# Console Porting is killing PC Gaming PQ.



## nt300 (Oct 26, 2012)

This article is based on the upcoming HD 8000 series but as I was read, I found this comment in the quote bellow. This is already facts, but I would like to start conversation. 


> KitGuru says: With the price cuts ahead of nVidia’s 660 launch, AMD is competitive right now. Unless something changes with the Jen Hsun team, there’s no real pressure on AMD to change. *What this market really needs is new consoles to be launches, so the default resolution/image quality for games increases substantially – and the same for desktop LED monitors.*


http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/jules/amd-radeon-hd-8970-and-8950-launch-plans-revealed/


----------



## r9 (Oct 26, 2012)

Yes that in combination with poor PC Games sales. The companies can`t justifie porting let alone separate development.


----------



## repman244 (Oct 26, 2012)

I think it's both weak consoles and lazy game developers.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 26, 2012)

PC games are starting to take the lead again. look at games like battlefield 3. DX11 exclusives with features no current console can touch.



very soon we'll start seeing PC exclusives that the consoles want, and thats when the consoles will launch.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 26, 2012)

Who voted None of the above?
I think it's a combination of both crappy old consoles and lazy developers doing these cheap console ports.


r9 said:


> Yes that in combination with poor PC Games sales. The companies can`t justifie porting let alone separate development.


PC digital downloads such as services Steam offers is blowing console sales out of the water. PC Gaming sales is alive and kicking and by late 2013 and going into 2014, PC Gaming sales will surpass console sales by $ Billions


----------



## KainXS (Oct 26, 2012)

until wii u launches and we get more direct ports nothing will change though and even then it won't change because we still have the lazy ass developers that port them just to say "hey we did it, plz buy"\

dropping sales margins and lazy devs = terrible ports for us


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 26, 2012)

Developers are FAR from lazy. It just doesn't make financial sense with the cost of development to create PC exclusives when 90% of your revenue comes from consoles.


----------



## Frick (Oct 26, 2012)

Customers, bethsoft and bioware. Seriously.


----------



## nt300 (Oct 26, 2012)

TheMailMan78 said:


> Developers are FAR from lazy. It just doesn't make financial sense with the cost of development to create PC exclusives when 90% of your revenue comes from consoles.


What 
Whos talking about PC exclusives? I was trying to point out design on PC then port to console so consoles wont blog down the picture quality. PC game downloads are eiter equal or killing console games in sales. Prove me wrong.


----------



## Darkleoco (Oct 26, 2012)

nt300 said:


> What
> Whos talking about PC exclusives? I was trying to point out design on PC then port to console so consoles wont blog down the picture quality. PC game downloads are eiter equal or killing console games in sales. Prove me wrong.





You should check the number of users that play specific games on Steam since there is actually a feature for that. It would show you that for example Call of Duty MW3 has had a PEAK of 32,000 users online today now compare that to how many units the game has sold(6.5 million) it might make you realize just how much of those numbers consoles make up. 

The peak amount of users even on Steam today is only 4.7 million. Even if that cannot directly compare to the 130+ million xbox 360's/PS3's that are out there.

If you honestly believe what you said then you are either delusional or stupid.


----------



## Binge (Oct 26, 2012)

nt300 said:


> What
> Whos talking about PC exclusives? I was trying to point out design on PC then port to console so consoles wont blog down the picture quality. PC game downloads are eiter equal or killing console games in sales. Prove me wrong.



You do know that MS has made it so their development for X360 compliant games is made using a PC & console based dev-kit which requires DirectX, right?  The IQ is standard to an extent with textures because it costs money to PAY the artists to draw up the graphics.  You know where the money comes from?  Publishers for the most part.  Without the money... the ports can't be "upgraded" to PC texture quality.

::EDIT:: 



Darkleoco said:


> If you honestly believe what you said then you are either delusional or stupid.



All derogatory terms man.  Not everyone has all of the 'pieces of the puzzle' and so their picture is incomplete.  If you started up a conversation with your peers only to be called a dumbass for striking up a subject you might not want to hang with them on a regular basis amirite?


----------



## Darkleoco (Oct 26, 2012)

Binge said:


> All derogatory terms man.  Not everyone has all of the 'pieces of the puzzle' and so their picture is incomplete.  If you started up a conversation with your peers only to be called a dumbass for striking up a subject you might not want to hang with them on a regular basis amirite?



Well delusional and stupid are quite a bit nicer than dumbass 

But besides that when you are asserting a point you are *expected* to have all the pieces of the puzzle especially when you are literally asking someone to prove you wrong. Besides it is common knowledge that pc gaming in general is an extremely smaller although generally older market than consoles.


----------



## Binge (Oct 26, 2012)

Darkleoco said:


> Well delusional and stupid are quite a bit nicer than dumbass
> 
> But besides that when you are asserting a point you are *expected* to have all the pieces of the puzzle especially when you are literally asking someone to prove you wrong. Besides it is common knowledge that pc gaming in general is an extremely smaller although generally older market than consoles.



I've worked in customer service for more years than I care to count.  Most people don't like being wrong, and definitely trust their own understanding of what information they possess.  It's something people easily get defensive over, and you as the argument to his logic/understanding are burdened with proof as much as he is.  Works both ways so just because you don't feel you need to be as responsible as the OP for being 'correct' does not mean you have any right to casually refer to someone as stupid (lacking intelligence and not facts) or delusional (lacking the ability to perceive reality in a common way).

tl/dr?  Do you think your logic is sound?  Draw it out for him and don't be a smartass about calling someone a dumbass.


----------



## Animalpak (Oct 26, 2012)

repman244 said:


> I think it's both weak consoles and lazy game developers.



me too, i think the next generation of consoles will have a minimum of room for improvement ... and it will go for a long time !


----------



## Widjaja (Oct 26, 2012)

I don't think there is anything really wrong with the quality of the graphics of games for the PC and it is nice to be able to have a mediocre PC and be able to play a game at enjoyable frame rates on high settings.

Sure maybe the graphics cards are not being pushed but who cares if the game is enjoyable which leads me to the game devs.

If game devs also includes game design, I believe there needs to be more innovation.
So many clone games out there.
Military shooters, GTA type games which all have a very similar feel.

Sure some of them are great but still would like to see more variety and no more zombies or vampires.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Oct 26, 2012)

console porting saved pc gaming, the side effect is that bleeding edge hardware goes unused. Seeing as those extremes make up a small portion of the market it's only annoying for extreme pc games. Regular ones don't care unless they also f up the interface. 

Sure it would be nice to be able to tap into all that power and see the games look more and more real, it doesn't make financial sense to do so. Plus modding has been a nice stop gap solution.


----------



## Fourstaff (Oct 26, 2012)

Lots of good games for PC atm, I am not complaining


----------



## Super XP (Oct 26, 2012)

Darkleoco said:


> You should check the number of users that play specific games on Steam since there is actually a feature for that. It would show you that for example Call of Duty MW3 has had a PEAK of 32,000 users online today now compare that to how many units the game has sold(6.5 million) it might make you realize just how much of those numbers consoles make up.
> 
> The peak amount of users even on Steam today is only 4.7 million. Even if that cannot directly compare to the 130+ million xbox 360's/PS3's that are out there.
> 
> If you honestly believe what you said then you are either delusional or stupid.


Enjoy the Read  You can find a DUMP load of info showing PC Gaming will dominate. 
And according to this data and it’s beautiful representation, *PC is now winning.*
http://www.gamefront.com/pcs-projected-to-outpace-consoles-in-revenue-next-year-infographic/


----------



## Super XP (Oct 27, 2012)

There is more 
*No Contest : PC Pummels Console*
http://www.darkmattermag.com/june03/dark_games.html

Compared to the same period last year, PC game sales were up 230 percent.
http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2758966&posted=1#post2758966

PC games sales up 230%. Console game sales down 28%
http://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1089847-pc-games-sales-up-230-console-game-sales-down-28/

PC games sales up 230%. Console game sales down 28%
http://www.destructoid.com/nvidia-pc-game-sales-will-surpass-console-game-sales-212102.phtml














I believe you owe nt300 an apology. 

In regards to MONEY, both PC & Console gaming are making over $18 Billion per year and growing. There is money to be made by both. But remember, The PC is up against all console sales. PC Gaming needs to be respected IMO.


----------



## Darkleoco (Oct 27, 2012)

Super XP said:


> There is more
> *No Contest : PC Pummels Console*
> http://www.darkmattermag.com/june03/dark_games.html
> 
> ...



 Your own information is showing that PC gaming brought in 80 million compared to 517 million for consoles.... not quite sure what your trying to prove their? PC gaming sales may be up and console sales may even be down but no matter how you swing it consoles are making more money and selling more units *overall*.


----------



## mediasorcerer (Oct 27, 2012)

Darkleoco said:


> You should check the number of users that play specific games on Steam since there is actually a feature for that. It would show you that for example Call of Duty MW3 has had a PEAK of 32,000 users online today now compare that to how many units the game has sold(6.5 million) it might make you realize just how much of those numbers consoles make up.
> 
> The peak amount of users even on Steam today is only 4.7 million. Even if that cannot directly compare to the 130+ million xbox 360's/PS3's that are out there.
> 
> If you honestly believe what you said then you are either delusional or stupid.



Thats meaningless if you dont have the numbers of how many consoles are being used "today" , as it may be less?


----------



## Darkleoco (Oct 27, 2012)

mediasorcerer said:


> Thats meaningless if you dont have the numbers of how many consoles are being used "today" , as it may be less?



Somehow I doubt less than 5% of consoles are being used today


----------



## Super XP (Oct 27, 2012)

Darkleoco said:


> Your own information is showing that PC gaming brought in 80 million compared to 517 million for consoles.... not quite sure what your trying to prove their? PC gaming sales may be up and console sales may even be down but no matter how you swing it consoles are making more money and selling more units *overall*.


Not my info, just posted FACTS and LINKS. 
$80 Million? $517 Million? They would be out of business if that was the case. 
Or you mean:

- PC Gaming Software Revenue = $18 *Billion* in 2012 
- Console Gaming Software Revenue = $23 Billion in 2012
------------ *Growth Projections*
- PC Gaming Software Revenue = $20 Billion in 2013 
- Console Gaming Software Revenue = $22 Billion in 2013
----------- *Growth Projections*
- PC Gaming Software Revenue = $22 Billion in 2014 
- Console Gaming Software Revenue = $21 Billion in 2014
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



> *New Reports Forecast Global Video Game Industry Will Reach $82 Billion By 2017*
> A series of new reports from DFC Intelligence forecasts that the global market for video games is expected to grow from $67 billion in 2012 to $82 billion in 2017. This forecast includes revenue from dedicated console hardware and software (both physical and online), dedicated portable hardware and software, PC games and games for mobile devices such as mobile phones, tablets, music players and other devices that can play games as a secondary feature.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngau...-game-industry-will-reach-82-billion-by-2017/



> *PC game revenue continues to increase at a solid pace and is expected to pass $25 billion in 2017, up from about $20 billion forecasted for 2012.* Meanwhile games for mobile and smartphones are driving much of the growth in the portable category.......





