Console Porting is killing PC Gaming PQ.

[Super XP]

You create a game based on the PC platform (Not Age Old Consoles). This guarantees the best possible development and maximum Graphics quality. If coded properly, there won't be an issue with performance. Then you port that over to consoles which is inferior to the PC.

This would guarantee that the console would also get the best possible looking game. You will always have the option to adjust your PQ settings to ensure it runs on slower hardware.

It should not be the other way around. Creating games around the Xbox 360 for instance is ridiculous and OLD. This tells me Dev's are lazy as F**k. No texture packs will properly make a console port onto PC look good because the original was created on garbage.

[Widjaja]

Originally Posted by Super XP

You create a game based on the PC platform (Not Age Old Consoles). This guarantees the best possible development and maximum Graphics quality. If coded properly, there won't be an issue with performance. Then you port that over to consoles which is inferior to the PC.

This would guarantee that the console would also get the best possible looking game. You will always have the option to adjust your PQ settings to ensure it runs on slower hardware.

It should not be the other way around. Creating games around the Xbox 360 for instance is ridiculous and OLD. This tells me Dev's are lazy as F**k. No texture packs will properly make a console port onto PC look good because the original was created on garbage.

Maybe if this was the way things went, we would see DX 11 being a lot more optimized across the spectrum of games available instead of feeling like an afterthought because the difference noted is so small and the fps appears to be a lot lower at times.

Good example Batman Arkham City on DX11.

[GLD]

Todays lesson:

PC-Gamers

Consoles-Gaymers

[Dent1]

Originally Posted by Darkleoco

You should check the number of users that play specific games on Steam since there is actually a feature for that. It would show you that for example Dent1has had a PEAK of 32,000 users online today now compare that to how many units the game has sold(6.5 million) it might make you realize just how much of those numbers consoles make up.

The peak amount of users even on Steam today is only 4.7 million. Even if that cannot directly compare to the 130+ million xbox 360's/PS3's that are out there.

If you honestly believe what you said then you are either delusional or stupid.

So 32,000 users online today were playing MW3 on steam. OK

So how many users were playing on Xbox Live and PS3 Online?


Looks like SuperXP has already owned Darkleoco. I have nothing more to add. Enjoy your weekend guys.

[pantherx12]

More games for PC with off-line multi-player would help a lot.

One of the most annoying things is having a racing game or some such and only having online as an option, should be able to bust in two or more controllers and have at it.

[Super XP]

I have to agree. I like choice, I don't mind Multi-Player but I want to choice whether to go on line or not. A good match is Mult-player and Single Player for most games. But Single Player is very important.

[newconroer]

Originally Posted by nt300

This article is based on the upcoming HD 8000 series but as I was read, I found this comment in the quote bellow. This is already facts, but I would like to start conversation.

http://www.kitguru.net/components/gr...lans-revealed/

1600p needs to be breached. We already have televisions and display monitors at 4k and 8k resolution. Even when there's very little broadcasting content for them to be used with, they are still pushing forward with development and sales.

2160p
4320p
8640p

If developers would get on board (Carmack would love this?) then there will be a real tangible reason for AMD and Nvidia to bring the next generation to us now, rather than later after the boats have all sailed.

[trickson]

All the above!

[FordGT90Concept]

I blame the lack of console memory. It shows in virtually every multi-platform title (small detailed environments or large lackluster environments).


The poll forgot bad controls/limited configuration when porting to PC. That's another big area that needs work. The irony of it is, even with lackluster controls, I still tend to like them better with keyboard and mouse than Microsoft Xbox360 controller.

Originally Posted by newconroer

1600p needs to be breached. We already have televisions and display monitors at 4k and 8k resolution. Even when there's very little broadcasting content for them to be used with, they are still pushing forward with development and sales.

2160p
4320p
8640p

If developers would get on board (Carmack would love this?) then there will be a real tangible reason for AMD and Nvidia to bring the next generation to us now, rather than later after the boats have all sailed.

