# Rockstar Games "Considers" GTA V Wii U and PC Versions



## btarunr (Nov 20, 2012)

Rockstar Games' biggest title for 2013, Grand Theft Auto V (GTA V) is slated to arrive in Spring 2013, for Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 platforms, with no PC version, much to the dismay of PC gamers and enthusiasts. In an interview with IGN, Rockstar Vice President Dan Houser suggested that versions of the game for the Nintendo Wii U and PC are "up for consideration," a cleverly constructed phrase that settles quite a bit of uncertainty. It shows that Rockstar hasn't even begun work on a PC version of GTA V.

"We are a third-party publisher. We're not Nintendo, we're not Sony, we're not Microsoft. We love all of them in different ways. But we can do what we want wherever there's the appropriate business opportunity and chance to find a market," said Houser. "Some other people talk about the limitations of the [current] hardware. We don't feel there are that many limitations. We feel we can do some very impressive stuff and do it for a large audience. This felt like the way," he added.





*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Ikaruga (Nov 20, 2012)

And perhaps I will "consider" buying it, when it's confirmed that it won't poop into my CPU.


----------



## Widjaja (Nov 20, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> And perhaps I will "consider" buying it, when it's confirmed that it won't poop into my CPU.



Their track record says it will.


----------



## AndreiD (Nov 20, 2012)

I have full confidence in Rockstart that they will do their best to invest as little resources into porting GTA V to PC as possible. So not interested.


----------



## Atom_Anti (Nov 20, 2012)

A well optimized PC version please, otherwise I'll have to wait for 5+ years to play with... I still do not play the GTA4, because not even the "new" A10-4600M strong enough to turn all the details to very-high near 1366X... Shame .


----------



## Auryx (Nov 20, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> And perhaps I will "consider" buying it, when it's confirmed that it won't poop into my CPU.



^ This.

I seriously hope that they won't release another crappy console port. Release a proper PC game or don't release anything at all.


----------



## Shihab (Nov 20, 2012)

btarunr said:


> "Some other people talk about the limitations of the [current] hardware. We don't feel there are that many limitations. We feel we can do some very impressive stuff and do it for a large audience. This felt like the way,"



What you feel is irrelevant to what it is. What your consumers feel however is relevant. If you'd think PC gamers and Nintendo fans will keep taking this crap of yours forever then you sir are gravely mistaken.

Blah, why can't the gaming industry go back to it's earlier days? Less emphasize on Money grubbing, more on innovation.


----------



## blibba (Nov 20, 2012)

Auryx said:


> ^ This.
> 
> I seriously hope that they won't release another crappy console port. Release a proper PC game or don't release anything at all.




Nothing at all it is then...


----------



## erocker (Nov 20, 2012)

Interesting interpretation (that I agree with) found on another website:



> Everything else is up for consideration. That's all I can give you." means "We're definitely doing a PC version but we're not gonna announce it now because we want as many people as possible to buy the console versions instead of pirating a PC version. Once the console versions have been out for a while and the cash flow starts to slow down then we'll start tapping PC gamers for their money too.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Nov 20, 2012)

That doesn't make any sense. If you bought it for a console thinking it wouldn't be on the pc then you're just going to be more inclined to pirate it on the pc.


----------



## 3870x2 (Nov 20, 2012)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> That doesn't make any sense. If you bought it for a console thinking it wouldn't be on the pc then you're just going to be more inclined to pirate it on the pc.



Remember that they already *purchased* the game on the console.  That is, opposed to not purchasing and instead waiting to pirate it.


----------



## GSquadron (Nov 20, 2012)

I don't get it why IGN???


----------



## LDNL (Nov 20, 2012)

IMO wouldn't a situation like this just make the guys that were originally gonna purchase the game for PC more pissed and just pirate it since console gamers get special treatment?


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Nov 20, 2012)

cant blame them... people dont buy GTA for the PC they pirate it... why waste money porting it to PC just to give it away.

I could careless about GTA... I have played them and I think they are stupid. think it is a idiotatic game for idiots to play. so let the console gamers play it


----------



## the54thvoid (Nov 20, 2012)

Give it 5 years and we wont even have consoles.  

Tablets will be in charge.

The we'll get a tablet dock that ends up looking like a laptop again.  Except that dock has more functional parts and other exotics we haven't considered yet.

Like an i-pad docking keyboard with 10 TB SSD storage with built in wireless telephony device.

(Please keep this post as proof of my pre patent idea).  Apple - I will sue you when you make the device for home gaming and integrate a wireless telephony device with built in 2-way ultra speed (low latency) camera.

At the moment we call it a PC with Skype.

5 years folks, we'll be back here.


----------



## Sir B. Fannybottom (Nov 20, 2012)

erocker said:


> Interesting interpretation (that I agree with) found on another website:



If they want to limit the amount of pirates then sell it for PC too, if It would come out day 1 for pc hell yeah I'm going to pay the full $60 for it. But if they're going to be assholes they can bet their ass I'm going to pirate the hell out of it for 360 and PC.


----------



## theubersmurf (Nov 20, 2012)

_If_ they make a PC version, it will be a shoddy port anyway, I don't care. Let them ditch us, they have for a long time now anyway.


----------



## 3870x2 (Nov 20, 2012)

the54thvoid said:


> Give it 5 years and we wont even have consoles.
> 
> Tablets will be in charge.
> 
> ...


You see, the thing about a patent idea, is that it has to be patented.


----------



## nickbaldwin86 (Nov 20, 2012)

3870x2 said:


> You see, the thing about a patent idea, is that it has to be patented.



