Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 104
  1. #26
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,633
    Rep Power
    195
    Points
    122,554 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    Firstly, most games run better with 4gb because they don't virtual page, which means they are already using more than 2gtb.
    Secondly, all it takes is a system with 4gb and a GPU with 4gb and your already at where your talking about.

    Actually it has nothing to do with graphics cards.
    What devs have to do is pick an O/S.

    DX 11 can run DX 9 features no problems by simply targeting that feature level (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-nz/libr...=vs.85%29.aspx) , however, DX 11 only works on Vista, 7 and 8.

    If a dev want to target XP based machines, then they must use DX9. Other than that there is absolutely nothing stopping devs programming whatever GPU they want to on PC.

    It has to do with the O/S NOT the GPU that you target.

    XP has been holding back gaming, NOT GPU's.
    That makes no sense. What you're saying is not supported with examples out there. GPU does matter and how powerful it is. What you're explaining is an added problem, not the biggest one.

    You're still not addressing the optimization of a GPU that we see on consoles as opposed to a PC. You can't find me a single PC game that can have graphics as good as GT5 with a 6800 series Nvidia GPU installed.

    As for whatever % of people supporting DX11 or 10 or 9...I'm surprised you're saying that and you're supposed to be a programmer lol. Dude, everyone knows that doesn't matter.

    Just because your GPU has DX11 features, doesn't mean it's powerful. Same goes for the rest. I have a $#@!ty DX9 card and it plays DX9 games like $#@!. That only matters if you have a powerful enough GPU to take the advantage.

    I'll guarantee you there are probably high-end DX9 GPUs out there that rival with mid-range DX11 cards.

  2. #27
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    42
    Posts
    17,945
    Rep Power
    163
    Points
    198,080 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    That makes no sense. What you're saying is not supported with examples out there. GPU does matter and how powerful it is. What you're explaining is an added problem, not the biggest one.
    Content is probably the biggest issue, not feature sets. Most assets (textures/models) are designed around DX9 performance level GPU's (ie. the throughput of GPU in the 360 and PS3). Polygon count, texture res are directly created in regards to consoles.
    All a more powerful GPU does, is allow you to run these same assets at higher res. You can add all the DX11 features you want but these will not fundamentally change the fact that you assets have not changed. A lot of extra effort goe sinto filtering etc, but the biggest change next gen consoles will bring is the increase in texture res and poly count.
    You're still not addressing the optimization of a GPU that we see on consoles as opposed to a PC. You can't find me a single PC game that can have graphics as good as GT5 with a 6800 series Nvidia GPU installed.
    Nobody has the time, and the PC's biggest strength (flexibility) is all so its weakness, PC engines have to be flexible enough to enable and disable feature sets and make sure that all the game code work just as well with a crappy GPU as it does with the high end target.

    You could write a game that works really really well for a specific GPU and preform like crap on others if you don't follow the rules correctly.

    As for whatever % of people supporting DX11 or 10 or 9...I'm surprised you're saying that and you're supposed to be a programmer lol. Dude, everyone knows that doesn't matter.
    Of course it matters. Again its about the target O/S not the target GPU.
    If I want my game to run on XP, I have to stick with DX9.
    Just because your GPU has DX11 features, doesn't mean it's powerful. Same goes for the rest. I have a $#@!ty DX9 card and it plays DX9 games like $#@!. That only matters if you have a powerful enough GPU to take the advantage.
    And you dont understand how DirectX works.
    You can enable any feature DX11 on any DX11 compliant card. yes the frame rates might be crap but it will still actually run.
    You simply cannot enable a SM4.0 specific shader on SM1 or SM2. It wont work.
    Nor does the fact that you card is actually a DX 9 card matter when you write you DX 11 code, because you can automatically profile target that hardware.

    I can have DX 11 code running SM 2.0 code on a DX 9 card no problems.

    In fact if you ever get to look at a list of shader code for a game engine for DX11 game you are going to find somehting like this.

    Shadow_Map_2.vsh
    Shadow_Map_4.vsh
    Shadow_Map_5.vsh

    Each one being a vertex shader for a shadow map, but the one in _2 will be targeting DX9 compliant shader code, probably quite a simple shader, compared to the Shadow_Map_5 shader which is probably full of code to run cascading shadow maps etc etc.

    A game engine is designed to look at what you machine is complaint with and match it.

    Compare that with a console, currently, the would all run a highly cusotmised version of Shadow_Map_2.vsh

    Next gen they will be running a customised version of Shadow_Map_5.vsh

    I'll guarantee you there are probably high-end DX9 GPUs out there that rival with mid-range DX11 cards.
    Maybe if you run SM 2.0 code they might get within 60-80%.

  3. #28
    Master Guru
    TDbank24's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Age
    29
    Posts
    6,831
    Rep Power
    68
    Points
    38,847 (0 Banked)
    The PS4 will be held back by PC. I laugh when people say consoles hold back PC gaming. I think it's the other way around. Consoles are being held back because good developers like Blizzard focus their effort on the PC platform when they could be making good console games that everyone can enjoy. Not everyone wants or can afford a high end PC that needs to be babied with upgrades and what not.


  4. Likes BBK.. likes this post
  5. #29
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,633
    Rep Power
    195
    Points
    122,554 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    Content is probably the biggest issue, not feature sets. Most assets (textures/models) are designed around DX9 performance level GPU's (ie. the throughput of GPU in the 360 and PS3). Polygon count, texture res are directly created in regards to consoles.
    All a more powerful GPU does, is allow you to run these same assets at higher res. You can add all the DX11 features you want but these will not fundamentally change the fact that you assets have not changed. A lot of extra effort goe sinto filtering etc, but the biggest change next gen consoles will bring is the increase in texture res and poly count.
    Yea I know that, if the hardware isn't there to support it, I know it can't run but that's not what I was talking about.

    Nobody has the time, and the PC's biggest strength (flexibility) is all so its weakness, PC engines have to be flexible enough to enable and disable feature sets and make sure that all the game code work just as well with a crappy GPU as it does with the high end target.

    You could write a game that works really really well for a specific GPU and preform like crap on others if you don't follow the rules correctly.
    Even if someone had the time, it's virtually impossible to optimize it to the level consoles can...it's just not possible if you want it to run on that many configurations.

    And that's precisely the point I'm trying to make, they have to be flexible and that's really a negative thing rather than the nice little name it is given. Flexibility helps the games run but it doesn't benefit any one person, the only benefit is that it will run (sadly that's a benefit in the PC world) and so the advantages are taken away from everyone (especially the top-end PCs).

    Of course it matters. Again its about the target O/S not the target GPU.
    If I want my game to run on XP, I have to stick with DX9.

