I purchased an 8800GTX at launch and until it died a month ago it was still able to run every game out on high or near-max settings. Three years is a good number if you want to be running games on some decent quality settings, but you could go even longer if you don't mind low settings.
Heck, the Radeon 9800 Pro that is the minimum requirement for Starcraft 2 came out in 2003.
It's the same crowd that acts like PC gaming is too complex.
I can't believe she is that stupid. When Doom 4 comes out I'm sure they'll be calling it a Dead Space clone or something.
Starcraft 2's campaign is at least 16 hours long, so a little over 3x the Modern Warfare 2 campaign.
It really is a fantastic game, and it has some fantastic graphics if your PC can handle it on Ultra settings.
So far it's my favorite game of 2010. It seems that the console crowd is extremely bitter due to this not being released on their platform of choice. Halo Wars showed that no matter how hard you try, RTS on consoles simply does not work. Blizzard doesn't need consoles, as they're already the most profitable developer in history.
If they had Mouse / Keyboard support in a PS3 or 360 port, yeah it could be done. Unfortunately the vast majority of 360 / PS3 gamers do...
Well, there is Starcraft 64, not that it's worth the $30+ it often fetches on Ebay.
It's easily worth the $60 we normally pay for console games.
Actually, both systems have 512MB of RAM. The PS3 has 256MB of DDR3 for the GPU and 256MB of XDR for the CPU, where on the 360 it's 512MB of DDR3 is shared between the GPU and CPU.
Also, this game could probably be ported to the consoles, but without a mouse and keyboard it would be unplayable.
Too bad there's no real way to play them. Even with multi-touch old games like Doom are extremely difficult.
I think we must take notice to there being fewer PC exclusives now that Valve develops for the consoles, but the platform is nowhere near being dead. Starcraft 2 is proof of that, as I saw a bunch of people waiting outside Gamestop to get it. This was my first retail game I've purchased for the PC in years.
Downloading PS3 firmware 3.41 and installing Starcraft 2. Tonight is a good night.
Actually, most of Starcraft 2's sales should be shown on the NDP since Blizzard refuses to release Starcraft 2 on Steam. Sure you CAN buy it on Battle.net, but I imagine not too many people will since it's such a new platform. Most of this games sales will be made the old-fashioned way.
We're not talking about consoles here, nothing is stopping Sony from releasing anything for Windows. Microsoft does not control software development or charge a fee to develop for Windows. At the same time they are not required to support or market any piece of software not released by Microsoft or an affiliated company.
The reason Sony hasn't released anything is due to the fact that they'd rather force you into paying for one of their overpriced PCs to get this ...
No they don't.
Actually Maldread, that's fairly likely as id normally licenses their engines and will probably share technology with Bethesda for other games.
It sure seems that way. The "survival horror" games we do get are mostly 3rd person shooters. If Capcom took Resident Evil back to its roots I'd definitely start buying their games again.
The FPS market in general is being over-saturated mostly by titles that are all trying to be Call of Duty 4.
Both my desktop with a Radeon 5870 and laptop with a Mobility Radeon 5650 auto-detect 1080p when plugged into my HDTV.
What about Xbox original owners and Gamecube owners? Support for those systems died as soon as their successors were released after only 4 and 5 years later.