Yup
You can steal an idea but you cant steal a patent


----------



## TheDeeGee (Nov 20, 2012)

If the PC version runs as crap as GTA 4 they can keep their shit.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 20, 2012)

I will consider not pirating it.


----------



## TheDeeGee (Nov 20, 2012)

nickbaldwin86 said:


> cant blame them... people dont buy GTA for the PC they pirate it... why waste money porting it to PC just to give it away.
> 
> I could careless about GTA... I have played them and I think they are stupid. think it is a idiotatic game for idiots to play. so let the console gamers play it



If they made a good port people might buy it, but not that shit they did with GTA 4.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 20, 2012)

> Whaa Whaa Whaa GTAIV was a crappy port.



Seriously, give it a rest, it wasn't unoptimized, it wasn't a poor port, for what it was it ran extremely well.  No other game, even to this day, has dozens of fully destructible vehicles and NPCs on screen constantly.  Of course that is going to be CPU intensive.  THAT IS WHY THEY GIVE YOU THE OPTION TO TURN THE NUMBER DOWN.  That is also the reason that the settings used for consoles were basically low.

If all you idiots cared about was the ability to run it on max settings on your mid-range hardware, then the only thing Rockstar would have had to do to optimize the game would be to limit max settings.  Make what they called medium the max, and you all would have been happy.  The game would have run perfectly fine on mid-range hardware on "max" settings.  And you all would have talked about how well "optimized" the game was.  And it still would have looked way better than 720p Low settings we got on the consoles.

The fact of the matter is that when the PC version game out I played through it on a Athlon X2 4400+ and an HD4670, and it looked better than the console versions.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 20, 2012)

erocker said:


> Interesting interpretation (that I agree with) found on another website:



Why both the PS3 and XBOX are hacked to play downloaded versions for the game.


----------



## JNUKZ (Nov 20, 2012)

I just sold my ps3 oh well...
Also they can pirate in ps3 and xbox 360 but we cant compare to pc. If this gta is just like IV im not going to buy it thats for sure.


----------



## Mindweaver (Nov 20, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Seriously, give it a rest, it wasn't unoptimized, it wasn't a poor port, for what it was it ran extremely well.  No other game, even to this day, has dozens of fully destructible vehicles and NPCs on screen constantly.  Of course that is going to be CPU intensive.  THAT IS WHY THEY GIVE YOU THE OPTION TO TURN THE NUMBER DOWN.  That is also the reason that the settings used for consoles were basically low.
> 
> If all you idiots cared about was the ability to run it on max settings on your mid-range hardware, then the only thing Rockstar would have had to do to optimize the game would be to limit max settings.  Make what they called medium the max, and you all would have been happy.  The game would have run perfectly fine on mid-range hardware on "max" settings.  And you all would have talked about how well "optimized" the game was.  And it still would have looked way better than 720p Low settings we got on the consoles.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that when the PC version game out I played through it on a Athlon X2 4400+ and an HD4670, and it looked better than the console versions.



Yea, it looked great on my Q9550 @3.8ghz and GTX285. If you turned it up it looked amazing. I need to go through this again with my 2600k @ 4.5ghz /w GTX570.. hehehe I want to play through Mafia 2 as well. 

*EDIT: SSD should help with this game as well! *


----------



## sutyi (Nov 20, 2012)

They haven't given a flying crap about the PC gaming community in the last couple of years. To be honest I found it a miracle that LA Noire got ported to the PC platform...


----------



## douglatins (Nov 20, 2012)

Considers = Crap bad port


----------



## MxPhenom 216 (Nov 20, 2012)

People need to chill with the bad optimization and crappy port talk. Upgrade your $400 systems and deal with it.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 20, 2012)

Bunch of cry babies as they doubt the need for so much RAM, VRAM and cores to process the logic behind the awesome that is GTA4. I wonder how much more you would have cried if there would have been load screens every few blocks, or no subways, NPC, cars, police, and much else.


I bought it, and have bought almost all the other editions, and would buy GTA5 if they make it available within reason.


----------



## Edgarstrong (Nov 20, 2012)

I'll buy when the full edition including DLC's is at 75% off on Steam.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Nov 20, 2012)

"Theres not that many limitations" yes GTA V can run on consoles but I don't want to play @ 30FPS with occasional drops. I need PC


----------



## DannibusX (Nov 20, 2012)

Don't care about PC GTA5, I want PC Red Dead Redemption.

GTA4 ran fine on all of my systems.  There were some slow downs from time to time, but it looks and played great.


----------



## Shihab (Nov 20, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> No other game, even to this day, has dozens of fully destructible vehicles and NPCs on screen constantly.



Mafia, Mafia II, Sleeping Dogs, Saints Row:The Third, and -though not with so many vehicles- Prototype. Not to mention previous versions of the game.

Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but the game's "un"optimization was too provocative. So I think us PC gamers have the right to voice our complaints. You can't just justify Rockstar selling games they obviously never bothered to break a sweat porting by saying there are/were no games with the same gameplay 



sutyi said:


> They haven't given a flying crap about the PC gaming community in the last couple of years. To be honest I found it a miracle that LA Noire got ported to the PC platform...



They did Max Payne 3 good. Way oversized, but at least they gave the PC platform some love.


----------



## sutyi (Nov 20, 2012)

Shihabyooo said:


> They did Max Payne 3 good. Way oversized, but at least they gave the PC platform some love.