    And you dont understand how DirectX works.
    You can enable any feature DX11 on any DX11 compliant card. yes the frame rates might be crap but it will still actually run.
    You simply cannot enable a SM4.0 specific shader on SM1 or SM2. It wont work.
    Nor does the fact that you card is actually a DX 9 card matter when you write you DX 11 code, because you can automatically profile target that hardware.
    You make it seem like DX is rocket science, yes I do understand that it's a set of features that video games can utilize and you have to have a card that supports it.

    The crappy frame rate is precisely the point I was trying to make. Just because your card supports DX9, 10 or 11, doesn't mean it's going to utilize all of its features to the fullest...some cards can't even utilize the features it will support. Support and utilization are two different things.

    I can say that your PC supports internet but your connection is less than 1mbit.

    I'm not speaking about trying to run DX11 features on a DX9, I understand those things. I'll bet you most games don't even use all of DX11 features. Most gamers probably still run a DX9 card and thus it is naturally for most games to still not utilize the best features out there as those costs won't have returns.

    The point I'm making was that if you take out the DX10+ features, the 9800GTX video cards probably performs really well against DX11 cards but of course DX11 cards have added features that a DX9 card can't run. I'll be surprised if even the current games out now chug under a 9800GTX (granted you're not trying to run it at the highest quality, more like medium settings).

    I can have DX 11 code running SM 2.0 code on a DX 9 card no problems.

    In fact if you ever get to look at a list of shader code for a game engine for DX11 game you are going to find somehting like this.

    Shadow_Map_2.vsh
    Shadow_Map_4.vsh
    Shadow_Map_5.vsh

    Each one being a vertex shader for a shadow map, but the one in _2 will be targeting DX9 compliant shader code, probably quite a simple shader, compared to the Shadow_Map_5 shader which is probably full of code to run cascading shadow maps etc etc.

    A game engine is designed to look at what you machine is complaint with and match it.

    Compare that with a console, currently, the would all run a highly cusotmised version of Shadow_Map_2.vsh

    Next gen they will be running a customised version of Shadow_Map_5.vsh


    Maybe if you run SM 2.0 code they might get within 60-80%.
    I'm not even talking about all that. I'm not trying to say that a DX9 card can run well against a DX11 card with all the extra features. I'm excluding all the features that really don't get used or that most gamers care about.

    I'll bet you (more bets!) most PC gamers don't know what tessellation means or why it's good.

    In the end, the biggest issue are the low-end PCs but yes, you can classify that even more into DX9 compatible but there will be DX10 and DX11 compatible PCs out there as well (I should say GPU but trying to keep it simple). Generally yes you will see DX10 and especially DX11 PCs perform better than DX9 but they can all be low-end.

  6. #30
    Master Sage
    Bitbydeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    14,385
    Rep Power
    131
    Points
    45,847 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    Firstly, most games run better with 4gb because they don't virtual page, which means they are already using more than 2gtb.
    Secondly, all it takes is a system with 4gb and a GPU with 4gb and your already at where your talking about.
    Not really though as the memory isn't unified on a PC.

    Quote Originally Posted by mynd
    Actually it has nothing to do with graphics cards.
    What devs have to do is pick an O/S.

    DX 11 can run DX 9 features no problems by simply targeting that feature level (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-nz/libr...=vs.85%29.aspx) , however, DX 11 only works on Vista, 7 and 8.

    If a dev want to target XP based machines, then they must use DX9. Other than that there is absolutely nothing stopping devs programming whatever GPU they want to on PC.

    It has to do with the O/S NOT the GPU that you target.

    XP has been holding back gaming, NOT GPU's.
    Feature cutting on cards won't be such a big issue. Things like Lara shaking her tail feathers are easily cut from low-end pc's. I'm thinking more along the lines of advanced modelling, AI, amount on objects on one screen, etc.

    The important aspects of a game which shouldn't be cut which 2GB-4GB cannot handle.

    Quote Originally Posted by keefy
    Check steam stats for a rough idea of gamers systems, shows the most popular configs.
    LOL 2% use 56k modems
    http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey
    Keep in mind this is only steam users which their are roughly only 50 million of these. Granted 50 million is no small number but in comparison to the amount of actual PC gamers it would be.

    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/article...se-big-picture
    Last edited by Bitbydeath; 04-17-2013 at 02:24.

  7. #31
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    42
    Posts
    17,945
    Rep Power
    163
    Points
    198,080 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Yea I know that, if the hardware isn't there to support it, I know it can't run but that's not what I was talking about.

    Even if someone had the time, it's virtually impossible to optimize it to the level consoles can...it's just not possible if you want it to run on that many configurations.

    And that's precisely the point I'm trying to make, they have to be flexible and that's really a negative thing rather than the nice little name it is given. Flexibility helps the games run but it doesn't benefit any one person, the only benefit is that it will run (sadly that's a benefit in the PC world) and so the advantages are taken away from everyone (especially the top-end PCs).

    You make it seem like DX is rocket science, yes I do understand that it's a set of features that video games can utilize and you have to have a card that supports it.

    The crappy frame rate is precisely the point I was trying to make. Just because your card supports DX9, 10 or 11, doesn't mean it's going to utilize all of its features to the fullest...some cards can't even utilize the features it will support. Support and utilization are two different things.

    I can say that your PC supports internet but your connection is less than 1mbit.

    I'm not speaking about trying to run DX11 features on a DX9, I understand those things. I'll bet you most games don't even use all of DX11 features. Most gamers probably still run a DX9 card and thus it is naturally for most games to still not utilize the best features out there as those costs won't have returns.

    The point I'm making was that if you take out the DX10+ features, the 9800GTX video cards probably performs really well against DX11 cards but of course DX11 cards have added features that a DX9 card can't run. I'll be surprised if even the current games out now chug under a 9800GTX (granted you're not trying to run it at the highest quality, more like medium settings).

    I'm not even talking about all that. I'm not trying to say that a DX9 card can run well against a DX11 card with all the extra features. I'm excluding all the features that really don't get used or that most gamers care about.

    I'll bet you (more bets!) most PC gamers don't know what tessellation means or why it's good.

    In the end, the biggest issue are the low-end PCs but yes, you can classify that even more into DX9 compatible but there will be DX10 and DX11 compatible PCs out there as well (I should say GPU but trying to keep it simple). Generally yes you will see DX10 and especially DX11 PCs perform better than DX9 but they can all be low-end.
    I perhaps have not explained myself quite clearly enough in regards to why DX 9 vs DX 11 are important sets to remember.

    First you have to decouple "power" from feature sets, and I think this is where you are getting a little bit too hung up on terms of "power".

    Ignore power, we all know GPU's come in various forms of power which cann affect framerate and resolution.

    But , just for a 2nd think of it like this.

    What if every game was rendered at 640x480 x 30fps (locked).

    Now consider, whats the difference between top end DX 9 card and middle to low end DX 11 cards?

    Nothing if they are both running DX9 features, because we have way to much power on both to worry about rendering a poultry 640x480 framebuffer.

