Are consoles the only reason AAA games exist?

[bystander36]

And it will die in GTA V and Witcher III with a poky Athlon and a slow 260 @ 1080p. And by the time you turn down the settings it will look like the console version in the first place.

Why is it a problem that it looks like the console version if it costs the same?

 

[Midwayman]

And it will die in GTA V and Witcher III with a poky Athlon and a slow 260 @ 1080p. And by the time you turn down the settings it will look like the console version in the first place.

Its hardly top of the line, but the point is that you can do console settings/resolution on the PC for around the same money in hardware. Great thing about PC is it doesn't cost much money to substantially increase your performance.

If the Witcher III and gta V are going to crush this system they'll be like 720p and 30fps on the consoles.

 

[BSim500]

In my experience, many games fall within the "5/50" thing for lower-end cards (features that make it look only 5% better beyond "Med/High" but have a 50% performance hit). Super-sampling / 8x MSAA (20-75% perf hit) vs SMAA/FXAA (5-10% perf hit), Ambient Occlusion (which often knocks off 25-40% frame-rates yet adds only the tiniest sometimes barely perceptible dark edges around things), unrealistic and usually over-done motion blur & over-exaggerated "myopia simulator" depth of field (which to me, makes many games look worse regardless of frame-rates), etc. Disable all this stuff and you can virtually double performance on low-end cards with still "better than console" visuals.

Some "Ultra" presets have gibberish defaults anyway. Eg, Skyrim's Ultra has 8x MSAA AND FXAA. LOL. No-one used 8x MSAA even when MSAA was the only choice. The "standard" benchmark for over a decade was 4x MSAA + 16x AF. Set Skyrim to Ultra, disable 8x MSAA but keep FXAA (or use an SMAA injector) and fps on low-end cards like the 750Ti shoot up from 45-50fps "vanilla Skyrim" to a solid 60fps even with 2K texture packs.

I think a lot of the assumptions around "how bad things must look" on anything less than Ultra is the result of poor industry-wide reviewing. Out of the usual dozen or two gaming benchmarking / review sites, I've only found one that actually uses intelligent benchmark settings for low-end cards (ie, "Here's what it takes for a consistent 60fps, and here's a comparison screenshot of what it looks like at those settings" instead of the totally useless "This low-end card does 22fps on Ultra"):-
http://techgage.com/article/nvidia-...iew-1080p-gaming-without-a-power-connector/7/
http://techgage.com/article/asus-geforce-gtx-970-strix-edition-graphics-card-review/7/

Assassins Creed 4 Black Flag - PS4 screenshot, 1080p, 30fps (locked)
Assassins Creed 4 Black Flag - XBox One screenshot, 900p, 30fps (locked)
Assassins Creed 4 Black Flag - GTX 750Ti screenshot, Medium-High, 1080p, 56fps avg
Assassins Creed 4 Black Flag - GTX 970 screenshot, V. High, 1440p, 60fps avg
Assassins Creed 4 Black Flag - GTX 980 screenshot, V. High Soft shadow, 1440p, 62fps avg

BF4 - PS4 screenshot, 900p, 60fps avg
BF4 - XBox One screenshot, 720p, 60fps avg
BF4 - GTX 750 Ti screenshot, High, 1080p, 68fps avg
BF4 - GTX 970 screenshot, Ultra, 1440p, 60fps avg
BF4 - GTX 980 screenshot, Ultra, 1440p, 63fps avg

Crysis 3 - GTX 750Ti screenshot, Low-Medium, 1080p, 55fps avg
Crysis 3 - GTX 970 screenshot, High, 1440p, 61fps avg
Crysis 3 - GTX 980 screenshot, Very High, 1440p, 65avg

Even on low-end dGPU's like the 750Ti (halfway between the XBox's 7790 equiv and the PS4's 7850 equiv), customized "tweaked" Medium settings are still WAY better looking than consoles purely for the native non-scaled resolution, better texture resolution, and higher fps (1080p @ 50-60fps vs 720-900p @ 30fps locked) on the same level of hardware. Not bashing consoles, but it's pretty obvious the latest generation are more about booting games out as quickly & cheaply ported as possible and locking fps to 30fps as a compromise rather than any measurable serious "it must do more on the same equivalent hardware than PC's due to direct to metal optimizations that consoles must have". And as a result, yeah you can build a "console equivalent" PC for a lot less money than what it took vs previous generations. (And Ultra vs Medium on PC's is still far less of a gap than PC Medium vs Console in many, if not most, games).