True that. Forgot about Max Payne 3.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 20, 2012)

Shihabyooo said:


> Mafia, Mafia II, Sleeping Dogs, Saints Row:The Third, and -though not with so many vehicles- Prototype. Not to mention previous versions of the game.
> 
> Not trying to be a smart ass or anything, but the game's "un"optimization was too provocative. So I think us PC gamers have the right to voice our complaints. You can't just justify Rockstar selling games they obviously never bothered to break a sweat porting by saying there are/were no games with the same gameplay



Ok, I'll say that there are some games that have matched it recently, so I kind of misspoke, but those games came out at least 2 years after GTA 4 was released on the PC.  Mafia is an exception, but the original Mafia didn't come close to doing what GTA 4 did, you were lucky to get 10 cars on screen at the same time, as the same with NPCs.  But the more recent games are comparable to GTA 4.

However, the game still wasn't unoptimized. It ran very well on the PC, it ran on low end PCs very well, that shows they put some time into optimization.  Again, the fact that I ran it, with it looking better than consoles, on a mid-range system when it was released is a testimony to the fact that they did put time into optimizing it.

People bitched because they couldn't play it at max settings, but your post points to the fact that it took other games 2+ years to reach the same level as GTA4.  The developers said when they released the game that they designed it beyond what the hardware of the day was capable of, they allowed the options of the engine to exceed what current hardware could handle.  They knew that.  But they also allowed the settings to go extremely low, and the game ran very well on low-end hardware, and looked good too.  That is what defines an optimized game.  It isn't the fact that max settings can be played on high end hardware, but that the game is playable and looks good on current hardware.  If you think max settings being playable is the only test of an optimized game, then all Rockstar had to do to optimize the game would be to cut all the options in half and call those max.  BAM, I just optimized the game to your definition in 5 seconds.

They didn't do a crappy port, crappy ports are what we are getting now, ones that don't even let us raise the graphics options beyond what they were on consoles.  Rockstar letting us set the settings as high as we wanted, way beyond what consoles are capable of is a good thing, and idiots just bitched about how max settings were too high.


----------



## timmyisme22 (Nov 21, 2012)

Edgarstrong said:


> I'll buy when the full edition including DLC's is at 75% off on Steam.



I'll probably do the same.. but that's just because you and I both are cheap bastards with limited money.  That's life.


----------



## Iceni (Nov 21, 2012)

I'd be worried about his one TBF. The lead programmer (Matt Shepcar) on the previous GTA games for console went and set up double eleven a few years ago along with a few other accredited people from the GTA projects (Lee Hutchinson) . It could be why there is no PC version, If the consoles were proving labour some to get sorted within budget then the PC is the platform that will be cut.

Matt has just had a very real success with the rest of double11 with the success of little big planet on the PSV. I still need to pop in and have a Guinness with him 

Oh before you flame my bud he never touched any of the PC versions, Just the console variants.


----------



## Ikaruga (Nov 21, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> it wasn't unoptimized, it wasn't a poor port, for what it was it ran extremely well.



If you can say things like that, I'm confident to state that *you have absolutely no idea, (none whatsoever!)* about the capabilities and the processing power of a modern PC, and the tasks what a video game might demand from a given platform.
The game was so horribly coded (just like 90% of all the Rockstar games), it was and is beyond repair. I had a good PC that time, but I remember that I hacked in some configs what made the game look like something from the Playstation-1, and it was still choppy.
I bet that if you would replace the entire (also unoptimized) graphics engine of the game with an engine what would only draw shaded boxes for everything (cars, NPCs, houses, etc, nothing but boxes without textures), it would still run like boiling crap.


----------



## reverze (Nov 21, 2012)

timmyisme22 said:


> I'll probably do the same.. but that's just because you and I both are cheap bastards with limited money.  That's life.



Should only take a few weeks, right?


----------



## FYFI13 (Nov 21, 2012)

Oh well, i'll consider if i buy another "Rockstar Games" game ever.


----------



## natr0n (Nov 21, 2012)

when they finish milking the console versions after a year then dlc and such when the console cow runs dry then PC will get it.


----------



## v12dock (Nov 21, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> If you can say things like that, I'm confident to state that *you have absolutely no idea, (none whatsoever!)* about the capabilities and the processing power of a modern PC, and the tasks what a video game might demand from a given platform.
> The game was so horribly coded (just like 90% of all the Rockstar games), it was and is beyond repair. I had a good PC that time, but I remember that I hacked in some configs what made the game look like something from the Playstation-1, and it was still choppy.
> I bet that if you would replace the entire (also unoptimized) graphics engine of the game with an engine what would only draw shaded boxes for everything (cars, NPCs, houses, etc, nothing but boxes without textures), it would still run like boiling crap.



PC have a A LOT more overhead than consoles. Even with an Athlon X2 with a 8800gt I was able to run at medium settings. There must have been wrong with your computer.


----------



## St.Alia-Of-The-Knife (Nov 21, 2012)

v12dock said:


> PC have a A LOT more overhead than consoles. Even with an Athlon X2 with a 8800gt I was able to run at medium settings. There must have been wrong with your computer.



there must also have been a memory leak as severe as a fat man on laxatives


----------



## entropy13 (Nov 21, 2012)

Shihabyooo said:


> They did Max Payne 3 good. Way oversized, but at least they gave the PC platform some love.





sutyi said:


> True that. Forgot about Max Payne 3.



Most probably because Max Payne 3 were made by four Rockstar studios (Vancouver, New England, Toronto, London), compared to GTA's one (Rockstar North).


