The Death of PC Gaming

Actually I have been talking to a few people about RC2 and they say its maybe 10-15% slower at the moment.

Also you can still activate Vista retail as many times as you wan't yoy just cant activate vista OEM that many times.

Also my DX9.0 video card does a fairly good job and uses less power 9700 pro. But hey its 3 generations later and its faster than those orginal cards. DX10 will come along the same way.

Also I was looking at my windows 2000 setup it uses about 80mbs of ram at idle. My windows XP X64 setup uses about 240mb at idle thats a 200% increase in memory usage. So hey thats a pretty huge increase in ram usage and thats been what 4 years since windows XP came so what the heck 750mb for an OS thats running everything off the install. Its been 4 years after all.

Honestly nobody here really wanted XP but they bought it and they will buy vista and quadcores and power hungry video cards becuase they are chasing the almighty I have a good enough rig to do everyhing that I do which honestly for just about everyone here was 3 rigs ago.

Reply Like

Honestly nobody here really wanted XP but they bought it and they will buy vista and quadcores and power hungry video cards becuase they are chasing the almighty I have a good enough rig to do everyhing that I do which honestly for just about everyone here was 3 rigs ago.

I for one wont. I know, for everyone like me that will not be strangled into buying the newest and best(im still happily using my xp1800 @2.3), there are at least 2 others willing to plop down the money on the 733T systems. I am now going back to counsels, if this is the future. They are cheaper, and offer great graphics. I was never a huge fan of FPS, i have been more of a RPG player.

I know my system is showing its age, (still use a 9800pro), but what they are asking for, is insane. I will upgrade to COnroe, as soon as I can, and then sit on it for 4 years, like I have with my older system. I will not, cannot afford those types of upgrades, mayby if I could I might, but I cant so I wont. I like the idea getting the most bang for your buck, but Vista sounds as though it just blew me off of PC Gaming, and into a different market now.

Mayby this is what MS wanted. Designing games for PC is not as profitable as Counsel games, or mayby im wrong. This way MS can have their cake(Vista) and eat it too (XBOX360). I dont know, just my 2 pennies.

Reply Like

No PC gaming isn't dead...maimed perhaps, but not dead. Everyone wants to assume that Vista is going to be the death knell of a ton of things. I remember this exact same FUD when XP came out. Everytime a new and sweeping change happens people start to panic. Rumor X becomes rumor Y and so on. It's worse than ever this time because there are a few sweeping changes occuring. Vista needs more hardware(OMG so did XP!). DX10 is only going to be on Vista(um.... didn't a lot of game makers start requiring XP?). The new video cards are furnaces(anybody remember the dustbuster? it's back. And it'll leave in shame same as the last time). Come on people. Wake up. Given time Vista will become a prettier version of XP. Even Microshaft realizes it can only push so hard. They will end up giving the user what they want in time or they won't sell Vista. Actually they will sell Vista, right up until the average buyer at Hell...er Dell and Worst Buy start complaining. If the systems price goes up because it TAKES that much to run the OS...well, pricing is the main reason that the big boys are popular among the Sixpacks.and If the OS causes the system to be incredibly expensive, chances are they will opt for the older OS( unless they have no clue at all and no one helping them). And you can bet that Mikey and company are going to keep selling XP based systems for a while, hedging their bets. In the end it'll be the same old story. We, the enthusiasts, are going to get drug along by the inertia of the sixpacks. Or held back if you prefer to look at it that way. My advice is the same today as it has been for 20 years. Be patient and make informed decisions. It's not always good to be the first kid on the block to have the new toy.

Reply Like

It's not always good to be the first kid on the block to have the new toy.

Perfectly worded! Since coming to this website many years ago, I have found this to be the golden rule. I cannot think of anytime that a new product came out, and it was the end all beat all of its kind. There is always room for perfection, I understand that. Having said that, I may at some point (1 year or 2, or until the next jaw dropping rpg comes out) when I will buy Vista. Out of the gate, hell no. Hell no. Hellllll nO. I do understand though why people dont want to buy it. I wont buy it until it becomes the only feasible way to play The Elder Scrolls 5 or whatever. Until then though, I wont buy it. In fact I seem to be on a 4 year upgrade cycle. I upgrade every 4 years. This next upgrade will be the first one where I save my old computer though. I trashed the last one, i went from 600mhz to 2.3 ghz. That was a nice jump.

I am going to give counsels a try for a change though. Its been years( anyone remember Sega Genesis, or Super Nintendo), its been that long since i bought a counsel.

Reply Like

(um.... didn't a lot of game makers start requiring XP?).

No, there wasn't a single game the REQUIRED XP, all games ran on XP as well as 95/98/2K/ME. The other way around wasn't true tho, a lot of old games can't run in XP.
The only game I've EVER seen that REQUIRES XP is Flight Sim X, which requires XP SP2 to even start the installation.

It wasn't quite the same when XP came out. The activation caused an outcry yes, because it was something never done on this scale before. But you can still activate XP as many times as you like. Also XP still RAN on most old hardware. Vista will not even be usable on PC's most people buy NEW today, that's the difference.

