Nvidia and AMD should stand up against these stupid Console port

[Qwertilot]

Well there's actually already plenty of those

It just happens that most of them aren't graphically intensive, because the sorts of games that really 'need' a PC (due to the input options) mostly aren't.

 

[guskline]

AMD makes the apus for these "stupid" consoles so why would they want to "stand up" to them? Perhaps Nvidia might but the problem is deeper than us on a PC forum shouting out about "standing up" to console ports.

Everytime I'm at the malls in our area, I stop into a GameStop etc shop and watch the people buying games, The PC area gets smaller and smaller and in some cases is not even there.

Frankly, from a dollars and cents ( or sense) standpoint I can understand why developers focus more on consoles than PCs.

I doubt shouting at each other on a PC forum will get the attention of game developers.

By the same token, we are lucky to have 2 gpu makers still battling it out making high end gpus.

 

[guskline]

desprado: you have PM

 

[MrTeal]

This, a thousand times. The amount of heat generation, noise and power draw that "high end" gamers are willing to put up with is ludicrous. I had a GF110 graphics card under my desk at work for a while doing some CUDA development, and when that thing spun up it was loud. Not to mention hot! It was noticeably (and significantly) hotter underneath my desk than directly above it.

Even the 7770 in my home machine is irritatingly noisy compared to my XBox 360 (though that may have more to do with the cooler on it).

Dirty secret: It can get a little chilly in my basement office in the spring, so occasionally if I'm working down there I'll start a burn in on my computer. The extra 900W keeps my toes toasty.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I have absolutely no problem with a PC game needing $2000 Titan X SLI to max out at 1080P but it better be THE best looking game and not by 5%, by a country mile. No such game has come out in 2015 for the PC.

Is that really the best thing for the industry though?

Think about it: Crysis came out in 2007. The first single GPU solution that could play it at max settings at 60fps in 1080p was the OG Titan. Us getting "Crysis-level" GPU hardware at mainstream price points was a VERY recent thing (with the cheap 290s and deals on 970s). That means the gap between when the game was released, and when most people could play it in all its glory was EIGHT years! Eight years is far too long for people to still care about a game, that is a whole console cycle. I haven't seen any 290 or 970 owner brag all over the forum "I can finally play Crysis!!!" because its not relevant anymore.

The problem with NEEDING SLI Titan Xs to play a top game at 1080p is that you are so far ahead of the curve that most computer gamers will never see that glory in a timeline they care about it. Most of the PC gaming community is closer to a GTX 760 level and not a SLI Titan X level and it will always be that way. When you start rolling back the settings to get down to that level then most of that development time needed to create the top tier was wasted.

I honestly prefer what we have now to the Crysis model. Because there are two things everyone is forgetting as we compare console ports to the PC versions:

1. The consoles are often locked at 30 fps, and often can't hold that. Meanwhile PC versions go up to 60 fps+ which is a much more enjoyable experience. Who cares if it looks the same in screenshots if the GAMEPLAY is improved on a PC? Isn't that a real advantage?

2. Consoles are locked at 1080p. There is no way to pay twice as much for a super-PS4 that runs at 4K to match your new TV. But on the PC side that SLI Titan X thrown at a console port can do just that.

If we just sit here and compare screenshots all day I think we are missing the big picture. Gaming should be about the TOTAL quality of experience and not just how pretty a given platform can render a scene at 10fps. If you ask PC gamers their favorite games the last ten years, I bet few would say Crysis despite its graphics. That is because that game was more about the tech demo than the game, and most gamers never got to see that tech demo at its best while it was relevant.

As I mentioned earlier, I think this is the golden age of PC gaming. Ten or twenty years ago you couldn't get most console games on the PC anyway what-so-ever. Now the PC cherry picks from both next gen libraries, and plays them better than either console can. That is a win to me.

Maybe you can say we should be further along, but I bet many didn't think it would take eight years to get a mid-range GPU that could max Crysis. And the market is moving even slower than it did eight years ago, thanks to an emphasis on mobile. It might take ten years to get the power of Titan X SLI in a $300 part.

 

[Dribble]

The crysis model is really bad for gaming companies as a fair proportion of your audience will not buy the game when it comes out, instead deciding to wait until their pc is up to playing it in all it's glory. By the time they finally buy the game it's 1/4 of the price in some steam sale so the dev looses a lot of money.

 

[RussianSensation]

Maybe you can say we should be further along, but I bet many didn't think it would take eight years to get a mid-range GPU that could max Crysis. And the market is moving even slower than it did eight years ago, thanks to an emphasis on mobile. It might take ten years to get the power of Titan X SLI in a $300 part.

