Is console 'next-gen' again holding back PC gaming?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#151 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (5120 posts) -

@Heil68 said:

NOpe. SONY is pushing the industry forward like normal.

HAHAHAHAHA... oh you're serious.

#152 Posted by jun_aka_pekto (17188 posts) -

@trasherhead said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@trasherhead said:

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.

The average steam gamer today don't have more then 4GB of ram. But Skyrim was locked to use no more then 2 GB of ram, it was later patched after moders made a fan patch to let it access more then 2GB of ram. Yes, there is a huge gap there, but after you remove what the OS and applications uses, there is considerably less of a gap and you suddenly are down at close to 2gb of ram left total. The only way that consoles were holding it back was because they were both at DX9c feature sets(yes, 360 had a few DX10 features and PS3 was OpenGL), meaning Skyrim had to support that too.

This has been discussed in length before, 32bit os has lingered too long and has been and is a limiting factor.

There's also been PC games that busted past that limit. I've seen both FSX (2006) and X-Plane 9 (2009) go past 4Gb. X-Plane 9 especially. I've seen RAM usage hover around 4.5Gb on long flights. Even taking into account the OS and applets RAM usage of say, 2Gb, the remainder (coupled with the VRAM in video cards) is still huge compared to 512mb. Those two games were also PC-exclusive ( although X-plane 9 was ported later on to the iPad).

#153 Edited by 04dcarraher (20326 posts) -

@trasherhead said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@trasherhead said:

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.

The average steam gamer today don't have more then 4GB of ram. But Skyrim was locked to use no more then 2 GB of ram, it was later patched after moders made a fan patch to let it access more then 2GB of ram. Yes, there is a huge gap there, but after you remove what the OS and applications uses, there is considerably less of a gap and you suddenly are down at close to 2gb of ram left total. The only way that consoles were holding it back was because they were both at DX9c feature sets(yes, 360 had a few DX10 features and PS3 was OpenGL), meaning Skyrim had to support that too.

This has been discussed in length before, 32bit os has lingered too long and has been and is a limiting factor.

Wrong both HD twins held back with Skyrim and every other multiplat game that was designed around the lowest common denominator aka the consoles. The console's cpu limits, memory limits, as well as gpu limits, cause many design decisions to be cut and altered to fit the hardware. With Skyrim and any other game, the consoles have to load sections or cells of an area as the player progresses(moves through) this saves memory and cpu power. Both consoles only have 512mb of memory and the PS3 is split which lead into issues and the developers had to work around the 256mb limitation. the Pc version of games dont work on streaming the data as the HD twins do hence the reason why pc version load most of the data into memory needing 1-2gb.

The Consoles hardware limitations goes far beyond the fact it was just limited to shader model 3 aka direct x 9. Lack of cpu power causes slow loading times with skyrim limits the amount of npcs and what can go on in an area. Then memory limits forces them to use the streaming of cells, limits what developers can do in areas where the player is. and lack of memory limits graphical detail possibilities and resolutions. Then we move onto the gpu limits because of the limits in video memory and the lack of processing power causes performance issues, less complex and detailed areas. Mods and tweaking the settings for skyrim prove the point that these consoles held back the core design of the game. Not the fact most pc's only have 4gb of memory or 32bit OS's.

#154 Posted by SambaLele (5523 posts) -

@Wasdie said:

@remiks00 said:

Excellent posts as usual Wasdie. You've cleared up the cpu side of things for me. But, what about the GPU's? You're saying that the current consoles can run games like Planetside 2 on the highest PC settings? So how does that compare to my OC gtx 770? It doesn't makes sense for the consoles to be able to match the same settings as the card for a cheaper price. Just trying to wrap my head around this info.

They are significantly weaker than a GTX 770. A single GTX 570 can max out Planetside 2, it's not GPU bottlenecked at all. Planetside 2 is mostly CPU limited because it's very poorly multithreaded. They've drastically improved that lately but it's still far away from where it needs to be. It's why the PS4 version is taking so much time, the engine needs to be gutted yet again and rebuilt to take advantage of 8 cores. They also have to go from DirectX 9 to Sony's OpenGL version, not really something done overnight.

I'm not trying to make the GPUs in the PS4/Xbox One out to be more powerful than they are. They are about as good as mid-high end PC GPUs that came out in 2011/2012. They aren't super powerful. However there are really no games today that truely push even those old GPUs to their limit, and the ones that do usually are very sloppy in their code. When pushing DirectX or OpenGL really hard you end up waiting for the CPU a lot because they are still software bound.