    Now, consider that maybe we have a locked in 720p res for the next gen (1080p is possible I understand that, Im just using this for sake of comparison).

    So what doe sit come down to then? Well, next gen we can have bigger textures, and more poly counts, so our base "assets" are going to be higher than they currently are.

    What else? well it comes down to DX11 feature sets, which go way beyond tessellation, we have compute, we have shader model 5, we have direct stream capabilities.

    Do these get used now much? Nope hardly at all, because its not worth the devs time and effort to target such a small subsection of the market, does this change with next gen consoles?
    Absolutely, firstly PC's will benefit form the aforementioned higher textures and assets.
    2ndly, more and more devs will switch from mere DX11 "wrappers" (DX 9 code running on DX 11 API), to a true DX 11 approach to game engine design.
    Features barley used will start becoming fully explored, new eyes=new ideas.

    In short PC graphics are going to go form hey look I can run it at a higher res, to much better efficient and prettier implementations.

    Furthermore, with PC running the lead from now on, it mean that protyping will be created on PC, then shoe horned to fit, into the next gen consoles.

    Make no bones about it, premier version of shader code will always be running best on PC.

  8. #32
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,633
    Rep Power
    195
    Points
    122,554 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    I perhaps have not explained myself quite clearly enough in regards to why DX 9 vs DX 11 are important sets to remember.

    First you have to decouple "power" from feature sets, and I think this is where you are getting a little bit too hung up on terms of "power".

    Ignore power, we all know GPU's come in various forms of power which cann affect framerate and resolution.

    But , just for a 2nd think of it like this.

    What if every game was rendered at 640x480 x 30fps (locked).

    Now consider, whats the difference between top end DX 9 card and middle to low end DX 11 cards?

    Nothing if they are both running DX9 features, because we have way to much power on both to worry about rendering a poultry 640x480 framebuffer.

    Now, consider that maybe we have a locked in 720p res for the next gen (1080p is possible I understand that, Im just using this for sake of comparison).

    So what doe sit come down to then? Well, next gen we can have bigger textures, and more poly counts, so our base "assets" are going to be higher than they currently are.

    What else? well it comes down to DX11 feature sets, which go way beyond tessellation, we have compute, we have shader model 5, we have direct stream capabilities.

    Do these get used now much? Nope hardly at all, because its not worth the devs time and effort to target such a small subsection of the market, does this change with next gen consoles?
    Absolutely, firstly PC's will benefit form the aforementioned higher textures and assets.
    2ndly, more and more devs will switch from mere DX11 "wrappers" (DX 9 code running on DX 11 API), to a true DX 11 approach to game engine design.
    Features barley used will start becoming fully explored, new eyes=new ideas.

    In short PC graphics are going to go form hey look I can run it at a higher res, to much better efficient and prettier implementations.

    Furthermore, with PC running the lead from now on, it mean that protyping will be created on PC, then shoe horned to fit, into the next gen consoles.

    Make no bones about it, premier version of shader code will always be running best on PC.
    I totally agree and I wouldn't ever disagree. I just don't understand what that has to do with the original argument about low-end PCs being the real issue?

    I said the same thing, PC will benefit from next-gen consoles as you are utilizing something that, while may not be used by most PC gamers, it will be used by all console gamers so it's a benefit for the top-end users while the devs don't lose much money.

    While your argument wasn't wrong about DirectX, it's merely a classification of a much bigger issue.

  9. #33
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    42
    Posts
    17,945
    Rep Power
    163
    Points
    198,080 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I totally agree and I wouldn't ever disagree. I just don't understand what that has to do with the original argument about low-end PCs being the real issue?

    I said the same thing, PC will benefit from next-gen consoles as you are utilizing something that, while may not be used by most PC gamers, it will be used by all console gamers so it's a benefit for the top-end users while the devs don't lose much money.

    While your argument wasn't wrong about DirectX, it's merely a classification of a much bigger issue.
    The only people holding back game dev will be the indies who want their game to run on as many platforms as possible (ala Minecraft).
    In terms of the big players in consoles? No, there is no way lower end PC's will hold back PC programming.

    I'm not even going to mention consoles in that statement, because I see the next gen as little more than a subset of PC programming.

    They have yet to really stretch there legs at the top end, because it simply was not worth the effort, not because of PC lower end, but because of consoles lower end. I think that's the problem the OP doesn't understand, it has never been lower end PC's holding back top end PC's it been consoles.

  10. #34
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,633
    Rep Power
    195
    Points
    122,554 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    The only people holding back game dev will be the indies who want their game to run on as many platforms as possible (ala Minecraft).
    In terms of the big players in consoles? No, there is no way lower end PC's will hold back PC programming.

    I'm not even going to mention consoles in that statement, because I see the next gen as little more than a subset of PC programming.

    They have yet to really stretch there legs at the top end, because it simply was not worth the effort, not because of PC lower end, but because of consoles lower end. I think that's the problem the OP doesn't understand, it has never been lower end PC's holding back top end PC's it been consoles.
    What you're saying is not necessarily wrong but I don't understand from what perspective you're speaking from?

    You can't possibly be speaking from the point-of-view of optimization, correct? In which I don't think indie devs really hamper anything because those games aren't really designed to take advantage of power and are for a different market.

    We can argue that if those people didn't have indie games, they would upgrade and get the more technically advanced games, which is untrue as it would just mean that those people would just likely not game at all if they didn't have what they wanted to begin with.

    But I'm feeling that's not what you're talking about. Can you say that if we removed low-end PCs, that PC developers would be more willing to take advantage of the higher-end video cards?

  11. #35
    Dedicated Member
    Ariakace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Jersey
    PSN ID
    Ariakace55
    Age
    28
    Posts
    1,117
    Rep Power
    52
    Points
    7,553 (0 Banked)
    i doubt low end PC's are going to really hold back next gen games, especially when developers are able to scale up and down on their games quality and performance the way theyre able to these days. If anything, like previous posters have said, games will mostly be designed for high end PC's and Next Gen consoles, while being able to run with some settings turned off or scaled down for the Mid Range level PC's.


    Tacos Rule!

  12. #36
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    42
    Posts
    17,945
    Rep Power
    163
    Points
    198,080 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    What you're saying is not necessarily wrong but I don't understand from what perspective you're speaking from?

    You can't possibly be speaking from the point-of-view of optimization, correct? In which I don't think indie devs really hamper anything because those games aren't really designed to take advantage of power and are for a different market.

    We can argue that if those people didn't have indie games, they would upgrade and get the more technically advanced games, which is untrue as it would just mean that those people would just likely not game at all if they didn't have what they wanted to begin with.