I do agree with most parts of your post. I wouldn't buy a cross-platform game on a console today because the PC experience will offer superior FPS (and now we have FreeSync/GSync options), control options, sometimes modding experience, etc. I am not sure I agree with you that it's the golden age of PC gaming. We could easily buy an Xbox 360 controller and play cross-platform games between 2005-2013, the last console generation. I am not sure in that sense how this generation is more golden the the 8 years that preceded PS4/XB1.

I think if we start being honest from an IP perspective, this gaming generation is so far much worse than the last one. Whether on the PC or on the current gen consoles, we have way fewer interesting IPs than last gen. Most of the games now are sequels of franchisees that were created a long time ago.

Uncharted
Assassin's Creed
Crysis
Bioshock
Dishonored
Gears of War
Mass Effect
Borderlands

I am sure I missed some others.

^ all of these came about from Xbox360/PS3 generation iirc.
http://thegamefanatics.com/2013/03/...-ips-created-during-the-ps3-and-xbox-360-era/

Even COD is a 10-year-old or so IP.

I can't possibly agree with you that right now is the golden age of PC gaming when most new games coming out are just sequels of existing IPs. Sure we have LoL, Hearthstone, Project CARS but there aren't many new amazing IPs for consoles/PCs, which ultimately means PC gaming is not as exciting today imo as it was from 2000-2013. Also, the evolution in graphics from 2005-2011 or so was excellent but since Crysis 3/Metro 2033, we hardly moved.

If you mean it's cheaper than ever to play PC games and it's easier than ever to build a powerful HTPC and grab a console controller to play Big Picture, then sure I agree.

The crysis model is really bad for gaming companies as a fair proportion of your audience will not buy the game when it comes out, instead deciding to wait until their pc is up to playing it in all it's glory. By the time they finally buy the game it's 1/4 of the price in some steam sale so the dev looses a lot of money.

This is probably a big reason. Another one as mentioned in this thread is that there is simply more $ in console games when it comes to 'mainstream' AAA titles.

Even GTA V's sales on the PC pale in comparison to console sales. About 6% of GTA V's sales are PC-based, 94% are from consoles.

"CEO Strauss Zelnick stated that the over 75 percent of GTA V owners on the PC have purchased their copy digitally. According to SteamSpy, the current total number of copies purchased is just over 2.3 million. That puts the total number of copies sold since the April 14 release date at approximately 3.1 million.

Meanwhile, the total number of GTA V copies sold has reached 52 million, per the Take-Two earnings report. This is across the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC."

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2100704/ov...es-50-million-total-mark/#qv4tLDrmFZWIBMSI.99

 

[exar333]

I do agree with most parts of your post. I wouldn't buy a cross-platform game on a console today because the PC experience will offer superior FPS (and now we have FreeSync/GSync options), control options, sometimes modding experience, etc. I am not sure I agree with you that it's the golden age of PC gaming. We could easily buy an Xbox 360 controller and play cross-platform games between 2005-2013, the last console generation. I am not sure in that sense how this generation is more golden the the 8 years that preceded PS4/XB1.

I think if we start being honest from an IP perspective, this gaming generation is so far much worse than the last one. Whether on the PC or on the current gen consoles, we have way fewer interesting IPs than last gen. Most of the games now are sequels of franchisees that were created a long time ago.

Uncharted
Assassin's Creed
Crysis
Bioshock
Dishonored
Gears of War
Mass Effect
Borderlands

I am sure I missed some others.

^ all of these came about from Xbox360/PS3 generation iirc.
http://thegamefanatics.com/2013/03/...-ips-created-during-the-ps3-and-xbox-360-era/

Even COD is a 10-year-old or so IP.

I can't possibly agree with you that right now is the golden age of PC gaming when most new games coming out are just sequels of existing IPs. Sure we have LoL, Hearthstone, Project CARS but there aren't many new amazing IPs for consoles/PCs, which ultimately means PC gaming is not as exciting today imo as it was from 2000-2013. Also, the evolution in graphics from 2005-2011 or so was excellent but since Crysis 3/Metro 2033, we hardly moved.

If you mean it's cheaper than ever to play PC games and it's easier than ever to build a powerful HTPC and grab a console controller to play Big Picture, then sure I agree.



This is probably a big reason. Another one as mentioned in this thread is that there is simply more $ in console games when it comes to 'mainstream' AAA titles.

Even GTA V's sales on the PC pale in comparison to console sales. About 6% of GTA V's sales are PC-based, 94% are from consoles.