When XP hit the average PC was just above minimum specs, so it ran and was usable at least. This is something completely different.
A fairly standard "Joe's home PC" today is a sempron 3000+ or Celeron 2.6 with 512 MB ram and some onboard GPU. That can just barely start Vista, with 13MB free RAM and constand swap file thrashing as soon as you open a single menu or do anything at all. Don't even dream of running some software on it.

If there's anything to this Vista activation rumor then it means you can change hardware once, and once only, then you buy a new copy of Vista. Big question is, does Microsoft still think that the only hardware worth keeping track of is the motherboard? Or will it deactivate even if you swap CPU? Graphics card(s)?

Futhermore, Something I noticed at work with RC1, if you install an unactivated copy without a key, and get the option to go into reduced functionality mode after 30 days, you need an internet connection. Without internet Vista can't run in reduced functionality mode but works like XP and simply refuses to start.
I don't know if that's changed in RC2.

Reply Like

Everyone is taking the 'Death of PC Gaming' remark as an absolute observation. I think a strong argument can be made that the 1-2-3 punch combo of Vista, DX10, and power/thermal requirements for DX10 cards is death for pc gaming as we know it, but what I meant was more at a personal level.

I like to consider myself fairly typical when it comes to my computer - I may overclock and tweak what I have, but what I have is almost never cutting edge, and it's never pinnacle. I've never bought a single pc component that cost more than $300 EVER. Sure, i've window shopped and wanted them (video card, EE processors, etc) but the realist in me (and the "real" person in me) always shot it down. What I have done is bought strong components that were likely to a) have life in them and b) offer some upgradeability.

I haven't even moved to PCI-e or ddr2 yet. I've been thinking about it, and I had planned on getting a core2duo system come spring... but now i'm not so worried about it.

Personally I really do think this is a major change in how pc components and the marketplace (you and me) will interact. It's a move away from the open architecture and free market towards a solidifying of the proprietary apis and "strategic partnerships" with hardware vendors that is allowing Microsoft a stranglehold on your desktop.

I mean - let's use two examples: Legal Joe and Warez Joe.

Legal Joe can spend $300 on a mid-to-midupper range DX10 card (guess), $60-$100 on a power supply to run it (guess), and $300 for a legal copy of Vista. (guess.) We'll assume he already has a gig of ram, but frankly I think that's a big assumption. He can then spend ~$50 per DX10 title. With me so far?

Or he can spend $300 - $500 on a console and peripherals, and then $50 - $60 per title. He can also rent games very easily for his console.

Illegal Joe can spend $300 for that same video card, the same $60-$100 for a power supply, probably find some method to use Vista without paying it (weak maybe at this point), and then download his games. If the embedded DRM and other functions of vista don't make it impossible.

Or he can spend $300- $500 on a console, mod it, and download games for it. He can still rent games, too.

All I'm saying is that the combination of changes coming have made consoles attractive like never before... and I really dislike consoles.

Putting my own situation in terms of the buying choice Legal Joe is facing - I have a computer. I can play all my old titles on it, I can surf the web, answer email, write documents, edit pictures.

And I can save myself the cost of moving to a restrictive DRM-embedded Vista system by buying a console and renting most of my games.

Reply Like

No, there wasn't a single game the REQUIRED XP, all games ran on XP as well as 95/98/2K/ME. The other way around wasn't true tho, a lot of old games can't run in XP.
The only game I've EVER seen that REQUIRES XP is Flight Sim X, which requires XP SP2 to even start the installation.

OK, my bad. I haven't done a lot of game shopping lately and I made a bad assumption.

When XP hit the average PC was just above minimum specs, so it ran and was usable at least. This is something completely different.
A fairly standard "Joe's home PC" today is a sempron 3000+ or Celeron 2.6 with 512 MB ram and some onboard GPU. That can just barely start Vista, with 13MB free RAM and constand swap file thrashing as soon as you open a single menu or do anything at all. Don't even dream of running some software on it.

OK, but really, How many standard Joes are even going to worry about installing Vista. Most Joes out there will just assume that it's time for a new machine(meaning machine and OS).This statement really only applies to enthusiasts like us.

If there's anything to this Vista activation rumor then it means you can change hardware once, and once only, then you buy a new copy of Vista. Big question is, does Microsoft still think that the only hardware worth keeping track of is the motherboard? Or will it deactivate even if you swap CPU? Graphics card(s)?

This is what I mean by the FUD factor. What if's are fine and dandy, but I still believe in Occam's razor. The most logical is probably most likely. The most likely route for M$ is going to be the same as they have used. That being that the Mainboard is the machine or greater than 25% of the hardware changing.

Futhermore, Something I noticed at work with RC1, if you install an unactivated copy without a key, and get the option to go into reduced functionality mode after 30 days, you need an internet connection. Without internet Vista can't run in reduced functionality mode but works like XP and simply refuses to start.
I don't know if that's changed in RC2.

I can't comment on this. I haven't and won't be playing with the beta. I probably won't buy Vista until I have to(roughly 2 years at next major upgrade cycle).

InThrees... Consoles are becoming more of an attractive option. However consider that the current consoles are basically pc's running a custom OS. I would say that some predictions from the past are coming true.http://www.overclockers.com/tips01014/

Reply Like