Originally Posted by Licht
More then anything the article's bashing of Intel integrated graphics is the most important. That is the single largest issue PC gaming has, Intel killed it : literally. People either seam to think any PC can game like a beast or think it costs thousands to build/upgrade a rig up to the code. Both are deadly lines of thought. Education may be the key here.
No, it is extremely unfair to bash Intel for this. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of PCs sold are never going to be used for gaming. Cheap integrated graphics make hella sense in those cases.
Instead, blame must fall on the PC makers if they do not make clear to their customers the capabilities of a specific PC. Obviously, a serious gaming PC requires a separate card...find me a single ad that makes that clear to an Average Joe Clueless Shopper.
And to some degree, blame the game developers for making games like Crysis that actually require $500+ video cards to play well. Come on...that's the price of an X360, a year of Live, and a couple of games. It's hard to argue that developers should not push the limits of the hardware; but if PC gamers want their hobby to be taken seriously, the barrier to entry for the "hot new games" cannot be a $2000 PC when arguably "hotter" games (like GTA4) can be had on a console for a miserly $350-$400 hardware investment.
Originally Posted by bowman
Spare me. Anyone who buys a console is directly contributing to the companies who wish to kill off PC gaming or turn every PC game into a pay-to-play fare they can milk to fund their console businesses.
Blah, blah, blah, nonsense, nonsense, nonsense. Never mind the fact that widespread console gaming predates widespread computer gaming by many years. Or that x86 "PC gaming" was dominated by other computer platform gaming for years. No, historical facts are irrelevant...console gamers just want to kill off PC gaming.
Death to the fanboys of any platform. Long live the real gamers who care about the games more than the hardware they run on.