 

[HeXen]

Crysis is the last really big PC AAA Exclusive I recall but it was also buggy, didn't live up to hype and all everyone did was complain about it. Then a couple years later it became more favorably recalled...but whatever.

Of course Steam is not solely responsible for the current PC gaming renaissance, and it did exist during the dark ages. Though about five years ago is when I started noticing it making a impact.

I'd peg PC gaming's lowest point being 2008 when Spore came out. It was one of the first mainstream casual games to use install limits. The buggy installer would fail and each subsequent install attempt would use up a slot even if it was on the same computer. That angered the casual gaming scene. They're customers that are very difficult to win back.

Also any posts I write after midnight should be taken with a grain of salt.

I think the lowest point was when Starforce was introduced into games. If you don't recall, it could screw up your CD/DVD from even burning music so long as it was installed on the system. I purchased a Splinter Cell game that had it and it would never play. It caused me issues with UT 2k3 as well, I think it actually screwed up my Optical drive to where it wouldn't read certain things or write anything...everyone forgot about 2k3 i know.

 

[Morbus]

And it will die in GTA V and Witcher III with a poky Athlon and a slow 260 @ 1080p. And by the time you turn down the settings it will look like the console version in the first place.

In the meantime you've been playing NEO Scavenger, Enemy, FTL, Xenonauts, Darkest Dungeon and all the other awesome games that are only PC exclusive.

I think the lowest point was when Starforce was introduced into games. If you don't recall, it could screw up your CD/DVD from even burning music so long as it was installed on the system. I purchased a Splinter Cell game that had it and it would never play. It caused me issues with UT 2k3 as well, I think it actually screwed up my Optical drive to where it wouldn't read certain things or write anything...everyone forgot about 2k3 i know.

I didn't. That was the time I had gotten my PC and a few years before I started earning my own money to buy games with.

Figures I haven't bought a single AAA title in almost 8 years.

 

[escrow4]

Why is it a problem that it looks like the console version if it costs the same?

Because you then buy a console in the first place.

 

[bystander36]

Because you then buy a console in the first place.

Why? If the same cost gets the same quality, why is a console superior?

Their games are more expensive, and they aren't as good for your general computing needs. Most people have a PC for general use. If you can get that general PC and a gaming machine and get the same quality of gaming as a console, then the PC is a much better value. Not to mention that games are cheaper on a PC, and you get to use a mouse if you desire.

 

[norseamd]

I think the lowest point was when Starforce was introduced into games. If you don't recall, it could screw up your CD/DVD from even burning music so long as it was installed on the system. I purchased a Splinter Cell game that had it and it would never play. It caused me issues with UT 2k3 as well, I think it actually screwed up my Optical drive to where it wouldn't read certain things or write anything...everyone forgot about 2k3 i know.

The problem.

StarForce Technologies is a Russian software developer with headquarters in Moscow.

A ruddy-faced, unshaven man bounds onstage. Wearing a wrinkled white polo shirt with a pair of red sunglasses perched on his head, he looks more like a beach bum who’s lost his way than a business executive. In fact, he’s one of Russia’s richest men—the CEO of what is arguably the most important Internet security company in the world. His name is Eugene Kaspersky, and he paid for almost everyone in the audience to come here. “Buenos dias,” he says in a throaty Russian accent, as he apologizes for missing the previous night’s boozy activities. Over the past 72 hours, Kaspersky explains, he flew from Mexico to Germany and back to take part in another conference. “Kissinger, McCain, presidents, government ministers” were all there, he says. “I have panel. Left of me, minister of defense of Italy. Right of me, former head of CIA. I’m like, ‘Whoa, colleagues.'”