Also DirectX/OpenGL are tuned for many different configurations, it's very rare a game even comes close to properly utilizing the GPU. Even if a GPU is running at 100% it's rare using 100% of its power efficiently. On the consoles they have one significant advantage that the PC will never have, standard hardware. You can get away with building a game with tricks that will only work on one piece of hardware. You don't ever have to worry about if your shader will work well on other GPUs, you just have to worry about the one. That's a massive advantage and allows devs to get far more performance out of hardware than they would with a big "one size fits all" API like OpenGL or DirectX.

However those GPUs do have their limitations. Even with this increase in efficiency they aren't extremely powerful cards by today's standards and their limits will be hit pretty quickly. That's fine because even within their limits they can produce some very beautiful visuals. Look at Ryse and The Order 1886, beautiful games and we've only begun to see what developers can do with the tech. The APIs are still young, engines are still being optimized around that 8 core APU and the new architectures, and the devs probably haven't really started seriously optimizing for the specific hardware yet.

I don't think we'll see the jump of graphics we saw last gen (going from Gears of War 1 to Gears of War 3 as an example), but graphics will look like games like Ryse and The Order pretty much consistently throughout the gen with some more detail and whatnot added. What will really change is how developers optimize the rendering so that they distribute the detail to the important parts.

You nailed it. Making more optimized codes, without proper middleware costs a LOT. That's why Mantle will be so significant. Especially for the PC market, where GPU-specific optimized coding is simply not a possibility. I'd guess consoles will manage to remain comparable to high-end (not top) PCs for at least 2-3 more years. Some very high-end PCs, of course, will always have the upper hand anyway, as they already do, and always did. Though, again, that doesn't mean their power is really being fully utilized. Far from it.

#155 Edited by AznbkdX (3543 posts) -

Well since PC tends to get more ports on the high end spectrum, yeah consoles are holding them back in that regard since they aren't as powerful and devs won't usually make a port that runs extremely well on a PC since it's built for both PC and console in mind. I equate this to a bit of laziness coupled with the fact that it costs more to make an optimal PC port (honestly though mods are normally good enough for me).

PC is also holding PC back though, as most PC gamers don't have the highest end stuff (I'm one of them). The devs that do make PC only games tend to not go for high end graphics because it's costly, and because of people like me.

Either way PC is getting screwed in some way.

#156 Posted by slateman_basic (4031 posts) -

@SEANMCAD said:

@slateman_basic said:

@KungfuKitten said:

The gap is becoming so big that I expect more devs to develop on PC first this generation.

The only question that matters is: Will it be profitable?

hugely so.

HOWEVER, the games needs to cross over to tablets.

This is absolutely the wrong way to go. Tablets are even less powerful and less interfaceable than consoles. PC gaming already suffers from bad ports. Tablet gaming would make it even worse.

#158 Posted by yixingtpot (1417 posts) -

PC=Microbribed gaming, it's synonymous with Xboner gaming etc. Microsoft launched the original Xbroke to monopolize all of gaming not just PC gaming which they control by default/Windows. So, they've stopped caring about supporting PC gaming since they already OWN IT, hence the bid to destroy true console gaming... which they've achieved in less time than I'd predicted 13 or so years ago.

Microsoft bribed the movie industry to support HDDVD a format they didn't even wait to include in the Xbroke, they did this to get the early jump on PS3 and thwart the advancement of true HD format Blu-ray and the true scope of what HD gaming on consoles could be via PS3 Blu-ray/3D etc. They forced PC games and PS3 games to be dumbed down to DVD level of scope/scale and the lazy 3rd party developers were obviously bribed like everybody else that bowed down to the corruption of Microsoft. Even the Supreme Court protects Monsanto from litigation and Bill Gates has probably invested much more than he admits to the GMO agenda to control what we EAT/are poisoned with.