You do realize that, even in a lot of newer games, a 2 TFlOp GPU can't even handle 2560x1600 (4 MP) at >30 FPS. 2160p (3840x2160) is over 8 MP so it would require a minimum of 4 TFlOp of power to run it. You're talking billions of transistors consuming hundreds of watts with today's process technology.

Processing power is a limited quantity. Most developers would choose lower resolution and higher detail than high resolution and low detail.

This, just on the GPU end. There's major implications involving RAM, HDD performance, CPU performance, and VRAM amount/performance as well. It'll likely happen eventually, but not in the next 5, 10, or even 15 years. Well, you can if you don't mind spending $10,000+ on a gaming system, but it won't be mainstream until probably at least 20 years out.

[Kreij]

Originally Posted by Super XP

You create a game based on the PC platform (Not Age Old Consoles). This guarantees the best possible development and maximum Graphics quality. If coded properly, there won't be an issue with performance. Then you port that over to consoles which is inferior to the PC.

This would guarantee that the console would also get the best possible looking game. You will always have the option to adjust your PQ settings to ensure it runs on slower hardware.

It should not be the other way around. Creating games around the Xbox 360 for instance is ridiculous and OLD. This tells me Dev's are lazy as F**k. No texture packs will properly make a console port onto PC look good because the original was created on garbage.

Other than the fact you are completely wrong on everything, it's not a bad post.

No developer wants their game to be poor on any platform. They are not lazy.
They are constrained by the publishers deadlines and budget restrictions.

There is way more to it than just graphic quality.
You can't just write a game for the PC and simply port it to consoles. They are completely different.
You have to rewrite the game for other platforms to optimize the performance and playability.
The same is true in the other direction (Console -> PC) if you want to make use of the power of a PC.

The games that are great on both have teams dedicated to the individual platforms to ensure they meet specific standard for their intended platform. These developers have gotten the publishers to pry open their wallets so that can happen. You will usually see this only with IP that has a proven track record of high sales across all platforms, because publishers will not fork over the development costs for a particular platform if they feel the ROI is questionable.

Toss into the mix that the publishers can come in an say they don't like something and trash months of work in a heartbeat.

With the huge rise in sales of mobile devices (tablets for instance) you once again have another market segment that the developers may have to target and there is no guarantee that the publisher won't rob Peter (PC development) to pay Paul (Mobile development).

What I'm saying, is don't blame the devs. They work stupid long hours under unrealistic budget and release deadline constraints. Blame the publishers.

[newconroer]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

You do realize that, even in a lot of newer games, a 2 TFlOp GPU can't even handle 2560x1600 (4 MP) at >30 FPS. 2160p (3840x2160) is over 8 MP so it would require a minimum of 4 TFlOp of power to run it. You're talking billions of transistors consuming hundreds of watts with today's process technology.

Are you speaking to pure compute power, or general purpose?
If it was all down to compute power, than certain GPUs would blow others away on those raw numbers alone, but they don't.

A 680 is 2.5 teraflops, and 1600p is not a problem for it.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

This, just on the GPU end. There's major implications involving RAM, HDD performance, CPU performance, and VRAM amount/performance as well. It'll likely happen eventually, but not in the next 5, 10, or even 15 years. Well, you can if you don't mind spending $10,000+ on a gaming system, but it won't be mainstream until probably at least 20 years out.

It all has to start somewhere - and it seems every other variable (as you've mentioned above) are progressively worked on with maximum advancements in mind. I know Intel and AMD have tech hidden away in some labs that we won't use or need for a long time - it's just not practical. The GPU market however is run by two companies who intentionally sandbag public release in order to increase market share or profit.

There are plenty of wealthy people who would happily and already do, own 4k or 8k screens. And yet the best they can view on them is 1600p.

You would think that all over the world right now, AAA and especially independent 3d studios would be chompin at the bit to showoff their 4k artwork and graphics - considering it's been saturated by the photography scene for years.

Imagine if RAGE really was a tech demo, that really did have 1:1 8k resolution textures!
Who cares if you had to goto to consumer electronics show to view it in person and make a custom order with Id software, that WOULD sell to not only people but other studios.

Something has to be the match that sets the fire.

