@Kjranu: And no games use all of that power, so whats the point. even my specs run things with room to spare. No consoles are not holding anything back, due to lack of small graphical power consoles are more innovative in gaming in many ways. Problem with PC is that everyone is always on about how high the textures are. Hell i still play N64 and some games have better artistic style then any modern "amazing" looking PC game
Given how PCs are so flexible in the possible specs, Devs (and Pubs often dictating) what the lowest common denominator is, this tends to be the lowest of the consoles which multiplats are on.
The Whole "Pc is holding PC back" is a pretty bull viewpoint given how most games with have budgets are multiplats, and they need to run on the widest amount of platforms (PC ironically not really included as such given the range of pcs out there).
So the X1 will be dictating the NeXT 6-8 years by the sound of it. Does not matter if you have a high end PC or a PS4, multiplats will HAVE to run on the x1, the other systems will just get upgrades in some visual areas aswell as resolution.
This will force out the peopel with the weaker pcs, as well as old consoles.
When all that is said, this gen of consoles have just come out, so let us first see how the "weakest" platform fares against the hopes we have before claiming the consoles to hold back pc gaming, yes?
(for obvious reasons exclusives are not taken into acocunt here, since they aim for one platform, and Thus dictated not by potential sales, but soley on how good of a showcase Money can take it).
If it were true that consoles we're holding back gaming then why are most PC exclusives so fugly? Rich nerdboy masterbeggars live in a bubble and think everyone should spend a couple of G's on a nerdrig just like they did.
Games developed for the PC first or as a PC exclusive have no excuse... the only thing "holding back" pc games are the consumers.... Most PC gamers don't have super rigs that have unlimited capabilities. I can play just about any PC game right now... however if they wanted to they could UP their max settings to the sky is the limit.... Why would they put THAT MUCH into development costs though? Dumb... just dumb...
Pc gaming is holding pc gaming back. Most pc gamers dont even have pcs equal to the new consoles. There is nothing stopping devs from making demanding pc exclusives, many just do not see the benefit. I mean iy scaresndevs when you look at some of the mostn respected pc games get pirated over and over.
most of consoles are also unlocked to run pirate games too
30% in europe and us
90% in poor countries
98% of console owners dont have a console as powerful ass the ps4
Yes and no. Yes because publishers need to make profits so they put the games out on as many systems as possible, thus most games are built on the lowest common denominator and improved from there. No because some of the publishers that release PC only games don't really seem to try either. Also when developers make PC games like Crysis Warhead, it's too advanced even for PCs, which requires the use of multiple high end cards just to stay above 60fps at 1080p enthusiast settings.
Yes . When games that use 10 years old graphics engine can't even do 900p , you can bet that this gen PC will be held back even more . The only chance we have is PC developers like CD Projekt , Creative Assembly , CIG , Valve (Source 2) etc .
Pc gamers are holding back gaming because once glorious PC only devs had to resort to making console games as well to recoup losses after their games was stolen in masses when it was only available on pc. :(
The only thing holding back PC gaming is pirates and PC developers themselves. They're under no obligation to make games based on console specs and then port to PC, they can simply ignore Consoles all together and depend on PC gamers alone for support, if they so choose.
If PC gaming is as strong as hermits claim, they can stand alone. Blaming consoles is a poor excuse.
PC games are held back by PC gamers, otherwise their exclusives would look amazing and have super high system requirements. But lower system requirements equals a larger potential market, since despite the whole master race nonsense... most PC gamers arent maxing out their games at 60fps on ultra settings. Lots of folks are still using rigs that are several years old, current rigs with low to midrange hardware.. and even laptops with integrated graphics in order to pc game. Blaming consoles has always been a crock, and will continue to be a crock.
What are you 12 years old? Guess your mom didn't want to buy you a nerdrig. Comeback when you can come up with something better than what a elementary school kid would say.
Yes in the sense that devs will make games for consoles first, and port them to PC more often. Thus PC horsepower doesn't always get used with every game. The PC version will always look vastly superior, but sure the devs could have done more.