> *GDC 2012: PC Games Raked In $18.6 Billion in 2011*
> *The global PC games market continues to show surprisingly strong growth in 2011, reaching a record $18.6 billion, representing overall growth of 15% over 2010.* No geographical market segments tracked showed a decline in 2011 in overall PC game revenue, while China continues to grow at nearly twice the rate of the overall global market for PC games with growth of 27% resulting in record 2011 revenue of $6 billion. Additionally, the mature game markets of Korea, Japan, U.S., U.K., and Germany demonstrated significant growth in 2011, together recording increased revenue of 11% in 2011 to $8 billion.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/03/06/gdc-2012-pc-games-raked-in-18-6-billion-in-2011/

*2011 was PC gaming’s biggest ever year, says The PC Gaming Alliance*

*WHO's SELLING MORE?*




http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/03/07/2011-was-pc-gamings-biggest-ever-year-says-the-pc-gaming-alliance/


----------



## MatTheCat (Oct 27, 2012)

Frick said:


> Customers, bethsoft and bioware. Seriously.



LOL yeah...

They make all the big title games it seems, they are clones of one another and they all suck bullcock.

Although, one of my favourite devs, Piranha Bytes recently failed big time trying to adapt their PC centric RPG, Risen, to a more console friendly format with the sequel, Risen 2. So consolitis has a lot to answer for.


----------



## SaltyFish (Oct 27, 2012)

*In terms of hardware usage:*
I think people forget that not everyone has an awesome super-powered PC that can run games at 2560x1920 with 32x anti-aliasing. Think of all the people who just buy a PC at their local electronics store and expect games to run on that. And then there are the laptops... Face it, most of us here are not the average PC gamer. Lower hardware requirements allows more people to play.

PC user interface is more capable than consoles. Anything the latter can do, the former can. But the reverse is not true. So it makes sense to build with the limitations of the latter in mind when you're doing a multi-platform release.

The days of doing distinctly separate ports (barring those for portable consoles) are coming to an end due to the rising costs of production. Remember the days when the SNES and Mega Drive got one version, the NES got another, the Game Boy got yet another, and the Game Gear got still yet another version? It's has a "race to the bottom" effect due to trying to lower production costs.

*In terms of game "quality":*
Gaming has become more mainstream. This includes people in their 60s and 70s. It's no longer just a niche thing for young people with a lot of free time. Also, those young people are now older and have jobs (well... before October 2008 anyway) and family to deal with and thus less free time to spend on games as well. Developers (or more likely, their publishers) are trying to broaden the appeal of their games in an attempt to capture more of an audience. It the same thing with movies and TV shows. Cue games with a simpler learning curve, lowered complexity, easier difficulty, etc.

Also, as mentioned before, games are more expensive to make nowadays. Developers and publishers want a safe investment. Cue "sequelitis" and other sorts of re-hashes. In North America, Call of Duty is probably the most blatant example.

*TL;DR*
PC gamers love brandishing "consolitis" because it's an easy scapegoat, but it's more due the game developers and publishers wanting a safe investment and trying to "capture a wider audience". They've become mainstream and are suffering the same things ("dumbing down") as movies and TV shows.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 27, 2012)

You create a game based on the PC platform (Not Age Old Consoles). This guarantees the best possible development and maximum Graphics quality. If coded properly, there won't be an issue with performance. Then you port that over to consoles which is inferior to the PC.

This would guarantee that the console would also get the best possible looking game. You will always have the option to adjust your PQ settings to ensure it runs on slower hardware. 

It should not be the other way around. Creating games around the Xbox 360 for instance is ridiculous and OLD. This tells me Dev's are lazy as F**k. No texture packs will properly make a console port onto PC look good because the original was created on garbage.


----------



## Widjaja (Oct 27, 2012)

Super XP said:


> You create a game based on the PC platform (Not Age Old Consoles). This guarantees the best possible development and maximum Graphics quality. If coded properly, there won't be an issue with performance. Then you port that over to consoles which is inferior to the PC.
> 
> This would guarantee that the console would also get the best possible looking game. You will always have the option to adjust your PQ settings to ensure it runs on slower hardware.
> 
> It should not be the other way around. Creating games around the Xbox 360 for instance is ridiculous and OLD. This tells me Dev's are lazy as F**k. No texture packs will properly make a console port onto PC look good because the original was created on garbage.



Maybe if this was the way things went, we would see DX 11 being a lot more optimized across the spectrum of games available instead of feeling like an afterthought because the difference noted is so small and the fps appears to be a lot lower at times.

Good example Batman Arkham City on DX11.


----------



## GLD (Oct 27, 2012)

Todays lesson:

PC-Gamers

Consoles-Gaymers


----------



## Dent1 (Oct 27, 2012)

Darkleoco said:


> You should check the number of users that play specific games on Steam since there is actually a feature for that. It would show you that for example Dent1has had a PEAK of 32,000 users online today now compare that to how many units the game has sold(6.5 million) it might make you realize just how much of those numbers consoles make up.
> 
> The peak amount of users even on Steam today is only 4.7 million. Even if that cannot directly compare to the 130+ million xbox 360's/PS3's that are out there.
> 
> If you honestly believe what you said then you are either delusional or stupid.




So 32,000 users online today were playing MW3 on steam. OK

So how many users were playing on Xbox Live and PS3 Online?  


Looks like SuperXP has already owned Darkleoco. I have nothing more to add. Enjoy your weekend guys.


----------



## pantherx12 (Oct 27, 2012)

More games for PC with off-line multi-player would help a lot.

One of the most annoying things is having a racing game or some such and only having online as an option, should be able to bust in two or more controllers and have at it.


----------



## Super XP (Oct 27, 2012)

I have to agree. I like choice, I don't mind Multi-Player but I want to choice whether to go on line or not. A good match is Mult-player and Single Player for most games. But Single Player is very important.


----------



## newconroer (Oct 27, 2012)

nt300 said:


> This article is based on the upcoming HD 8000 series but as I was read, I found this comment in the quote bellow. This is already facts, but I would like to start conversation.
> 
> http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/jules/amd-radeon-hd-8970-and-8950-launch-plans-revealed/



1600p needs to be breached. We already have televisions and display monitors at 4k and 8k resolution. Even when there's very little broadcasting content for them to be used with, they are still pushing forward with development and sales.

2160p 
4320p 
8640p 

If developers would get on board (Carmack would love this?) then there will be a real tangible reason for AMD and Nvidia to bring the next generation to us now, rather than later after the boats have all sailed.


----------



## trickson (Oct 27, 2012)

All the above!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 27, 2012)

I blame the lack of console memory.  It shows in virtually every multi-platform title (small detailed environments or large lackluster environments).


The poll forgot bad controls/limited configuration when porting to PC.  That's another big area that needs work.  The irony of it is, even with lackluster controls, I still tend to like them better with keyboard and mouse than Microsoft Xbox360 controller.




newconroer said:


> 1600p needs to be breached. We already have televisions and display monitors at 4k and 8k resolution. Even when there's very little broadcasting content for them to be used with, they are still pushing forward with development and sales.
> 
> 2160p
> 4320p
> ...


You do realize that, even in a lot of newer games, a 2 TFlOp GPU can't even handle 2560x1600 (4 MP) at >30 FPS.  2160p (3840x2160) is over 8 MP so it would require a minimum of 4 TFlOp of power to run it.  You're talking billions of transistors consuming hundreds of watts with today's process technology.

Processing power is a limited quantity.  Most developers would choose lower resolution and higher detail than high resolution and low detail.

This, just on the GPU end.  There's major implications involving RAM, HDD performance, CPU performance, and VRAM amount/performance as well.  It'll likely happen eventually, but not in the next 5, 10, or even 15 years.  Well, you can if you don't mind spending $10,000+ on a gaming system, but it won't be mainstream until probably at least 20 years out.


----------



## Kreij (Oct 27, 2012)

Super XP said:


> You create a game based on the PC platform (Not Age Old Consoles). This guarantees the best possible development and maximum Graphics quality. If coded properly, there won't be an issue with performance. Then you port that over to consoles which is inferior to the PC.
> 
> This would guarantee that the console would also get the best possible looking game. You will always have the option to adjust your PQ settings to ensure it runs on slower hardware.
> 
> It should not be the other way around. Creating games around the Xbox 360 for instance is ridiculous and OLD. This tells me Dev's are lazy as F**k. No texture packs will properly make a console port onto PC look good because the original was created on garbage.



Other than the fact you are completely wrong on everything, it's not a bad post.

No developer wants their game to be poor on any platform. They are not lazy.
They are constrained by the publishers deadlines and budget restrictions.

There is way more to it than just graphic quality.
You can't just write a game for the PC and simply port it to consoles. They are completely different.
You have to rewrite the game for other platforms to optimize the performance and playability.
The same is true in the other direction (Console -> PC) if you want to make use of the power of a PC.

The games that are great on both have teams dedicated to the individual platforms to ensure they meet specific standard for their intended platform. These developers have gotten the publishers to pry open their wallets so that can happen. You will usually see this only with IP that has a proven track record of high sales across all platforms, because publishers will not fork over the development costs for a particular platform if they feel the ROI is questionable.

Toss into the mix that the publishers can come in an say they don't like something and trash months of work in a heartbeat.

With the huge rise in sales of mobile devices (tablets for instance) you once again have another market segment that the developers may have to target and there is no guarantee that the publisher won't rob Peter (PC development) to pay Paul (Mobile development).

What I'm saying, is don't blame the devs. They work stupid long hours under unrealistic budget and release deadline constraints. Blame the publishers.


----------



## newconroer (Oct 27, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You do realize that, even in a lot of newer games, a 2 TFlOp GPU can't even handle 2560x1600 (4 MP) at >30 FPS.  2160p (3840x2160) is over 8 MP so it would require a minimum of 4 TFlOp of power to run it.  You're talking billions of transistors consuming hundreds of watts with today's process technology.



Are you speaking to pure compute power, or general purpose?
If it was all down to compute power, than certain GPUs would blow others away on those raw numbers alone, but they don't.

A 680 is 2.5 teraflops, and 1600p is not a problem for it. 



FordGT90Concept said:


> This, just on the GPU end.  There's major implications involving RAM, HDD performance, CPU performance, and VRAM amount/performance as well.  It'll likely happen eventually, but not in the next 5, 10, or even 15 years.  Well, you can if you don't mind spending $10,000+ on a gaming system, but it won't be mainstream until probably at least 20 years out.



It all has to start somewhere - and it seems every other variable (as you've mentioned above) are progressively worked on with maximum advancements in mind.  I know Intel and AMD have tech hidden away in some labs that we won't use or need for a long time - it's just not practical. The GPU market however is run by two companies who intentionally sandbag public release in order to increase market share or profit.

There are plenty of wealthy people who would happily and already do, own 4k or 8k screens. And yet the best they can view on them is 1600p.

You would think that all over the world right now, AAA and especially independent 3d studios would be chompin at the bit to showoff their 4k artwork and graphics - considering it's been saturated by the photography scene for years.

Imagine if RAGE really was a tech demo, that really did have 1:1 8k resolution textures!
Who cares if you had to goto to consumer electronics show to view it in person and make a custom order with Id software, that WOULD sell to not only people but other studios.

Something has to be the match that sets the fire.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 28, 2012)

Super XP said:


> Enjoy the Read  You can find a DUMP load of info showing PC Gaming will dominate.
> And according to this data and it’s beautiful representation, *PC is now winning.*
> http://www.gamefront.com/pcs-projected-to-outpace-consoles-in-revenue-next-year-infographic/
> 
> http://cdn2.gamefront.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/infographic-gaming-wars.png?cda6c1



Cherry picked facts are awesome!


----------



## Widjaja (Oct 28, 2012)

Kreij said:


> They are constrained by the publishers deadlines and budget restrictions.



This is a sad fact.
Sales is also probably determines the amount of patches which are released afterwards.

Although I have seen a worrying trend to fork out little DLC packs instead with some titles.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 28, 2012)

newconroer said:


> Are you speaking to pure compute power, or general purpose?


