Originally posted by: ducci
Originally posted by: RyanPaulShaffer
You're comparing apples and oranges. PCs, since pretty much day one, have always have the understanding that there will be different specs involved. That is why they created common APIs (DirectX, for example) to make development more sane. PCs have always been upgradeable, hence, their development process went a different way. Consoles are a totally different beast.
Besides, you even shot your argument in the foot from the get-go, since there is already different graphical features and/or performances that are available depending on which graphics card you are running (NVIDIA VS ATI). The game companies pick their preferred platform, and the folks who don't have that one are missing out on extra features (PhysX, for example) and/or improved performance (it is widely proven in benchmarks that games are optimized for a specific brand of card). So I guess I must thank you for making my point even stronger! :thumbsup:
The 360 is a "PC". It runs "DirectX". It's OS is essentially a Windows variant.
Games are optimized for a specific platform - I never said they didn't. I said development doesn't get split because of hardware differences. The games just get scaled.
Originally posted by: Dribble
Originally posted by: ducci
Games have been scaled based on the hardware since the dawn of game development - the biggest difference in the case of consoles is that the platform has been locked down. So long as they keep the fundamentals of the system the same, the hardware can be updated indefinitely.
Older games probably won't look better, but newer games can easily be "dumbed down".
Though I don't think this rumor is 100% true.
lol @ the "it's easy to dumb down a game comment". I think you might find that's pretty hard. Even the little bit of variation that was put into the current 360 - the optional HD - has caused a fair amount of upset for many developers and basically means every game must be written as if the user didn't have a HD.
Oh, if the hardware can be updated and performance can change, then what exactly are "the fundamentals of the system" - the words "360" on the box cover?
Fundamentals of the system are the CPU/GPU architecture, OS, and in some cases the required runtime libraries.
The lack of HD is actually a fairly big handicap as far as development is concerned - I wouldn't call that a little bit of variation - it's creating a different platform entirely.
Basically a set of minimum requirements is required. Then your software is limited by the biggest hardware bottleneck.
Again, if you think of the 360 as anything other than a proprietary Windows-based PC, then you are mistaken.
I would say software development between the two is roughly 80% the same. The biggest issue with PC development - and one that Microsoft acknowledged long ago - is that it's still the "Wild West". There is very little control over what gets put out, how content is controlled, who is playing what, etc. It is why Microsoft got into the console business in the first place.
If you don't see the trend to a more PC-like infrastructure - gradual, optional hardware upgrades over time - rather than an entirely new system every 5-10 years, then you are ignoring Microsoft's fairly blunt advances.
And if you're of the mentality that it will never happen because the "it just works" factor of console gaming is what you love about it - I say that the ease of entry will not change, mainly because both the hardware and software will be controlled. Control is what the PC gaming industry has lacked, and control is something Microsoft is notoriously prone to.
Everyone knows that Sony and Microsoft sell their consoles for a loss. Everyone assumes that is the way it has always been. I haven't seen a reliable source claim that Atari, Nintendo or Sega did it, particularly before Sony came along. Maybe Sega was forced to do it with the Dreamcast. 
Facebook
Twitter