- Status
[citation][nom]fslateef[/nom]No backward compatibility with PS3 games is understandable _but_ paying for used games OR not allowing them to play is not good. I won't buy next-gen consoles if they put restriction on this Also I think this will encourage more people to find-out other ways to play games on these consoles rather than buying them in first place.[/citation]
Agree, my blue ray player, I mean PS3 will serve me well.
Agree, my blue ray player, I mean PS3 will serve me well.
SteelCity1981
Distinguished
- Sep 16, 2010
- 249
- 0
- 18,830
who would buy an "orbis"? not me but i would go for a playstation 4... but the new does not seem right to me and does not follow the development trend of sony's current and previous products, it oue make more sense to me that the "ps4" would be developed using an updated version of CELL, and a GPU for either nvidia or ati(amd) however it does not seem right they would ditch PPC and go x86 but hey thats my opinion lol
Dark Comet
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2008
- 96
- 0
- 18,590
[citation][nom]theconsolegamer[/nom]What about Nvidia releasing the GTX 660 and calling it GTX 680? That's what really is holding back PC gaming. Nobody can say PC gaming is being hold back by consoles when you fking buy COD: MW3 and Skyrim (games ported to PC)[/citation]
Buying Skyrim for PC is showing the developer and publisher that there are gamers on PC willing to pay for their work and there is still money to be made so they should put more effort in to the PC versions of games.
Nvidia are not holding back PC games at all, consoles definitely are. I'm sure if consoles weren't hold back PC games as much as they do Nvidia would have released it's best GPU. The GTX 680 is getting 70+ FPS AT 1080P with 4X AA on Battlefield 3 (I assume this is the most demanding game right now?)
Buying Skyrim for PC is showing the developer and publisher that there are gamers on PC willing to pay for their work and there is still money to be made so they should put more effort in to the PC versions of games.
Nvidia are not holding back PC games at all, consoles definitely are. I'm sure if consoles weren't hold back PC games as much as they do Nvidia would have released it's best GPU. The GTX 680 is getting 70+ FPS AT 1080P with 4X AA on Battlefield 3 (I assume this is the most demanding game right now?)
shanky887614
Distinguished
- Feb 5, 2010
- 232
- 0
- 18,840
i think not being able to sell on used games is a good thing.
because there will be less games in the market companies will have to charge less for the games to sell enough to keep there current profits
because there will be less games in the market companies will have to charge less for the games to sell enough to keep there current profits
[citation][nom]willard[/nom]This, this, a thousand times this!When games are developed with consoles in mind, they are also developed with console limitations in mind. Developers can't make the game with a GTX 680 in mind and expect a good experience on a console, so entire games get dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, which are the consoles.I still remember the days when PC games and console games were so different that nobody ever expected a PC -> Console port. You couldn't run Fallout on the SNES no matter what you did to the game. It was a game that only worked on the PC. There is still a ton of stuff the PC can do way better than consoles, but we don't get those games anymore.Why? Because consoles make more money. As long as consoles are inferior to PCs and more profitable, PC gaming is going to suffer. We need to either bring consoles up to PC level (impossible given their 5-7 year refresh cycle) or get PC revenue up to match consoles so developers can justify targeting PCs exclusively.[/citation]
The vast majority of game developers will never target a PC exclusively due to the lack of revenue protection that a PC provides. Aside from mandating an internet only connection like Blizzard, PC only developers cannot project accurate revenue to take back to their shareholders. That is a big problem with game development across the board. PC and console developers rely on being a publicly traded company and the influx of investment money to drive future earnings and growth. When a companies sales peek and stagnate, they become vulnerable to answering to their shareholders. If a game doesn't sell well, then their projected earnings drop and their share price drops and investors start fleeing, putting the company in danger. This is especially true when you have game development cycles of 2-3 years for large AAA titles.
The real reason the PC has been effected by consoles. It has nothing to due with the hardware of the console, its due to the consolidation that has occurred within the game development industry over the past 10 years.
You cannot develop AAA titles for any platform without having development money, you cannot get development money without having investors or shareholders, you cannot get shareholders or investors without having projected earnings and you cannot have believable and accurate projected earnings without having some way to protect the revenue.
The best model a game company can pursue for revenue and growth today is going the route of the Indie developers who releases their stuff on Steam and rely on the costs of their games as a major attraction, ($10-$15 games like Minecraft, Terreria, etc...) and can work within a certain budget and vision (one that is not really going to push the bleeding edge of graphics that most of you complain about), you have no way of financing a AAA title that most of you desperately want. And when companies do install measures to protect revenue (Blizzard with D3/SC2x) you scream bloody murder.