----------



## EpicShweetness (Nov 21, 2012)

Was gonna point out Max Payne 3, but never mind. If they do as good of a job with GTA5 as they did with the optimization of Max Payne 3 I'll consider it. I didn't think they could get a GTX 460 with a I5 750 to run playable at max tessellation, SOMEHOW!


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 21, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> If you can say things like that, I'm confident to state that *you have absolutely no idea, (none whatsoever!)* about the capabilities and the processing power of a modern PC, and the tasks what a video game might demand from a given platform.
> The game was so horribly coded (just like 90% of all the Rockstar games), it was and is beyond repair. I had a good PC that time, but I remember that I hacked in some configs what made the game look like something from the Playstation-1, and it was still choppy.
> I bet that if you would replace the entire (also unoptimized) graphics engine of the game with an engine what would only draw shaded boxes for everything (cars, NPCs, houses, etc, nothing but boxes without textures), it would still run like boiling crap.



As v12Dock says, something must have been wrong with your computer.  Because as I've pointed out, I played through the game without issue on an Athlon X2 4400+(a processor that was 3 years old when GTA4 came out) and an HD4670(admitted a current gen card when GTA4 came out, but the mid-range of the current gen).


----------



## cdawall (Nov 21, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> If you can say things like that, I'm confident to state that *you have absolutely no idea, (none whatsoever!)* about the capabilities and the processing power of a modern PC, and the tasks what a video game might demand from a given platform.
> The game was so horribly coded (just like 90% of all the Rockstar games), it was and is beyond repair. I had a good PC that time, but I remember that I hacked in some configs what made the game look like something from the Playstation-1, and it was still choppy.
> I bet that if you would replace the entire (also unoptimized) graphics engine of the game with an engine what would only draw shaded boxes for everything (cars, NPCs, houses, etc, nothing but boxes without textures), it would still run like boiling crap.



Runs reasonably fine on my rig. Maybe you just had a poorly built PC.


----------



## Steevo (Nov 21, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> If you can say things like that, I'm confident to state that *you have absolutely no idea, (none whatsoever!)* about the capabilities and the processing power of a modern PC, and the tasks what a video game might demand from a given platform.
> The game was so horribly coded (just like 90% of all the Rockstar games), it was and is beyond repair. I had a good PC that time, but I remember that I hacked in some configs what made the game look like something from the Playstation-1, and it was still choppy.
> I bet that if you would replace the entire (also unoptimized) graphics engine of the game with an engine what would only draw shaded boxes for everything (cars, NPCs, houses, etc, nothing but boxes without textures), it would still run like boiling crap.



Aren't you the same guy who .......


http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2676789#post2676789



What kind of computer are/were you running exactly. I had a quad core with 4GB of RAM and a 4850 1GB edition that I overclocked. 


It ran medium high settings at 40-60FPS on my machine at 1920X1200, and more when I got my 940 and 5870.


----------



## poorya_lion (Nov 21, 2012)

I hate when a game first came out  for console  
I want to play GTA V with my PC before they kill the concept of fun with consoles.:shadedshu


----------



## Ikaruga (Nov 21, 2012)

Steevo said:


> Aren't you the same guy who .......
> 
> 
> http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2676789#post2676789


I happen to know from my friend that the passwords were indeed all salted (which I even mentioned later in that thread), so I was curious about why people give credit to a bunch of characters posted on pastebin. I'm also pretty far from being a security expert so I couldn't tell by just looking at it for a few second, and If I don't see through something immediately, I always ask people who might know better. I think there is no shame in that, and I don't even want to know what kind of bad intentions you might have when you bring up such a subject"



Steevo said:


> What kind of computer are/were you running exactly. I had a quad core with 4GB of RAM and a 4850 1GB edition that I overclocked.
> 
> It ran medium high settings at 40-60FPS on my machine at 1920X1200, and more when I got my 940 and 5870.


 I can't tell you but it was something quad core with a g92 based nvidia card (iirc a 9400+9800GTX), but I obviously didn't try to run it on a Pentium3 or on a badly configured PC just to have basis for complaining later on the Internet. 
I build PCs and sell them, so I never have one for a long time except my own PCs which are usually only for messing with the OS, for watching movies or browsing the internet and that kind of stuff, (or to play games like chess or quake, indie games or old console games on emulators which are not require a fast computer), so I don't remember but I know that i had 10-15fps spikes when the code crapped itself.
I  also worked as a game developer a very long time ago, and yes, my knowledge is probably obsolete by now, but I can still tell when I see a shitty code. 

Rockstar makes awesome game designs, and GTA3 or 4 was a lot of fun, I loved them, but the code was an abomination in both. It's like the NFS series, choppy and unresponsive, it will never run well, no matter what hardware you might have.


----------



## shb- (Nov 21, 2012)

Dont know what those bastards are thinking. GTA IV looked like crap on consoles, and godlike on good PC. I have no doubt V will look crappy on consoles too. So thats really stupid to leave game like that, and dont use its full potential.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Nov 21, 2012)

I don't understand the pirating thing. Last time I've checked, the console games were even heavier pirated than the PC ones...


----------



## techtard (Nov 21, 2012)

If they don't release on PC at launch, then just wait until it's super cheap on Steam during a sale.


----------



## Ikaruga (Nov 21, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> I don't understand the pirating thing. Last time I've checked, the console games were even heavier pirated than the PC ones...



Indeed consoles are more pirated by the number, but don't forget that publishers are selling about 400-450 million game copies on the xbox360+ps3+wii annually, so they might be still better off financially. Perhaps the pirated percentage is much higher on the PC compared to the retail sales.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Nov 21, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> Indeed consoles are more pirated by the number, but don't forget that publishers are selling about 400-450 million game copies on the xbox360+ps3+wii annually, so they might be still better off financially. Perhaps the pirated percentage is much higher on the PC compared to the retail sales.



