Average Computer User: What they need.

As I have explained in my journal, I am recently pissed about not being able to play SHadowrun. WHich highly makes me think that Game companies aren't thinking about the Average computer users let alone Game companies that don't see the average gamers income. SO I must ask you.

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE AVERAGE COMPUTER USER NEEDS HARDWARE WISE?

Maybe with this testimony we can convince the game companies to step down a notch and rethink their battle plan.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Dekoa

WHAT DO YOU THINK THE AVERAGE COMPUTER USER NEEDS HARDWARE WISE?

A 386 with 16MB of RAM running Windows 3.11 for Workgroups (you'll need TCP/IP support to connect to the internet!)

There's nowhere I can't reach.

wow this is by far the most intellectually challenging thread i've seen in hardware and networking forum

I am fairly sure the average computer user doesn't need to play 'Shadowrun'

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Aardark

wow this is by far the most intellectually challenging thread i've seen in hardware and networking forum

I am fairly sure the average computer user doesn't need to play 'Shadowrun'

Originally Posted by Merv Burger

A 386 with 16MB of RAM running Windows 3.11 for Workgroups (you'll need TCP/IP support to connect to the internet!)

C-C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=21558

Aside from whining and bitching, there's jack shit anyone can do about the stupid system requirements for new games.

I was speaking idiomatically.

I think it's interesting to see PC's and game consoles becoming gradually more alike overtime. Microsoft was intending on strengthening the PC gaming market with its release of DirectX 10 and some standards for development of the platform. For example: one of the goals was to standardize the XBox 360 controller as the controller of choice for the PC. Another goal was to make it so that users could go to the game store and rather than looking at "strange" system requirements lingo, they could simply compare the number their PC scores vs the number the product requires.

Things are heading in this direction already, but it's been total chaos so far. The biggest wrench in everything has been Windows Vista and the fact that it is the exclusive DX10 OS. Many people who have it, don't like it. Many others don't want it. Then there are those who aren't thrilled about Microsoft concepts like DRM and Palladium and will almost never consider upgrading.

Think about hardware nowadays though, things aren't quite so clear. Game requirements now often cite certain CPU speeds and major graphics card models. But CPU speeds aren't exactly accurate for measuring performance anymore. Some chips have multiple cores, etc. Wouldn't it suck to go to the store and see "This game needs a Pentium 940D or higher". Now you're talking confusing for the average user... You'll probably be seeing it fairly soon... maybe a year or two, but games will one day say something like "you require a graphics score of 4 or higher with Windows Vista".

As for hardware costs... that's due to a lot of things, most of it being competition and lack of it. I think Render's rant sums up that problem pretty well in a nutshell.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Render

http://www.gamingforce.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=21558

Aside from whining and bitching, there's jack shit anyone can do about the stupid system requirements for new games.

Ahhh but the point here Render is to actually try to accomplish something. If the average user is defined as someone who has somewhat lower standards than the rest, then We can press game companies to develop games for closer to the average user.

I remember writing a paper about Average users and computer requirements at one point.

Don't forget that even though we may not accomplish anything, this thread could also be useful for those who make average computers and may think that things are getting outta hand.

FELIPE NO

A lot of it comes down to expectations when dealing with PC games.
If you are playing on a 17' CRT monitor at 800x600 or 1024x768, then typically a mainstream card will do you. However a 22' monitor running at 1680x1050 is much more demanding, and as it's usually enthusiast whom own the larger monitors, they often demand more from games.

An example will be the people from renders' thread, posting that they play Oblivion at max settings with mid-low end pc's. Even at 800x600, i bet you while outdoors their systems are crawling in the teens or single digits, but they may not notice or care. With some *such as myself*, can tell when the fps goes below 30, and as I run at 1680x1050, I require a very good system to run most games, especially Oblivion at 30+ fps.

It's all relative though, I see the same thing in even ps3's, playing a few games and noticing fps lag at times.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Dekoa

Don't forget that even though we may not accomplish anything, this thread could also be useful for those who make average computers and may think that things are getting outta hand.

Sadly, no one in any position of power within a computer corporation is going to see this thread.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Yeah but there are some that can use it for anyone that needs the info too.

There's nowhere I can't reach.