PCs should function similarly to consoles. Think carefully before you decide.
PCs should function similarly to consoles. Think carefully before you decide.
Essentially these two setups are quite different in performance depending on the situation. Clearly, the high-end CPU and 70$ graphics card would outperform the midrange CPU with an R9 295X2. Yet, the overall cost could be similar. Which one ranks higher depends on your needs. Performance can shift dramatically with minor changes, making it hard to pin down a single best.
Additionally, hardware evolves quickly—new releases every few months keep the rankings changing. This makes it difficult for developers to maintain accurate benchmarks.
Many PC games also suffer from suboptimal optimization, which can be attributed to developers prioritizing other factors over player experience.
The constructive feedback is greatly valued, though your tone came across as dismissive. I never suggested the PC should resemble a low-quality Mac. The manufacturers who produce various hardware will continue offering products at both premium and budget levels. Regarding the term "PC" (personal computer), what defines it as personal? Is it customizing it yourself? Adding your own modifications like liquid cooling or custom skins? All of these options are valid. Essentially, you’re assembling hardware yourself and tailoring it to your preferences. Even a basic setup could be upgraded with accessories like a PS4 or a sticker. Please approach this with a more open perspective and less negativity. Have a great day.
You're right to question the need for separate builds. A CPU that's strong but GPU weak would be unusual, especially with a GPU that struggles in return. It might make sense to focus one series on the CPU and another on high-GPU tasks. Could be a practical approach, similar to how PCs and consoles differ. Short answer—thanks for the thought!
They understand the specific hardware each console uses, rather than mixing different components like a PC. They also avoid reprogramming games that are already optimized for better PC performance, or simply skip the effort. Their approach makes development smoother, allowing developers to adjust games more easily according to their needs. This familiarity with the hardware is key to achieving high-quality results on these platforms.
Simplifying things or reducing complexity isn't the solution.
It might be useful to consider specific benchmark results, such as "this game runs smoothly on PCs with a Unigine Valley score of 10,000 or higher." However, we're aware that such scores don't always match real-world performance. It's also true that companies often push their systems to achieve the best possible results in benchmarks, which can feel like cheating. I believe the current setup is decent, but developers should focus more on improving our platform rather than competing in these metrics.
It's already the way. Layered structures and regular updates don't sustain progress; they just repeat past efforts. Constant hardware shifts mean returning to earlier standards, like PCs in 2014 versus 2010. This pattern continues because developers refine their techniques for the system. It could make sense if a different economic model existed.
The main idea I wanted to convey is that our PCs should have restrictions, just like consoles, to ensure they perform within certain limits. This isn<|pad|>, not because of any hatred, but because it’s a poor approach. If you aim for a top-tier system, invest in an all-in-one unit and stop worrying. Developers focus on creating the best experiences for the hardware available at that time. Unless companies like Ubisoft push for higher performance, they produce quality games and software. The real issue is that no matter the operating system or number of classes, it still restricts user freedom. There’s value in choice—even if PCs become more like consoles, a fully customized setup remains a distant dream. It’s essentially choosing from a few limited options, like picking one car out of five.