No, because the existence of those consoles means it's no longer being held back by the 360/PS3. Now devs get to flex even more pwoer, and soon there will be even stronger graphics cards.
PC gaming's evolving nature means it'll never be maxed out. Just you'll get a developer that moved the bar higher.
No they aren't. Graphics can easily scale and the Xbox One and PS4 have enough ram and CPU power to play even the most demanding PC games on the market today and for the foreseeable future. The biggest limitation of the Xbox 360 and PS4 was the 512mbs of ram they had and their aged CPUs.
CPUs today have far more power than games need. Unless a game is poorly coded, it's rare that the CPU is the limitation. The biggest bottleneck on the PC is actually DirectX and OpenGL which have to do a lot more processing on the CPU than the consoles do to render graphics. This is slowly changing with Mantle and newer revisions of DirectX/OpenGL, but it's something the consoles have never had to deal with so their weaker CPUs are not a major issue.
With 8 gbs of total ram a developer can do quite a bit. Actual game logic, level design, AI, pathfinding, and all of those things do not take that much RAM. Even the most graphically intense and CPU demanding games on the PC rarely need more than 3 gbs of system ram. You can do quite a bit with that.
The thing with graphics is they can be scaled a lot more easily. You can much more easily scale back the amount of pretty graphical effects and focus on just the necessities. The PS4 and Xbox One, even the Wii U, are more than capable of running games with the basic graphical features that actually impact gameplay (draw distances, lighting, effects). If you have the power you can start making more rendering passes for more detail, increase the resolution so that more detail is rendered each frame, increase the AA to smooth out jaggies when not running uber high resolutions, and do all of that stuff. It's really easy to just tone that stuff down to make it run on a weaker GPU. A lot of PCs games today can run on a large variety of GPUs with the low end often falling well below what is in the PS4/Xbox One.
So don't worry about it. Now that the devs have 8 gbs of ram and a familiar x84 processor, developers will not be bottlenecked by the console's hardware. They'll still have to design their games around a typical living room setup and controller though.
Yes in the sense that devs will make games for consoles first, and port them to PC more often. Thus PC horsepower doesn't always get used with every game. The PC version will always look vastly superior, but sure the devs could have done more.
No, because the existence of those consoles means it's no longer being held back by the 360/PS3. Now devs get to flex even more pwoer, and soon there will be even stronger graphics cards.
PC gaming's evolving nature means it'll never be maxed out. Just you'll get a developer that moved the bar higher.
I disagree. Given the fact that the PS4/Xbox One utilize and x86 architecture, have a modern GPU with all of the bells and whistles you would expect (unlike the PS3's extremely outdated GPU), and 8 gbs of ram, it's much easier to build the game on the PC first and just scale back on the consoles. It's easier to scale back the amount of strain you put on the GPU and the CPU/RAM combination of the Xbox One and PS4 are more than powerful enough to run even the most demanding PC games.
Another huge advantage developers have this generation that they didn't have until late last gen is much more robust game engines that span multiple platforms. Engines like the UDK, CryEngine, and Frostbite all have a set of unified tools that allow the developers to build their game on a single platform usually the PC, or completely platform independently and the engine scales to all supported platforms for them with a lot less effort. I'm under the assumption that most new game engines by all developers work in such a way as it's far easier to port to mulitple systems if your core team of developers only needs to focus on the game while the tech does the rest of the work for them.
That question makes no sense. Do you mean how much do the consoles hold back for the OS? I'm not sure at the exact number, but people speculate anywhere from 1-3 gbs of it. At the beginning of the generation the OS's memory footprint is always the largest. As time goes on they'll reduce the footprint. They can't increase the footprint because that would have a negative impact on all games built prior to the OS update.
It's not a huge deal. Even a game like Planetside 2 only requires roughly 3gbs of system ram and about 1 gb of video ram. ArmA 3 only takes a maximum of 3.5 gbs of RAM. Even if the consoles only had 6 gbs of ram allowed for the game that would still give a game 1.5 gbs of video ram and with modern APIs and their tools like tiled resources, that's more than enough for games to look great at 1080p.