If you're that far behind the reality of how evil Microsoft is, then you're almost hopeless... but there's time to change and help destroy the evil that is Microsoft. Dump your Xboner or Xbroke and buy a Japanese system. The Japanese don't control what you search for via BING bribe search, Net Neutrality is dead and never lived. Microsoft bribed corporations to delist from Google(not that Google isn't a greedy power mad beast as well) so it proves most gaming sites are controlled via BRIBED to support Microsoft endeavors. One look at CNET still posting editorials that claim the PS4 lists for $520, more expensive than the Xboner is proof. The misleading false advertising of the press proves they are controlled by Microsoft. Gamestop employees state blatant lies to shoppers claiming the PS4 is online only to dissuade shoppers from buying them and choosing the more expensive, weaker Xboner system instead.

These lies are bribed into existence by the evil that is Microsoft.

When you talk PC you're talking Xboner, it's the same crappy thing. If you don't get that than you're just ignorant and blind to reality.

#159 Posted by trasherhead (3058 posts) -

@04dcarraher said:

@trasherhead said:

@jun_aka_pekto said:

@trasherhead said:

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.

The average steam gamer today don't have more then 4GB of ram. But Skyrim was locked to use no more then 2 GB of ram, it was later patched after moders made a fan patch to let it access more then 2GB of ram. Yes, there is a huge gap there, but after you remove what the OS and applications uses, there is considerably less of a gap and you suddenly are down at close to 2gb of ram left total. The only way that consoles were holding it back was because they were both at DX9c feature sets(yes, 360 had a few DX10 features and PS3 was OpenGL), meaning Skyrim had to support that too.

This has been discussed in length before, 32bit os has lingered too long and has been and is a limiting factor.

Wrong both HD twins held back with Skyrim and every other multiplat game that was designed around the lowest common denominator aka the consoles. The console's cpu limits, memory limits, as well as gpu limits, cause many design decisions to be cut and altered to fit the hardware. With Skyrim and any other game, the consoles have to load sections or cells of an area as the player progresses(moves through) this saves memory and cpu power. Both consoles only have 512mb of memory and the PS3 is split which lead into issues and the developers had to work around the 256mb limitation. the Pc version of games dont work on streaming the data as the HD twins do hence the reason why pc version load most of the data into memory needing 1-2gb.

The Consoles hardware limitations goes far beyond the fact it was just limited to shader model 3 aka direct x 9. Lack of cpu power causes slow loading times with skyrim limits the amount of npcs and what can go on in an area. Then memory limits forces them to use the streaming of cells, limits what developers can do in areas where the player is. and lack of memory limits graphical detail possibilities and resolutions. Then we move onto the gpu limits because of the limits in video memory and the lack of processing power causes performance issues, less complex and detailed areas. Mods and tweaking the settings for skyrim prove the point that these consoles held back the core design of the game. Not the fact most pc's only have 4gb of memory or 32bit OS's.

What you are mentioning is all true, but smaller in scale scale. Textures can be resized(I'm working with Unity 3D and it has this wonderful little slider that down res's textures on the fly), Models can be retopoligized or even removed, but GPU features can not and would have to be completely changed. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, 32bit windows is part of the problem. A problem that goes beyond multiplat games. It is what is holding back PC exclusives from looking more awesome then they could be doing, as well as APIs.

Lack of throughput on the CPU and gpu is relatively easy to fix buy redusing polygon count on screen at any given time and reducing the number of drawcalls.

I probably shouldn't have been so hyperbolic in my statement that it is "only" dx9 that is holding back, but on these forums I have found from experience that going too much into details usually is a waste of time as it usually end up being ignored by the laymen on the board. But as I said, I was trying to point out a larger problem. PC exclusives, which there are a lot of.

#160 Edited by razu2444 (806 posts) -

@Kjranu: Yeah I know how you feel. I have a Bugatti Veyron but the Government keeps making roads for silly slow cars. I am I supposed to drive to work at the speed limit when my Veyron can do much more.

Yep you guessed it, you sound stupid with your topic.

#161 Posted by locopatho (20641 posts) -

@Kjranu: Yawn. Show me the PC exclusives that push power so much. It's funny when people bitch about consoles holding PC back when console multiplats are the best looking PC games!

#162 Posted by MonsieurX (31523 posts) -

@locopatho said:

@Kjranu: Yawn. Show me the PC exclusives that push power so much. It's funny when people bitch about consoles holding PC back when console multiplats are the best looking PC games!

Star Citizen

The original Crysis held for a long time the title

#163 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

@yixingtpot said:

PC=Microbribed gaming, it's synonymous with Xboner gaming etc. Microsoft launched the original Xbroke to monopolize all of gaming not just PC gaming which they control by default/Windows. So, they've stopped caring about supporting PC gaming since they already OWN IT, hence the bid to destroy true console gaming... which they've achieved in less time than I'd predicted 13 or so years ago.

