Are consoles, almost on launch, holding pc back for powerful?

Edited 10 months, 8 days ago

Poll: Are consoles, almost on launch, holding pc back for powerful? (103 votes)

Yes 60%
No 40%

Since Watchdogs, the gaming equivalent of Watergate. Intellectuals such as Totalbiscuit, have asked "was the deliberately gimped". With settings, already in the game, that match the e3 footage, disabled and hidden.


According to Mr Biscuit, the performance with and without the graphical settings is nigh on the exact same. And despite promising a patch way back in May, the game still has not been fixed. Regardless of partnering with nvidia and a 6 months delay for Poland.

Did Ubisoft deliberately hold back pc superiority to make console versions seem less inferior so the console peoples would not be angry and more people buy on consoles? Will this make Nvidia look like big fuckers as they probably knew about it?

#1 Posted by lostrib (41975 posts) -

what do you care? I thought you were a console gamer

#2 Posted by gameofthering (10454 posts) -

@lostrib: He seems to be different now and then.

#3 Posted by Telekill (5041 posts) -

As my PC can barely run games from 6 years ago, I don't care.

#4 Posted by BldgIrsh (2998 posts) -

Now this is a decent poll....

#5 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (18259 posts) -

Does it matter ?

Would it have been a better game if its tedious game play was displayed in smooth 4K crystal clarity ?

#6 Posted by DEadliNE-Zero0 (4811 posts) -

@lostrib said:

what do you care? I thought you were a console gamer

Wasn't he a child of the 90's? Or was it 60's?

#7 Edited by WallofTruth (2004 posts) -

'Are consoles, almost on launch, holding pc back for powerful?'

What the hell does that even mean?

#8 Posted by lostrib (41975 posts) -

@deadline-zero0 said:

@lostrib said:

what do you care? I thought you were a console gamer

Wasn't he a child of the 90's? Or was it 60's?

He's a child of the 90s that fought in the Falklands War in 1982

#9 Posted by R4gn4r0k (17469 posts) -

"Way back in may"

But... that's like a month ago. Stop living in the past man !

#10 Posted by edwardecl (2239 posts) -

I think there is too much emphasis on parity with games.

#11 Edited by remiks00 (2444 posts) -

Man...uninsipiredcup's threads are getting annoying to me now. One day, you're bashing PC, praising consoles. The next day you're bashing console's, and praising PC. You keep repeating the same lame pattern bro...

Please stop trolling.

#12 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

i listened to mr total biscuit's theory last night, he does say some sensible things like 'let's not attribute to malice what could be contributed to stupidity'.

TB made some other good points, like sony moneyhatting exclusive content for the ps4.

i don't buy into that conspiracy that there was deliberate interference by a console manufacturer. however one thing is for sure, because sony are investing in watch dogs, it would be wise not to fuck up the ps4 version...

so i look at it more from that angle.

#13 Posted by trugs26 (5829 posts) -

Consoles = optimised, hence why you see first party dev's consistently churn out a lot from the system.

So technically, yes, it is holding it back. But is it for better or worse? that's another question.

#14 Posted by sSubZerOo (43899 posts) -

Honestly.. Ever since Crysis 1, graphics has done little to nothing new in enhancing gameplay further.. IN fact it seems to have become a crutch for many devs who think making the game very shiny will some how hide it's piss poor gameplay design ideas.. I have literally seen no new game out that couldn't have been done with Crysis 1 graphics level things a la 2007..

#15 Edited by melonfarmerz (1278 posts) -

Yup. Like we've seen with Watch Dogs, you get crazy sales when you tell consolites "Far Cry 4 PS4 is equal to PC on ultra", so you purposely gimp and terribly optimize the PC version to boost where the real sales are, casual console gamers. It's not a conspiracy, we're hearing it more and more today.

Dice Rep

TB

#16 Edited by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

@melonfarmerz: Johan Andersson is baws. right up there with carmack, sweeney, and the rest of the good old boys.

#17 Edited by melonfarmerz (1278 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

@melonfarmerz: Johan Andersson is baws. right up there with carmack, sweeney, and the rest of the good old boys.