True, PC piracy is more rampant imo. PC piracy is easier and more people have Computers at home than Consoles. Pirated games doesn't even have proper statistics so you never know whats being pirated other than looking at torrent sites, you don't know how many have exchanged files through HDDs/pendrives or are burning alot of backups and sells them for a living.. from my experience PC has more piracy, Almost all the guys I see, plays pirated games on PC while most of the console users buy legit games. with the exception of a few who knows the hard process of pirating console games. 

Still I don't like that they only "Considers" a PC version. a big slap in the face of PC gamers.


----------



## KissSh0t (Nov 21, 2012)

Hi I'm Rockstar Games and I might want to make money.


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 21, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> I can't tell you but it was something quad core with a g92 based nvidia card (iirc a 9400 9800GTX), but I obviously didn't try to run it on a Pentium3 or on a badly configured PC just to have basis for complaining later on the Internet.
> I build PCs and sell them, so I never have one for a long time except my own PCs which are usually only for messing with the OS, for watching movies or browsing the internet and that kind of stuff, (or to play games like chess or quake, indie games or old console games on emulators which are not require a fast computer), so I don't remember but I know that i had 10-15fps spikes when the code crapped itself.
> I also worked as a game developer a very long time ago, and yes, my knowledge is probably obsolete by now, but I can still tell when I see a shitty code.
> 
> Rockstar makes awesome game designs, and GTA3 or 4 was a lot of fun, I loved them, but the code was an abomination in both. It's like the NFS series, choppy and unresponsive, it will never run well, no matter what hardware you might have.



Then, as we have said, something was wrong with your computer, because I played it on a much weaker system and it ran fine.


----------



## Ikaruga (Nov 21, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> Then, as we have said, something was wrong with your computer, because I played it on a much weaker system and it ran fine.



There was absolutely nothing wrong with the computer. The entire internet was full of complains about the horrible performance on the PC, and now (after you already tried to offend me) you trying to convince me that I just made it up. It was 4 years ago, I don't forget things in 4 years. I saw the game on a lot of systems, and you telling me that all of those had some hidden problem, what only appeared in GTA and nothing else?
Again: I dumbed down the graphics to the absolutely possible minimum just to see what's happening, and it ran super smooth 70-80%, but still had fps "low spikes", probably because the CPU was struggling with cache misses or thread overheads of the badly optimized game code or it was just simply horribly ported code (but these are just guesses tho).

I just Googled some, and I see they made a patch later, which addressed some of the performance problems, so I might download it again sometimes and give it a try to see if anything is changed.

ps.: and btw, it was the very same sad story with L.A Noire on the PC, which I returned after 3 days for the same reason.


*edit:* my English:/


----------



## KissSh0t (Nov 22, 2012)

I'm going to back Ikaruga, GTA4 ran horrible on lot's of high end PC's at it's release, it also runs poorly on pretty good systems years later.

GTA4 was a console port is a console port is a console port is a console port is a console port..

I expect the same with GTA5


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 23, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> There was absolutely nothing wrong with the computer. The entire internet was full of complains about the horrible performance on the PC, and now (after you already tried to offend me) you trying to convince me that I just made it up. It was 4 years ago, I don't forget things in 4 years. I saw the game on a lot of systems, and you telling me that all of those had some hidden problem, what only appeared in GTA and nothing else?
> Again: I dumbed down the graphics to the absolutely possible minimum just to see what's happening, and it ran super smooth 70-80%, but still had fps "low spikes", probably because the CPU was struggling with cache misses or thread overheads of the badly optimized game code or it was just simply horribly ported code (but these are just guesses tho).
> 
> I just Googled some, and I see they made a patch later, which addressed some of the performance problems, so I might download it again sometimes and give it a try to see if anything is changed.
> ...



People complained for two reasons.  They set the game to max settings and it ran poorly or they watched the framerate counter and the moment it dropped below 60FPS(or whatever random threshold they picked) they complained.  Neither of these point to the game being not optimized or having poor code.  If it was not optimized, I wouldn't have been able to play through it without issue on a 3 year old processor and a mid-range GPU without issue.  But then again I played the game, I didn't sit watching the framerate counter.



KissSh0t said:


> I'm going to back Ikaruga, GTA4 ran horrible on lot's of high end PC's at it's release, it also runs poorly on pretty good systems years later.
> 
> GTA4 was a console port is a console port is a console port is a console port is a console port..
> 
> I expect the same with GTA5



Of course it ran poorly on high end systems when it was released, the developers said it would.  They didn't do what most devs to do and cap the setting just to give the illusion of optimization.  They let the user adjust the settings as high as they wanted.  This WAS A GOOD THING, but people ended up bitching about it because their PC couldn't max the game out.  More developers should do what Rockstar did.  However, most devs are now too scared to deal with the backlash of people not being able to max out the game and complaining about it, so they cap setting, or in some cases don't even allow us to adjust setting at all.

To say all console ports are the same is inane.  GTA allowed a huge range of adjustments to get the game running smoothly on wide range of different hardware.  That is a sign of effort on the devs part.  However, there are other console ports that have extremely limited amount of adjustments.  We get shit ports with graphics adjustment options that consist of "Low" "Medium" and "High" and that is, or even some that give no adjustment at all other then resolution.  Those are shit ports, not GTA.  GTA allowed the game to be adjusted to run  a huge range of hardware, and it did run well on even lower end systems, and looked good too.


