Will GTA V get a PC port?

  • 70 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for GeorgeCScott
GeorgeCScott

64

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#51 GeorgeCScott
Member since 2011 • 64 Posts

GTA4 rage is misplaced.

It's an amazing game on PC, even a month or so after release. Easily a generation newer than the console version (4x generations now with ENB)

Problem is a lot of PC gamers like to crank the graphics, and complain when it doesn't run.

GTA4 has NEVER been a problem for me from 2008 on. Its highly scalable. There is no excuse for it running bad, other than pebcak.

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#52 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="osan0"]way too much hate for the PC version of 4 here. imho its a pretty good port. instead of just slapping the console stuff on a disc and shipping it off R* actually put the PCs extra grunt to some use. yes it was buggy (now sorted) but it also scaled really well with PC hardware. PC gamers conatantly complain about devs just copying and pasting the console game over and multiplats not putting the PCs hardware to use. yet when a dev does do it they get berrated because it doesnt run smoothly on a dual core system at 1080P at 60FPS. its either/or people...cant have both. it is the best version of the game. i only have 4 complaints with the PC version. 1) all the crud you need to install with it (some of it removed with the latest patch). 2) lack of proper mod support. its a shame R* dont release some modding tools for the game. 3) limiting settings based on amount of VRAM (easy to remove that problem though). 4) the UI is poor in places. it did launch with problems but it also launched with a lot of upgrades from the console version. it also got excellent post release support from R* where they even upgraded stuff with patches (like shadows). i hope GTA5 does get similar treatment. the last thing i want is a copy/paste job. make it scalable, give lots of graphics options, bring lots of upgrades...good stuff. maybe bring in DX11 features, improve the lighting and shadows and so on (icehancer type upgrades would be kewl). if bugs can be squashed also then all the better but i wont complain too much if its a bit buggy as long as its a proper port. just squish those bugs with patches asap post launch.osan0

Good port? You call this good:

The game thinks I have 2GB 460s when I only have 1GB...

your going to call it up on an issue so minor? oh no it thinks you have twice the memory you have...poor you. end of the world stuff right there. hell most people hated that feature as it didnt allow them to put the settings as high as they wanted yet your complaining that it thinks you have too much? this minor issue is a game breaker is it?

Game is poorly programmed to detect 2GB when I set it with a config, this game should know I only have 1GB like other games, ROFL. And that's not the only problem: Game still runs bad maxed out(normally 10-30 and sometimes higher than 30 but on default settings it's 30-50 with some dips into high 20s), too cpu extensive and doesn't rely on the gpus as much. I'm way above the requirements and it still isn't that great, lol.

Even my cpu is better.:lol:

Avatar image for GeorgeCScott
GeorgeCScott

64

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 GeorgeCScott
Member since 2011 • 64 Posts

I'm getting 50fps with no dips maxed everything + ENB.

i7

580

16 GB

SSD

.. so no surprise. But my last PC core 2 6750, 4 GB, 470 GTX also ran it butter, at high/medium settings.

Avatar image for Mystic-G
Mystic-G

6462

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 Mystic-G
Member since 2006 • 6462 Posts

I think the sales for GTA 4 proved that they can sell the PC verson well. I hope they put some time into optimizing it so it actually runs on the average system decently.

Wasdie

It'll be better due to what I call the 'first sequel effect'. When a developer starts off on a new engine for a big game, the first game tends to almost always fall short of expectations, then the sequel after tends to be as good as what people expected the first to be with much better performance. I've seen this happen ALL too often with practically every big series.

Avatar image for kozzy1234
kozzy1234

35966

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 86

User Lists: 0

#55 kozzy1234
Member since 2005 • 35966 Posts

Every single GTA game has been on PC, lets nto forget it STARTED on PC to with GTA 1 and GTA 2.