[TheMailMan78]

Originally Posted by Super XP

Enjoy the Read You can find a DUMP load of info showing PC Gaming will dominate.
And according to this data and it’s beautiful representation, PC is now winning.
http://www.gamefront.com/pcs-project...r-infographic/

http://cdn2.gamefront.com/wp-content...ars.png?cda6c1

Cherry picked facts are awesome!

[Widjaja]

Originally Posted by Kreij

They are constrained by the publishers deadlines and budget restrictions.

This is a sad fact.
Sales is also probably determines the amount of patches which are released afterwards.

Although I have seen a worrying trend to fork out little DLC packs instead with some titles.

[FordGT90Concept]

Originally Posted by newconroer

Are you speaking to pure compute power, or general purpose?

Total GPU compute power per second.

Originally Posted by newconroer

A 680 is 2.5 teraflops, and 1600p is not a problem for it.

Depends on game and settings. I'm not talking about desktop (2D) resolutions, I'm talking about fullscreen 3D. An Intel HD 4000 can handle 4096x4096 desktop resolution but if you do anything significant on it, it will croak.

Originally Posted by newconroer

There are plenty of wealthy people who would happily and already do, own 4k or 8k screens. And yet the best they can view on them is 1600p.

That's due to cable limitations. VGA cables were only intended for up to 2048x1536; DVI is up to 2560x1600, DisplayPort is up to 3840x2160. You need many cables to power resolutions any higher than that.

[BumbleBee]

this happens at the end of every console cycle. it's a rubber band. PC will get better looking games then at the end of the next console cycle we will be talking about the same thing.

the game design worries me more..

[FordGT90Concept]

Even next generation consoles, compared to computers, will lack RAM (and every generation before it). The amount of RAM directly correlates with game design. They can't do big, ambitious things because there isn't enough RAM to process it in. Console games are just now starting to do things (like RTS) that computers have been doing for decades. They need to cut back on CPUs and invest in more RAM.

[Drone]

None of the Above


People with low expectations are to blame.

[newconroer]

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Total GPU compute power per second.

I'll have to stand by what I said then. If we're on the samge page here, a 7970's compute power is almost 3.7 Tera, yet it doesn't stomp all over the GTX 680.

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

Depends on game and settings. I'm not talking about desktop (2D) resolutions, I'm talking about fullscreen 3D. An Intel HD 4000 can handle 4096x4096 desktop resolution but if you do anything significant on it, it will croak.

3d as in actual stereo vision 3d or just a normal full screen application?
Because if it's the latter, then of course a GTX 680 handles 1600p!

Originally Posted by FordGT90Concept

That's due to cable limitations. VGA cables were only intended for up to 2048x1536; DVI is up to 2560x1600, DisplayPort is up to 3840x2160. You need many cables to power resolutions any higher than that.

My comment was in reference to the fact there's not much content to be had or seen on 4k/8k hardware. There's little broadcast, and certainly no games offering it - even with the right physical connections (as you mentioned, cabling).

Good news is, the manufacturers pushing forward with 4k/8k regardless of small market requirements, means it's already begun!

[FordGT90Concept]

Most games can be made to run at any resolution.

[aayman_farzand]

I was kinda glad to see the PC gaming picture till I saw the most played games, 44% is Puzzle or Board games....yea so much for using the bleeding edge hardware.

[Kreij]

That graphic shows 44% to be online games and does not indicate on what platform.
There are, however, a lot of people who use their PCs to play simple and social games to pass the time.
My neighbor has logged 1000s of games of solitaire. lol

[Lionheart]

I wonder when Ray Tracing will become the norm or even be released

[ShiBDiB]

I'm sure its been said, but i dont feel like reading everyones posts.


PC GAMING IS NOT CLOSE TO BEING DEAD

if anything its on the rise.

[Kreij]

This thread has nothing to do with PC gaming dying, but thank for clearing that up for us.

[ShiBDiB]

Originally Posted by Kreij

This thread has nothing to do with PC gaming dying, but thank for clearing that up for us.

The thread title is.. Console Porting is killing PC Gaming