Oh my god at least one other person knows who he is. Thank you. lol

#18 Posted by BldgIrsh (2998 posts) -

@melonfarmerz: That is great hehe.

#19 Posted by sam890 (1108 posts) -

No it's not look at games like Crysis and Metro Light(not even taking 4k into account). The thing holding back PC gaming is that POS Direct X.

#20 Edited by jun_aka_pekto (17275 posts) -

Nope. Developers hold pc gaming back. To be honest, I find it silly to apply transitive verbs to an inanimate object.

#21 Posted by EducatingU_PCMR (1071 posts) -

@melonfarmerz said:

Yup. Like we've seen with Watch Dogs, you get crazy sales when you tell consolites "Far Cry 4 PS4 is equal to PC on ultra", so you purposely gimp and terribly optimize the PC version to boost where the real sales are, casual console gamers. It's not a conspiracy, we're hearing it more and more today.

Dice Rep

TB

Ouch!

J. Andersson embarrassing shitty greedy lazy devs/publishers, that's gotta hurt.

#23 Edited by SentientMind (361 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

@melonfarmerz: Johan Andersson is baws. right up there with carmack, sweeney, and the rest of the good old boys.

I recognized the name too, he was a big name leading up to BF3. With him behind SW:BF, I know the pc version is going to be spectacular.

#24 Edited by m3dude1 (1560 posts) -

the pc platform isnt even competition for sony...clueless pc clowns jesus

@melonfarmerz johans statement is correct, but he doesnt have any room to talk. the pc version of battlefield compares to the ps4 version the same way any random port does. higher framerate and AA if your gpu is fast enough.

#25 Posted by Pray_to_me (3053 posts) -

Are grammar your bad shitty?

#26 Edited by lamprey263 (25272 posts) -

Yes and no... I'll say no though, money is the main motivator to focusing game design around the limitations of the lowest common denominator. Keep in mind though PCs aren't all sporting the most awesome weaponry, they'll also have to cater to those with weaker PCs. But PC development should at least have an array of options to allow people with lower specs to enjoy games, and those pushing the limits in performance to get more out of it, if developers aren't giving PC gamers that then that's clearly the developers fault.

#27 Posted by Vecna (3402 posts) -

Of coarse consoles are holding back pc versions of games. Unless the developer designs separate engines for every platform, you have to program to the lowest common denominator. These supposed next gen consoles are a joke at best.

#28 Edited by SentientMind (361 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

the pc platform isnt even competition for sony...clueless pc clowns jesus

@melonfarmerz johans statement is correct, but he doesnt have any room to talk. the pc version of battlefield compares to the ps4 version the same way any random port does. higher framerate and AA if your gpu is fast enough.

Yeah, that's an incorrect statement.. BF4 on consoles is a mix of high and medium from what I heard, while pc is ultra. And the PS4 isn't even 1080p right ?

Don't tell me you think Infamous compares to BF4's graphics on pc ?

Comparison:

_________-

#29 Posted by OhSnapitz (18674 posts) -

@lamprey263 said:

Yes and no... I'll say no though, money is the main motivator to focusing game design around the limitations of the lowest common denominator. Keep in mind though PCs aren't all sporting the most awesome weaponry, they'll also have to cater to those with weaker PCs. But PC development should at least have an array of options to allow people with lower specs to enjoy games, and those pushing the limits in performance to get more out of it, if developers aren't giving PC gamers that then that's clearly the developers fault.

THANK YOU!!!

The herms on this board act as if EVERY PC gamer out there has a God-Rig. Yes.. I know certain configurations won't necessarily "break the bank" so let's not turn this into a price comparison thread. But, there are a number of PC gamers out there (myself included up until about a week ago) that have VERY modest rigs. PC devs have to cater to THEM as well.

#30 Posted by m3dude1 (1560 posts) -

@SentientMind said:

@m3dude1 said:

the pc platform isnt even competition for sony...clueless pc clowns jesus

@melonfarmerz johans statement is correct, but he doesnt have any room to talk. the pc version of battlefield compares to the ps4 version the same way any random port does. higher framerate and AA if your gpu is fast enough.

Yeah, that's an incorrect statement.. BF4 on consoles is a mix of high and medium from what I heard, while pc is ultra. And the PS4 isn't even 1080p right ?