Total GPU compute power per second.




newconroer said:


> A 680 is 2.5 teraflops, and 1600p is not a problem for it.


Depends on game and settings.  I'm not talking about desktop (2D) resolutions, I'm talking about fullscreen 3D.  An Intel HD 4000 can handle 4096x4096 desktop resolution but if you do anything significant on it, it will croak.




newconroer said:


> There are plenty of wealthy people who would happily and already do, own 4k or 8k screens. And yet the best they can view on them is 1600p.


That's due to cable limitations.  VGA cables were only intended for up to 2048x1536; DVI is up to 2560x1600, DisplayPort is up to 3840x2160.  You need many cables to power resolutions any higher than that.


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 28, 2012)

this happens at the end of every console cycle. it's a rubber band. PC will get better looking games then at the end of the next console cycle we will be talking about the same thing. 

the game design worries me more..


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 28, 2012)

Even next generation consoles, compared to computers, will lack RAM (and every generation before it).  The amount of RAM directly correlates with game design.  They can't do big, ambitious things because there isn't enough RAM to process it in.  Console games are just now starting to do things (like RTS) that computers have been doing for decades.  They need to cut back on CPUs and invest in more RAM.


----------



## Drone (Oct 28, 2012)

*None of the Above*


People with low expectations are to blame.


----------



## newconroer (Oct 28, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Total GPU compute power per second.



I'll have to stand by what I said then. If we're on the samge page here, a 7970's compute power is almost 3.7 Tera, yet it doesn't stomp all over the GTX 680.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Depends on game and settings.  I'm not talking about desktop (2D) resolutions, I'm talking about fullscreen 3D.  An Intel HD 4000 can handle 4096x4096 desktop resolution but if you do anything significant on it, it will croak.



3d as in actual stereo vision 3d or just a normal full screen application?
Because if it's the latter, then of course a GTX 680 handles 1600p!



FordGT90Concept said:


> That's due to cable limitations.  VGA cables were only intended for up to 2048x1536; DVI is up to 2560x1600, DisplayPort is up to 3840x2160.  You need many cables to power resolutions any higher than that.



My comment was in reference to the fact there's not much content to be had or seen on 4k/8k hardware. There's little broadcast, and certainly no games offering it - even with the right physical connections (as you mentioned, cabling). 

Good news is, the manufacturers pushing forward with 4k/8k regardless of small market requirements, means it's already begun!


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Oct 28, 2012)

Most games can be made to run at any resolution.


----------



## aayman_farzand (Oct 28, 2012)

I was kinda glad to see the PC gaming picture till I saw the most played games, 44% is Puzzle or Board games....yea so much for using the bleeding edge hardware.


----------



## Kreij (Oct 28, 2012)

That graphic shows 44% to be online games and does not indicate on what platform.
There are, however, a lot of people who use their PCs to play simple and social games to pass the time.
My neighbor has logged 1000s of games of solitaire. lol


----------



## Lionheart (Oct 28, 2012)

I wonder when Ray Tracing will become the norm or even be released


----------



## ShiBDiB (Oct 28, 2012)

I'm sure its been said, but i dont feel like reading everyones posts.


PC GAMING IS NOT CLOSE TO BEING DEAD

if anything its on the rise.


----------



## Kreij (Oct 28, 2012)

This thread has nothing to do with PC gaming dying, but thank for clearing that up for us.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Oct 28, 2012)

Kreij said:


> This thread has nothing to do with PC gaming dying, but thank for clearing that up for us.



The thread title is.. Console Porting is killing PC Gaming


----------



## Kreij (Oct 28, 2012)

The thread title is "Console Porting is killing PC gaming PQ (picture quality).
Just giving you grief ShiB.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Oct 29, 2012)

O, bahaha i had no clue what PQ was so I figured it was a typo... either way... this thread is stupid!

Shib out!!


----------



## punisher186 (Oct 29, 2012)

Steam player status: http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

Around 3.6M Steam users are online right now and nearly 5.5M players were on at once today.  I can't find any sites that show console player stats but I'm sure PC takes the cake.


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 29, 2012)

punisher186 said:


> Steam player status: http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
> 
> Around 3.6M Steam users are online right now and nearly 5.5M players were on at once today.  I can't find any sites that show console player stats but I'm sure PC takes the cake.



it doesn't.


----------



## Absolution (Oct 29, 2012)

With torrent/pirating going down again, maybe PC games will become more lucrative in the near future for developing houses.

In the 90s, almost every game had a demo version available, now its so difficult to get demos, people would resort to pirating/filesharing for "trying" the game out.


----------



## Widjaja (Oct 29, 2012)

I believe pirating is a cause for the online exclusive sections of a game which maybe noticed.
e.g achievements or needing to play in a multi player environment to attain certain items which can not be acquired through singleplayer.


----------



## Rei86 (Oct 29, 2012)

I can't believe how some of you can tell me the difference between RAMBUS, ROP, GFLOPS but be so f'en arrogant and ignorant when it comes to gaming in general.



Dent1 said:


> So 32,000 users online today were playing MW3 on steam. OK
> 
> So how many users were playing on Xbox Live and PS3 Online?
> 
> ...



You have to be kidding me

You're looking at an avg of 100k + on the PS3 on any given night for MW3 and 150k avg on the Xbox 360.

Let it go, the console market FAR OUTPACES any PC game sales PERIOD.  The revenue is in consoles and has been since the start of seventh generation consoles.

And for developers being lazy..nope.  It has to do with the Publishers looking at the bottom line.


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 29, 2012)

Widjaja said:


> I believe pirating is a cause for the online exclusive sections of a game which maybe noticed.
> e.g achievements or needing to play in a multi player environment to attain certain items which can not be acquired through singleplayer.



I think that is just a rope to keep you invested. they don't want you to put the game down. I noticed developers are rolling out DLC slower these days.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 29, 2012)

If Piracy were really a problem like developers claim it is, Steam would have gone under a while ago as would most game development studios.  Instead we've seen an increase in profits from the PC Gaming Industry, which indicates maybe Piracy doesn't have the overwhelmingly negative effects they claimed.  Publishers will blame anything they can instead of taking the blame for releasing mediocre products, and with the Digital Era starting Piracy was an easy target.

Console Ports exist for a number of reasons, the least of which is lazy developers.  It's mostly because creating games has become so expensive that companies don't want to increase the cost further by having a seperate team devoted to optimizing the game for PC users, which regularly are the lowest contributers to sales (ironically because a lot of PC users just avoid console ports because they are usually sub-par in quality).  It's pretty rarely that a PC Game or PC Version of a game beats out the console equivalent in sales.  Someone posted an infographic where it compared July 2011 I think it was, with SC2 selling 700k+ copies and the same month the best selling game was NCAA 2012 with like 670k, that's a terrible comparison for so many reasons.  SC2 was a game that people waited over a decade for, was one of the most hyped games of the year (or even in several years), and they were measuring a month where traditionally video game sales are low.  How did SC2 in 2011 compared to MW3 on either the PS3 or 360?  

Consoles make a lot of money with specific titles, just like PC's do.  Expansions to MMO's, MMO's, RTS, and specific FPS games make a killing on the PC (Mists of Pandaria, SWTOR, BF3, etc.) and a lot of third person shooters, fps's, action games, and sports games make a ton of money on Consoles (GoW, Assassins Creed, Halo, Madden, etc.).  There are definitely games like Skyrim that are in a weird grey area as well, but that's usually because of exceptional (or even above average) game design or with proper PC ports that allow things like Mods.

I think people underestimate how little freedom Developers have--a lot of them are completely at the mercy of their Publishers.  I read The Trenches web comic quite regularly and they have mail sent in from people who work for game developers in QA and other fields.  A recent one mentioned that when he was in QA he hated watching games come through that were tons of fun and really interesting, and then at some point the Publisher would sent a "Producer" in who 99% of the time would butcher up the entire story and make the game a shell of what it previously was.  I think that's the biggest problem in the industry these days, Publishers listening "market research" more than the actual target audience.  They always try and _streamline_ games and make them more _accessible_--which from what I've learned is removing any interesting features and filling them with two dimensional characters.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 29, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> I can't believe how some of you can tell me the difference between RAMBUS, ROP, GFLOPS but be so f'en arrogant and ignorant when it comes to gaming in general.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



care to provide a source for those numbers?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 29, 2012)

IDK about Weak Drivers. But the other options definitely


----------



## Rei86 (Oct 29, 2012)

Mussels said:


> care to provide a source for those numbers?



I'll do you one better, its Sunday Night and the PS3 version ALWAYS has lower number than the xbox 360.  I no longer own a copy of the game on the 360 but here you go












And that's just for one game


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 29, 2012)

you guys have no idea how many people play Call of Duty, Fifa and Halo lol


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 29, 2012)

Oh My God! That's a lot of players in one game! That's as many as the players online in one MMORPG in one country alone (and it's free too)!


Ok, seriously now, *it goes without saying* that the console gaming peasants would outnumber the PC gaming nobility. That's natural.


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 29, 2012)

Minecraft on the 360 is actually the top game right now haha it has sold over 4 million copies. 17,000 a day. it might even outsell the PC.

http://majornelson.com/2012/10/24/live-activity-for-week-of-october-15/


----------



## Rei86 (Oct 29, 2012)

which makes crazy no sense

Besides that update is old.  NBA 2k13 is out and Halo 4 is right around the bend.

EDIT:  I take my statement back about money in the console.  So far indie games have been champions on the PC.  Same could be said for XBLA games and iOS/android too.


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 29, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> which makes crazy no sense
> 
> Besides that update is old.  NBA 2k13 is out and Halo 4 is right around the bend.
> 
> EDIT:  I take my statement back about money in the console.  So far indie games have been champions on the PC.  Same could be said for XBLA games and iOS/android too.



people like Minecraft I guess. Call of Duty has been at the top for many years.

I think it's just been a really slow year for AAA games. a lot of them got pushed to 2013 so indie games got more attention. 

look how stacked Q1 and Q2 2013 are

Aliens: Colonial Marines
Dead Space 3
Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance
Bioshock Infinite
Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs
Arma III
Tomb Raider
Crysis 3
Company of Heroes 2
Metro: Last Light
Remember Me
Tom Clancy's Rainbow 6: Patriots
Gears of War: Judgement
God of War: Ascension
Sim City
South Park: The Stick of Truth


----------



## nt300 (Oct 29, 2012)

punisher186 said:


> Steam player status: http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
> 
> Around 3.6M Steam users are online right now and nearly 5.5M players were on at once today.  I can't find any sites that show console player stats but I'm sure PC takes the cake.


Think about this, how many people own PCs? (Notebooks, Laptops, Desktops etc). and how many people own gaming consoles. I would say almost every single house hold in the world owns a Personal Computer 


Kreij said:


> Other than the fact you are completely wrong on everything, it's not a bad post.
> 
> No developer wants their game to be poor on any platform. They are not lazy.
> They are constrained by the publishers deadlines and budget restrictions.
> ...


So we will see shift in better PC gaming PQ when the new consoles come out. Too bad they can't just make a PC game to look the best in PQ.


----------



## 3870x2 (Oct 29, 2012)

I chose 'lazy game developers', but the actual issue is not that the devs are lazy, but rather that they are not given the resources (money, time.  Mostly time.) to accomplish a competent port.

Never worry that the Devs are not doing their job, they are just like you and me.  You need to worry about the executive board members and other asshats with a business degree.


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 29, 2012)

Ubisoft said it cost $1.3 million to port a game to the Wii U. I think Pachter also said it cost about a million. 

that's a lot of money!