No they aren't. Graphics can easily scale and the Xbox One and PS4 have enough ram and CPU power to play even the most demanding PC games on the market today and for the foreseeable future. The biggest limitation of the Xbox 360 and PS4 was the 512mbs of ram they had and their aged CPUs.
CPUs today have far more power than games need. Unless a game is poorly coded, it's rare that the CPU is the limitation. The biggest bottleneck on the PC is actually DirectX and OpenGL which have to do a lot more processing on the CPU than the consoles do to render graphics. This is slowly changing with Mantle and newer revisions of DirectX/OpenGL, but it's something the consoles have never had to deal with so their weaker CPUs are not a major issue.
With 8 gbs of total ram a developer can do quite a bit. Actual game logic, level design, AI, pathfinding, and all of those things do not take that much RAM. Even the most graphically intense and CPU demanding games on the PC rarely need more than 3 gbs of system ram. You can do quite a bit with that.
The thing with graphics is they can be scaled a lot more easily. You can much more easily scale back the amount of pretty graphical effects and focus on just the necessities. The PS4 and Xbox One, even the Wii U, are more than capable of running games with the basic graphical features that actually impact gameplay (draw distances, lighting, effects). If you have the power you can start making more rendering passes for more detail, increase the resolution so that more detail is rendered each frame, increase the AA to smooth out jaggies when not running uber high resolutions, and do all of that stuff. It's really easy to just tone that stuff down to make it run on a weaker GPU. A lot of PCs games today can run on a large variety of GPUs with the low end often falling well below what is in the PS4/Xbox One.
So don't worry about it. Now that the devs have 8 gbs of ram and a familiar x84 processor, developers will not be bottlenecked by the console's hardware. They'll still have to design their games around a typical living room setup and controller though.
I respectfully disagree. RAM alone is not the answer. The CPU are damn too weak in next-gen consoles. Pretty damn sure the CPU in PS4 didn't meet the Planet Side 2 teams demand and they had to scale back.
And I highly disagree that the DirectX is actually has any bottleneck on PCs. You your self has said that the biggest impant these APIs have is on the CPU and not on the GPU it self. I'm sure PC gamers have CPUs magnitudes of times more powerful than the ones in 900pStation and 720pBox.
It is just the start and developers already started cutting resolutions ranging from 720p - 900p. I can easily see either more cuts in resolution if they go higher on graphics effects or just not push the boundaries at all which ultimately HOLDS BACK THE PC.
I would really be impressed if I can see any game on consoles matching Crysis 2 technically.
It's making me feel shafted because of lame-arse "next-gen" games COULD look a lot better if they were developed for top-spec PCs in mind ... and then downscale for the consoles.
You'll be fine. Last generation had some of the worse port jobs/optimization (due to consoles using custom parts/kits) and yet the PC version where better by quite a bit (textures/shadows where better, resolution was 1080p or higher instead of sub 720p, advanced settings such as AA/AF make a huge difference, and 60FPS no dips feels nice).
This generation won't be any different (you will get better textures/shadows, higher resolution, more FPS, and 4-10 advanced settings that consoles have to skimp on).
No they aren't. Graphics can easily scale and the Xbox One and PS4 have enough ram and CPU power to play even the most demanding PC games on the market today and for the foreseeable future. The biggest limitation of the Xbox 360 and PS4 was the 512mbs of ram they had and their aged CPUs.
CPUs today have far more power than games need. Unless a game is poorly coded, it's rare that the CPU is the limitation. The biggest bottleneck on the PC is actually DirectX and OpenGL which have to do a lot more processing on the CPU than the consoles do to render graphics. This is slowly changing with Mantle and newer revisions of DirectX/OpenGL, but it's something the consoles have never had to deal with so their weaker CPUs are not a major issue.