Don't tell me you think Infamous compares to BF4's graphics on pc ?

Comparison:

_________-

its a mix of high and ultra in single player, and a mix of high and ultra with terrain decoration low in multiplayer. and infamous looks far better than bf4 on pc.

#31 Posted by AmazonAngry (968 posts) -

PC is definitely holding progression back. It should just get out of the way and let the industry leap ahead.

#32 Posted by wis3boi (31939 posts) -

@OhSnapitz said:

@lamprey263 said:

Yes and no... I'll say no though, money is the main motivator to focusing game design around the limitations of the lowest common denominator. Keep in mind though PCs aren't all sporting the most awesome weaponry, they'll also have to cater to those with weaker PCs. But PC development should at least have an array of options to allow people with lower specs to enjoy games, and those pushing the limits in performance to get more out of it, if developers aren't giving PC gamers that then that's clearly the developers fault.

THANK YOU!!!

The herms on this board act as if EVERY PC gamer out there has a God-Rig. Yes.. I know certain configurations won't necessarily "break the bank" so let's not turn this into a price comparison thread. But, there are a number of PC gamers out there (myself included up until about a week ago) that have VERY modest rigs. PC devs have to cater to THEM as well.

or the devs can stop doing things the bad way and instead build from the top down. Give the absolute best visuals you can at the top and strip out features for consoles....and offer *gasp* options, for med/low PCs. Games that do this well, like Metro, BF3/4 come to mind, offer a better experience for the player at all levels.

#33 Posted by santoron (7970 posts) -

@Pray_to_me said:

Are grammar your bad shitty?

Made my night. :P

#34 Posted by OhSnapitz (18674 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

@OhSnapitz said:

@lamprey263 said:

Yes and no... I'll say no though, money is the main motivator to focusing game design around the limitations of the lowest common denominator. Keep in mind though PCs aren't all sporting the most awesome weaponry, they'll also have to cater to those with weaker PCs. But PC development should at least have an array of options to allow people with lower specs to enjoy games, and those pushing the limits in performance to get more out of it, if developers aren't giving PC gamers that then that's clearly the developers fault.

THANK YOU!!!

The herms on this board act as if EVERY PC gamer out there has a God-Rig. Yes.. I know certain configurations won't necessarily "break the bank" so let's not turn this into a price comparison thread. But, there are a number of PC gamers out there (myself included up until about a week ago) that have VERY modest rigs. PC devs have to cater to THEM as well.

or the devs can stop doing things the bad way and instead build from the top down. Give the absolute best visuals you can at the top and strip out features for consoles....and offer *gasp* options, for med/low PCs. Games that do this well, like Metro, BF3/4 come to mind, offer a better experience for the player at all levels.

Which would mean *gasp* its not the consoles fault but the developers for not taking the time to put in the extra work.

#35 Posted by SentientMind (361 posts) -

@m3dude1 said:

@SentientMind said:

@m3dude1 said:

the pc platform isnt even competition for sony...clueless pc clowns jesus

@melonfarmerz johans statement is correct, but he doesnt have any room to talk. the pc version of battlefield compares to the ps4 version the same way any random port does. higher framerate and AA if your gpu is fast enough.

Yeah, that's an incorrect statement.. BF4 on consoles is a mix of high and medium from what I heard, while pc is ultra. And the PS4 isn't even 1080p right ?

Don't tell me you think Infamous compares to BF4's graphics on pc ?

Comparison:

_________-

its a mix of high and ultra in single player, and a mix of high and ultra with terrain decoration low in multiplayer. and infamous looks far better than bf4 on pc.

You might want to get your eyes check. Are you honestly going to tell me Infamous looks more real then BF4 to you ?

#36 Posted by wis3boi (31939 posts) -

@OhSnapitz said:

@wis3boi said:

@OhSnapitz said:

@lamprey263 said:

Yes and no... I'll say no though, money is the main motivator to focusing game design around the limitations of the lowest common denominator. Keep in mind though PCs aren't all sporting the most awesome weaponry, they'll also have to cater to those with weaker PCs. But PC development should at least have an array of options to allow people with lower specs to enjoy games, and those pushing the limits in performance to get more out of it, if developers aren't giving PC gamers that then that's clearly the developers fault.