"CEO Strauss Zelnick stated that the over 75 percent of GTA V owners on the PC have purchased their copy digitally. According to SteamSpy, the current total number of copies purchased is just over 2.3 million. That puts the total number of copies sold since the April 14 release date at approximately 3.1 million.

Meanwhile, the total number of GTA V copies sold has reached 52 million, per the Take-Two earnings report. This is across the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, and PC."

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2100704/ov...es-50-million-total-mark/#qv4tLDrmFZWIBMSI.99

I agree in principle, but this example is very misleading. Comparing the marketshare of the PC (6%) against consoles where the game has either been available for 6+ months or 18 months is just silly. Honestly, 6% is pretty fantastic considering the game is almost 2 years old...we probably will see this in double-digits soon.

Imagine if the product released last month for the PC launched at the same time? The figures likely would be much different...

 

[Pariah]

I don't see why this topic gets rehashed so often, when nothing has fundamentally changed in years. Consoles are not holding back PC gaming. The average gaming PC is hold back PC gaming. Over 20 million PS4's have been sold to date. If there were over 20 million gaming PC's with Titan X's in them, then you would see much better looking PC games. Posters on this board have a very distorted view of reality. The average system in signatures on this board are WAY beyond the specs of the average PC used for gaming. The average gaming PC in use today is not as powerful as a PS4.

If there were more (a lot more really) high-end game PC owners spending their money on the PC version of games (at release, not waiting for the 90% off steam sale) and spending their time playing them instead of "playing" 3dmark or bitching about everything PC game scene related on message boards all day, then maybe game developers would take the PC game market more seriously. PC gamers are their own worst enemy, not consoles.

 

[poofyhairguy]

If you mean it's cheaper than ever to play PC games and it's easier than ever to build a powerful HTPC and grab a console controller to play Big Picture, then sure I agree.

Yeah that is basically what I am saying. If you want a console-like PC gaming experience it has never been cheaper or easier thanks to Steam, full controller support, and the access to exclusives the PC never used to get. I mean, when the 360 launched the PC didn't get Perfect Dark Zero. But we got Rise, and we got Titanfall. And looking forward there is a lot of good news on that front: MGS5, SF5, Fable Legends, etc

Maybe on one hand current consoles hold back PC gaming but on the other hand the barrier to entry for PC ports has never been lower. This has meant the quality of ports are getting better than they were last generation, even if keyboard support isn't always bolted on in a way people like. For example people seem to like the port of GTAV much better than GTA4. Part of that is because the PC port of GTAV is very close to the next gen console versions.

The other side of this is the indy community has never been stronger. Thanks to Humble Bundle and the Steam store the indy market is thriving, and many of those games provide experiences that are just as fun as the AAA games. I agree that mainstream properties are getting long in the tooth, but many of these indy games have fresh ideas for fresh prices. Of the AAA titles you can get real savings pretty early in their life, which changes the value proposition (and even the experience if you count post-release drivers for games) so that fresh isn't always needed. I won't pay $60+ for yet another Borderlands (my favorite series of the ones you listed), but I will pay $40 or $30 for one six months after its release. That is expansion pack pricing, and is something the consoles can't match.

I mean, if I was a "traditional" hardcore PC gamer I would be pissed. The emphasis is moving from the keyboard to controllers, and away from desktop gaming towards livingroom gaming. My investment into top-end hardware isn't paying off in giving me games the consoles CAN'T have, and often the games I do get have already been played by the console crowd first. Longtime PC developers are moving to the console, and the Venn Diagram between what console gamers want and what PC gamers want basically only doesn't overlap in a few genres. "Traditional" PC gamers are taking a hit this generation, but for their sacrifice others benefit.

For gamer gamers, the kind who would play a console just as fast as a PC, the PC side hasn't been this appealing since the 80's. Not only do you get all these console ports with improvements the console versions don't have, but you can get them for cheap a few months out. I have more than one friend who has moved over to the PC/Steam instead of picking up an Xbox One because the experience for them is superior. The 360 stood above most gaming PCs for so long that wasn't even a consideration two years into its life. Today I can play some of the Xbox One's best games better than it can in my livingroom on a computer I built a year before the Xbox One was released. That is unheard of in gaming's history.

It is the same glass that many see as half empty I see as half full. Bring on the ports I say!

 

[gradoman]

Basically what those with a more reasonable mindset have been saying with regards to performance killing options:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...he-witcher-3-graphics-downgrade-issue-head-on

I hope those droning on about downgrade read and understand.