----------



## Ikaruga (Nov 23, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> People complained for two reasons.  They set the game to max settings and it ran poorly or they watched the framerate counter and the moment it dropped below 60FPS(or whatever random threshold they picked) they complained.  Neither of these point to the game being not optimized or having poor code.  If it was not optimized, I wouldn't have been able to play through it without issue on a 3 year old processor and a mid-range GPU without issue.  But then again I played the game, I didn't sit watching the framerate counter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure that you have no idea what you are talking about. Please, don't get me wrong, I don't want to judge or offend you in any way (more like an envy perhaps), but I'm 99% sure that you must be a very casual gamer, who simply not able to see or appreciate smooth and responsive gameplay, and you can enjoy playing even if the game runs choppy, but unfortunatelly, not all of us like that:/ 

Grand Turismo 4 on the PS2, Star Wars on the Gamecube, etc.. I could make and endless list here with Console or PC games with good code/optimization, but GTA4 would be never on that list, ever. 
Also the fact that it's not really a city simulation at all, you go around a block and everything randomly respawns if you go back, some ancient console games had "deeper" simulations in them.. The driving physics and car handling felt better and more realistic in ps2 games too, so that can't be that demanding as well, not to mention that endless number of games can handle 3-4 times more NPCs more efficiently on hopelessly weaker CPU's while still delivering better visuals ... 

The whole thing is a joke game code wise. The faster you drive, the more apparent how badly is optimized, it gets choppy quickly, the camera movements are linear, erratic and harsh, the control is jerky in lags, it's a horrible code in every way... soon as you run the game the whole system just begging you to stop the torture.

It had an awesome game design and brilliant content and I bought it because of that, but the coders do not deserve my money and they are truly lucky that we have such powerful computers nowadays.. because it run like crap, there is no other way around that.


----------



## ...PACMAN... (Nov 23, 2012)

I wish they would consider Red Dead Redemption, a game that would be awesome with some PC sauce smeared all over it


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 23, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> I'm pretty sure that you have no idea what you are talking about. Please, don't get me wrong, I don't want to judge or offend you in any way (more like an envy perhaps), but I'm 99% sure that you must be a very casual gamer, who simply not able to see or appreciate smooth and responsive gameplay, and you can enjoy playing even if the game runs choppy, but unfortunatelly, not all of us like that:/
> 
> Grand Turismo 4 on the PS2, Star Wars on the Gamecube, etc.. I could make and endless list here with Console or PC games with good code/optimization, but GTA4 would be never on that list, ever.
> Also the fact that it's not really a city simulation at all, you go around a block and everything randomly respawns if you go back, some ancient console games had "deeper" simulations in them.. The driving physics and car handling felt better and more realistic in ps2 games too, so that can't be that demanding as well, not to mention that endless number of games can handle 3-4 times more NPCs more efficiently on hopelessly weaker CPU's while still delivering better visuals ...
> ...



I'm definitely not a casual gamer, in fact I'm the exact opposite, a rather hardcore gamer.

I think at this point you are beating a dead horse.  You've had 3 very respected memebers, who have huge amounts of knowledge, tell you the game runs fine and you are wrong.  From the beginning your argument has been borderline offensive, you constantly want to say that I don't know what I'm talking about.  How about you make an argument without insulting the other persons intelligence? Why not make a factual argument instead? You want to talk about me not knowing what I'm talking about, when you admitted you haven't even played the fully patched game.  I bet you didn't even know that turning off the scene recording feature drastically improves performance, which is on by default, even in the unpatched version?

The fact is, if you ignore the notion that you absolutely have to max out the settings for any game to be enjoyable, a notion that most casual gamers have but not hardcore gamers, then the game was very well optimized.  If you look at the wide range of hardware that the game will run on, the game is very well optimized.  Optimization isn't about getting max setting to run on the current highest hardware, it is about getting the game to run on low end hardware, and Rockstar did that, and it does run smoothly.  I've even pointed out the exact hardware I ran the game on when it was smooth, and you still go on.  You talk back and forth, contracting yourself. You say you remember 4 years ago perfectly, but then when asked what hardware you ran the game on you can't remember.  Give it a rest and drop it, you're wrong, get over it.


----------



## bpgt64 (Nov 23, 2012)

I really don't understand why they don't just do a flat license for the game.  Cross platform, require always on DRM tied to a licensing system like steam.  If you want the offline version, enjoy your console.


----------



## cdawall (Nov 23, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> I'm definitely not a casual gamer, in fact I'm the exact opposite, a rather hardcore gamer.
> 
> I think at this point you are beating a dead horse.  You've had 3 very respected memebers, who have huge amounts of knowledge, tell you the game runs fine and you are wrong.  From the beginning your argument has been borderline offensive, you constantly want to say that I don't know what I'm talking about.  How about you make an argument without insulting the other persons intelligence? Why not make a factual argument instead? You want to talk about me not knowing what I'm talking about, when you admitted you haven't even played the fully patched game.  I bet you didn't even know that turning off the scene recording feature drastically improves performance, which is on by default, even in the unpatched version?
> 
> The fact is, if you ignore the notion that you absolutely have to max out the settings for any game to be enjoyable, a notion that most casual gamers have but not hardcore gamers, then the game was very well optimized.  If you look at the wide range of hardware that the game will run on, the game is very well optimized.  Optimization isn't about getting max setting to run on the current highest hardware, it is about getting the game to run on low end hardware, and Rockstar did that, and it does run smoothly.  I've even pointed out the exact hardware I ran the game on when it was smooth, and you still go on.  You talk back and forth, contracting yourself. You say you remember 4 years ago perfectly, but then when asked what hardware you ran the game on you can't remember.  Give it a rest and drop it, you're wrong, get over it.



