiplatform now more than ever? what must these game developers/publishers be thinking bringing profitable console goodies to a dying format? Lost Planet? Gears of War with xtra content? Halo Series? Jade Empire? upcoming devil may cry 4? assassin's creed? Bionic Commando? Turok? anyone?

Edit: Who disagreed? Please state ur reasons if u can to give me and others insight on why i might be wrong .ie. if u r not some biased fanboy,

I know my post is long but please read through the whole thing before you disagree or draw a rebuttal argument because the whole issue works both ways and i have stated both sides of the argument so if u just brush through u might just repeat what I've already stated or make an irrelevant argument. Plus this is more of an informative comment than an argumentative one so it is less opinionated. This is just to clear up a few things, generalizations and false assumptions and answers some questions most people have about pc gaming like why some games cant be maxed out when they come out.

2 disagrees already and no replies, wow just a guess but my two cents in that it's a couple of 11-15 year olds who either didn't read my comment completely or barely understand it at all or maybe it's the words i used, not simple enough? too technical? come on guys, help me out, oh wait,
(if i had to guess, Aizen would be one of them as this post has Crysis written all over it, i don't know but that kid is so turned on by crysis, i could have sworn, he always posts on all crysis articles or anything relating to that game and then he makes the segway into the ps3 or killzone 2, if u don't know who Aizen is, he is a couple of posts below with an irrelevant post containing the words pc and ps3)

@theox2g7: Don't worry aparently you get free disagrees for not following this articles mood about blindly agreeing with "PC gaming is dead" regardless of you actual knowlege int he subject even if you present FACTS people will throw disagree under the vail of anonymity cuz they don't even respond probably because don't bother reading your post you just win a free disagree for not swinging with the crowd :)

@ theox2g7

im not disagreeing but

Im a pc gamer for 20 years now and the fakt taht im working in this industry i can assure its no bullshit im talking.We currently discuss our platforms very carefully i know exactly what im talking about.

you have good points but only out of the view of a gamer

"
well well its getting real dark for pc games and thats a fakt it wont die but it will slim out very much "

thats what i said before and thats what i say again, the pc market will shrink to a niche market as consoles become more of a pc and therefore will gain the games that where once pc exclusive. Once a console will introduce a standarised interface for rts games and mmo (keyboard and mouse) even more games will go to consoles or multi-plattform.

Its also a matter of money man, making a pc game is horrendous on the QA you have to develop for thousands of possible configurations and systems, i can assure you that most devs i know are into console development these days, the hardcore pc devs will slim out.

Especially when it comes to the nextgen graphics, delivering a nextgen gfx game is better to do on the current consoles, you reach a huuuge audience who can run the game on the aimed settings and quality, crysis made a step breaking that rule by delivering a game with visual quality on a level far aboe the current installed hardware, and in my view that was a mistake. You sir are not the aimed audience, Hardcore gamers doesnt interest the market its a fakt, there are faaaaaaar to few hardcore gamers out there to focus on them you wont get enough sales if you close out the casual market. and thats why Crysis failed horribly in sales, and THATs what counts, this is acapitalism and nextgen costs millions, im really glad for crytek that the cryengine is a huge success and will give them the lost money on the prodction back.

so please dont mix sales with fvors or even your personal opinion.
the pc market is going down, thats not my opinion but a matter of facts, in that case a matter of sales, and World of Warcraft is the only real exception here.

Again im not saying the pc market will die, but it will slim out, you will get your games no matter what but the big productions will go to the consoles thats a fakt.