THANK YOU!!!

The herms on this board act as if EVERY PC gamer out there has a God-Rig. Yes.. I know certain configurations won't necessarily "break the bank" so let's not turn this into a price comparison thread. But, there are a number of PC gamers out there (myself included up until about a week ago) that have VERY modest rigs. PC devs have to cater to THEM as well.

or the devs can stop doing things the bad way and instead build from the top down. Give the absolute best visuals you can at the top and strip out features for consoles....and offer *gasp* options, for med/low PCs. Games that do this well, like Metro, BF3/4 come to mind, offer a better experience for the player at all levels.

Which would mean *gasp* its not the consoles fault but the developers for not taking the time to put in the extra work.

I never said otherwise. I do think consoles are piss weak, and i think devs arent doing things in a way that benefits both

#37 Posted by Gue1 (11186 posts) -

pc gamers with high end rigs are the minority, so pc gamers (and piracy) are holding back pc gaming. Is just that simple.

#38 Edited by Dasein808 (541 posts) -
@Gue1 said:

pc gamers with high end rigs are the minority, so pc gamers (and piracy) are holding back pc gaming. Is just that simple.

As Global PC Game Revenue Surpasses Consoles, How Long Should Console Makers Keep Fighting?

Rockstar Investigating Early Grand Theft Auto V Leak

GTA 5 For Xbox 360 Has Been Leaked To Torrents

Try again, peasant, pehaps with some new lies?

Enjoy your last gen.

#39 Posted by bezza2011 (2712 posts) -

Did Watchdogs cut off them graphics so that their target audience would buy into their shocking and badly made game for consoles??? Yes

Are consoles holding back PC?? No

I hate how people use the term PC so straight talking when PC is so loose,

If PC was so easy that you get it plug in and play then everyone would have one.

but it isn't a guy who buys a $500 PC isn't going to have the same experience of that of someone who has spent $2000 on a PC.

Just like the reason EA, Ubisoft, and a load more all stick to the same formula's because them things sell, unlike top grade PCs means more work for Dev's which means more money spent, going towards a minority of people who can even be bothered paying that sort of money for a system.

PC is PCs own worse enemy, and until it becomes much more simplified for most people to truly grip hold of, most companies will stay away from top end builds, it's as simple as that.

they go where the money is because that pays the bills.

#40 Posted by Gue1 (11186 posts) -

@melonfarmerz said:

Yup. Like we've seen with Watch Dogs, you get crazy sales when you tell consolites "Far Cry 4 PS4 is equal to PC on ultra", so you purposely gimp and terribly optimize the PC version to boost where the real sales are, casual console gamers. It's not a conspiracy, we're hearing it more and more today.

Dice Rep

TB

Andersson is on a rampage insulting devs on twitter. He wrote that Ready at Dawn have no idea what they are talking about because 30 frames is shit and some random indie game is more cinematic than The Order. He says they need to act like fools because they are console exclusive.

This guy's on a mission to lose his job.

#41 Edited by Jebus213 (8920 posts) -

>uninspiredcup thread

Okay.

http://puu.sh/9ugn2/7949dd4408.webm

http://puu.sh/9Ap5v/2a9a700bcf.webm

#42 Posted by Gue1 (11186 posts) -

@Dasein808 said:
@Gue1 said:

pc gamers with high end rigs are the minority, so pc gamers (and piracy) are holding back pc gaming. Is just that simple.

As Global PC Game Revenue Surpasses Consoles, How Long Should Console Makers Keep Fighting?

Rockstar Investigating Early Grand Theft Auto V Leak

GTA 5 For Xbox 360 Has Been Leaked To Torrents

Try again, peasant, pehaps with some new lies?

Enjoy your last gen.

this has been discussed to death already, you guys have been proven wrong yet keep using the same argument over and over again.

PC revenue comes from like 3 big games. And don't even try to compare piracy on consoles with PC. Piracy on PC it's on a level of its own.

#43 Posted by DEadliNE-Zero0 (4811 posts) -

Crysis 1 pushed graphics far ahead of anything, and the vast majority couldn't play it.

While consoles do hold progression back, you can't make a game that pushes the ultimate hardware just because. Having good resolution and higher, stable frame rates is important.

the Witcher 2 was demanding, but not so much that a mid performer couldn't play it if you toned down some stuff.

Pushing graphical advancements whiel keeping performance is the most important.

#44 Edited by Dasein808 (541 posts) -

@Gue1: How about coming with some actual facts to back your argument instead of spouting the standard peasant lies?

Where the revenue comes from is irrelevant. It is greater than that of consoles, with a wider base of distribution, and several of those top money making games are free to play.

The exact same argument could be made concerning the percentage of overall game sales made over the course of a given console platform's lifetime being made by only a handful of studios: (i.e. Rockstar, Bungie, Square, ND, etc.)

Steam created a fertile marketplace for the reemergence of indie developers, all but choked out by the idiot borg publishers that decided that stagnating the entire industry by catering to the lifespan of inferior platforms (the recent peasant complaints regarding devs continued support of the previous gen platforms hindering the current gen are poetic justice), absorbing successful PC studios, and slinging sequels, was good business.

For tech perspective: By their 4th generation in 2010, the iPhone had as much RAM as its console counterparts from Sony and MS then in the 4th and 5th years of their respective lifespans. The original iPhone debuted in 2007.

To claim that developers working within similarly outdated technological and input device constraints does not somehow hinder development for other more powerful platforms is an indefensible lie.

In the last 13 years, with one exception, consoles have continued to evolve to become watered down PCs incapable of being upgraded. It's now to the point that they share the same x86 architecture.

It all started with an ethernet port, and a hard drive, then patches, online play (nearly a decade after PCs), the death of split screen, the introduction of digital content distribution, the cessation of in-house hardware development/utilization of tablet/3rd party tech, the latest moves to try and embrace the indie market while also starting to turn away from the traditionally cost and creativity prohibitive AAA model of the past, and these changes were made before you peasants realized they ever happened because you now accept them as the norm.

You were conditioned to PC tech without realizing it.

All of the supposed technical difficulties of PCs, piracy, hacking, patches, networking, etc. are now a part of the regular "console" existence without any of the benefits and all of the walls of a prison with an included recurring surcharge and lack of upgradability.

Unfortunately, peasants will continue to gouge out their eyes, stick their fingers in their ears, scream the slogan of their chosen platform till they're hoarse, all while quoting PC part prices from a 1994 issue of Computer Shopper and cutting and pasting images of BSOD messages from an OS that predated many of their births.

#45 Edited by BldgIrsh (2998 posts) -

@Dasein808: Peasants don't understand logic. So they'll just react as you stated in the last paragraph. Good read though.

#46 Posted by sam890 (1108 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

@Dasein808 said:
@Gue1 said:

pc gamers with high end rigs are the minority, so pc gamers (and piracy) are holding back pc gaming. Is just that simple.

As Global PC Game Revenue Surpasses Consoles, How Long Should Console Makers Keep Fighting?

Rockstar Investigating Early Grand Theft Auto V Leak

GTA 5 For Xbox 360 Has Been Leaked To Torrents

Try again, peasant, pehaps with some new lies?

Enjoy your last gen.

this has been discussed to death already, you guys have been proven wrong yet keep using the same argument over and over again.

PC revenue comes from like 3 big games. And don't even try to compare piracy on consoles with PC. Piracy on PC it's on a level of its own.

Which 3 "big games" can you provide proof of that claim ?

#47 Posted by sukraj (23818 posts) -

@Pray_to_me said:

Are grammar your bad shitty?

meh chana sagaa not got stench vely bad grammer but not in book ok bossman.

#48 Edited by BlbecekBobecek (2729 posts) -

Consoles actually make it possible to make a graphically demanding game for PC. PC sales wouldn't justify that. See PC exclusives and their graphical inferiority compared to multiplats for reference.

#50 Edited by The_Stand_In (424 posts) -

@amazonangry said:

PC is definitely holding progression back. It should just get out of the way and let the industry leap ahead.

Yeah, because old, static hardware from 2011 is the gateway to the future in 2014 and beyond...