Heck I am going to give it a shot right after it finishes downloading. Since my GTX470's are sitting in the closet waiting on the new motherboard testing with a single GTX280. That is even of the same era as the game release.


----------



## Ikaruga (Nov 24, 2012)

newtekie1 said:


> I'm definitely not a casual gamer, in fact I'm the exact opposite, a rather hardcore gamer.


 .........no comment:shadedshu



newtekie1 said:


> I think at this point you are beating a dead horse.  You've had 3 very respected memebers, who have huge amounts of knowledge, tell you the game runs fine and you are wrong.....................You want to talk about me not knowing what I'm talking about, when you admitted you haven't even played the fully patched game.


 I don't know how it runs now, I never sad I do, but who cares?  We were talking about the release state, and it was nothing but a big megapop into the CPU when it came out, and the entire Internet agreed except you. This whole thread is about the release of the next version and (as how I also did in my first post) we are talking about our experiences about the last release, and we were drawing conclusions... You and only you who is talking out of context now about the patched game, whatever improvement that might have (if any) was irrelevant until you brought it up. (and more to that, you are using it as one of your base argument to pick on me...enough said.)



newtekie1 said:


> I've even pointed out the exact hardware I ran the game on when it was smooth, and you still go on.  You talk back and forth, contracting yourself. You say you remember 4 years ago perfectly, but then when asked what hardware you ran the game on you can't remember.


The hardware I had was way above the minimum requirements, and I also tested on many other machines (more than 5 for sure).



newtekie1 said:


> The fact is, if you ignore the notion that you absolutely have to max out the settings for any game to be enjoyable, a notion that most casual gamers have but not hardcore gamers, then the game was very well optimized.  If you look at the wide range of hardware that the game will run on, the game is very well optimized.  Optimization isn't about getting max setting to run on the current highest hardware, it is about getting the game to run on low end hardware, and Rockstar did that, and it does run smoothly.


Again, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You are contradicting the opinion of the entire world. For example, you might say that Idtech or Unreal engine games are optimized in a way that they scale quite well and they run smooth with the right settings, but GTA4 ran horribly when it was released, and this is a fact. *It simply ran like crap on anything but high-end hardware, and it's your flawed perception to blame if that crap was smooth for you.* I just quickly Googled some release-reviews for you, allow me to not bring up the endless raging threads on the Rockstar and other gaming forums, because this would become a book.
*Gamespot:* _"Performance issues prevent this lazy PC port of a superb console game from being the best Grand Theft Auto yet."_
*IGN:* _"Yet with the PC version, you're going to need a particularly powerful machine to see it in all its splendor at a decent framerate, as even on our system (Core 2 Quad 2.40 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 768 MB GeForce 8800 GTX with Vista 32) we were having performance problems even after toning down a few of the settings, and some of the effects"_
*Videogamer:* _"Instead of re-treading old ground, we'll rundown how the PC version of GTA 4 has been handled, including the performance on modest gaming rigs, and the extras that Rockstar has included. Performance first then, and this is probably our biggest concern with the port. To put it bluntly, you're going to need a very beefy machine to get the game running well. Even the game's suggested settings caused our quad core, 8800 GTX equipped machine to struggle, and this was after we'd lowered the resolution to well below our monitor's native resolution."_
*Goo:* _"Ironically, just a couple of days after handing in my review of GTA IV, I managed to get it working on my machine. I accomplished this feat by running in a small window – 600x400 to be precise. My frame rates are hovering somewhere in the twenties, though when a lot of stuff is going on in the game I’ve had it fall even lower than that. Keep in mind that this is with a system matching the minimum system requirements. Why I had it run for one brief, shining moment in full screen and with high frame rates (up around 50FPS or so) but have been unable to repeat that performance, I don’t know. Why the second patch, which came out recently, seems to have reduced my frame rates slightly (though that’s largely by feeling as I haven’t measured it) I also don’t know. Why I’ve got a friend with a quad core machine and paired SLI videocards, and he’s doing only marginally better than I am, I also don’t know. I’m sticking with my initial review opinion that GTA IV is among the worst console ports ever, and that its graphics engine, while doing plenty of snazzy things when it’s running right, is a bloated, inefficient resource hog, but for those who are interested I can now give a review on the actual gameplay. I’m also going to add that if you do have the urge to buy GTA IV that you do so from somewhere that will allow you to return it. Fair warning."_
*Worthplaying:*_"It's simply laughable that in this modern age, we find a top-shelf game that does not look as high-quality as some of its peers (Fallout 3 or FarCry 2 are vastly superior) requires more hardware behind it to get it to acceptable levels; with a dual-core CPU and 1GB of video memory in my machine, I still can't get more than half of the capabilities from GTA IV."_
*Atomicgamer:* _"And for the hardcore gamers who find all this child's play, then they still probably won't be too happy with the feel of the controls or the shoddy performance. It's kind of a lose-lose for Rockstar at this point, and it's too bad, because GTAIV is a wonderful game that doesn't deserve the problems this PC port has."_​


newtekie1 said:


> From the beginning your argument has been borderline offensive, you constantly want to say that I don't know what I'm talking about.  How about you make an argument without insulting the other persons intelligence? Why not make a factual argument instead?