@sushifx

U probably didn't read through my whole post well, I never denied that pc gaming sales were declining but I also gave valid points/factors. I agree with what u're saying very well because you sound like you know what u're talking about but what I was also pointing out that if the market is slimming out and ur predictions are true, then why are some exclusive console game developers going out of their way to bring former console exclusives to pc recently now more than ever? This is very taxing on developers but it's the management who make these decisions to bring those games to pc, Some of these console to pc games don't even make sense and it's like they see something in the pc market that u don't currently see, they look at WOW sales, half life 2 sales and steam being a billion dollar company and see marketing potential, steam sales and other online distribution sales are growing so rapidly that they can't be ignored anymore, why do u think now almost all game companies are starting online donwload stores? Even capcom is working on its own download store for pc games when it's had only a handful already meaning they plan to continue to make pc games. That sector is becoming a very profitable market, why do u think capcom released a console-exclusive lost planet on steam first? because they know it will sell there because pc users are migrating from shelves, also they know that with pc sales, because of newer hardware upgrades, they can milk the sales dry and keep things moving even after hype is dead,
Why even bring guitar hero 3 to pc? Why devil may cry 4? Why Assassin's Creed? Those games belong on consoles to start with so if the pc market is indeed slimming out in the eyes of developers why do they take to pains to port to pc? And now the norm is announcing multiplatform for pc, ps3, xbox 360 not just for former pc exclusives but several former console exclusives,

So u're just looking at one side of the issue without addressing the other because the number of pc exclusive games crossing over to consoles is just about as much as the amount of console exclusive games crossing over to pc, pc never had games like devil may cry, lost planet or yet alone any capcom games except resident evil series, i understand that u say developing on pc is difficult but if it is the indeed way u say it is why is all this happening? Turok and Bionic Commando, one of console's finest exclusive games and who would've thought they would go multiplat on pc? Why? Because it isn't developers that have the final say, they can complain all they want but the big guns still make the decisions, it's not the developers that sit and plan out these things. It's basic politics. If u were truly part of those making these decisions, you wouldn't even be posting on this site in the first place, you would be too busy with your board meetings and stuff,

Also, your point about the sales decline is true but ur point about crysis is somewhat invalid, if u have truly been a pc gamer for 20 years, then u know as well as I do that games like crysis shouldn't be able to be maxed out on current hardware, and that it is not a mistake on crytek's part, it was the same for all the big titles such as half life one, don't u remember voodoo cards with 3d fx and quake 2 and its expansions, the latest cards were struggling on those games in opengl so u had to either tone down to directx or software rendering, this has been the same case for years so u of all people should know that, i was only expecting console gamers to be shocked at crysis not being capable of maxing on today's hardware but pc veteran if u claim to be, should know that even better than me, if by ur definition, that is a mistake in ur eyes, then the most successful pc games in the past are some of the biggest mistakes, i mean all those games Return To Castle Wolfenstein, Command and Conquer Generals, we had to wait months or even years before Nvidia or ATI released their new cards before we could buy those games and play on medium/high and those games sold like crazy, because even the highest end of cards couldn't hold a candle to those games when they were released,

Also crysis sales wasn't a huge success but it wasn't a big flop either, how many times do i have to repeat myself? So by your logic, Crysis failed horribly in sales because it couldn't be compared to console game sales, wow, tell that to the pc games that sold worse in their first month and went on to sell millions years later, I will only take ur word on its failure if u said u worked for management at EA or crytek? Because why would they in their right mind expect only 40,000 in the first month? Because they know that's how it's supposed to sell initially, it's always been this way and even best selling half life 2 sold weak in its first month, u don't use a pc game's first month/ 2 weeks sales to determine it's sales success, u go years along the line when the average joe rig can max it out, that's when sales sky-rocket, when that day comes, then u can come and tell me crysis sales failed horribly but for now keep it to urself, console games can't sell like that because there is less incentive to get the game after hype has died down, there are tons of pc gamers out there just waiting for new hardware and price cuts to upgrade and get games like crysis, besides it sold 86,000 in NA only and pc games don't do that well in NA, Look up C&C 3 sales in NA, it bombed in NA and sold like crazy in EU as much as 6 times better, also u have ea download store and all these online sales that aren't included, say all u want but it is far from a failure in sales, u can't say that just yet, Maybe Crysis will fail in sales as u r saying but u can't use it's initial sales because several best selling pc games got off on worse start and went on to sell millions,