----------



## Super XP (Oct 29, 2012)

BumbleBee said:


> Ubisoft said it cost $1.3 million to port a game to the Wii U. I think Pachter also said it cost about a million.
> 
> that's a lot of money!


Yes a lot but the selling potential if vast. They can make a dump load of cash.


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Oct 29, 2012)

I blame DirectX. So I vote none of the above. People should stop patronizing windows based games, and Steam should release their own OS complete with developers having low level access to hardware.

And I also wish pigs could fly in real life.

You can also factor in Publishers having a tight grip on developers for pushing them to deliver within the deadline. They should know that creativity is directly proportional to development freedom (or whatever that term is lol).


----------



## FreedomEclipse (Oct 29, 2012)

thing about steam is they have massive discounts and deals.... Name a high street or online retailer that is willing to do the same thing? I bought the GTA pack for the price of hot meal. If i was to buy the games separately I would of had to pay significantly a lot lot more.

Its these deals that IMO keep piracy at bay. Of course pirates are always gonna pirate just like haters are gonna hate. I will openly admit that I do pirate games, but only for demo purposes. If i find i like the game enough I will either purchase it right out or wait for a steam deal to purchase it at a lower price.

Steam does a lot more then just support Indie devs. So long as steam keeps doing what they are doing, the PC gaming community will grow... Slowly but surely. Whats the point of pirating games when you can get them cheap from steam in one of their random deals?

one of the major things I hate about steam is their deals tend to be a regional thing.... a deal thats advertised on steam in the U.S wont be available anywhere else or if it is advertised then there are some differences in pricing


----------



## tacosRcool (Oct 29, 2012)

I haven't really played my PS3 as much as I used to. I mainly use it for Netflix but that all will change when I decide to become a Playstation Plus member. They gots games for cheap plus free ones too. I do blame developers and publishers for crappy pc ports but the current generation graphics and other limitations hurt as well.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 30, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> And that's just for one game



According to Steam Stats DotA 2 peaked at 147k players today, that's a game in *Closed Beta*.  Granted it's the most popular game on Steam, but so is MW3 the most popular game on consoles.  The difference as I see it is that games on Consoles are either packed, or empty.  MW3 may have 175k people playing, but I guarantee most games other than FIFA or Madden are nearly empty.  Companies shut down servers for Console games like a year after release because there are only a few hundred people playing.  Compare that to Steams peak users for the day;

DotA 2: 147k
TF2:  102k
CS1.6:  57k
L4D2:  49k
Borderlands 2:  40k

That's the top 5 games for the day, and it amounts to 395k people.  The peak amount of users online for Steam alone of the day was 5.4 _million_.  Hell, the top 10 games only account for 566k users.  MW3 on the PC had a peak of 35k users today, which isn't all that bad considering it was a pretty lame console port, and according to VGChartz only sold 1.52m copies (the PS3 version did just under 12.5m and the 360 version did about 14.6m).

Now, this is *only Steam*.  This isn't factoring MMO's, Origin users, or games that do not apear on Steam (SC2 and Diablo 3 come to mind).  So needless to say, I highly doubt Xbox Live or PSN have more people actively playing daily than the PC does as a platform, and there is a big reason for this.  Platform Diversity.  That is, with a PC, you can play any game that is made for PC's, with Consoles, you can only play games made for your console.  Imagine if PSN and XBL were combined, that's basically what the PC is.  If you're playing MW3 on the PC, you're playing against everyone who has a PC Version of the game, not just the people with a 360 version or PS3 version or Wii (LOL) version.


----------



## Kreij (Oct 30, 2012)

xenocide said:


> So needless to say, I highly doubt Xbox Live or PSN have more people actively playing daily than the PC does as a platform



I think you may be wrong here. No, I have no links, just a gut feeling.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 30, 2012)

Kreij said:


> I think you may be wrong here. No, I have no links, just a gut feeling.



I don't doubt that it's close, but people play it out as though PSN and Xbox Live have infinitely more players, and infinitely more people playing at any time.  Steam statistics don't count people with Steam open in the background, only people actively in a game while on Steam, and as far as I know they have never released a number for total or active Steam accounts, but I know it's in the tens of millions (judging by Steam ID's--they go up to 8 digits and there are both 0:0:xxxxxxxx and 0:1:xxxxxxxx currently going out to new accounts).  Like I said though, MW3 is probably _the_ most popular game on PSN and XBL, and 174k people on PSN just doesn't seem too massive to me.  I know FIFA also has a ton of users at any given time because of its popularity with Europeans, South Americans, and European Americans, but I'm sure it's at about 100k people concurrently at any given time.

But this still doesn't include MMO's, non-Steam games, and non-Digital Distribution Platform games.  MMO's alone I'd say count for a solid several million users a day, WoW still has over 10m active accounts, and with MoP having just launched a lot of people have been playing (myself included).  On top of that you have games like Rift and TSW which have about a million and several hundred thousand accounts respectively, and then the behemoth that is F2P MMO's.  Also, what about LoL?  32m "active" accounts (they define active as any activity in a 90 day time frame which I consider garbage) last time they reported.  Yes, on the PC there is always overlap, but there are definitely tens of millions of players on the PC as a platform, and I severely doubt even with the number of AAA titles and console exclusives Consoles can compare to that.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 30, 2012)

xenocide said:


> According to Steam Stats DotA 2 peaked at 147k players today, that's a game in *Closed Beta*.  Granted it's the most popular game on Steam, but so is MW3 the most popular game on consoles.  The difference as I see it is that games on Consoles are either packed, or empty.  MW3 may have 175k people playing, but I guarantee most games other than FIFA or Madden are nearly empty.  Companies shut down servers for Console games like a year after release because there are only a few hundred people playing.  Compare that to Steams peak users for the day;
> 
> DotA 2: 147k
> TF2:  102k
> ...




and now that we have accurate comparison numbers, we find out:

1. Cod is more popular on console
2. PC has more gamers


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 30, 2012)

half a million still play Halo: Reach on a daily basis I think and that is only a top 5 game on 360.

there are a couple hundred million gaming capable PC but we're comparing ecosystems.. Steam vs. blank


----------



## xenocide (Oct 30, 2012)

BumbleBee said:


> half a million still play Halo: Reach on a daily basis I think and that is only a top 5 game on 360.



I doubt it's 500k concurrently.  I could see maybe 500k unique players per day worldwide.  If I recall wasn't Halo: Reach the most recent Halo game, as well as the last one made by Bungie?  It's definitely one of those games up there with CoD games when it comes to the polarizing environment that is XBL\PSN.  

I mean, by comparison how many people still play ODST?  It's only a year older but from what I've seen Console games are even worse than PC games when it comes to people wanting to play the newest version.  Counter-Strike 1.6 is still the 3rd most played game on Steam, despite being *12 years old*.  With Console games you just don't see that because people generally trade in games like MW2 to get MW3 or ODST to get Halo: Reach, and over a week their communities literally up and vanish.


----------



## entropy13 (Oct 30, 2012)

FM2012 isn't in the top 5 of Steam stats anymore.


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 30, 2012)

I checked early this year and Halo: Reach was doing 100,000 at a time and 500,000 daily. i'm sure it's more or less the same.

I don't have anything to back this up but I believe more people play Call of Duty than people that login to Steam everyday. it's not that crazy really lol


----------



## xenocide (Oct 30, 2012)

BumbleBee said:


> I checked early this year and Halo: Reach was doing 100,000 at a time and 500,000 daily. i'm sure it's more or less the same.
> 
> I don't have anything to back this up but I believe more people play Call of Duty than people that login to Steam everyday. it's not that crazy really lol



I doubt that.  The 5.4m number is just the highest amount of people on at a *single time*.  I know at minimum there are 20-40m Steam Accounts, not necessarily active ones, but that many exist (and it could be as high as 60-80m).  MW3 sold 14.6m copies for Xbox 360, it would be equivalent to just about every person still logging in to play it daily.  The game is almost a year old and I guarantee knowing the CoD life cycle a good number of people stopped playing months ago.  Every friend I have that played it hasn't mentioned it in months.  Obviously that's confirmation bias but I assure you not every person who bought MW3 still plays it regularly.


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 30, 2012)

Activision sold 18 million map packs to the 23 million people that bought Call of Duty: Black Ops. the new Call of Duty Elite service has over 12 million subscribers! I think people who play Call of Duty are very dedicated.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 30, 2012)

5.4 Million on steam, peak, in the last 12 hours or so


----------



## Rei86 (Oct 30, 2012)

Mussels said:


> and now that we have accurate comparison numbers, we find out:
> 
> 1. Cod is more popular on console
> 2. PC has more gamers



Borderlands 2 has more players on the console side than on the PC.

If we have to to say it generally console gamers will stick around and play a game for a few months and move on to the next big thing.

PC gamers seems to stick around some more.  Small as it might be but they'll stick around a bit longer.  However some cult like games on the Xbox 360 and PS3 still has a community that could rival some of the "larger" ones found on the PC.

Console games after the game comes out is end of support.  Developers can patch games and release DLC but that's the end.

PC gamers if truly in love with a game will support it even long after the developer has forgotten about it.  Allowing open ended feel that PC games enjoy compared to the fenced walls of console games.

We have 30~50 Million Xbox 360s in the wild.
We have 30~50 Million PS3s in the wild.
We have 70~80 Million Wiis in the wild.
The Wii has the lowest software attachment rate and the PS3 is only a few behind the Xbox 360.

While we'll have more desktop computers not everyone who owns a computer uses it for "gaming."  And I don't consider Zynga/Pop Cap stuff to be "gaming."  Same can be said about the consoles but they still command more focus from developers than an exclusive PC title.



xenocide said:


> I
> I mean, by comparison how many people still play ODST?  It's only a year older but from what I've seen Console games are even worse than PC games when it comes to people wanting to play the newest version.  Counter-Strike 1.6 is still the 3rd most played game on Steam, despite being *12 years old*.  With Console games you just don't see that because people generally trade in games like MW2 to get MW3 or ODST to get Halo: Reach, and over a week their communities literally up and vanish.



Assuming my friend can get you into a lot of trouble.

MW2 last time I checked still had around 10~30k people.  
BlOps still has a 50k.

ME3 on both console versions still has people you can play with.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 30, 2012)

BumbleBee said:


> Activision sold 18 million map packs to the 23 million people that bought Call of Duty: Black Ops. the new Call of Duty Elite service has over 12 million subscribers! I think people who play Call of Duty are very dedicated.



CoD:Elite was a steal, and buying anything less than the year package was financially irresponsible (buying the DLC by itself would have run you 2-3x as much money).  Black Ops actually sold closer to 25m (just over 13m for 360 and around 12m for PS3) copies between the PS3 and 360.  But lets do the math;  4 map packs for Black Ops,  Assume more than even stated sold--24m.  That's 6m of each map pack, split almost equally between the two major systems that's around 3m.  That means less about or less than 25% of the people that bought the game bought a map pack, and even if everyone of those people played daily, it still would barely match (or slightly edge out) the number of peak players on Steam.  I'm willing to guess that not all of those people played daily, probably closer to 33% or less of those people played daily, meaning less than 2m players total, and that's assuming a lot in favor of CoD.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 30, 2012)

and before people get too excited with game X winning on console vs PC, lets throw in WoW and other MMO's


----------



## Rei86 (Oct 30, 2012)

Bleeding subscribers every year 

SWOTOR had to go F2P

Terra probably has 1million + to keep it monthly based

Probably still under wows 6~8 Million subs but GW2 is probably in the 3million I hope.

God I wish had the time to play MMOs again...and a MMO that I gave a crap about.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 30, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> MW2 last time I checked still had around 10~30k people.
> BlOps still has a 50k.