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#56 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

[QUOTE="osan0"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] Good port? You call this good:

The game thinks I have 2GB 460s when I only have 1GB...

princeofshapeir

your going to call it up on an issue so minor? oh no it thinks you have twice the memory you have...poor you. end of the world stuff right there. hell most people hated that feature as it didnt allow them to put the settings as high as they wanted yet your complaining that it thinks you have too much? this minor issue is a game breaker is it?

Any PC port without AA is crap. Sorry.

I wouldn't go that far, but AA would be nice, plus you can use FXAA, like in this screen:

http://i44.tinypic.com/25a0jd1.png

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#57 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

I'm getting 50fps with no dips maxed everything + ENB.

i7

580

16 GB

SSD

.. so no surprise. But my last PC core 2 6750, 4 GB, 470 GTX also ran it butter, at high/medium settings.

GeorgeCScott

Did you crank up view distance, detail distance and vehicle density to 100? Plus shadows on very high.

Avatar image for R4gn4r0k
R4gn4r0k

46280

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#58 R4gn4r0k
Member since 2004 • 46280 Posts

GTA4 actually was a good pc game. It was the very top end where it had bad optimization problems. It scaled really well, ton of graphical options, and actually ran really well and far outpace what they had did on the console version. Still very odd peolpe trash on the game when we've see true pc ports in forms of supreme commander 2, splinter cell games, Rage, etc etc. Game did come out buggy as many games this generation do on all platforms but man it ran nicely. jedikevin2

Their LA noire port is laughable though. 8GB ram recommended :lol:

There is no reason for it to need that (besides it ran on consoles which have 512MB ram)

Avatar image for GeorgeCScott
GeorgeCScott

64

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 GeorgeCScott
Member since 2011 • 64 Posts

[QUOTE="GeorgeCScott"]

I'm getting 50fps with no dips maxed everything + ENB.

i7

580

16 GB

SSD

.. so no surprise. But my last PC core 2 6750, 4 GB, 470 GTX also ran it butter, at high/medium settings.

mitu123

Did you crank up view distance, detail distance and vehicle density to 100? Plus shadows on very high.

EVERYTHING maxed. It looks amazing.

The only debate is TV / monitor

55" vs 2560x1600 ?!?

Avatar image for Grey_Eyed_Elf
Grey_Eyed_Elf

7970

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 Grey_Eyed_Elf
Member since 2011 • 7970 Posts

I'm getting 50fps with no dips maxed everything + ENB.

i7

580

16 GB

SSD

.. so no surprise. But my last PC core 2 6750, 4 GB, 470 GTX also ran it butter, at high/medium settings.

GeorgeCScott
Exactly 50FPS with a i7 and 580... when it came out people with 4890's were struggling to get 30FPS with medium settings. I know because I'm one of those people. Its a bad port that's all. My 2500k and Crossfired HD 6950's are getting around 55-60FPS average with the game. Poor crossfire support with that game since one GPU gives me around 40FPS. 1920x1080.
Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#61 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="GeorgeCScott"]

I'm getting 50fps with no dips maxed everything + ENB.

i7

580

16 GB

SSD

.. so no surprise. But my last PC core 2 6750, 4 GB, 470 GTX also ran it butter, at high/medium settings.

GeorgeCScott

Did you crank up view distance, detail distance and vehicle density to 100? Plus shadows on very high.

EVERYTHING maxed. It looks amazing.

The only debate is TV / monitor

55" vs 2560x1600 ?!?

2560x1600 by far!!!

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#62 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

Going by the posts it's all proof that it's cpu extensive, of course it'll run well on a i5-2500k and i7-2600k, everyone knows that. But going by the requirements, you would think it'll always be above 60FPS with newer and much better current hardware. Not to mention it's not amazing looking and requires so much, lol.

Avatar image for GeorgeCScott
GeorgeCScott

64

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 GeorgeCScott
Member since 2011 • 64 Posts

[QUOTE="GeorgeCScott"]

I'm getting 50fps with no dips maxed everything + ENB.

i7

580

16 GB

SSD

.. so no surprise. But my last PC core 2 6750, 4 GB, 470 GTX also ran it butter, at high/medium settings.

Grey_Eyed_Elf

Exactly 50FPS with a i7 and 580... when it came out people with 4890's were struggling to get 30FPS with medium settings. I know because I'm one of those people. Its a bad port that's all. My 2500k and Crossfired HD 6950's are getting around 55-60FPS average with the game. Poor crossfire support with that game since one GPU gives me around 40FPS. 1920x1080.

My point was that my previous PC which was OK ran it great, you just had to lower the settings... which PC gamers don't want to do.

On low it was basically the console version and ran like a charm.

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#65 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

[QUOTE="GeorgeCScott"]

I'm getting 50fps with no dips maxed everything + ENB.

i7

580

16 GB

SSD

.. so no surprise. But my last PC core 2 6750, 4 GB, 470 GTX also ran it butter, at high/medium settings.

Grey_Eyed_Elf

Exactly 50FPS with a i7 and 580... when it came out people with 4890's were struggling to get 30FPS with medium settings. I know because I'm one of those people. Its a bad port that's all. My 2500k and Crossfired HD 6950's are getting around 55-60FPS average with the game. Poor crossfire support with that game since one GPU gives me around 40FPS. 1920x1080.

Game works with SLI more, I got FPS that I could never get on one 460.

Avatar image for hrt_rulz01
hrt_rulz01

22375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#66 hrt_rulz01
Member since 2006 • 22375 Posts
What's the point of holding off on a PC port? Why wouldn't they release it the same time as the console versions? Doesn't make sense... Wouldn't they make more money?
Avatar image for SRTtoZ
SRTtoZ

4800

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 SRTtoZ
Member since 2009 • 4800 Posts

What's the point of holding off on a PC port? Why wouldn't they release it the same time as the console versions? Doesn't make sense... Wouldn't they make more money?hrt_rulz01

Its all about allocating resources. If they allocate a team to port it over to PC instead of focusing on the consoles, there is a chance they might either not make the release date and/or put out a less polished product etc etc. Whereas if they hold off on the PC port and just focus mainly on their moneymakers (the consoles), they probably feel like MOST PC gamers have either a PS3 or 360 snf that they will buy it even if the PC game gets delayed. Thats my feeling anyway...

tl:dr, they want to focus on 1 thing at a time?

Avatar image for hiphops_savior
hiphops_savior

8535

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 2

#68 hiphops_savior
Member since 2007 • 8535 Posts
It will, GTA has a history on the PC. Max Payne has a history on the PC. Red Dead series was never released on the PC.
Avatar image for HaloinventedFPS
HaloinventedFPS

4738

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#69 HaloinventedFPS
Member since 2010 • 4738 Posts

[QUOTE="GeorgeCScott"]

[QUOTE="mitu123"] Did you crank up view distance, detail distance and vehicle density to 100? Plus shadows on very high.

mitu123

EVERYTHING maxed. It looks amazing.

The only debate is TV / monitor

55" vs 2560x1600 ?!?

2560x1600 by far!!!

dont try it in 1600p, or you will get 10fps, you wont notice much of a difference either, 1600p is good for screenshots and games without AA or AA that hardly works (lol mirrors edge), GTA4 AA works fine, just enable FXAA or MLAA for AMD

Avatar image for mitu123
mitu123

155290

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 32

User Lists: 0

#70 mitu123
Member since 2006 • 155290 Posts

[QUOTE="mitu123"]

[QUOTE="GeorgeCScott"]

EVERYTHING maxed. It looks amazing.

The only debate is TV / monitor

55" vs 2560x1600 ?!?

HaloinventedFPS

2560x1600 by far!!!

dont try it in 1600p, or you will get 10fps, you wont notice much of a difference either, 1600p is good for screenshots and games without AA or AA that hardly works (lol mirrors edge), GTA4 AA works fine, just enable FXAA or MLAA for AMD

FXAA can be done for Nvidia too, I just posted a screen using my 460s, and as for that high res, might as well SLI.:P