The only "safe" platform that developers can hedge earnings against is a closed environment which is what a console provides. But even that has become harder and harder to project against. Used game sales while great for the console maker doesn't really help the game developer, they see it as lost revenue as they see piracy on the PC. The vast majority of the people who buy used games do so because they cannot afford the game or chose to not pay the initial costs of the game. So to protect revenue and project future earnings, game developers are pushing Sony/MS to close the system even further, preventing used games from being played on a system as a final attempt to protect a failing business model.
Until the business of Game Development changes from hedging a catalog of titles on the prospect that 2 or 3 of the 10 titles a publisher puts out a year will be successful enough to drive future development, the gaming industry as a whole (PC/Console) is going to suffer.
That is the real reason why your 680 is being wasted. You ignorantly us the 'console' as an scapegoat because the vast majority of you cannot see beyond the breath that comes out of your mouth.
The vast majority of game developers will never target a PC exclusively due to the lack of revenue protection that a PC provides. Aside from mandating an internet only connection like Blizzard, PC only developers cannot project accurate revenue to take back to their shareholders. That is a big problem with game development across the board. PC and console developers rely on being a publicly traded company and the influx of investment money to drive future earnings and growth. When a companies sales peek and stagnate, they become vulnerable to answering to their shareholders. If a game doesn't sell well, then their projected earnings drop and their share price drops and investors start fleeing, putting the company in danger. This is especially true when you have game development cycles of 2-3 years for large AAA titles.
The real reason the PC has been effected by consoles. It has nothing to due with the hardware of the console, its due to the consolidation that has occurred within the game development industry over the past 10 years.
You cannot develop AAA titles for any platform without having development money, you cannot get development money without having investors or shareholders, you cannot get shareholders or investors without having projected earnings and you cannot have believable and accurate projected earnings without having some way to protect the revenue.
The best model a game company can pursue for revenue and growth today is going the route of the Indie developers who releases their stuff on Steam and rely on the costs of their games as a major attraction, ($10-$15 games like Minecraft, Terreria, etc...) and can work within a certain budget and vision (one that is not really going to push the bleeding edge of graphics that most of you complain about), you have no way of financing a AAA title that most of you desperately want. And when companies do install measures to protect revenue (Blizzard with D3/SC2x) you scream bloody murder.
The only "safe" platform that developers can hedge earnings against is a closed environment which is what a console provides. But even that has become harder and harder to project against. Used game sales while great for the console maker doesn't really help the game developer, they see it as lost revenue as they see piracy on the PC. The vast majority of the people who buy used games do so because they cannot afford the game or chose to not pay the initial costs of the game. So to protect revenue and project future earnings, game developers are pushing Sony/MS to close the system even further, preventing used games from being played on a system as a final attempt to protect a failing business model.
Until the business of Game Development changes from hedging a catalog of titles on the prospect that 2 or 3 of the 10 titles a publisher puts out a year will be successful enough to drive future development, the gaming industry as a whole (PC/Console) is going to suffer.
That is the real reason why your 680 is being wasted. You ignorantly us the 'console' as an scapegoat because the vast majority of you cannot see beyond the breath that comes out of your mouth.
To further elaborate, look at Witcher 2, a great game by the way, but it has suffered in generating revenue for the company CD Projekt due to the fact that its pretty demanding when it comes to hardware requirements.
They spent millions of dollars developing a PC franchise that ultimately is being ported to the 360 just to generate revenue so that they can hopefully draw investors so that they can continue to produce new games.
Same thing with Blizzard and Diablo 3, the appeal of making a console version is that you can generate more revenue in the long run by exposing the game to a wider audience. In turn you don't have to develop a new title from the ground up and spending vast amounts of monetary resources to generate a revenue stream.
Games that cost lots of money to make are huge games for every company that makes them. If they crap out, game over or they get bought up by EA or Activision. Most of you fail to realize that.
They spent millions of dollars developing a PC franchise that ultimately is being ported to the 360 just to generate revenue so that they can hopefully draw investors so that they can continue to produce new games.
Same thing with Blizzard and Diablo 3, the appeal of making a console version is that you can generate more revenue in the long run by exposing the game to a wider audience. In turn you don't have to develop a new title from the ground up and spending vast amounts of monetary resources to generate a revenue stream.
Games that cost lots of money to make are huge games for every company that makes them. If they crap out, game over or they get bought up by EA or Activision. Most of you fail to realize that.