And that means per year half the audience or more have left;

MW2: 2009
Black Ops: 2010
MW3: 2011

If that's PS3 which has the smaller userbase using the previously stated number--actually bump it to 200k--that means it breaks down as;

MW2:  ~20k  (10% of MW3)
Black Ops:  50k  (25% of MW3)
MW3:  200k  (100%)

Compare that to Counter-Strike which has twice to four times as many users as it's successors (2x Source 4x GO).



Rei86 said:


> Bleeding subscribers every year
> 
> SWOTOR had to go F2P
> 
> ...



Bleeding subscribers because more games are going F2P and more MMO's are coming out.  SWTOR is around 600k-800k, it flucuates.  TERA is about 800k-1m.  WoW is at 10m still (it dropped down to 9m at one point but leading up to MoP it went back up to 10m), and GW2 is around 2-3m and bounces around almost daily.  But that's still ignoring Maplestory, EQ, TSW, Rift, EVE, and a massive number of other MMO's out there.


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 30, 2012)

I think MMO are dead. World of Warcraft competes with it self and losing subscribers but that won't stop Activision from putting out expansions until they drive it into the ground like Tony Hawk and probably Call of Duty eventually haha

I don't think The Elder Scrolls online will be successful and I don't think there will be anymore because they cost too much money and take too long to make. The Elder Scrolls Online and The Secret World started development many years ago.


----------



## Rei86 (Oct 30, 2012)

xenocide said:


> And that means per year half the audience or more have left;
> 
> MW2: 2009
> Black Ops: 2010
> ...



I don't know what we're arguing about but

Console game sales > PC game sales

Publishers are in a business to make money which puts the developers to put resources into console games.

This won't change till we have a LARGE shift in the market.  The only group that's making that shift is crap iOS/Android games and what you would call "casual" f2p games with micro transactions.  However the profit is still there in consoles full retail > pc full retail.

When the 8th generation consoles launch in 2013~2015 we'll probably still see a edge to console sales revenue vs PC sales revenue.

That's what matters to publishers and that's what will drive console development.

HOWEVER the 8th generation consoles will all be using AMD GPUs so "ports" for console to consoleC to console to be quite good.


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 30, 2012)

I hope the fetch quest dies with MMO haha


----------



## xenocide (Oct 30, 2012)

I wouldn't say MMO's are dead, but they are definitely leveling out.  There was a point about a year or so ago where there was a new MMO every month and it made huge promises.  They were all MMO's pushed by pretty big studios and were rushed out the door thinking they could beat WoW after Blizzard spent 5+ years setting the bar.  They have mostly died out of switched to F2P when they realized they needed a lot of time to catch up, and that's something that users forget a lot.  WoW launched with 1/100th of the content is has now, and for some reason people expect a brand new game to launch with the same amount of content?  It's stupid to wish for that.

A game I would keep an eye on is Rift.  They are releasing their first expansion which will come with 1 new soul per class, tons of new features and revamps, and 2 new *continents* that are each equal in size to the current game world.  This compounded with the fact that they have released content patches monthly for the last year (only company to do it successfully, WoW still only does it every 3-4 or even 6 months) and actively work with the community to improve the game, makes Trion and Rift by extension an amazing and really impressive company.

TESO has me a bit mixed, initial reactions were pretty poor but previews since then have been pretty positive, so I'm kind of interested.  TSW was an incredible game in a lot of ways, but it was kind of frustrating as well.  The in game atmosphere was better than any game I've ever played, and the missions were insane--especially investigation missions, but it was pretty drawn out and started to get tiring.  I think the problem with TSW was that EA expected it to be a huge success, but it was clear from day one it would always be a niche product (think EVE online style).  EA just cannot handle MMO's; SWTOR, TSW, WAR all failed because EA rushed them out the door, and cut tons of features that people wanted lowering expectations and ruining perception of the games almost immediately.


----------



## Rei86 (Oct 30, 2012)

Rift doesn't look interesting at all.

I had a CE of GW2 on order but canceled because of my new job.

Still eyeing Terra but don't know if it'll be worth my time.  Really love that games concept tho.

Also love how most MMOs are now leaving the Tank-DPS-Healer trifecta


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 30, 2012)

after seeing Medal of Honor: Warfighter i'm more worried about game design than graphics. this obsession publishers have chasing Call of Duty and World of Warcraft has really taken it's toll. indie developers are the only ones making Survival Horror, J/RPG and Platformers. remember the PS2 era? /cries


----------



## Rei86 (Oct 30, 2012)

EA should just give it up.

Should just keep up with the two year development cycle of BF series and just drop MOH.

Graphics is good IMHO and we should now hit TARGET performance and improve AI.  

The PS4 is supposed to be using a Southern Island GPU and most likely the 7970.  It was also rumored to be a APU special since they would ditch the cell in favor for something AMD.

Xbox 720 is rumored to hit with a modded 6950 with a new IBM Power PC.

Wii U is using a evergreen AMD (IE HD5000 series) and is running a IBM cpu also.

So I hope we can see developers on the console side hitting 1080p60.  And with all these easy hardware to develop for we should see development being easy and bad port a non-issue.  Another thing should be that we should have games scaling well if we go from console to PC.

But enough about graphics.  We need them focusing on gameplay, AI and the story.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 30, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> Rift doesn't look interesting at all.
> 
> I had a CE of GW2 on order but canceled because of my new job.
> 
> ...



Rift is actually one of the more fun MMO's, it did basically everything GW2 wanted to do before GW2 did it, and in most cases better.  Randomly generated world events, allowing classes to fill multiple roles based on what soul they choose, and various other things Rift executed perfectly.  I bought GW2, and it's not a bad game, but the only reason I don't feel cheated is because it doesn't have a sub cost.

TERA is a fickle beast.  The combat is a lot of fun, but it can only carry the game so far before you get tired of the fact that it's a traditional Korean MMO, and requires hours of grindy kill quests.  TERA is one of those gmes (along with SWTOR) where I may wait a while and go back to it to see the progress later on.  It's definitely not a bad game, and it's god damn gorgeous, but it's just not a lot of fun to play in its current state.

The "holy trinity" argument never made sense to me.  And any game that claims to have removed it, just managed to hide it.  GW2 for example doesn't really have a dedicated spec or class to tanking (although almost no games have classes dedicated to unified roles these days) but they definitely have classes that excel at it, and there are specific stats you need to stack and skills you need to take to manage it effectively.  Rift probably handles it the best, by making every "Class" have several souls that you can mix and match pretty much allows them to make every class viable for every role (except making Mages tanks as far as I know).  As someone who played DnD as a kid, I see no reason to shy away from that Tank-Healer-DPS model, it's tried and true, and despite what some people think, a lot of people who play certain roles really like them.  I have a friend that loves healing, and friends that love tanking, it's just how they like to play their game.

The only people that get made about the trinity are selfish dps-only players that don't like how hard it is for them to find dungeon groups because they contribute next to nothing otherwise.


----------



## xenocide (Oct 30, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> The PS4 is supposed to be using a Southern Island GPU and most likely the 7970.  It was also rumored to be a APU special since they would ditch the cell in favor for something AMD.
> 
> Xbox 720 is rumored to hit with a modded 6950 with a new IBM Power PC.
> 
> Wii U is using a evergreen AMD (IE HD5000 series) and is running a IBM cpu also.



The PS4 will *NOT* use a 7970-equivalent GPU.  It's more likely to be something to the tune of a 7770.  I also highly doubt they will use an AMD CPU.  It's more likely that they will go for something like a Power7-based PowerPC CPU (so developers embrace the system better due to its similar design to other consoles) and a 7770 level GPU--maybe pushing for 7800-series level performance.  The big limiting factors are cost, power consumption and heat.  You cant shove a massive power hungry GPU into the equivalent of a Micro-ITX case with minimal airflow, and have it run properly.  They would basically end up taking a $300-400 GPU and undervolting and underclocking it to the performance level of a $100 GPU anyway, just to get it to run without catching on fire or requiring multiple power connectors.

As for the Xbox 720 (Codename Durango), it's rumored to use a PowerPC-based CPU with a similar design to Bulldozer almost, running high numbers of threads through Core's with shared resources.  Last I heard they were having some real bad issues with yield, so who knows how it's going these days.  Once again, 6950 is pushing it, more than likely if they go for a 6xxx series-based solution, a 6770 or 6850, or a Southern Islands-based solution, a 7770 or 7750.

The Wii U's a piece of crap.


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 30, 2012)

slow motion breach, vignetting, checkpoint every 10 seconds, quick time events, hand holding, streamlining, scripting, social networking. all the ropes trying to prevent you trading it in.

makes me sick 

there used to be a huge market for platformers but I guess we should be lucky Rayman and Mario are still around. western RPG keep getting more and more streamlined. Call of Duty influence is all over Resident Evil 6 which is a terrible game.

i'm looking forward to the Wii U.


----------



## Rei86 (Oct 30, 2012)

xenocide said:


> The PS4 will *NOT* use a 7970-equivalent GPU.  It's more likely to be something to the tune of a 7770.  I also highly doubt they will use an AMD CPU.  It's more likely that they will go for something like a Power7-based PowerPC CPU (so developers embrace the system better due to its similar design to other consoles) and a 7770 level GPU--maybe pushing for 7800-series level performance.  The big limiting factors are cost, power consumption and heat.  You cant shove a massive power hungry GPU into the equivalent of a Micro-ITX case with minimal airflow, and have it run properly.  They would basically end up taking a $300-400 GPU and undervolting and underclocking it to the performance level of a $100 GPU anyway, just to get it to run without catching on fire or requiring multiple power connectors.
> 
> As for the Xbox 720 (Codename Durango), it's rumored to use a PowerPC-based CPU with a similar design to Bulldozer almost, running high numbers of threads through Core's with shared resources.  Last I heard they were having some real bad issues with yield, so who knows how it's going these days.  Once again, 6950 is pushing it, more than likely if they go for a 6xxx series-based solution, a 6770 or 6850, or a Southern Islands-based solution, a 7770 or 7750.
> 
> The Wii U's a piece of crap.



I highly doubt Sony will play 2nd fiddle and will reach again partly in spec.  I can't see them dipping any lower than a 7870 and most likely we'll get a cut rate 7970~7950.  

And how is the Wii U crap?  For its price its neat hardware.  Tablet controller with hardware that probably sips power and having 2GB of shared ram (compared to Xbox 360 512mb of shared and PS3 256/256 dedicated).


----------



## xenocide (Oct 30, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> I highly doubt Sony will play 2nd fiddle and will reach again partly in spec.  I can't see them dipping any lower than a 7870 and most likely we'll get a cut rate 7970~7950.



Sony's only real hardware problems were a lot greater than having a slightly lower end GPU.  The RSX was a nightmare to program for, Sony's development kits were shit for the first 2-4 years it was out, their distribution of RAM was absurd, and their hardware forced the price of their console through the roof.  Sony has already stated they will not release another Console that costs nearly as much as the PS3 did.  Microsoft sold the 360 at a massive loss for several years, and their parts aside from the GPU were largely cheaper than Sony in every way (very noticable considering it has something like 2-3x the failure rate).  

Now obviously with the cost of Blu-Ray coming down that cuts a huge amount off cost, but it's more than likely Sony will go for a more normal CPU to provide a better environment for multi-platform games, and will use a mid-level GPU to keep costs down and heat\power usage down as well.  A 7970 does none of those things.  It's more likely they honestly will go with a 6xxx series based GPU to the tune of a 6850 since they could buy them in bulk for cheap, and they are well balanced GPU's.  Why on Earth would they get a 7970 or 7950 which has tons of unnecessary and costly GPGPU resources on it for a Gaming Console?  It just doesn't make sense financially or even logically.