He’s bragging to be sure, but Kaspersky may be selling himself short. The Italian defense minister isn’t going to determine whether criminals or governments get their hands on your data. Kaspersky and his company, Kaspersky Lab, very well might. Between 2009 and 2010, according to Forbes, retail sales of Kaspersky antivirus software increased 177 percent, reaching almost 4.5 million a year—nearly as much as its rivals Symantec and McAfee combined. Worldwide, 50 million people are now members of the Kaspersky Security Network, sending data to the company’s Moscow headquarters every time they download an application to their desktop. Microsoft, Cisco, and Juniper Networks all embed Kaspersky code in their products—effectively giving the company 300 million users. When it comes to keeping computers free from infection, Kaspersky Lab is on its way to becoming an industry leader.

But this still doesn’t fully capture Kaspersky’s influence. Back in 2010, a researcher now working for Kaspersky discovered Stuxnet, the US-Israeli worm that wrecked nearly a thousand Iranian centrifuges and became the world’s first openly acknowledged cyberweapon. In May of this year, Kaspersky’s elite antihackers exposed a second weaponized computer program, which they dubbed Flame. It was subsequently revealed to be another US-Israeli operation aimed at Iran. In other words, Kaspersky Lab isn’t just an antivirus company; it’s also a leader in uncovering cyber-espionage.

Serving at the pinnacle of such an organization would be a remarkably powerful position for any man. But Kaspersky’s rise is particularly notable—and to some, downright troubling—given his KGB-sponsored training, his tenure as a Soviet intelligence officer, his alliance with Vladimir Putin’s regime, and his deep and ongoing relationship with Russia’s Federal Security Service, or FSB. Of course, none of this history is ever mentioned in Cancun.

What is mentioned is Kaspersky’s vision for the future of Internet security—which by Western standards can seem extreme. It includes requiring strictly monitored digital passports for some online activities and enabling government regulation of social networks to thwart protest movements. “It’s too much freedom there,” Kaspersky says, referring to sites like Facebook. “Freedom is good. But the bad guys—they can abuse this freedom to manipulate public opinion.

These are not exactly comforting words from a man who is responsible for the security of so many of our PCs, tablets, and smartphones. But that is the paradox of Eugene Kaspersky: a close associate of the autocratic Putin regime who is charged with safeguarding the data of millions of Americans; a supposedly-retired intelligence officer who is busy today revealing the covert activities of other nations; a vital presence in the open and free Internet who doesn’t want us to be too free. It’s an enigmatic profile that’s on the rise as Kaspersky’s influence grows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarForce

http://www.wired.com/2012/07/ff_kaspersky/

http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-a-digital-cold-war-with-russia-could-threaten-the-it-industry/

 

[Midwayman]

Why? If the same cost gets the same quality, why is a console superior?

Their games are more expensive, and they aren't as good for your general computing needs. Most people have a PC for general use. If you can get that general PC and a gaming machine and get the same quality of gaming as a console, then the PC is a much better value. Not to mention that games are cheaper on a PC, and you get to use a mouse if you desire.

The real answer is that most people don't know how to build a PC, and don't know that you can build a equal or better machine for the same money. Ignorance and lack of skill I suppose.

There are those that do choose them for exclusives, all their buddies have them and want to play online with them, or simply can't be bothered. Some like that fact that there is less hacking, or that the field is level on a hardware front in competitive games too. Some completely legit reasons to choose a console. Cost just isn't one of them.

 

[exar333]

There's still plenty of AAA PC exclusives being made, including most big MMOs and strategy games. Those rarely end up on console.

Things today are certainly not as bad as they were a few years back. There's this period between about 2005 to 2010 I call the PC gaming dark ages. There were a lot of shoddy console ports back then, riddled with draconian DRM.

You can largely blame Microsoft for the decline. Last gen, they pushed hard to make the Xbox 360 the lead development system for cross platform titles. PC gaming was massively de-emphasized in the process, apart from the occasional lip service (*cough* Games for Windows Live). Most of their top PC studios got shut down, including Ensemble (Age of Empires) and ACES (Flight Simulator).