With 8 gbs of total ram a developer can do quite a bit. Actual game logic, level design, AI, pathfinding, and all of those things do not take that much RAM. Even the most graphically intense and CPU demanding games on the PC rarely need more than 3 gbs of system ram. You can do quite a bit with that.
The thing with graphics is they can be scaled a lot more easily. You can much more easily scale back the amount of pretty graphical effects and focus on just the necessities. The PS4 and Xbox One, even the Wii U, are more than capable of running games with the basic graphical features that actually impact gameplay (draw distances, lighting, effects). If you have the power you can start making more rendering passes for more detail, increase the resolution so that more detail is rendered each frame, increase the AA to smooth out jaggies when not running uber high resolutions, and do all of that stuff. It's really easy to just tone that stuff down to make it run on a weaker GPU. A lot of PCs games today can run on a large variety of GPUs with the low end often falling well below what is in the PS4/Xbox One.
So don't worry about it. Now that the devs have 8 gbs of ram and a familiar x84 processor, developers will not be bottlenecked by the console's hardware. They'll still have to design their games around a typical living room setup and controller though.
I respectfully disagree. RAM alone is not the answer. The CPU are damn too weak in next-gen consoles. Pretty damn sure the CPU in PS4 didn't meet the Planet Side 2 teams demand and they had to scale back.
And I highly disagree that the DirectX is actually has any bottleneck on PCs. You your self has said that the biggest impant these APIs have is on the CPU and not on the GPU it self. I'm sure PC gamers have CPUs magnitudes of times more powerful than the ones in 900pStation and 720pBox.
It is just the start and developers already started cutting resolutions ranging from 720p - 900p. I can easily see either more cuts in resolution if they go higher on graphics effects or just not push the boundaries at all which ultimately HOLDS BACK THE PC.
I would really be impressed if I can see any game on consoles matching Crysis 2 technically.
You can disagree with him/her all you like. Doesn't change facts. Ram constraints on the last consoles was part of what held back pc gaming.
The overhead that the pc API's(DX3D/openGL) make is also holding back PC game development, Now with Mantle we might see some changes.
Lastly, as I mention in an earlier post, ignored by all, is the fact that game devs have to take into account that the end user might still be on 32bit OS. limiting their use of RAM to between -3gb on system ram and VRAM combined. This is the reason why Skyrim, though looking good, looks like shit compared to what it could have looked like if they didn't ship with being locked at 2gb.
This is the reason why Skyrim, though looking good, looks like shit compared to what it could have looked like if they didn't ship with being locked at 2gb.
Skyrim released in 2011 when consoles had 512mb total RAM/VRAM. Most PCs were already coming out with at least 4gb by 2009 (6gb by the following year).
Of the 4gb, 32-bit XP and 32-bit Vista/Win 7 can address 3.25gb plus whatever VRAM is on the video card. That's still a huge gap between 512mb and 3.25gb + VRAM. I doubt the 32-bit OS is a limiting factor.
Will people ever stop talking about this? I've been around too long. The idea that this generation of consoles is somehow the weakest is tragically mislead. So let's take the most relatively powerful consoles we can imagine. For it's time, that would probably be either the PS2 or 360. The PS2 couldn't even run Tribes 2 without slashing the draw distance, dropping the player count, and eliminating the entire tactical interface from the game (the thing that let you control turrets and manage the battlefield). The PS4 can play feature-perfect versions of BF4 and soon Planetside 2 and it plays FF14 quite a bit better than the PS2 played FF11.I also remember when the Dreamcast came out, fantastic console, and it couldn't play Quake 3 Arena with any more than 4 players and only on the smallest maps. It was barely even a game, but back then no one had these bizarre expectations that consoles should be able to do the same things a PC can, different platforms do different things and excel in different areas. Now that reality is lost on us, and when the PS4 has achieved a greater level of parity with the PC than any console has in the history of videogames, we call it the weakest console ever made and predict its premature downfall. I cannot even fathom how you people reach these conclusions.
And we are still incredibly early in the lifespan here, single-digit months in, and the PC gaming community already maxed out the PS4 before the developers have.
Log in to comment