Rei86 said:


> And how is the Wii U crap?  For its price its neat hardware.  Tablet controller with hardware that probably sips power and having 2GB of shared ram (compared to Xbox 360 512mb of shared and PS3 256/256 dedicated).



Most of the "launch" titles won't be out until early next year, it is just a 360 CPU with a better GPU and more memory (but RAM is dirt cheap these days anyway), the Tablet controllers can only be used one at a time at launch (and I doubt 2 will ever be useable), there is 0 information available about the online platform Nintendo is building but I assume it's going to be crap just like the Wii's was, it has minimal internal storage, it cannot play Blu-Ray movies or DVD's, you need to use 2 controllers to have a microphone used in most games where you would use it (the "Pro" controller has no microphone port, but the Tablet does), the tablet controller has a really low quality non-multi touch display, the tablet controllers cost $100+ to repair or replace, and a number of other things but most of the things that annoy me are in that list.


----------



## claylomax (Oct 30, 2012)

I blame "none of the above" and I'm not the only one apparently.


----------



## MatTheCat (Oct 30, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> I highly doubt Sony will play 2nd fiddle and will reach again partly in spec.  *I can't see them dipping any lower than a 7870 and most likely we'll get a cut rate 7970~7950.  *



Is there any actual facts being discussed in this thread or is it all just wishful thinking and/or what people would like to be believe? Because I personally, can't see Microsoft dipping any lower than dual 7990's and releasing the xbox720° console with 360° degree visibility helmets. All this for sub €300! I can't wait!


----------



## Perra (Oct 30, 2012)

I'd say its not just the PQ that is getting killed. Games are getting dumbed down, just look at Civ V and XCOM, so silly compared to Civ IV and the original XCOM. (Not as obvious in XCOM as in Civ V though).

Oh and to bring something to the discussion of console gaming vs. pc gaming I give you League of Legends


----------



## BumbleBee (Oct 30, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Sony's only real hardware problems were a lot greater than having a slightly lower end GPU.  The RSX was a nightmare to program for, Sony's development kits were shit for the first 2-4 years it was out, their distribution of RAM was absurd, and their hardware forced the price of their console through the roof.  Sony has already stated they will not release another Console that costs nearly as much as the PS3 did.  Microsoft sold the 360 at a massive loss for several years, and their parts aside from the GPU were largely cheaper than Sony in every way (very noticable considering it has something like 2-3x the failure rate).
> 
> Now obviously with the cost of Blu-Ray coming down that cuts a huge amount off cost, but it's more than likely Sony will go for a more normal CPU to provide a better environment for multi-platform games, and will use a mid-level GPU to keep costs down and heat\power usage down as well.  A 7970 does none of those things.  It's more likely they honestly will go with a 6xxx series based GPU to the tune of a 6850 since they could buy them in bulk for cheap, and they are well balanced GPU's.  Why on Earth would they get a 7970 or 7950 which has tons of unnecessary and costly GPGPU resources on it for a Gaming Console?  It just doesn't make sense financially or even logically.
> 
> ...



no friend codes. online is free. Nintendo is giving publishers freedom to implement their own online solutions instead of following a TCR like Microsoft.

it comes with 32GB of flash memory but you can add any external hard drive you want. the PS3 optical drive reads at 9mb/s but the Wii U reads at 22mb/s so you don't need to install games.


----------



## TheMailMan78 (Oct 30, 2012)

BumbleBee said:


> no friend codes. online is free. Nintendo is giving publishers freedom to implement their own online solutions instead of following a TCR like Microsoft.
> 
> it comes with 32GB of flash memory but you can add any external hard drive you want. the PS3 optical drive reads at 9mb/s but the Wii U reads at 22mb/s so you don't need to install games.



Don't bother Bee.


----------



## Rei86 (Oct 30, 2012)

MatTheCat said:


> Is there any actual facts being discussed in this thread or is it all just wishful thinking and/or what people would like to be believe? Because I personally, can't see Microsoft dipping any lower than dual 7990's and releasing the xbox720° console with 360° degree visibility helmets. All this for sub €300! I can't wait!



None of the stuff I'm talking about is 'wishful' thinking you sarcastic ass.


----------



## RCoon (Oct 30, 2012)

I wouldn't blame drivers, even though you get a few perfomance boosts by a small percentage, the current bleeding edge hardware is more than enough to deal with the most intensive games.
The issue with game devs is that an ENORMOUS amount of their income comes from console games. Like the example above of the amount of players for MW3 on steam compared to XBL, the difference is millions. Those people probably paid $50+ for MW3 on the 360, and the steam users likely paid a little less. Do the maths, if i was a game dev, i wouldnt bother making games for pc to make 30,000+ people happy, I'd rather sap the money from the console players. The AAA titles are all released for consoles because that's what sells.
The issue with the actual console hardware is it's +-7 years old and counting, and those 7 year old machines can run those AAA titles with ease because of the optimisation. The same cant be said for a PC that's 7 years old. Unfortunately when playing those games with what appears to be excellent graphical fidelity, manufacturers dont see the point in advancing hardware to skyhigh limits when they can create a 360 so cheaply to run what the huge population wants.
It's all down to money, what saves it, and what makes it. Not everyone can afford mid to high end gaming rigs to run games when they come out at maximum settings, like crysis, as it costs in excess of a thousand for something brutally awesome, when they can pay a couple of hundred for a generic device that has become so popular. I know every household in my town more than likely has a 360, theyre so cheap.
It's hard to make serious money like that of League of Legends or World of Warcraft on PC. But for consoles, you have yourself a franchise, and consumers throw their money at you incessantly.


----------



## MatTheCat (Oct 30, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> None of the stuff I'm talking about is 'wishful' thinking you sarcastic ass.



Then prove it with reputable links!


----------



## xenocide (Oct 30, 2012)

BumbleBee said:


> no friend codes. online is free. Nintendo is giving publishers freedom to implement their own online solutions instead of following a TCR like Microsoft.
> 
> it comes with 32GB of flash memory but you can add any external hard drive you want. the PS3 optical drive reads at 9mb/s but the Wii U reads at 22mb/s so you don't need to install games.



http://www.heavy.com/games/game-previews/2012/09/wii-u-top-10-facts-you-need-to-know/

#8

And I know you can add external hard drives, but that's an additional purchase driving up the overall cost of the system.  As for Flash Memory there is a 32GB version and 8GB version of the system, the 32GB package is pretty much sold out already, and since Nintendo has artificially limited the amount of systems sold since the SNES to drive up demand, it will probably be a while before any are available at retail price.  The Optical Drive in the PS3 is crappy by todays standards, but installing games should have never really been a necessity.  While having high capacity Blu-Ray discs was nice, only have a 9MB/s drive was crap when even the 360 managed 15MB/s.

Nintendo has yet to actually show the online portion of the Wii U, and I doubt you'll see it until a few days before the system launches.  The whole Online thing is something Nintendo just cannot seem to get working.



Rei86 said:


> None of the stuff I'm talking about is 'wishful' thinking you sarcastic ass.



It's entirely wishful thinking because you have no actual sources to back up your claims.


----------



## Rei86 (Oct 31, 2012)

MatTheCat said:


> Then prove it with reputable links!



Meant to say rumors.

Most insiders pushing out info about the Nintendo Wii U was true.  

We'll see in the coming year when Sony finally announces its Orb spec list.  But again I highly doubt they'll go with a 7660.  Lowest I can see them going at is a personal 7870.



xenocide said:


> While having high capacity Blu-Ray discs was nice, only have a 9MB/s drive was crap when even the 360 managed 15MB/s.



Show me a BR player at the time that had a faster read time than the PS3 for around the same price.

Sony could have gone with DVD route that MS took but look who is hurting who in the console development right now. 
And no it wasn't a "necessity" to have a mandatory install for PS3, that one you can truly say was on developers who did not want to figure a way around it.


----------



## MatTheCat (Nov 1, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> Meant to say rumors.
> 
> Most insiders pushing out info about the Nintendo Wii U was true.
> 
> We'll see in the coming year when Sony finally announces its Orb spec list.  But again I highly doubt they'll go with a 7660.  Lowest I can see them going at is a personal 7870.



Yeah...done a google and there seems to be lots of rumours:

http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/review_microsoft-xbox-720-what-we-know-so-far_1727600

In the above article the author states:

2* AMD 8 Core Bulldozer CPU's
2* AMD's latest 7000 series GPU
Games on Bluray.

Erm...and how much is this console going to cost?

P.S. My favourite 'rumour' is mouse and keyboard compatibility. BS of course, as they would be putting the vast majority of armchair/gamepad gamers at a huge disadvantage in much of thier online gaming.


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 1, 2012)

MatTheCat said:


> Yeah...done a google and there seems to be lots of rumours:
> 
> http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/review_microsoft-xbox-720-what-we-know-so-far_1727600
> 
> ...



400-600 dollars probably.

The PS3 already has keyboard and mouse support, logitech was the biggest pusher of KB/Mouse for the PS3 when it launched.  

CSGO supports KB/Mouse, BF3 used too till patch and you can even use a workaround however to use a KB/Mouse, UT3 has KB/Mouse support, etc etc.

Its just a handful of games but Sony has given that option to developers IF they want to implement it.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 1, 2012)

Lazy game devs. 

I will put up with some issues in PC gaming, as long as they patch it. I will buy DLC, as long as its good. 


I won't buy the trash like Atari, Ubisoft, and a few other companies put out, just due to their underhanded BS business practices. I don't hate a lot, but when a company or person makes it onto that list they are there for a long, long, long time.


----------



## xenocide (Nov 1, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> 400-600 dollars probably.
> 
> The PS3 already has keyboard and mouse support, logitech was the biggest pusher of KB/Mouse for the PS3 when it launched.
> 
> ...



The article he posted is flat out bull shit.  If that article were taken seriously you'd be expecting dual FX-8150's with Crossfired 7970's.  For a PC that would cost upwards of $1000, there's no way you're going to make a $400 console with anything close to that.  I don't think they will stray from PowerPC.

Sony has flat out said they will not sell their next console at such a high price point, probably closer to what the 360 was at launch.  I'd be amazed if any console clears $500 this time around, and would at the same time say any console that does break that is going to be the worst selling one.  Sony is not doing so well in really any of its divisions, and probably wants to bridge the gap between their "hardcore" system and the "casual" Wii to try and get their software sales combined with the Wii's hardware sales.  Microsoft is in a similar boat, 

There are working KB\Mouse setups for every consoles that you can buy if you so choose, but they are really expensive and if you want a KB\Mouse just get the PC version which should logically be better in every way.



Steevo said:


> Lazy game devs.
> 
> I will put up with some issues in PC gaming, as long as they patch it. I will buy DLC, as long as its good.
> 
> ...



So because the Publishers have shitty business practices the developers are to blame?


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 1, 2012)

1- you're a consumer.  You are not a hardware giant buying parts in bulk. 

2- Sony has Stated they're dropping cell and nvidia picking up all AMD for the PS4

3- we're talking about native keyboard/mouse support for the ps3


----------



## MatTheCat (Nov 2, 2012)

xenocide said:


> There are working KB\Mouse setups for every consoles that you can buy if you so choose, but they are really expensive and if you want a KB\Mouse just get the PC version which should logically be better in every way.



Perhaps they are...but if the keyboard/mouse combo in games works as well as it does on the PC, then those (the majority) gaming on gamepads are going to get pwned online....

....Would a console maker really risk alienating the majority of thier customers to please a few?