I beg your pardon? Are you trolling me? Let me *explain it* to you with your very first opening nonsensful post in this thread:
_"*If all you idiots* cared about was the ability to run it on max settings on your mid-range hardware, then the only thing Rockstar would have had to do to optimize the game would be to limit max settings.  Make what they called medium the max, and you all would have been happy.  The game would have run perfectly fine on mid-range hardware on "max" settings.  And you all would have talked about how well "optimized" the game was.  And it still would have looked way better than 720p Low settings we got on the consoles."​_You are right tbh, because I was indeed an idiot when I went down to your level and started arguing about simple well know facts. Please don't waste your time to reply, I love TPU because it's the best PC enthusiast site on the net, and I don't want you to ruin this great experience for me, so  - sadly - I had to put you on */ignore*. I hope there are no hard feelings in you because I don't harbor any, and allow me to wish you good luck and all the best from now on. Bye.


----------



## happita (Nov 28, 2012)

Sorry to bring this post back up, but I found a snippet of news today that seemed a tad interesting. Looks like theres a petition for this game to come out on PC. Reminiscent of what happened with Dark Souls...and if it does go through, it better be a proper port Rockstar. None of this unoptimized GTA IV garbage.

[yt]k4DvevA_XQU&feature=g-all[/yt]


----------



## Steevo (Nov 28, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> I'm pretty sure that you have no idea what you are talking about. Please, don't get me wrong, I don't want to judge or offend you in any way (more like an envy perhaps), but I'm 99% sure that you must be a very casual gamer, who simply not able to see or appreciate smooth and responsive gameplay, and you can enjoy playing even if the game runs choppy, but unfortunatelly, not all of us like that:/
> 
> Grand Turismo 4 on the PS2, Star Wars on the Gamecube, etc.. I could make and endless list here with Console or PC games with good code/optimization, but GTA4 would be never on that list, ever.
> Also the fact that it's not really a city simulation at all, you go around a block and everything randomly respawns if you go back, some ancient console games had "deeper" simulations in them.. The driving physics and car handling felt better and more realistic in ps2 games too, so that can't be that demanding as well, not to mention that endless number of games can handle 3-4 times more NPCs more efficiently on hopelessly weaker CPU's while still delivering better visuals ...
> ...




Driving physics? Seriously? 

How about this, a 33Mhz processor with 512KB of RAM and 8MB ROM can calculate in 4 dimensions (X,Y,Z, T) 100 times a second and produce a sub inch accurate position in real life and account for where you are now and where you are going. While its driving real life things.  

They have more damage to cars in GTA than in most racing games, and don't use a silly three pass render of car bodies that are simple glossy. 

There are more cars, people, interactions, world, and game than what a simple go fast and win game has.

http://www.gtaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=378730

http://www.techpowerup.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77882&highlight=GTAIV+benchmark


Damn, so in 2008.........


----------



## newtekie1 (Nov 28, 2012)

Ikaruga said:


> ...insert nonsense here...



I'm not going to waste my time writing out a long response to you anymore. You don't listen, so there isn't much point. You've had 3 respected members tell you you are wrong.  Ignore me if you want, I don't really care, you likely won't be posting here in a years time because people like you that don't like to accept knowledgeable people's advice don't tend to stick around here.

And I'm sorry if you felt offended when I said you were an idiot for thinking the game should run on max settings on your mid-range hardware.  If I had known you were one of those idiots I wouldn't have said that...wait...yeah I would have.


----------



## NeoXF (Nov 28, 2012)

I look over GTA IV... then look over Sleeping Dogs... then try to look back at GTA IV, but can't, and start violently vomiting everything I've eaten in the last 2 weeks. No, just no, fuck you Rockstar.


----------



## Ikaruga (Nov 28, 2012)

Steevo said:


> They have more damage to cars in GTA than in most racing games, and don't use a silly three pass render of car bodies that are simple glossy.
> 
> There are more cars, people, interactions, world, and game than what a simple go fast and win game has.


Are you implying that the damage calculations are continuously running even after the collision event what's caused them? But anyway, you didn't need to damage anything, it was choppy without it. The driving experience is one of the major point of the GTA series, and doing it fast and smooth shouldn't be irrelevant imo.



Steevo said:


> There are more cars, people, interactions, world, and game than what a simple go fast and win game has.


 Yea, it's like a little old version of Sim-City running somewhere inside right? Unfortunately NO:, it's a streamed (and truly awesome!) big city indeed, but that's mostly just graphics (hence I dumbed down the gfx for my tests) but it's spawning randomly almost everything around your from a very short distance (except the few things required for the current or global missions).
Try to do some damage to static objects (destroy fences, lamps, etc) or hit an NPC and go around the block (or just go a few hundred meters away in game terms), they will all get removed and things will get reseted to their original state. It's nothing serious happening about the "world" calculation wise.
Handling a few NPCs and undamaged cars around the player while driving peacefully without any prior damage should be a walk in the park for CPUs like they had in the system requirements, especially that we are talking about rather very simple NPC's, (but even if they are not simple for some hidden reason , they are certainly not really more sophisticated than games like Shenmue2 and the others already had a very long time ago on hopelessly weaker CPUs). But anyway, I think the NPC part of the code is quite good because I remember that I altered some _.dat_ file which increased the number of NPCs by a huge percent and I was amazed how cool was it, and how little it affected the performance (sorry I don't remember how I did it:S). The "bad" code was somewhere else, probably the graphics engine itself.

*ps.:* BTW, I downloaded again in Steam and the current version is running better now. It's still not awesome imho, but it's a lot better than the version we had at release.


----------