Piracy was also a huge issue, which lead to increasingly drastic measures to prevent copying. Rootkits, always-online, install limits. All that hot cup of awful. A lot of developers and publishers considered PC a lost cause that they couldn't make money off of. So games that did come out were usually pretty rough.

Then Valve came along and standardized everything from sales to DRM, proving PC could be a viable platform. It's sort of entered a renaissance since then. PC was also the lead platform for the indie revolution for the longest time.

A lot of top end PCs will outperform consoles graphically. It's just you need an expensive system to do it. I'd check out Grand Theft Auto V if you want eye candy.

As for shoddy ports, well, plenty of games last year proved that even consoles aren't immune from the "sell now, patch later" attitude.

MS has always been a bit-player in PC gaming development. On the other hand, their DX technology single-handedly 'created' modern 3D gaming as we know it. Without D3D, we would likely still have competing standards and development in the modern 3D-age would have been too expensive.

What else should MS have done for PC Gaming? They could have created a non-revenue generating 'solution' for DRM, but why?

If anything, 'Games for Windows' could have been a Steam-type competitor, but MS didn't go in that direction. That could have been a mistake, but who knows if they would have been remotely as successful as Valve in that space.

MS has done a serviceable job of keeping DX moving forward, and its been the development companies that have really been slow to adopt to it. DX12 shows their partnership with AMD this time around for Mantel, and it shows.

Of course MS would have pushed the 360/Bone. They make money from that, not from a standard PC title, other than the original purchase price of Windows itself. Now, as MS shifts from Windows as a consumer revenue-source to more of a free service, cross-platform between PC and XBone will come into play. We already see that emerging today.

 

[irishScott]

PC gamers: "Gimped consoles hold us back! PC is superior! Bwahh!"

Star Citizen comes along...

PC gamers: "System requirements are too da*n high! Download is too big! My 5-year-old PC can't run it on ultra! Bwahh!"

Meh, that whining has been minimal in my experience. Christ Roberts has made it quite clear that he isn't going for the lowest common denominator with SC.

 

[bystander36]

The real answer is that most people don't know how to build a PC, and don't know that you can build a equal or better machine for the same money. Ignorance and lack of skill I suppose.

There are those that do choose them for exclusives, all their buddies have them and want to play online with them, or simply can't be bothered. Some like that fact that there is less hacking, or that the field is level on a hardware front in competitive games too. Some completely legit reasons to choose a console. Cost just isn't one of them.

I can understand that some people have different opinions on what they prefer, but there are several legitimate advantages for PC's too.

 

[Fulle]

While industry analysts might point to certain AAA games selling stronger on consoles, where the console was clearly the lead platform, PC tends to consistently have monster hits like World of Warcraft (made over 10 billion dollars), and League of Legends (currently making a billion a year).

The worldwide PC market is actually enormous. Larger than any other platform, in fact. It's just that you can't just lazily port a console game to it, and expect huge sales numbers.

 

[Midwayman]

I can understand that some people have different opinions on what they prefer, but there are several legitimate advantages for PC's too.

Oh sure. I was just trying to answer a question.

 

[poofyhairguy]

It's because people on the PC pirate, and I was guilty of this too.

Is that still a big issue for PC developers? I know that was a issue back in the day, but I thought Steam and Origin cut into that problem with easy DRM?

I know personally I have bought more games than I have in over a decade the last year because of Steam sales and key sites. At the end of the day all entertainment is a cost/benefit ratio, and when 1 year old console games are still the full price (unless you buy used) compared to a 50% off Steam game it is a poor value. I recently went through and rebought all my favorite more recent 360 games on ebay and keysites to put the old girl into retirement because what was like $200 in 360 games I bought for less than $60 in Steamkeys.

Maybe that is a bad thing though, I don't know how much those Steam sales cut into developer revenue (aka motivation) or how much they affect market perception (IE people like me who will NEVER buy a game at the release date at full price ever again because we know it will be half price in a year). Better than piracy at least.