Microsoft bribed the movie industry to support HDDVD a format they didn't even wait to include in the Xbroke, they did this to get the early jump on PS3 and thwart the advancement of true HD format Blu-ray and the true scope of what HD gaming on consoles could be via PS3 Blu-ray/3D etc. They forced PC games and PS3 games to be dumbed down to DVD level of scope/scale and the lazy 3rd party developers were obviously bribed like everybody else that bowed down to the corruption of Microsoft. Even the Supreme Court protects Monsanto from litigation and Bill Gates has probably invested much more than he admits to the GMO agenda to control what we EAT/are poisoned with.

If you're that far behind the reality of how evil Microsoft is, then you're almost hopeless... but there's time to change and help destroy the evil that is Microsoft. Dump your Xboner or Xbroke and buy a Japanese system. The Japanese don't control what you search for via BING bribe search, Net Neutrality is dead and never lived. Microsoft bribed corporations to delist from Google(not that Google isn't a greedy power mad beast as well) so it proves most gaming sites are controlled via BRIBED to support Microsoft endeavors. One look at CNET still posting editorials that claim the PS4 lists for $520, more expensive than the Xboner is proof. The misleading false advertising of the press proves they are controlled by Microsoft. Gamestop employees state blatant lies to shoppers claiming the PS4 is online only to dissuade shoppers from buying them and choosing the more expensive, weaker Xboner system instead.

These lies are bribed into existence by the evil that is Microsoft.

When you talk PC you're talking Xboner, it's the same crappy thing. If you don't get that than you're just ignorant and blind to reality.

or a linux machine?

then we can support an open platform rather than any one company! right friend?

plus the linux steam box has was more games than ps4. its pretty cool.

#164 Posted by locopatho (20641 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

@locopatho said:

@Kjranu: Yawn. Show me the PC exclusives that push power so much. It's funny when people bitch about consoles holding PC back when console multiplats are the best looking PC games!

Star Citizen

The original Crysis held for a long time the title

One Kickstarter game that isn't even out yet?

Crysis was indeed amazing for it's time. It also got ported to consoles. So if consoles can manage PC's most powerful, "graphics king" game, how are they holding anything back?

#165 Edited by MonsieurX (31523 posts) -

@locopatho said:

@MonsieurX said:

@locopatho said:

@Kjranu: Yawn. Show me the PC exclusives that push power so much. It's funny when people bitch about consoles holding PC back when console multiplats are the best looking PC games!

Star Citizen

The original Crysis held for a long time the title

One Kickstarter game that isn't even out yet?

Crysis was indeed amazing for it's time. It also got ported to consoles. So if consoles can manage PC's most powerful, "graphics king" game, how are they holding anything back?

Yeah,just compare how it turned out on consoles vs modded on PC

#166 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

@locopatho said:

@MonsieurX said:

@locopatho said:

@Kjranu: Yawn. Show me the PC exclusives that push power so much. It's funny when people bitch about consoles holding PC back when console multiplats are the best looking PC games!

Star Citizen

The original Crysis held for a long time the title

One Kickstarter game that isn't even out yet?

Crysis was indeed amazing for it's time. It also got ported to consoles. So if consoles can manage PC's most powerful, "graphics king" game, how are they holding anything back?

Yeah,just compare how it turned out on consoles vs modded on PC

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

ps3 - Crysis = 1024x720 (TAA + edge post-process) (35.5% of Full HD pixels)

xbox 360 - Crysis = 1152x720 (TAA + edge post-process) (40% of full HD pixels)

as well as the other compromises beyond resolution.

#167 Posted by locopatho (20641 posts) -

@MonsieurX said:

@locopatho said:

@MonsieurX said:

@locopatho said:

@Kjranu: Yawn. Show me the PC exclusives that push power so much. It's funny when people bitch about consoles holding PC back when console multiplats are the best looking PC games!

Star Citizen

The original Crysis held for a long time the title

One Kickstarter game that isn't even out yet?

Crysis was indeed amazing for it's time. It also got ported to consoles. So if consoles can manage PC's most powerful, "graphics king" game, how are they holding anything back?

Yeah,just compare how it turned out on consoles vs modded on PC

Yes, the PC version is amazing, and superior to the console version. Thank you for agreeing with me and proving my point that consoles don't hold back PC games at all.

#168 Posted by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -
@locopatho said:

@MonsieurX said:

@locopatho said:

@MonsieurX said:

@locopatho said:

@Kjranu: Yawn. Show me the PC exclusives that push power so much. It's funny when people bitch about consoles holding PC back when console multiplats are the best looking PC games!

Star Citizen

The original Crysis held for a long time the title

One Kickstarter game that isn't even out yet?

Crysis was indeed amazing for it's time. It also got ported to consoles. So if consoles can manage PC's most powerful, "graphics king" game, how are they holding anything back?

Yeah,just compare how it turned out on consoles vs modded on PC

Yes, the PC version is amazing, and superior to the console version. Thank you for agreeing with me and proving my point that consoles don't hold back PC games at all.

i don't hold the position that consoles are holding back pc.

but, i'm just looking at your conclusion here. the game was developed with the pc in mind, and released way ahead of the console versions. in this instance consoles never had a chance to 'interfere' with the developer's vision.

i don't see how you can form that conclusion from the example of crysis.

#169 Edited by locopatho (20641 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:
@locopatho said:

@MonsieurX said:

@locopatho said:

@MonsieurX said:

@locopatho said:

@Kjranu: Yawn. Show me the PC exclusives that push power so much. It's funny when people bitch about consoles holding PC back when console multiplats are the best looking PC games!

Star Citizen

The original Crysis held for a long time the title

One Kickstarter game that isn't even out yet?

Crysis was indeed amazing for it's time. It also got ported to consoles. So if consoles can manage PC's most powerful, "graphics king" game, how are they holding anything back?

Yeah,just compare how it turned out on consoles vs modded on PC

Yes, the PC version is amazing, and superior to the console version. Thank you for agreeing with me and proving my point that consoles don't hold back PC games at all.

i don't hold the position that consoles are holding back pc.

but, i'm just looking at your conclusion here. the game was developed with the pc in mind, and released way ahead of the console versions. in this instance consoles never had a chance to 'interfere' with the developer's vision.

i don't see how you can form that conclusion from the example of crysis.

Because it proves the same game can come out on both, and while the console version has many compromises, the PC version can be far better and flat out awesome.

"Developed with the PC in mind", well known as the most advanced cutting edge PC exclusive of it's era, yet playable (in an admittedly inferior form) on puny 2005/2006 consoles with only 512MB of RAM. Doesn't that prove the whole "console limit design" is a load of hogwash?

#170 Edited by CrownKingArthur (5262 posts) -

@locopatho: ok that's cool i just wanted to clarify your example. in terms of a result you're absolutely right. the end result was we saw crysis on console albeit with visual compromises.

i feel like it's kind of a chicken-egg situation. i wonder, what would crysis on pc had been like if the game was developed with ps3/360 in mind first? i suggest it wouldn't have the same extent for high end scalability for graphics - but of course i have no way to prove this.

but technically, you are quite right, and to play my own devil's advocate - even if Crysis 1 were made with PS360 in mind, the PC port could still have been a class above and beyond - as you say so yourself. so the chicken-egg situation can be rendered moot.

so yes a very good argument.

#171 Posted by Mozelleple112 (6695 posts) -

Nope, people buying low end PCs, laptops w/o GPUs and such are holding back "PC gaming". If EVERY PC-gamer had a high end PC on the other hand...

#172 Posted by locopatho (20641 posts) -

@CrownKingArthur said:

@locopatho: ok that's cool i just wanted to clarify your example. in terms of a result you're absolutely right. the end result was we saw crysis on console albeit with visual compromises.

i feel like it's kind of a chicken-egg situation. i wonder, what would crysis on pc had been like if the game was developed with ps3/360 in mind first? i suggest it wouldn't have the same extent for high end scalability for graphics - but of course i have no way to prove this.

but technically, you are quite right, and to play my own devil's advocate - even if Crysis 1 were made with PS360 in mind, the PC port could still have been a class above and beyond - as you say so yourself. so the chicken-egg situation can be rendered moot.

so yes a very good argument.

Thank you :)

We could replace Crysis with a true, from the start multiplat and get the same example. For every "consoles wrecked Crysis 2!" argument, we could just point to Far Cry 3. No limitations there :D