    But I'm feeling that's not what you're talking about. Can you say that if we removed low-end PCs, that PC developers would be more willing to take advantage of the higher-end video cards?
    Well indies, for example target DX9 or worse (java), they have an expectation that their code will be lightweight and portable enough to run on as many platforms as they can. They don't want to alienate DX9 users, they want to embrace them, they want their games to run on XP as well as Windows 8.

    I mean its not surprise that most indie games are 2d side scrollers.

    As an aside, here is some of the things devs are going to start taking advantage of:


    -Higher texture maps
    -Higher poly count models
    -Mulithreaded GPU buffers (multiple CPUs sending commands to GPU, PS3 can only have one CPU/thread doing it)
    -Tessellation
    -Compute
    -Shader Model 5's lack of restrictions.

    The market will go where the majority of the market is, currently that firmly rooted in DX9, its about to focus on Dx11

  13. #37
    Master Sage
    Bitbydeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    14,385
    Rep Power
    131
    Points
    45,847 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ariakace View Post
    i doubt low end PC's are going to really hold back next gen games, especially when developers are able to scale up and down on their games quality and performance the way theyre able to these days. If anything, like previous posters have said, games will mostly be designed for high end PC's and Next Gen consoles, while being able to run with some settings turned off or scaled down for the Mid Range level PC's.
    Problem i'm trying to highlight is that with low-end in the mix they can only scale up and down on quality and performance (and non-gameplay impacting features) as opposed to having the ability to create a bigger picture for the overall game.

  14. #38
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    42
    Posts
    17,945
    Rep Power
    163
    Points
    198,080 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bitbydeath View Post
    Problem i'm trying to highlight is that with low-end in the mix they can only scale up and down on quality and performance (and non-gameplay impacting features) as opposed to having the ability to create a bigger picture for the overall game.
    Why? Whats restricting you? Im guessing you think memory?

    “Microsoft continuing to sell 32-bit versions of Windows well after the hardware stopped being natively 32-bit has held back PC game development immensely. Game developers have been stuck with DirectX 9 and 2GB of memory for the past decade. While this hasn’t harmed first person shooters (they only have to manage a handful of objects at once), it has been poisonous to other genres. Next time you’re playing an RPG in first person with no party you can refer to DirectX 9 and 2GB of memory as a big reason for that,” he said.

    “With DirectX 11 we can go to town with shader anti-aliasing and lowering the development capability requirements on having a multi-core based simulation (right now, nearly all of a game’s simulation occurs on 1 thread on 1 core). And with 64-bit, we can fit a lot more stuff into memory.”

    If you’re determined to stick with your 32-bit Windows XP install you’re probably not going to like this next bit.

    “There are whole classes of games waiting to be made that require these kinds of advances. Luckily, after a decade long wait, we are nearing critical mass. The days of games supporting 32-bit OSes is, thankfully, coming to an end. DirectX 10 as a minimum requirement has also arrived.”
    http://games.on.net/2013/04/stardock...it-os-support/
    Last edited by mynd; 04-17-2013 at 05:11.

  15. #39
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,633
    Rep Power
    195
    Points
    122,554 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Ariakace View Post
    i doubt low end PC's are going to really hold back next gen games, especially when developers are able to scale up and down on their games quality and performance the way theyre able to these days. If anything, like previous posters have said, games will mostly be designed for high end PC's and Next Gen consoles, while being able to run with some settings turned off or scaled down for the Mid Range level PC's.
    They won't hold back next-gen console games but they do hold back PC games.

    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    Well indies, for example target DX9 or worse (java), they have an expectation that their code will be lightweight and portable enough to run on as many platforms as they can. They don't want to alienate DX9 users, they want to embrace them, they want their games to run on XP as well as Windows 8.

    I mean its not surprise that most indie games are 2d side scrollers.

    As an aside, here is some of the things devs are going to start taking advantage of:


    -Higher texture maps
    -Higher poly count models
    -Mulithreaded GPU buffers (multiple CPUs sending commands to GPU, PS3 can only have one CPU/thread doing it)
    -Tessellation
    -Compute
    -Shader Model 5's lack of restrictions.

    The market will go where the majority of the market is, currently that firmly rooted in DX9, its about to focus on Dx11
    Yup, funny how things have changed. While PC is still a very technical platform, PC gamers will look forward to console launches too as consoles are what drive the gaming market.

    I'm not anti-PC by any means, I've been a PC gamer for a very long time, just that I haven't gamed recently on it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bitbydeath View Post
    Problem i'm trying to highlight is that with low-end in the mix they can only scale up and down on quality and performance (and non-gameplay impacting features) as opposed to having the ability to create a bigger picture for the overall game.
    Exactly. Specifically it will affect PC gaming. I think the way it will affect console gaming and it probably did way more this generation is that a lot of these developers who made the game on the PC first and then scaled it down for consoles, probably just did a raw scale-down that wasn't necessarily optimized for the consoles (even if a little).

    We can tell as BF3 had frame rate issues, Rage had low res textures that were just odd. You see random problems that way.

  16. #40
    Master Sage
    Bitbydeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    14,385
    Rep Power
    131
    Points
    45,847 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by mynd View Post
    Why? Whats restricting you? Im guessing you think memory?
    Yea memory, and don't forget the CPU and GPU as well. They are all important.
    Last edited by Bitbydeath; 04-17-2013 at 11:22.

  17. #41
    Supreme Veteran
    mynd's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Down Under
    Age
    42
    Posts
    17,945
    Rep Power
    163
    Points
    198,080 (0 Banked)
    Items User name style
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Bitbydeath View Post
    Yea memory, and don't forget the CPU and GPU as well. They are all important.
    Ok, well I will try and make this as simple as possible, 32-bit game cannot go above 2gb in memory per application,that is why there is a restriction.

    Ultimately as I have said, its a question. of target o/s. as games target 64 bit
    O/s they will use more memory. Consoles will speed this transition up.

  18. #42
    Elite Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    10,171
    Rep Power
    90
    Points
    45,909 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    I don't think consoles have ever substantially held back PCs, you have to look at it from a perspective. A lot of these games were originally made for the consoles or even if they were made for the PC as lead platform, they know their sales are on the consoles so they do limit PC in that respect but you're getting a game you possibly may not have gotten otherwise.
    Really? Games on consoles have held back PC gaming - Not by much, but they have certainly held them back. Crysis 2 - need i say more?

    Now if they really want to take advantage of the PC, they can make a game like Planet Side 2. You can't even port that onto the consoles.
    I agree, but then when it comes to open world Shooters, Arma2 and soon to be 3 own that domain. I only played PS2 for a brief period. It was fun. nothing spectacular though.

    Low-end PCs are the biggest issue PC development has. Otherwise, like I've always argued, PCs are theoretically already in the next-next-gen but due to the majority PCs being low powered, the power will never be utilized.
    I don't really think low powered PC's hold it back. They just get less of the eye candy at PS3/360 resolutions. It depends how well at scaling the engine is i suppose.