You may be working with developers and stuff and know what u're talking about and u may feel this is a gamer's opinion but these are cold hard facts here, just do some research into the bigger game developers and publishers and u'll see what i'm talking about, developers at the lower levels may whine all they want about pc being hard to develop but in the end it's upper management who have the real details on how the industry is doing and they don't usually share those details with developers,
at the end of the day, developers don't decide which game to make for which platform, it's done at the corporate level so ur point is debatable.

very good post theox2

a bit long but thats ok, you have some good points lets continue this debate in the next threads :)

oh and bubbles to you

When are people going to learn that just because you CAN spend a fortune building a gaming PC doesn't mean you have to. You can drop a Radeon 3850 into any relatively modern PC for $180 and get a good (if not mind blowing) gaming experience.

PC gaming is more affordable and accessible than it has ever been before, and it still offers the best experience for many kinds of games.

Console's advantage over pcs have also decreased significantly, why did people get consoles in the past? For exclusive games and stress-free problem-free environments without the pc headaches of patches, updates, complicated management, framerate issues/hiccups, freezes or what so ever and even in a few cases installing some files on hard drive before playing
What is happening now with this console generation? Answer that question yourself, just look at the number of articles on this website alone that fall in line with these, nuff said
In the exclusives department, it works both ways, I mean who would've thought of games like onimushua, gears of war, jade empire, guitar hero or lost planet or devil may cry or assassin's creed on pc years ago? And who would've thought that majority of the exclusive console game developers would make games multiplatform pc, ps3, xbox360 as much as they are these days, pcs are seeing more and more ports of console exclusive games, and initially they were garbage ports but the quality of the ports is increasing over time very quickly just like the xbox 360 to ps3 ports are improving,
So it works both ways, consoles may be getting more games like ut3, MMOs and RTS but the time it will take for these new keyboard/mouse innovations and how they would blend into the console world is uncertain. I mean i know lots of people who left pc gaming just because of keyboard/mouse for preference of gamepad. We don't even know if these new systems will work well on consoles.
PCs are also getting games like guitar hero and we don't know how that would also turn out.
Both platforms are merging and blending in with each other but the question is will these new elements work well for them?

You're definately correct that the gap is decreasing from both directions. To my mind, console gamings advantages have always been cost, accessibility and (despite notable exceptions) the social aspect of it (its much easier to get a few mates round to play a game of Fifa on a console than drag multiple pc's round for a lan party, for example.) The cost aspect is difficult to quantify, as it depends what you like to play, for instance you could easily run dawn of war (my fave rts) on a fairly low-spec pc, for less than it would cost to buy a ps3. However, to play the 'bleeding edge' games at top detail levels (Crysis anyone?), you're talking huge sums more money (a lot more than a console and a few games..). That hasnt really changed. The "pick up and play" accessibility of consoles as much as it still stands in the main, is changing now that consoles are usually online, and even more so with the ps3. Put the game in, and it not only has to donwload patches (something very new to the console industry) but also (in the case of the ps3) install content to the HDD. Its a lot more hands-off than an install-shield wizard or some other such messing about (something that is getting easier and easier on pc's as time goes on), but it its converging with the old "release patch 1.01 the day after release" thing the pc used to tend to suffer from.

In terms of innovation, the pc *should* always win out as its so much more widely known how to 'mess' with it (for want of a better phrase). I think the reason why it doesnt get widespread acclaim for it is the financial risk of such innovation is recouped far more easily in the console market these days. But in the console market, innovation comes more slowly, as devevlopment is harder and longer, and more costly (10k usd for a ps3 dev kit for instance).

I, for one, dont want to see pc gaming become a niche thing for only a few really dedicated players - i still buy the odd game for my pc and thoroughly enjoy them. This wont happen any time soon.

bubbles for you tho on a very good point :O)