Dark Comet
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2008
- 96
- 0
- 18,590
[citation][nom]Jprobes[/nom]To further elaborate, look at Witcher 2, a great game by the way, but it has suffered in generating revenue for the company CD Projekt due to the fact that its pretty demanding when it comes to hardware requirements.They spent millions of dollars developing a PC franchise that ultimately is being ported to the 360 just to generate revenue so that they can hopefully draw investors so that they can continue to produce new games.Same thing with Blizzard and Diablo 3, the appeal of making a console version is that you can generate more revenue in the long run by exposing the game to a wider audience. In turn you don't have to develop a new title from the ground up and spending vast amounts of monetary resources to generate a revenue stream.Games that cost lots of money to make are huge games for every company that makes them. If they crap out, game over or they get bought up by EA or Activision. Most of you fail to realize that.[/citation]
Are you sure it didn't generate revenue? It sold over 1 million copies and should continue to sell well into the future and has built on the reputation of the series.
Are you sure it didn't generate revenue? It sold over 1 million copies and should continue to sell well into the future and has built on the reputation of the series.
dickcheney
Distinguished
- Aug 11, 2011
- 60
- 0
- 18,580
[citation][nom]JOSHSKORN[/nom]Gamers rejoice. Buh-bye 2005 graphics. It's about time. I hope the rumor is true. Maybe PC gaming won't be held back, then.[/citation]
We will get 2010 graphics by 2016, great news indeed!
We will get 2010 graphics by 2016, great news indeed!
alfaalex101
Distinguished
- May 31, 2008
- 16
- 0
- 18,560
Gamerk316 has a point - graphics haven't really improved since 2005.I can argue Oblivion looks comparable with BF3. The biggest jump were specular and normal maps. Everything else was just minor stuff like self shadows, light rays and soft shadows. I was not impressed seeing Crysis for the first time - I was more impressed by Oblivion with a texture pack two years. The two biggest improvements we saw that have not (and still are not) being used to their full use are physics and tessellation. It was a shame that Star Wars: Force Unleashed didn't sell too well and other developers didn't use similar physics technology from that game in others. Crysis was a rudimentary implementation (HL2 impressed me more from the start). BF3 was a small step in the right direction there but still - neither titles really satisfied me. As for tessellation - I still believe it is being used too little - not even Metro 2033 uses it as much as I would like.
If the Epic demo needed a GTX 680 to run (and not all the textures were THAT detailed), and the new consoles can't even match that - then I see very little point going for one. With graphics improving so much so quickly, consoles just won't be able to keep up unless developers shun PC so much so that consumers are just blind that there are better looking games out there.
If the Epic demo needed a GTX 680 to run (and not all the textures were THAT detailed), and the new consoles can't even match that - then I see very little point going for one. With graphics improving so much so quickly, consoles just won't be able to keep up unless developers shun PC so much so that consumers are just blind that there are better looking games out there.
Dark Comet
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2008
- 96
- 0
- 18,590
[citation][nom]alfaalex101[/nom]Gamerk316 has a point - graphics haven't really improved since 2005.I can argue Oblivion looks comparable with BF3. The biggest jump were specular and normal maps. Everything else was just minor stuff like self shadows, light rays and soft shadows. I was not impressed seeing Crysis for the first time - I was more impressed by Oblivion with a texture pack two years. The two biggest improvements we saw that have not (and still are not) being used to their full use are physics and tessellation. It was a shame that Star Wars: Force Unleashed didn't sell too well and other developers didn't use similar physics technology from that game in others. Crysis was a rudimentary implementation (HL2 impressed me more from the start). BF3 was a small step in the right direction there but still - neither titles really satisfied me. As for tessellation - I still believe it is being used too little - not even Metro 2033 uses it as much as I would like. If the Epic demo needed a GTX 680 to run (and not all the textures were THAT detailed), and the new consoles can't even match that - then I see very little point going for one. With graphics improving so much so quickly, consoles just won't be able to keep up unless developers shun PC so much so that consumers are just blind that there are better looking games out there.[/citation]
The demo is Unreal Engine 3, apparently Epic also have UE4 running on it behind closed doors and they said UE4 makes that demo look feeble.
The demo is Unreal Engine 3, apparently Epic also have UE4 running on it behind closed doors and they said UE4 makes that demo look feeble.