    You're speaking about the enthusiasts, I'm speaking about people who play for fun and not upgrade every time there's an upgrade available. There are certain things that consoles can never replicate and vice versa, but the thing is that a lot of enthusiasts even, paid attention to consoles (not necessarily left PC gaming) but I'm positive some mainstream will pick up on it just like some console gamers move to PC games...just that consoles are likely getting more defectors.
    In my eyes, there are 2 types of PC gamers. There are those that buy a laptop/PC and just hope they can run games on it. They aren't PC gamers, they are people that play games on their PC. Then you have the enthusiasts. Enthusiasts isn't a by word for 'spending lots of money on my rig'. Enthusiasts are those that build their PC's, the ones that know what they are putting in there. You could build a PC for 500 and i'd still call them an Enthusiast.

    Again, it's not about upgrading 'everytime' there is an upgrade available. If you are upgrading GPU series more than once every 2 years - you're an idiot. Plain and simple. Putting in another GPU for SLI/Xfire isn't really upgrading - more adding to it.

    And of course you have the enthusiasts that demand the best out of their hardware. The ones that are willing to spend the money to play games as they should be played, those are the last people that probably would touch a console even with a 10' barge pole.

    So while Enthusiasts may have paid attention to the PS4 announcement, i'd be willing to bet that most the Enthusiasts you are referring to aren't as impressed by it as you'd believe. As it has been said, is a 400 console going to out perform a 1500+ dedicated gaming machine, not a chance in hell.

    I'm waffling on and not really making my point. Basically, a PC gamer is very unlikely to switch from the PC to the console any more now than they were last generation. A PC can do everything and more that a console can do. Unfortunately the same can't be said the other way around. The only thing a console offers over a PC is that it offers a good level of gaming out of the box and it not only sustains but also improves that level of gaming the longer the hardware has been out. On PC it works in the opposite direction.

    I always say it and i can't stress it enough. The PS4 is going to be amazing for its price point but what some people forget is that the PS4 isn't comparable to a high end machine, not even right now and it's not even been released yet. No doubt the PS4 will be more powerful than most PC's (I don't say gaming PC's because your typical PC isn't a gaming PC) but for how long?

    This may sound like i'm ragging on the PS4 but i'm really not. It is going to be amazing. It's going to have an amazing library of games, an amazing price point and it functions out of the box with no tinkering about. What isn't to love about that? I just think it's a bit naive to think that the PS4 will be held back by low-end PC gaming when High-end PC gaming is hardly held back by it.


    Quote Originally Posted by TDbank24 View Post
    The PS4 will be held back by PC. I laugh when people say consoles hold back PC gaming. I think it's the other way around. Consoles are being held back because good developers like Blizzard focus their effort on the PC platform when they could be making good console games that everyone can enjoy. Not everyone wants or can afford a high end PC that needs to be babied with upgrades and what not.
    +Rep for the lols

    Bahahaha, you've just made my day. Good post sir. We all need a laugh occasionally Ever wondered maybe why Blizzard focus on the PC ?
    I guess Sony are holding back the Xbox with all of the exclusives they don't release on the Xbox because, Y'know they could be making good multiplatform games for everyone to enjoy.

    Haha. Fantastic.

  19. #43
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,633
    Rep Power
    195
    Points
    122,554 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBettaKnow View Post
    Really? Games on consoles have held back PC gaming - Not by much, but they have certainly held them back. Crysis 2 - need i say more?
    That's not the right perspective to look at it from imo. How do we know there was ever going to be a Crysis 2? How do we know there were going to be all these games that ended up on PC when they were meant to be for consoles? Think about it, PC probably got more games in the past few years due to console popularity.

    If we didn't have a PC, the market wouldn't necessarily crash but if it were the other way around, it likely will or shrink by a huge margin. Most of these publishers make the most money on consoles.

    So yes, you're right that it holds PC back but these games may not even be there if they weren't for the consoles.

    I don't really think low powered PC's hold it back. They just get less of the eye candy at PS3/360 resolutions. It depends how well at scaling the engine is i suppose.
    The fact that you'd have a scaling engine, means that it won't be utilized fully. Which is why BF4 somewhat looks the same as BF3...because it's not only cross-gen, it's also cross-platform. They can never make a true next-gen game until they build another engine from scratch and they will only do that once other engines get ahead.

    Think of it this way, you know those toys kids get where you fit the different pieces into the correct slots? Now imagine PC being a square, medium PC being a triangle and low-end PC as a circular piece.

    In order to make them all fit, you can't have something that looks like a square (which means a game fully designed for the top-end PCs) because the triangle can't fit and neither can the circle. The slot would have to be a combination of all shapes in order to fit.

    Whereas a console can have a square slot for its square piece.

    Now you can fit multiplatforms into the same example, thus why the Frost Bite engine will never truly take advantage of next-gen power until they scrap off the older consoles as they're too different.
    In my eyes, there are 2 types of PC gamers. There are those that buy a laptop/PC and just hope they can run games on it. They aren't PC gamers, they are people that play games on their PC. Then you have the enthusiasts. Enthusiasts isn't a by word for 'spending lots of money on my rig'. Enthusiasts are those that build their PC's, the ones that know what they are putting in there. You could build a PC for 500 and i'd still call them an Enthusiast.

    Again, it's not about upgrading 'everytime' there is an upgrade available. If you are upgrading GPU series more than once every 2 years - you're an idiot. Plain and simple. Putting in another GPU for SLI/Xfire isn't really upgrading - more adding to it.
    Those were exaggeration but the point is that whatever these people are, they're in the minority.

    And of course you have the enthusiasts that demand the best out of their hardware. The ones that are willing to spend the money to play games as they should be played, those are the last people that probably would touch a console even with a 10' barge pole.
    You're talking about extremists now.

    You're an enthusiast and you're here.

    So while Enthusiasts may have paid attention to the PS4 announcement, i'd be willing to bet that most the Enthusiasts you are referring to aren't as impressed by it as you'd believe. As it has been said, is a 400 console going to out perform a 1500+ dedicated gaming machine, not a chance in hell.
    No one argued that...I've never argued that and it doesn't matter if they're not impressed, again we're talking about people that do not matter and do not have much influence.

    I'm waffling on and not really making my point. Basically, a PC gamer is very unlikely to switch from the PC to the console any more now than they were last generation. A PC can do everything and more that a console can do. Unfortunately the same can't be said the other way around. The only thing a console offers over a PC is that it offers a good level of gaming out of the box and it not only sustains but also improves that level of gaming the longer the hardware has been out. On PC it works in the opposite direction.
    Your point is valid but it's only from a context. You're still a gamer if you play PC games on your PC...you can't just lump them all together. Yes there are enthusiasts that will never change their mind and I totally agree with it...it's just much more convenient to game on PC (speaking about software).

    There are plenty of casuals out there (mostly on MMOs) and I don't doubt one bit that they would be interested in consoles once they see that it looks better than their crappy laptop or Dell PC and that they don't have to deal with troubleshooting their PC everytime something changes on it. We should be seeing more MMO games on consoles.

    I always say it and i can't stress it enough. The PS4 is going to be amazing for its price point but what some people forget is that the PS4 isn't comparable to a high end machine, not even right now and it's not even been released yet. No doubt the PS4 will be more powerful than most PC's (I don't say gaming PC's because your typical PC isn't a gaming PC) but for how long?
    I'd say probably for a good number of years, a lot of PC gamers don't upgrade. You're again thinking about enthusiasts. I knew people on WoW that played on their laptop...I mean, I wouldn't even do that. I build my own PC that was pretty damn good for its time.

    Secondly, no one is comparing the PS4 with the highest end PC or once it will come out. and I wouldn't be so quick to discredit PS4 with today's top-end PC, KZ:SF looks to be one the best shooters out on the market, it looks very comparable to me. In fact, I'd love to see a game on PC that trumps the beautiful city they showed. You accept this challenge? I'll wait.

    This may sound like i'm ragging on the PS4 but i'm really not. It is going to be amazing. It's going to have an amazing library of games, an amazing price point and it functions out of the box with no tinkering about. What isn't to love about that? I just think it's a bit naive to think that the PS4 will be held back by low-end PC gaming when High-end PC gaming is hardly held back by it.
    Consoles would have nothing to do with PCs, if they weren't driving the industry as they are now. PC developers didn't give a crap during Xbox/PS2 days (even though Bungie did, they basically just made the game for the Xbox instead...including the fact that they were bought out). All games that were on PC, had nothing to do with consoles back then. PC games were still held back by multiple configurations or medium/low-end PC. That disadvantage is never going to go away.

    i.e. WoW is not being upgraded. Not because of consoles but because of low-end PCs as it's the largest part of their target market, since they are targeting "all PC gamers". They can only scale it up slightly (which they have) but this is why they may never come out with a sequel because if they did make a sequel, people would expect better graphics and they can't do that because most gamers wouldn't be able to run the game. How would you sell a game that 90%+ of their target market can't run? That's the problem PCs have.

  20. #44
    Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    144
    Rep Power
    67
    Points
    2,857 (0 Banked)
    Quote Originally Posted by TDbank24 View Post
    The PS4 will be held back by PC. I laugh when people say consoles hold back PC gaming. I think it's the other way around. Consoles are being held back because good developers like Blizzard focus their effort on the PC platform when they could be making good console games that everyone can enjoy. Not everyone wants or can afford a high end PC that needs to be babied with upgrades and what not.
    Joke post? Sarcasm?

  21. #45
    Elite Sage
    BBK..'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Bristol!!
    Age
    24
    Posts
    10,171
    Rep Power
    90
    Points
    45,909 (15,799 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    That's not the right perspective to look at it from imo. How do we know there was ever going to be a Crysis 2? How do we know there were going to be all these games that ended up on PC when they were meant to be for consoles? Think about it, PC probably got more games in the past few years due to console popularity.
    We don't. But what we do know is that due to the console release they also didn't go all out like they did with the first Crysis. It took them several weeks before they even released the DX11 and high resolution texture packs - go figure. If that wasn't down to the console release, what was?

    I'll say one thing good that came of Crysis being on consoles, they made the suit controls much more streamlined.
    If we didn't have a PC, the market wouldn't necessarily crash but if it were the other way around, it likely will or shrink by a huge margin. Most of these publishers make the most money on consoles.

    So yes, you're right that it holds PC back but these games may not even be there if they weren't for the consoles.
    Correct and I never claimed otherwise. PC can live without console, it just wouldn't get as many games. If you want MMO's or RPG's with decent control, there is only one play you can really play. I have a friend who used to hate PC's, he then bought one for a bit of media editing and decided to buy Skyrim on it because he found it for cheap on Steam. He now refuses to play an RPG on a pad because he feels extremely restricted as to what he can do. So of course, without consoles the PC would loose a large chunk of support but don't expect it to die overnight.


    The fact that you'd have a scaling engine, means that it won't be utilized fully. Which is why BF4 somewhat looks the same as BF3...because it's not only cross-gen, it's also cross-platform. They can never make a true next-gen game until they build another engine from scratch and they will only do that once other engines get ahead.

    Think of it this way, you know those toys kids get where you fit the different pieces into the correct slots? Now imagine PC being a square, medium PC being a triangle and low-end PC as a circular piece.

    In order to make them all fit, you can't have something that looks like a square (which means a game fully designed for the top-end PCs) because the triangle can't fit and neither can the circle. The slot would have to be a combination of all shapes in order to fit.

    Whereas a console can have a square slot for its square piece.
    We've had this discussion in many threads before and I always say the same thing - The PC doesn't need to be fully utilized to out perform the console. If you have a powerful machine, the game will look better regardless.

    So it may not be as efficient but who needs efficiency when you have all the power in the world to push those pixels? Sure, i'd love it if games were more efficient on PC, i really would, but it's not something that is needed, that is the main difference.

    Now you can fit multiplatforms into the same example, thus why the Frost Bite engine will never truly take advantage of next-gen power until they scrap off the older consoles as they're too different.
    Those were exaggeration but the point is that whatever these people are, they're in the minority.
    It will never take full advantage but Battlefield 3 and 4 look worlds apart. The guys with older/mid range rigs can still play it but when you have a more powerful system you can crank up that resolution and settings and it'll look like a different game.

    It may not be what you mean but i get the impression you think BF4 is going to look exactly like BF3 on the PC. It really wont.
    You're talking about extremists now.

    You're an enthusiast and you're here.
    I am, but i speak from experience of the gamers that i know around me who are mainly PC gamers, they aren't interested in the PS4 at the slightest. The only thing they like about it is that PC games will now be testing their hardware that extra bit.

    Will I be getting a PS4, probably after i finish building my new PC. But it wont get used for anything other than the odd exclusive game that gathers my interest. Everything else will be played on PC.

    No one argued that...I've never argued that and it doesn't matter if they're not impressed, again we're talking about people that do not matter and do not have much influence. ~


    Your point is valid but it's only from a context. You're still a gamer if you play PC games on your PC...you can't just lump them all together. Yes there are enthusiasts that will never change their mind and I totally agree with it...it's just much more convenient to game on PC (speaking about software).

    There are plenty of casuals out there (mostly on MMOs) and I don't doubt one bit that they would be interested in consoles once they see that it looks better than their crappy laptop or Dell PC and that they don't have to deal with troubleshooting their PC everytime something changes on it. We should be seeing more MMO games on consoles.
    I don't think there will be that big a switch for even casuals. I don't think the new consoles would be getting the scale of MMO's that PC's have had for the last 10 years. I could be wrong but I don't see it happening. It's not like the PS3/720 couldn't handle a game like WoW on low settings, so why hasn't it been done already?

    But yeah, they may be interested in one, i don't think many will swap platforms just yet though.

    I'd say probably for a good number of years, a lot of PC gamers don't upgrade. You're again thinking about enthusiasts. I knew people on WoW that played on their laptop...I mean, I wouldn't even do that. I build my own PC that was pretty damn good for its time.
    Yup, I haven't upgraded my system since the back end of 2009 maybe 2010 now. Building a whole new machine this year what should last me the generation. Some people are more than happy to do that but one thing to remember WoW Players =/= All PC Gamers.

    Secondly, no one is comparing the PS4 with the highest end PC or once it will come out. and I wouldn't be so quick to discredit PS4 with today's top-end PC, KZ:SF looks to be one the best shooters out on the market, it looks very comparable to me. In fact, I'd love to see a game on PC that trumps the beautiful city they showed. You accept this challenge? I'll wait.
    My point is that low end PC's don't even hold back high end PC gaming, why would it affect a PS4 that is weaker?
    Sure, I accept.

    So an open world game, with live gameplay looks better. Your move. PC gaming has moved beyond 1920x1080. Enthusiasts are chasing 5760x1080, 2560x1440 $#@!, if some don't mind playing at 30FPS they can even chase 3840x2160. The resolution alone eliminates the need for high AA/AF and adds in so much more detail. I'm not saying KZ:SF is ugly, just it's not out powering high end PC's. I was half tempted to get a video of Crysis from 2007 with a few visual mods.

    You can't honestly tell me you expect it to look better than some PC games at high resolutions?

    Consoles would have nothing to do with PCs, if they weren't driving the industry as they are now. PC developers didn't give a crap during Xbox/PS2 days (even though Bungie did, they basically just made the game for the Xbox instead...including the fact that they were bought out). All games that were on PC, had nothing to do with consoles back then. PC games were still held back by multiple configurations or medium/low-end PC. That disadvantage is never going to go away.
    Of course it wont. top, top end is never targeted. but if low end PC's barely held back High end PC, why would it hold back consoles?

    i.e. WoW is not being upgraded. Not because of consoles but because of low-end PCs as it's the largest part of their target market, since they are targeting "all PC gamers". They can only scale it up slightly (which they have) but this is why they may never come out with a sequel because if they did make a sequel, people would expect better graphics and they can't do that because most gamers wouldn't be able to run the game. How would you sell a game that 90%+ of their target market can't run? That's the problem PCs have.
    WoW isn't the only game PC players play Sure it isn't the most graphically intensive game but as you said, they are trying to get as much money as they can by making it run on all types of systems. Not all PC games are made that way.
    Last edited by BBK..; 04-18-2013 at 10:48.

  22. #46
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,633
    Rep Power
    195
    Points
    122,554 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBettaKnow View Post
    We don't. But what we do know is that due to the console release they also didn't go all out like they did with the first Crysis. It took them several weeks before they even released the DX11 and high resolution texture packs - go figure. If that wasn't down to the console release, what was?

    I'll say one thing good that came of Crysis being on consoles, they made the suit controls much more streamlined.
    If they had made Crysis 2 all out like they made Crysis, 1) It wouldn't be able to run on any rig 3 years from launch. 2) They would've sold likely less than even previously (which was around 1m).

    Basically they lost a lot of money and I don't know what they're doing to compensate for that but I do know they initially meant to just build the engine to license other developers.

    So I don't think they would've gone all out again...if you remember, they specifically mentioned they wouldn't make a Crysis for consoles...then they did. Wonder why. They can't sustain if they made it specifically for the top-end PCs, Crysis couldn't be a more perfect example of what I'm talking about here.

    Now I can tell you without looking that both consoles likely sold Crysis 2, more even separately.

    That's the issue with PC you can never rid of.

    Correct and I never claimed otherwise. PC can live without console, it just wouldn't get as many games. If you want MMO's or RPG's with decent control, there is only one play you can really play. I have a friend who used to hate PC's, he then bought one for a bit of media editing and decided to buy Skyrim on it because he found it for cheap on Steam. He now refuses to play an RPG on a pad because he feels extremely restricted as to what he can do. So of course, without consoles the PC would loose a large chunk of support but don't expect it to die overnight.
    Hypothetically speaking, a lot of console users that want games would obviously go to PC but as an industry, it'll be a bigger loss. And yes, trust me, you don't have to tell me how good PC is. I know how good it is, I've played countless games on it including RPGs. I would like Skyrim more on PC for sure and I hated it on the PS3 just because it was on a console, it just didn't work well.

    That doesn't mean they can't make a good RPG on consoles, Bethesda just had a horrible execution of how they ported the game. It had enormous lag in controls likely due to graphics. Oblivion had the same problem.

    We've had this discussion in many threads before and I always say the same thing - The PC doesn't need to be fully utilized to out perform the console. If you have a powerful machine, the game will look better regardless.

    So it may not be as efficient but who needs efficiency when you have all the power in the world to push those pixels? Sure, i'd love it if games were more efficient on PC, i really would, but it's not something that is needed, that is the main difference.
    Right but that's not what we're arguing about. We're arguing if low-end PCs hold back PCs or do consoles? I do think consoles do as well but that's a more indirect relation than something that's in direct relation. Console is holding back PC in games that weren't meant for PC to begin with.

    Low-end PCs are the primary reason PC games can never truly be utilized. While we can argue that it's still better than consoles...isn't that a little pointless when you're needing twice the hardware just to have the bells and whistles? Why do you think that is? Do you think that's because of consoles? I don't think so. It was there before, we just never noticed it until consoles came into the equation.

    So I'm not arguing about power, again, we're arguing about what truly holds back PCs and it's definitely not consoles.

    It will never take full advantage but Battlefield 3 and 4 look worlds apart. The guys with older/mid range rigs can still play it but when you have a more powerful system you can crank up that resolution and settings and it'll look like a different game.

    It may not be what you mean but i get the impression you think BF4 is going to look exactly like BF3 on the PC. It really wont.
    I honestly don't think the two games look worlds apart...some things definitely looked more improved and some a lot more improved...such as draw distance and explosions but really, what else do we have there? Better character models? Lighting? I wouldn't call those worlds apart...I wouldn't even think KZ:SF looks worlds apart...it looks really good for a launch title but trust me, we're going to see some amazing stuff after merely a year.

    I am, but i speak from experience of the gamers that i know around me who are mainly PC gamers, they aren't interested in the PS4 at the slightest. The only thing they like about it is that PC games will now be testing their hardware that extra bit.

    Will I be getting a PS4, probably after i finish building my new PC. But it wont get used for anything other than the odd exclusive game that gathers my interest. Everything else will be played on PC.

    No one argued that...I've never argued that and it doesn't matter if they're not impressed, again we're talking about people that do not matter and do not have much influence. ~
    You're speaking about extremists...that's not the casuals you speak of. And we don't know how many of them are out there, I'm thinking likely somewhere around 20 mil? Not counting farmville users that wouldn't buy an actual game or console.

    I don't think there will be that big a switch for even casuals. I don't think the new consoles would be getting the scale of MMO's that PC's have had for the last 10 years. I could be wrong but I don't see it happening. It's not like the PS3/720 couldn't handle a game like WoW on low settings, so why hasn't it been done already?

    But yeah, they may be interested in one, i don't think many will swap platforms just yet though.


    Yup, I haven't upgraded my system since the back end of 2009 maybe 2010 now. Building a whole new machine this year what should last me the generation. Some people are more than happy to do that but one thing to remember WoW Players =/= All PC Gamers.
    I think the reason why MMOs didn't really come out much on PS3/360 is due to 1) RAM 2) Updating system isn't there 3) Controls need to be optimized. Just off the top of my head, FFXI was popular on PS2 but I think it's risky at this moment to do something like this.

    I don't think we're going to see more MMOs on consoles this time around also but we will definitely see a lot more of it...I'm already hearing about MMOs and the console isn't even out yet. Not to mention, how many MMOs do we need anyway? Most aren't even that popular. I think we might see MMOs from Japanese developers...can't say why.

    My point is that low end PC's don't even hold back high end PC gaming, why would it affect a PS4 that is weaker?
    Sure, I accept.
    You're saying a low-end PC is more powerful than PS4? Based on?


    So an open world game, with live gameplay looks better. Your move. PC gaming has moved beyond 1920x1080. Enthusiasts are chasing 5760x1080, 2560x1440 $#@!, if some don't mind playing at 30FPS they can even chase 3840x2160. The resolution alone eliminates the need for high AA/AF and adds in so much more detail. I'm not saying KZ:SF is ugly, just it's not out powering high end PC's. I was half tempted to get a video of Crysis from 2007 with a few visual mods.
    This video imo doesn't looks better than KZ:SF...did you forget the scene where they showed the city? Of course this is my opinion against yours but this game just doesn't blow away what we saw.

    Hah that it's running on an SLI configuration with two cards that alone are twice as power as PS4's GPU but guess why they don't wanna make 4x better-looking games...not even 2x...why do you think they don't want to? Anyone?

    Why would you need 4k or more resolution on a, more of less, 22 inch monitor? Are we talking about big-screen gameplay?

    I'm sure PCs will outpace KZ:SF but I have yet to see something that good. I honestly think Crysis 3 looks uglier than Crysis 1 but that's just me. I think KZ:SF definitely looks better, maybe it doesn't have the resolution or the frame rate but it was running on 2GB and it was alpha code.

    I'm not arguing that PS4 will outpower top-end PCs in even 1-2 years in but it looks like the ball is in PC court atm.

    You can't honestly tell me you expect it to look better than some PC games at high resolutions?
    nope, never implied otherwise. how can static technology compete with dynamic technology? That's not logical. Maybe for a little while with optimized coding but over time, just not rational to think otherwise.

    It would only make sense if consoles were upgradeable, then we can argue. However that would defeat the entire purpose of having a console...as it would run into the same issue as a PC, which is multiple configurations.

    Of course it wont. top, top end is never targeted. but if low end PC's barely held back High end PC, why would it hold back consoles?

    WoW isn't the only game PC players play Sure it isn't the most graphically intensive game but as you said, they are trying to get as much money as they can by making it run on all types of systems. Not all PC games are made that way.
    When did I say PCs would hold back consoles?

    Also, it's untrue that low-end PCs barely hold back high-end PCs...you can easily test this out by comparing what a console with its particular GPU can do as opposed to a PC with a similar GPU. MGS2 with 4MB VRAM would "never" be possible on PC with 4MB of even today's video RAM. Just not possible.

    The fact that PCs have dynamic technologies, is its biggest advantage and biggest disadvantage.

    As for WoW, I'm not saying that all games are made that way on PCs...I think my example was lost there lol. My point was to show how powerful the casual market is...which is why PCs will always run into the problem of engines that are designed for scaling. As long as the game can scale graphics, it won't be truly optimized.

    The only reason they have games that can scale down is because they want to sell their games...which is why a $#@!ty-looking game will still sell whereas a really good-looking game (which is proven with Crysis that it is a horrible idea as it won't run on even top-end PCs as the code is still inefficient as it is not made for one configuration) will not sell much at all.

    As long as that's there, you're not going to have anything that is efficient. The code can't possibly be nearly as optimized as code that is possible on consoles. Again, not to cause a confusion, I'm not saying that this efficiency will cause consoles to always outpace the top-end PCs but this concept will definitely keep its head over most PCs longer each time but this is beside the point and discussion we're having here...logically, consoles will never outpace the moving technology of PC hardware but you will still see games that just don't have competition (i.e. GT5 compared to PC racers). That likely has to do with the health of PC industry.

  23. #47
    Supreme Veteran
    keefy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    The Sock Gap
    Posts
    18,039
    Rep Power
    128
    Points
    65,173 (0 Banked)
    Items Gran Turismo 5Michelle MarshDoomid SoftwareCommodore 64Metal Gear Solid
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyBettaKnow View Post
    BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
    RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
    Quote Originally Posted by Sufi View Post
    Rhubarb rabble rabble blah blah yawn


    P.S

    Gwyneth Paltrow has been voted the most hated celebrity in Hollywood.
    Last edited by keefy; 04-19-2013 at 00:49.

  24. #48
    Forum Overseer
    Omar's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Addison, TX.
    Age
    32
    Posts
    31,633
    Rep Power
    195
    Points
    122,554 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Why? She's not that bad.

  25. #49
    Newbie
    BAlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    PSN ID
    balexp
    Posts
    12
    Rep Power
    0
    Points
    609 (0 Banked)
    The topic of this thread is a little funny considering many people think consoles have held back the quality of high-end PCs.
    It is silly to think that the power of any system those not affect the quality of games on all other systems, but in the end it is a developer and publisher's job to determine whether a game or console is worth exclusively investing precious resources.
    Sticking to the topic, a lot a PC games will be affected as long as the average consumer does not have access to higher-end PCs.
    Whether console version of games will be hindered, they will not.
    -BP



    Twitter: twitter.com/BrianPortillo
    Youtube: loopywatwat

    Add me

  26. #50
    Master Sage
    Bitbydeath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Age
    32
    Posts
    14,385
    Rep Power
    131
    Points
    45,847 (0 Banked)
    Achievements IT'S OVER 9000!
    Quote Originally Posted by BAlexP View Post
    Whether console version of games will be hindered, they will not.
    Care to go into detail as to why you think this?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.