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 2, 2012)

MatTheCat said:


> Perhaps they are...but if the keyboard/mouse combo in games works as well as it does on the PC, then those (the majority) gaming on gamepads are going to get pwned online....
> 
> ....Would a console maker really risk alienating the majority of thier customers to please a few?



Of course they won't. They're exploiting the ignorance of the console gaming peasants, why would they then alienate a sizable proportion of those with just gamepads and cater to the select few who are trying to mimic the superior PC gaming race by using a kb/mouse combo for their proletariat excuse of a gaming contraption?


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 2, 2012)

MatTheCat said:


> Perhaps they are...but if the keyboard/mouse combo in games works as well as it does on the PC, then those (the majority) gaming on gamepads are going to get pwned online....
> 
> ....Would a console maker really risk alienating the majority of thier customers to please a few?



Didn't we already go over this?

The PS3 already supports Keyboard and Mouse.  Now its up to the developer if they want to put kb/mouse support in their games, than its up to the owner of their PS3 if they want to use it or not if the game supports it.


----------



## Iceni (Nov 2, 2012)

I think it's a combination of a few factors. 

DirectX, Microsoft, And the lack of a unified cross platform hardware standard.

DirectX is a limiting factor because it's only available on 2 of the platforms, Added into that Microsoft actively endorses DirectX with publishers. This means that Open GL doesn't get used for a large proportion of the games industry when Open GL is probably the least restrictive API in terms of platform.

Had Microsoft allowed openGL to function on an xbox then we would see games on more platforms with less cost in development. We would potentially see, Xbox, PS3(open cl), Windows, OSX, and linux. With the harder programming been for the PS3. However since Xbox doesn't allow for the use of open GL we see a game been developed in DX9, then ported to Open CL and then again to DX10-11. 

The lack of a unified hardware standard means bare metal programming is also unusable, as we saw with dos gaming. 

The biggest overall problem comes from the manufacturers and the software limitations they put on there machines. Had DX been available on PS3 it would have been utilised but M$ would never allow that. Had Open GL been available on Xbox then the trend would have swung to open GL. And without the ability or permission to allow a 3rd api to be used as a bridge between both platforms then developers are always going to have to maintain the higher cost of development. 

PC as a development tool gets stuck in the middle, Most games are designed for console simply because consoles have stricter limitations. You can't expect a game to run badly on a console and then force the consumer to upgrade as happens in the PC market. If you get it wrong it will always be wrong. Likewise games developed on just 1 platform tend to be stronger overall. There is always the odd exceptional title that will defy this but overall a stand alone title on 1 platform will make the absolute most of the platform. 


As for console porting killing PC IQ, I think your mistaken, As games are ported up to pc, Not down to console. This is why you see a lot of games appear with DX9-10 standards rather than the DX11 PC standard. Added into that PC's own standards mean that games ported up will make every optimisation for the console look as cut down as they actually are. Wireframes, and textures often show the worst of this, as a higher resolution and the reduction in the distance between user and screen always show off the worst in a game. Wireframes make the perfect example of how hard a Port up can be, since for the most part you have to completely redraw the framework, and this up-scaling is not just on the objects in you view all the time, everything has to be redrawn, Objects, buildings, terrain details, even stupid stuff like explosion debris. The workload is pretty huge.


One of the solutions to the problems at the lower end of the market is using Java, as the program can run on a lot of platforms. Added to that because it is in essence a virtual machine there is no need to create different versions of a game to run on multiple platforms. The Java program is specific to the operating system and hardware, but the function, coding and execution of a program within a Java application is always identical.


----------



## MatTheCat (Nov 2, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> Didn't we already go over this?
> 
> The PS3 already supports Keyboard and Mouse.  Now its up to the developer if they want to put kb/mouse support in their games, than its up to the owner of their PS3 if they want to use it or not if the game supports it.



Oh!?

and what games actually support the keyboard and mouse combination?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 2, 2012)

MatTheCat said:


> Oh!?
> 
> and what games actually support the keyboard and mouse combination?



wouldnt be surprised if its the same games you find on PC which are FPS/TPS based lmao, probably emulates GP input but without the deadzone that a Stick has


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 2, 2012)

PS3:
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
DUST 514
Unreal Tournament 3
That's a LOT. 

Then there's Xim.


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 2, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> 400-600 dollars probably.
> 
> The PS3 already has keyboard and mouse support, logitech was the biggest pusher of KB/Mouse for the PS3 when it launched.
> 
> ...





MatTheCat said:


> Oh!?
> 
> and what games actually support the keyboard and mouse combination?



 /golfclap at actually reading other peoples post



entropy13 said:


> PS3:
> Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
> DUST 514
> Unreal Tournament 3
> ...



Once again its up to the developers as Sony does allow it


----------



## MatTheCat (Nov 2, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> /golfclap at actually reading other peoples post



But I did read other peoples posts. I read this one for example:



entropy13 said:


> PS3:
> Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
> DUST 514
> Unreal Tournament 3
> ...



So, there exists the gesture of keyboard and mouse support on a paltry three titles...and then there is the question of how well it works. Having a game engine respond to gamepad input is a very different thing from having it responding ot mouse input at up to 5000 dpi. I know this from many bad experiences with poor console ports. 

Having consoles with keyboard/mouse support as it is done on PC, is going to create a very uneven playing field across its user base. I can see a lot of resistance to this ever coming to *true* fruition from many quarters. Console producers and big developers alike prefer a homogenous user base.


----------



## xenocide (Nov 3, 2012)

MatTheCat said:


> So, there exists the gesture of keyboard and mouse support on a paltry three titles...



Two of which just recently came to be.  Dust 541 as far as I know just entered beta, and I never heard if CSGO launched on Consoles when it did on PC.  UT3 has been around for ages, but from what I heard it's garbage anyway.


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 3, 2012)

MatTheCat said:


> But I did read other peoples posts. I read this one for example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So now that it does support it, the resolutions of speed of your keyboard/mouse reaction is the issue.  What's next?  The PS3 can't play HD-DVD like your PC is gonna be called into question?

Once again I'll make this clear.

Sony. Allows. Developers. To. Program. Keyboard. And. Mouse. Support. IF. They. Want. Too.

Done since it feels like all I'm doing is this


----------



## MatTheCat (Nov 3, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> So now that it does support it, the resolutions of speed of your keyboard/mouse reaction is the issue.  What's next?  The PS3 can't play HD-DVD like your PC is gonna be called into question?
> 
> Once again I'll make this clear.
> 
> ...



You are banging your head because you are trying to portray a picture that has no place in reality.

You arguing as if Mouse/keyboard in console games is old hat....like its all the rage....but it barely even fkn exists and I bet that it is a horrible experience to boot.

Therefore, the M/K support in consoles is, as things stand, totally fkn irrelevant. Yet you are making out like it all been done before, works great, etc etc.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 3, 2012)

MatTheCat said:


> You are banging your head because you are trying to portray a picture that has no place in reality.
> 
> You arguing as if Mouse/keyboard in console games is old hat....like its all the rage....but it barely even fkn exists and I bet that it is a horrible experience to boot.
> 
> Therefore, the M/K support in consoles is, as things stand, totally fkn irrelevant. Yet you are making out like it all been done before, works great, etc etc.



yall read what the PS4 will have and who knows what the WiiU has.


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 3, 2012)

After this post your idea of supporting a keyboard and mouse was an impossibility and just of this world 

"A Console with Keyboard and Mouse support?  NO WAI that'll EVER HAPPEN!"




MatTheCat said:


> Yeah...done a google and there seems to be lots of rumours:
> 
> http://www.dnaindia.com/scitech/review_microsoft-xbox-720-what-we-know-so-far_1727600
> 
> ...



But now you know that the PS3 does support it, your answer is



MatTheCat said:


> But I did read other peoples posts. I read this one for example:
> 
> 
> 
> ...







MatTheCat said:


> You are banging your head because you are trying to portray a picture that has no place in reality.
> 
> You arguing as if Mouse/keyboard in console games is old hat....like its all the rage....but it barely even fkn exists and I bet that it is a horrible experience to boot.
> 
> Therefore, the M/K support in consoles is, as things stand, totally fkn irrelevant. Yet you are making out like it all been done before, works great, etc etc.



Since your so thick here it is again.



Rei86 said:


> *Sony. Allows. Developers. To. Program. Keyboard. And. Mouse. Support. IF. They. Want. Too.*



Done beating this dead horse :shadedshu


----------



## lyndonguitar (Nov 4, 2012)

I selected Weak Spec Consoles. its not about the "Lazy Developers" I know there are some really lazy console to pc developers like Rockstar or the one who made Dark Souls(worst port all-time) but most are really just limited to the Console lead platform modern games have.

We know for a fact that Consoles are the top dog right now in the gaming world and the leading platform, not that its better, but its applicable for everyone, you don't need 1000$ PCs, you don't need tech knowledge.. just buy the console, buy a game, play. easy as pie.

So we could solve that by releasing new consoles, graphics/performance/gameplay would go up, again the Console as the lead platform, but with better specs = means better experience on PC too. The problem would be back again after five years.

The ultimate solution to this is "Release Consoles more often"


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 4, 2012)

lyndonguitar said:


> I selected Weak Spec Consoles. its not about the "Lazy Developers" I know there are some really lazy console to pc developers like Rockstar or the one who made Dark Souls(worst port all-time) but most are really just limited to the Console lead platform modern games have.



I actually have to defend Dark Souls.

From Software didn't have too but they took it upon themselves to port the game.  It was their 1st ever PC port and was only done so because the fan petition.  That should mean something as a developer was willing to work on a product WITH ZERO knowledge that they would get anything in return just because the fans asked for it.

Time constants to push out the release is one reason for the poor optimization and most likely the reason we got 720 vs 1080.  But the fact that major issues that the console version had where fixed shows that FS did try.  
Could they have fixed that at least the resolution issue?  They should have but are you a coder and know the time/work it takes in porting a game?

The 30 fps issue is a limitation with the engine.  The physics runs at 30 fps and the network runs at 30 fps.  So, if you the user saw more than 30 fps you would see glitched out physics and network lag.  The whole game was built around it.


----------



## KainXS (Nov 4, 2012)

I have to agree with that they need to release consoles more often instead of milking them for all they are worth, if a console game out every 4 years I would buy it, if it was worth it.


----------



## Mussels (Nov 4, 2012)

what they NEED to do, is release new consoles that play the old games, just with smoother FPS/higher res/AA.


obviously the shortcuts they make designing games to run at set FPS and such screw with this, but thats what people would want. fire up the old classics looking better than ever with the new controllers (or the old ones, even) and bam, happy consumers.


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 4, 2012)

God we hear this shit all the time. It really can be blamed on lazy developers and dictatorship publishers.


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 4, 2012)

KainXS said:


> I have to agree with that they need to release consoles more often instead of milking them for all they are worth, if a console game out every 4 years I would buy it, if it was worth it.



So you want more Apple products?


----------



## lyndonguitar (Nov 4, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> So you want more Apple products?



apple products release every year with medium to little upgrade at all.

Four years is a balanced span, especially if it has backwards compatibility all the way to the first console as Mussels said. 

It will just be a Streamlined Gaming PC that releases every four years for all intents and purposes.


----------



## xenocide (Nov 4, 2012)

lyndonguitar said:


> I know there are some really lazy console to pc developers like Rockstar



Uhhhh, explain to me how Rockstar has made lazy ports?  The GTAIV port was excellent.  I think the problem with that game especially was that people seem to think "Optimized" means it runs super smooth super easily, but "Optimized" really means it makes full use of the available hardware--which GTAIV did.  The only problem was that there were a lot of settings to fiddle with because it was a proper PC port, and some of the more inconspicuous ones had huge impacts on performance.  If GTAIV were a poor port, it wouldn't have hundreds of PC-exclusive options or a very impressive mod kit.  If anything, Rockstar is one of the *best* companies when it comes to PC ports.

The only other companies that have done nearly as much work in recent years was Gearbox with Borderlands 2, and the company that made Sleeping Dogs, which I heard was an amazing port thanks to Square-Enix pushing developers to hire a whole team to handle PC Ports.



lyndonguitar said:


> Four years is a balanced span, especially if it has backwards compatibility all the way to the first console as Mussels said.



This is currently the longest generation of consoles to date.  I think on average it was 4-5 years, and we're currently closing in on the 8th year of this generation, and Sony and MS haven't even announced their new systems.  In addition to that, they have already stated they support the 7+ year console cycle.


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 4, 2012)

lyndonguitar said:


> apple products release every year with medium to little upgrade at all.
> 
> Four years is a balanced span, especially if it has backwards compatibility all the way to the first console as Mussels said.
> 
> It will just be a Streamlined Gaming PC that releases every four years for all intents and purposes.



We're on a five year cycle.

The only reason why this generation is running long is because MS fked it all up since they jumped the gun (had to beat Sony) and we hit a economical rut.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Nov 4, 2012)

xenocide said:


> Uhhhh, explain to me how Rockstar has made lazy ports?  The GTAIV port was excellent.



Hmm I might be mistaken when I said Rockstar and From Software was lazy as an example but my main point is "its not about the Lazy Developers" so I kinda agree with you here



Rei86 said:


> We're on a five year cycle.
> 
> The only reason why this generation is running long is because MS fked it all up since they jumped the gun (had to beat Sony) and we hit a economical rut.



Exactly


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Nov 4, 2012)

I think there are two or three fundamental points that have been argued recently.
1) Consoles need to be released more often.
2) PC gaming is not supported as much as consoles.
3) Mouse and keyboard support differ from gamepad input so substantially that it isn't funny.


There's a laundry list of responses here, but I'll touch on my favorites.
1) Consoles released more frequently would have to start making compromises.  Less GPU integration, less code optimization, and looser security.  A console with all of these things is a PC.  The difference is my $500 PC can be upgraded with a new GPU once it gets old.  My $500 console needs to be replaced, and my entire game library might be worthless upon replacement.

Additionally, developers like consoles because they aren't prone to change.  Remove this, and the developer looks back to PCs.  

Licensing fees are high.  You pay MS, Sony, and Nintendo to certify games.  Imagine certifications when you have three generations of hardware in the wild for each brand.  You might as well not develop anything, between expanded coding costs and testing.


2) Do you really think Steam is "less supportive" than Sony and MS?  I have to say that AAA titles do prefer consoles.  Truly innovative and non-formulaic games reside on the PC.  We can argue until blue in the face, but it's the objective truth.  


3) Yes, it's difficult.  No, it's not impossible.  Saying that the mouse cannot be nerfed, or have the input automatically scaled to match the input rate of a gamepad is giving up before even trying to solve the problem.


----------



## xenocide (Nov 4, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> We're on a five year cycle.
> 
> The only reason why this generation is running long is because MS fked it all up since they jumped the gun (had to beat Sony) and we hit a economical rut.



It's definitely not a five year cycle, and Sony plans on supporting the PS3 _through at least 2014_.  They have been saying since 2006 when the PS3 launched in NA that they had planned on it lasting for 10 whole years--twice as long as previous console cycles.

Microsoft expected Kinect would buy them some time but it hasn't seen the adoption they wanted, and people are starting to tire of no versions of games on old hardware.  When this generation of consoles came out Sony was _the_ company to beat considering how insanely successful the PS2 was, so you can't fault them for wanting to get the console they threw together at the last minute out before them and try and snag as many potential buyers as possible.  Here's what Microsoft thinks of this console cycle:



			
				Albert Penello said:
			
		

> "If you build a great piece of hardware that is designed with real game developers in mind and provides services that publishers, developers, and creators can use," said Albert Penello, the senior director of Xbox product management, "and you have a group of people who are passionate about gaming and the industry, like Xbox 360 does, you can outlive the cycle."



Check out this article.  Skip to Steve Peterson's portion.  30% drop in Console sales (both Software and Hardware) year over year for the past 4 years.  This long console cycle shit is bad business.  Sure, they are still doing fine since their consoles are now ridiculously cheap to manufacture and software sales (especially first party games) are doing great, but as a whole, consumers are bored of their dated consoles at this point.  I haven't played a game on my PS3 in almost 6 months, I've only seen a single person on it playing the new FIFA every so often in that same time frame.  My friends and I used to get games at launch and play online (mostly MW2 and FIFA games) but now we never bother mentioning it because nobody wants to shell out $60 for something we'll play for a weekend then ignore.

Square-Enix hates this long console cycle.
Ubisoft hates this long console cycle.


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 4, 2012)

xenocide said:


> It's definitely not a five year cycle, and Sony plans on supporting the PS3 _through at least 2014_.  They have been saying since 2006 when the PS3 launched in NA that they had planned on it lasting for 10 whole years--twice as long as previous console cycles.



Its been a Five year cycle for very long time.  Nintendo is following the path and is launching the Wii U this year.

The only reason why Sony isn't launching is because they're waiting for MS and MS is waiting for Sony.  However we all know the talks in the back is happening with a new console announcement happening probably in 2013 E3.

Playstation Launch date fall 1994
Playstation 2 fall 2000
Playstation 3 fall 2006

SNES 1991
N64 1996
Gamecube 2001
Wii 2006
Wii U 2012



xenocide said:


> Microsoft expected Kinect would buy them some time but it hasn't seen the adoption they wanted, and people are starting to tire of no versions of games on old hardware.  When this generation of consoles came out Sony was _the_ company to beat considering how insanely successful the PS2 was, so you can't fault them for wanting to get the console they threw together at the last minute out before them and try and snag as many potential buyers as possible.



I don't know what you're talking about, the Kinect is a huge seller.

And yes I agree with what MS was thinking.  Being the first out the door with a reasonable price allowed them into as many homes, but still doesn't change the fact that jumping the gun is the reason why we're still waiting.


----------



## xenocide (Nov 4, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> Its been a Five year cycle for very long time.  Nintendo is following the path and is launching the Wii U this year.
> 
> The only reason why Sony isn't launching is because they're waiting for MS and MS is waiting for Sony.  However we all know the talks in the back is happening with a new console announcement happening probably in 2013 E3.



Even Nintendo held out for an extra year, but with Wii hardware sales plummeting they rushed to get the Wii U out a little earlier than they intended, otherwise I guarantee it would have been announced about the time the PS4 and X720 will be.  I don't know that either company is really waiting that much, like I said, Sony stated they wanted the PS3 to be around for 10 years, and have been saying it since launch, Microsoft never really comments on these things, but they seem to think they can squeeze more out of the 360, so I don't expect an announcement from them until 2013.



Rei86 said:


> I don't know what you're talking about, the Kinect is a huge seller.
> 
> And yes I agree with what MS was thinking.  Being the first out the door with a reasonable price allowed them into as many homes, but still doesn't change the fact that jumping the gun is the reason why we're still waiting.



I was talking about Kinect's ability to breath new life into the system--which it failed to do.  Microsoft expected it to be wildly popular, so much so that when it was announced at E3 2009 it was the centerpiece of Microsoft's presentation.  They have sold a lot of Kinect units, but the major problem is that the games for it are still mediocre at best.  The only ones bringing in money are Just Dance and Dance Central--the prior being pivitol to the Wii's software sales.  You could probably buy a Wii and every Just Dance game for the price of an Xbox 360 with a Kinect.


----------



## Rei86 (Nov 4, 2012)

Which is sad because no console accessory has been successful in the way of getting developers to make something worthwhile.

Playstation 2 HDD anyone?  
32X?
The Power Glove?


----------



## j924 (Nov 4, 2012)

pantherx12 said:


> More games for PC with off-line multi-player would help a lot.
> One of the most annoying things is having a racing game or some such and only having online as an option, should be able to bust in two or more controllers and have at it.


Sucks. I remember when developers started dropping LAN support from their games. LAN parties were a big thing 10 yrs ago & way fun, hell I even remember when ppl would hook up a few vanilla Xboxes & play Halo, now nobody does that any more. Everything is online now.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Nov 4, 2012)

Rei86 said:


> Which is sad because no console accessory has been successful in the way of getting developers to make something worthwhile.
> 
> Playstation 2 HDD anyone?
> 32X?
> The Power Glove?



Kinect??? Move?


----------



## xenocide (Nov 4, 2012)

lyndonguitar said:


> Kinect??? Move?



Kinect actually did sell pretty well, but the problem now is that making games for it is pretty difficult since you can only use body motion for controls.  With no buttons it's near impossible to make anything complex, hence why you have a bunch of dancing games and simplistic sports games... as well as some about petting furry fuzzy wuzzy animals.

The Move on the other hand did terribly, and Sony's book reader thing probably won't do wonderfully.  I think the only real successful accessories in terms of sales have been the Kinect and maybe the Wii Fit Board thing.  There was also the NES light gun, but there really has never been anything that recieved a ton of support from everyone.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 4, 2012)

Old Console Emulation is done best by a Desktop LMAO.


----------



## BumbleBee (Nov 4, 2012)

a company makes USB dongles that let you plug in original NES, SNES, Genesis controllers but I doubt people who use emulators go through that much trouble. a PC can't replicate the magic a original audio chip makes and no matter how many filters you apply your still playing it on a LCD monitor. I think emulators are great at preserving games but that's all.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 4, 2012)

honestly though I noticed a major difference in Emulators on PC vs Emulation done by current consoles, the current consoles suck


----------



## BumbleBee (Nov 4, 2012)

eidairaman1 said:


> honestly though I noticed a major difference in Emulators on PC vs Emulation done by current consoles, the current consoles suck



you mean like the Sega games on Steam?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Nov 4, 2012)

BumbleBee said:


> you mean like the Sega games on Steam?



the emulators current consoles use ive noticed, tend to be very buggy/slow.


----------



## chinmi (Nov 4, 2012)

well... console users is more then pc gamer user... so i guess most game will gonna be aimed for console users first....


----------



## lyndonguitar (Nov 4, 2012)

chinmi said:


> well... console users is more then pc gamer user... so i guess most game will gonna be aimed for console users first....



yes, that's why the best solution is to just release consoles every 5 or so years and make them backwards compatible with at least the last 2 gen consoles. PC games would just "ride along" the consoles and we get better overall experience along the way

but seriously, I miss the days when PCs are the lead platforms. Make a game for PC, then port it to consoles, If it doesn't work, then fuck it we don't release it, If the developer is kind enough, make a completely seperate version for the consoles.

I miss games like Battlefield, Max Payne, Half-Life, COD, etc. (talking bout pre-7th gen games)

now its the opposite. make a Console game, then port it to PCs especially if it sells bad, improve a few textures here and there. and its done!

Thats why I really like companies who love to support PC gaming, with games like Total War, Minecraft, GMOD, MMORPGs, Strategy games...and companies like Stardock, Bohemia, Valve, indie-developers, and etc.


----------



## xenocide (Nov 5, 2012)

There are plenty of games that are handled well on PC, but I think it's really just starting to sink in that in order to get PC Gamers to buy your game, it has to be a good port/version.  People don't want to play a dumbed down version of the game with no customization and counter-intuitive controls.  Whenever I see a game that I have to tab through the menus like a fucking BIOS menu, I want to throw my monitor out the window.


----------