[citation][nom]Dark Comet[/nom]Are you sure it didn't generate revenue? It sold over 1 million copies and should continue to sell well into the future and has built on the reputation of the series.[/citation]
Just because a game sells 1 million copies doesn't equate to 1 million copies at the initial MSRP, I would bet a vast majority of those millions were sold under a steam sale at a reduced price.
They ported the title to 360 because it was cheaper and quicker then developing a new one.
I am not bashing there decision to port the game to 360, its the smart business move, it exposes the game to a wider audience and will generate revenue so that they can continue to produce games.
Once you dip your hand in the console cookie jar, there is little restraint from doing it again and again until they're developing games for consoles and porting them to the PC.
Its a vicious cycle that is predicated by the cost of game development, answering to shareholders and the ability to generate revenue.
Railing against the hardware of a console as to why PC gaming is being held back is like covering bullet wounds with band-aids.
You are complaining about the effect, without understanding the root cause.
Just because a game sells 1 million copies doesn't equate to 1 million copies at the initial MSRP, I would bet a vast majority of those millions were sold under a steam sale at a reduced price.
They ported the title to 360 because it was cheaper and quicker then developing a new one.
I am not bashing there decision to port the game to 360, its the smart business move, it exposes the game to a wider audience and will generate revenue so that they can continue to produce games.
Once you dip your hand in the console cookie jar, there is little restraint from doing it again and again until they're developing games for consoles and porting them to the PC.
Its a vicious cycle that is predicated by the cost of game development, answering to shareholders and the ability to generate revenue.
Railing against the hardware of a console as to why PC gaming is being held back is like covering bullet wounds with band-aids.
You are complaining about the effect, without understanding the root cause.
Dark Comet
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2008
- 96
- 0
- 18,590
[citation][nom]Jprobes[/nom]Just because a game sells 1 million copies doesn't equate to 1 million copies at the initial MSRP, I would bet a vast majority of those millions were sold under a steam sale at a reduced price.They ported the title to 360 because it was cheaper and quicker then developing a new one.I am not bashing there decision to port the game to 360, its the smart business move, it exposes the game to a wider audience and will generate revenue so that they can continue to produce games. Once you dip your hand in the console cookie jar, there is little restraint from doing it again and again until they're developing games for consoles and porting them to the PC.Its a vicious cycle that is predicated by the cost of game development, answering to shareholders and the ability to generate revenue.Railing against the hardware of a console as to why PC gaming is being held back is like covering bullet wounds with band-aids.You are complaining about the effect, without understanding the root cause.[/citation]
I understand the reason for it completely. It's the pirates that are the cause, not me.
I understand the reason for it completely. It's the pirates that are the cause, not me.
Dark Comet
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2008
- 96
- 0
- 18,590
[citation][nom]Dark Comet[/nom]I understand the reason for it completely. It's the pirates that are the cause, not me.[/citation]
By not me, I mean genuine PC gamers in general. If consoles DRM was as weak as PC's then they'd be in the same situation as well.
By not me, I mean genuine PC gamers in general. If consoles DRM was as weak as PC's then they'd be in the same situation as well.
Dark Comet
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2008
- 96
- 0
- 18,590
[citation][nom]ATMinside[/nom]sheesh why can't they just make consoles so they can be upgradable?[/citation]
Simplicity is the reason consoles exist in the first place. The next gen is the upgrade, it's just all at once instead of in pieces.
Simplicity is the reason consoles exist in the first place. The next gen is the upgrade, it's just all at once instead of in pieces.
[citation][nom]Dark Comet[/nom]By not me, I mean genuine PC gamers in general. If consoles DRM was as weak as PC's then they'd be in the same situation as well.[/citation]
The 360 was pretty lax when it came out, DVD drives were easy to flash making piracy relatively easy. With the advent of AP25, Microsoft has made it very difficult to pirate games on the 360.
You have to flash your DVD drive constantly and you have to re-burn your games constantly. Microsoft has not been able to eliminate piracy but they have made it vastly inconvenient to do so.
The whole scene relies on 1 person to provide the firmware and with the constant updates required, it has handicapped the piracy on the 360.
It is a lot easier to modify an older pre-jasper X360 due those consoles ignoring AP25, but due to hardware failures on MS part, finding one in working condition is almost impossible now.
But for PC games, a cracked .exe is all you need. With the digital distribution of games now, finding the actual game files is easier then ever.
You cannot have a thriving platform without having DRM. As a PC gamer, I welcome DRM like what Blizzard/Steam provide because it protects revenue and provides developers a "platform" that they can produce content for.
PC gamers have to wake up and realize that the open era of software is over. Either you accept that online based DRM is the only protection a developer has and accept it or you don't and continue bitching about the state of gaming on the PC while you continue to play shit ports of console games where selling 25,000 copies covers the cost of porting it to the PC..
The 360 was pretty lax when it came out, DVD drives were easy to flash making piracy relatively easy. With the advent of AP25, Microsoft has made it very difficult to pirate games on the 360.
You have to flash your DVD drive constantly and you have to re-burn your games constantly. Microsoft has not been able to eliminate piracy but they have made it vastly inconvenient to do so.
The whole scene relies on 1 person to provide the firmware and with the constant updates required, it has handicapped the piracy on the 360.
It is a lot easier to modify an older pre-jasper X360 due those consoles ignoring AP25, but due to hardware failures on MS part, finding one in working condition is almost impossible now.
But for PC games, a cracked .exe is all you need. With the digital distribution of games now, finding the actual game files is easier then ever.
You cannot have a thriving platform without having DRM. As a PC gamer, I welcome DRM like what Blizzard/Steam provide because it protects revenue and provides developers a "platform" that they can produce content for.
PC gamers have to wake up and realize that the open era of software is over. Either you accept that online based DRM is the only protection a developer has and accept it or you don't and continue bitching about the state of gaming on the PC while you continue to play shit ports of console games where selling 25,000 copies covers the cost of porting it to the PC..
noblerabbit
Distinguished
- Oct 14, 2010
- 84
- 0
- 18,580
Sony, I please ask that you fully support Kazunori Yamauchi, and Polyphonal Digital, to SIMULTANEOUSLY release GT6 alongside the PS4. Please do not make it a prologue, and please do not wait 3 years after the PS4 is launched to release this next iteration.
I firmly believe the GT game is the best experience so far on the PS3, as I am sure that you have received very well, DLC monies from the recent microtransactions, as I am also very sure, that Sony's online servers are #1 serving GT5 online to the masses.
Make GT6 $129 game, I don't care, but PLEASE do not delay this!
sincerely, everyone from GTplanet.net
I firmly believe the GT game is the best experience so far on the PS3, as I am sure that you have received very well, DLC monies from the recent microtransactions, as I am also very sure, that Sony's online servers are #1 serving GT5 online to the masses.
Make GT6 $129 game, I don't care, but PLEASE do not delay this!
sincerely, everyone from GTplanet.net
Dark Comet
Distinguished
- Jan 15, 2008
- 96
- 0
- 18,590
[citation][nom]Jprobes[/nom]The 360 was pretty lax when it came out, DVD drives were easy to flash making piracy relatively easy. With the advent of AP25, Microsoft has made it very difficult to pirate games on the 360.You have to flash your DVD drive constantly and you have to re-burn your games constantly. Microsoft has not been able to eliminate piracy but they have made it vastly inconvenient to do so.The whole scene relies on 1 person to provide the firmware and with the constant updates required, it has handicapped the piracy on the 360.It is a lot easier to modify an older pre-jasper X360 due those consoles ignoring AP25, but due to hardware failures on MS part, finding one in working condition is almost impossible now.But for PC games, a cracked .exe is all you need. With the digital distribution of games now, finding the actual game files is easier then ever.You cannot have a thriving platform without having DRM. As a PC gamer, I welcome DRM like what Blizzard/Steam provide because it protects revenue and provides developers a "platform" that they can produce content for. PC gamers have to wake up and realize that the open era of software is over. Either you accept that online based DRM is the only protection a developer has and accept it or you don't and continue bitching about the state of gaming on the PC while you continue to play shit ports of console games where selling 25,000 copies covers the cost of porting it to the PC..[/citation]
The only person DRM hinders is the person who bought the product. The Witcher 2 developer even said this himself. The version of The Witcher 2 that appeared on torrents was the version that had DRM and been cracked despite CD Projekt releasing a DRM free version through their store. Ubisoft uses online only DRM and that resulted in people not being able to play their games when they took the activation server down. The people who pirated the game did not have any downtime however.
The only person DRM hinders is the person who bought the product. The Witcher 2 developer even said this himself. The version of The Witcher 2 that appeared on torrents was the version that had DRM and been cracked despite CD Projekt releasing a DRM free version through their store. Ubisoft uses online only DRM and that resulted in people not being able to play their games when they took the activation server down. The people who pirated the game did not have any downtime however.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Question Transferring iPhone 8 (iOS 14.5) to new 15: Upgrade 8’s iOS & best method of transfer
- Started by autozonejawana
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter