Support NeoGAF

[KKRT00]

@Heavy

You posts dont make even slight of sense.

1.If there would be no consoles, there wouldnt be dude-bro community

2. Games are scalable and tech advances faster on PC, so every two-three year someone would push PC in some way

3. Developers arent moving to consoles, developers are moving to multiplatform developing. PC is currently as important platform as consoles, if You dont believe go and check publishers financial reports.

4. The most expensive exclusives are on PC.

 

[mephixto]

I've been gaming on PC since before Red Alert, Subspace, SC1, I don't know the exact date, mid 90s. The market was much smaller back then, too. There's just no way dudebros and the mainstream Xbox/PS audience in general would buy gaming PCs like you're suggesting. I'm surprised that's even being argued. The convenience and ease of use just isn't there. The gaming market would shrink a ton.


Crysis 1 overall was a disappointment for Crytek, it wasn't the blockbuster they were hoping for. It turned a profit but it wasn't huge and it was one of the most pirated games of all time. There's a reason why they turned their focus to consoles, just like Epic and many other devs.

Crysis 1 it's around 4~4.5 million copies. Crytek and Epic get most of their money from engine licenses so as expected they have to expand to almost every platform avaible.

 

[Dictator93]

You spent so much money on PC hardware that you don't have anything better to drink than water?

Yes. That is defintinely it.

 

[The Janitor]

Crysis 1 overall was a disappointment for Crytek, it wasn't the blockbuster they were hoping for. It turned a profit but it wasn't huge and it was one of the most pirated games of all time. There's a reason why they turned their focus to consoles, just like Epic and many other devs.

If it was such a disaster why did they make Crysis Warhead? AFAIK Crysis 2 and 3 sales didn't even satisfy Crytek, they're moving on to F2P now.

 

[velociraptor]

If it was such a disaster why did they make Crysis Warhead? AFAIK Crysis 2 and 3 sales didn't even satisfy Crytek, they're moving on to F2P now.

Yeah I was under the impression Crysis 1 did really well. It's the sequels that bombed (Crysis 3 moreso).

 

[Barack Lesnar]

@Heavy

You posts dont make even slight of sense.

1.If there would be no consoles, there wouldnt be dude-bro community

...and the gaming community & industry would be exponentially smaller than it is now. How is this arguable?

3. Developers arent moving to consoles, developers are moving to multiplatform developing. PC is currently as important platform as consoles, if You dont believe go and check publishers financial reports.

You're 100% wrong here. Yes, they are moving to consoles. Their entire focus is consoles. Multi-platform games sell far, far more on consoles. You'd have to be living under a rock to not see the reality of the situation. Many AAA multi-platform games don't even get ported to PC. Ubisoft is asking people to make a petition to get a port of The Division. You're completely wrong. You say my posts don't make any sense and you type something as uninformed as that.

4. The most expensive exclusives are on PC.

Disingenuous. MMOs are an outlier. Even so, GTA4 was $100 million. Destiny is rumored to be up there as well. FF7 when it came out was like 70 million. There are far more expensive 'AAA' games on consoles, the budgets are much higher.

 

[apana]

I am not sure what this whole PC vs. PS4 thing is about. Actually I know what it is about but for a moment I am going to pretend like I don't. Anyways I don't see consoles and PC as being in competition. I think improvements in one sphere help improvements in the other. Consoles being very powerful graphically and pushing the limits helps PC gamers and vice versa.

edit: On a side note, the recent growth of PC gaming hasn't been due to a hunger for graphics. The mass market enjoy playing PC games that take advantage of the other features the platform has to offer. A lot of growth has come from games that you can run on a laptop or even on your phone.

 

[KKRT00]

...and the gaming community & industry would be exponentially smaller than it is now. How is this arguable?

No, it wouldnt. Gaming community is much larger now, because there are more young people than in 90s and 80s that grew up with games. They would grow up on computers, instead of consoles and they would used them.

 

[Racer1977]

Seeing this just shows how much better Killzone shadow fall looks in comparison.

So many of these ultra high res PC games just emphasise how next-gen games need better art direction, and to move away from the same old generic game design.

When you look at games like UC3 or TLOU, it's the bright, colourful worlds that strike you, the great range of textures etc., which overcomes any res or framerate issues.

I can only imagine what the likes of ND will do on PS4, I'm sure we won't be pixel counting, but amazed at games that look genuinely different and a step above what we've seen so far.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

If it was such a disaster why did they make Crysis Warhead? AFAIK Crysis 2 and 3 sales didn't even satisfy Crytek, they're moving on to F2P now.

Crysis 2 and especially 3 were mega bombs, no doubt about that. Crysis 2 maybe a semi-bomb but still a bomb. Crysis 3 was a total disaster for them.

I didn't say Crysis 1 was a disaster, I said it was a disappointment for them despite turning a profit. Opportunity costs.

 

[nib95]

No doubt, But it's a downgrade from the original demo, which was the whole point of the thread.

But you're basing that off pre-alpha footage. Lets wait until launch before making that conclusion.

 

[KKRT00]

Disingenuous. MMOs are an outlier. Even so, GTA4 was $100 million. Destiny is rumored to be up there as well. FF7 when it came out was like 70 million. There are far more expensive 'AAA' games on consoles, the budgets are much higher.

How are they exclusive? And many MMOs cost more than 100m$.

 

[jonscrambler]

You're 100% wrong here. Yes, they are moving to consoles. Their entire focus is consoles. Multi-platform games sell far, far more on consoles. You'd have to be living under a rock to not see the reality of the situation.

guess which platform brings EA the most revenue in their last quarter


I'm not arguing games on consoles don't sell more, but they don't sell "far,far,more" as you claim, look at game companies' financial reports like EA,Take-Two,Activision,Ubisoft, PC is consistently at least 20% of their revenue. EA's latest quarter report shows PC brings them the most revenue. 298 mil on PC vs 256 million on 360 and 238 million on PS3

 

[Barack Lesnar]

No, it wouldnt. Gaming community is much larger now, because there are more young people than in 90s and 80s that grew up with games. They would grow up on computers, instead of consoles and they would used them.

At this point, the conversation can only be "Yes, it would", "No, it wouldn't", so there's little incentive to keep going but I'll just say I wholeheartedly disagree with you on re: the bolded. The industry would be a fraction of the size it is now, especially for the type of games we enjoy.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

How are they exclusive? And many MMOs cost more than 100m$.

My fault about GTA4, but the point stands. I'd really like you to elaborate on this (or just reply to my response above):

3. Developers arent moving to consoles, developers are moving to multiplatform developing. PC is currently as important platform as consoles, if You dont believe go and check publishers financial reports.

...because to me it's such a ridiculous statement, one that's refuted by facts (sales).

 

[KKRT00]

At this point, the conversation can only be "Yes, it would", "No, it wouldn't", so there's little incentive to keep going but I'll just say I wholeheartedly disagree with you on re: the bolded. The industry would be a fraction of the size it is now, especially for the type of games we enjoy.

How it would be a fraction? What is login behind it? There are more people gaming now, because new generation grew up on games. They play on consoles, because they were thought to play on them, but if they would be raised by PC gamers, they would be thought to use PC. Thats simple logic.

You're 100% wrong here. Yes, they are moving to consoles. Their entire focus is consoles. Multi-platform games sell far, far more on consoles. You'd have to be living under a rock to not see the reality of the situation. Many AAA multi-platform games don't even get ported to PC. Ubisoft is asking people to make a petition to get a port of The Division. You're completely wrong. You say my posts don't make any sense and you type something as uninformed as that.

Seriously, go and check publishers financial reports. I'm not the one uninformed here.

---

...because to me it's such a ridiculous statement, one that's refuted by facts (sales).

Ok, so show me those sales for last 15 multiplatform blockbuster games. You wont, because there arent any. The only things we have thats reliable are revenue streams by platforms.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

guess which platform brings EA the most revenue in their last quarter


I'm not arguing games on consoles don't sell more, but they don't sell "far,far,more" as you claim, look at game companies' financial reports like EA,Take-Two,Activision,Ubisoft, PC is consistently at least 20% of their revenue. EA's latest quarter report shows PC brings them the most revenue. 298 mil on PC vs 256 million on 360 and 238 million on PS3

That's including social gaming, facebook, all that stuff. We've been talking about "real" games here, at least that's what's implied, but if you want to include social/facebook/etc then I can't argue with that as you'd be correct.

How it would be a fraction? What is login behind it? There are more people gaming now, because new generation grew up on games. They play on consoles, because they were thought to play on them, but if they would be raised by PC gamers, they would be thought to use PC. Thats simple logic.

Convenience and ease-of-use. They're a key reason why consoles became so popular. Your scenario is just ridiculous. The gaming community would be a fraction of the size.

Seriously, go and check publishers financial reports. I'm not the one uninformed here.

---

Ok, so show me those sales for last 15 multiplatform blockbuster games. You wont, because there arent any. The only things we have thats reliable are revenue streams by platforms.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to take an hour to do this. It's common knowledge, ask anyone who follows game sales here. I'm shocked it's even being debated.

 

[SapientWolf]

...and the gaming community & industry would be exponentially smaller than it is now. How is this arguable?


You're 100% wrong here. Yes, they are moving to consoles. Their entire focus is consoles. Multi-platform games sell far, far more on consoles. You'd have to be living under a rock to not see the reality of the situation. Many AAA multi-platform games don't even get ported to PC. Ubisoft is asking people to make a petition to get a port of The Division. You're completely wrong. You say my posts don't make any sense and you type something as uninformed as that.


Disingenuous. MMOs are an outlier. Even so, GTA4 was $100 million. Destiny is rumored to be up there as well. FF7 when it came out was like 70 million. There are far more expensive 'AAA' games on consoles, the budgets are much higher.

That's a marketing gimmick that I think is a little distasteful. F2P games are making billions on the PC. Someone at Ubi would get fired if The Division didn't get a port.

 

[jonscrambler]

...because to me it's such a ridiculous statement, one that's refuted by facts (sales).

facts are here, EA"s financial statement Q1 2014

http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=779751

revenue by platform
PC: 298 million
360: 256 million
PS3: 238 million

 

[KKRT00]

That's including social gaming, facebook, all that stuff. We've been talking about "real" games here, at least that's what's implied, but if you want to include social/facebook/etc then I can't argue with that as you'd be correct.

So post Your data.

 

[jonscrambler]

That's including social gaming, facebook, all that stuff. We've been talking about "real" games here, at least that's what's implied, but if you want to include social/facebook/etc then I can't argue with that as you'd be correct.

Zynga lost 15 million last quarter, what makes you think EA makes money on social games? and EA lists Mobile as a platform separately in their financial report , they are not under PC.

 

[Portugeezer]

If PC was the only platform, every single gamer in the world would have to buy that PC version. You don't think that would be financially viable?

Piracy

Spoiler

worse than consoles in b4 someone tried telling me consoles have piracy too

 

[DarkLordMalik]

facts are here, EA"s financial statement Q1 2014

http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=779751

revenue by platform
PC: 298 million
360: 256 million
PS3: 238 million

You do realize that EA are also pretty big on Social Network. They have games on Facebook and these are also counted in their PC revenue. I have no idea about any of their online/f2p titles on PC though.

Also EA are one of the few publishers who have insanely popular "mainstream" titles on PC. I am talking about Sim series here which is pretty damn popular among the mainstream audience. I am not surprised to see their PC revenues here.

 

[apana]

At this point, the conversation can only be "Yes, it would", "No, it wouldn't", so there's little incentive to keep going but I'll just say I wholeheartedly disagree with you on re: the bolded. The industry would be a fraction of the size it is now, especially for the type of games we enjoy.

I have to agree with you here, that is quite a ridiculous statement. People can look up the numbers themselves on what Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft and other console exclusive developers have sold. And no the same behavior wouldn't have just magically replicated itself in the PC sphere, those companies had incentives to do what they did. Also consoles aren't some alien box. I would compare them to laptops or mobile phones. They are "personal computers" designed to make gaming appealing and accessible to the masses.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Zynga lost 15 million last quarter, what makes you think EA makes money on social games? and EA lists Mobile as a platform separately in their financial report , they are not under PC.

...because it's common knowledge that PC versions of multi-plats sell exponentially less than their console counterparts, and I'm not just talking about CoD. Is this real life? I don't even follow sales-age that closely and know this. Everyone knows this, the numbers are out there.

I have to agree with you here, that is quite a ridiculous statement. People can look up the numbers themselves on what Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft and other console exclusive developers have sold. And no the same behavior wouldn't have just magically replicated itself in the PC sphere, those companies had incentives to do what they did. Also consoles aren't some alien box. I would compare them to laptops or mobile phones. They are "personal computers" designed to make gaming appealing and accessible to the masses.

Thank you! Jesus, I was starting to feel like the guy in my avatar.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

Bluray didn't have any real impact on making games though. That $600 price tag didn't trickle down to games justifying that price. Even though sony technically won the bluray/hddvd war, they would have more likely benefited selling the ps3 at $400 dollars and just had a dvd drive.

No, it did have a real impact on making games. Nearly every multiplayform game had higher quality audio than the 360 counter part. That is why games were around 12GB on PS3 and 8GB on the 360. There were also multiplatforms that did not even need multiple discs unlike the xbox 360 version. Exclusive games used the blu-ray even more than multis. Saying Blu-ray did not have any impact is just not true. It probably did not have the impact Sony or some fans were hoping for, but at least we did not have two DVD consoles.

 

[KKRT00]

...because it's common knowledge that PC versions of multi-plats sell exponentially less than their console counterparts, and I'm not just talking about CoD. Is this real life? I don't even follow sales-age that closely and know this. Everyone knows this, the numbers are out there.

No, actually numbers arent out there. And You are living in 2009.

---

Also EA are one of the few publishers who have insanely popular "mainstream" titles on PC. I am talking about Sim series here which is pretty damn popular among the mainstream audience. I am not surprised to see their PC revenues here.

Both Activision and Ubisoft release PC exclusive titles too.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

No, actually numbers arent out there. And You are living in 2009.

I'm done. Thanks for the debate. It was relatively civil and fun, but I'm out.

 

[ghst]

...because it's common knowledge that PC versions of multi-plats sell exponentially less than their console counterparts, and I'm not just talking about CoD. Is this real life? I don't even follow sales-age that closely and know this. Everyone knows this, the numbers are out there.

yeah, like phil fish. his PC figures were so bad that he started making statements that fez was "a console game. for consoles. PCs are for spreadsheets".

 

[Jac_Solar]

with most AA-AAA games I get 80-99% GPU USAGE. That is with a heavily overclocked processor though.

If the scaling is poor, then I just change the profiles with Nvidia inspector to get better scaling. Hell I even lobbied Nvidias driver team through AndyB to get a better scaling profile for Natural Selection 2 (and was successful!).

Very nice. So, would you say SLI is worth the trouble now? How about non-AAA games?

 

[jonscrambler]

...because it's common knowledge that PC versions of multi-plats sell exponentially less than their console counterparts, and I'm not just talking about CoD. Is this real life? I don't even follow sales-age that closely and know this. Everyone knows this, the numbers are out there.
.

I just showed you the numbers, but you decided to dismiss it by claiming (with no evidence) PC sales numbers are in social games

more numbers here, from Ubisoft's financial report Q1 2013
https://www.ubisoftgroup.com/en-US/investor_center/earnings_sales.aspx

sales breakdown by platform
PS3 23%
X360 23%
PC 20%

 

[KKRT00]

I'm done. Thanks for the debate. It was relatively civil and fun, but I'm out.

I'm just saying that there are no numbers. You wont find them, but You can try if You want.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

yeah, like phil fish. his PC figures were so bad that he started making statements that fez was "a console game. for consoles. PCs are for spreadsheets".

That settles it, then. GG, WP.

I'm just saying that there are no numbers. You wont find them, but You can try if You want.

No, you're right. Multi-platform games sell about the same on PC. I was wrong, don't know what I was thinking. Good day.

.
.
.

 

[ghst]

Very nice. So, would you say SLI is worth the trouble now? How about non-AAA games?

apparently even crossfire is worth the trouble now, so i'm going skiing with dante.

 

[mephixto]

That settles it, then. GG, WP.

He made so much money from the PC version of Fez that he even retired.

Spoiler

/jk

 

[tycoonheart]

Every article I can google about EA and social games mentions the fact that EA is moving away from social games on sites like Facebook and going to the mobile platform (which is reported separately in their earnings reports). Just recently EA shut down 3 or so games on social networks because they weren't doing well. So even if social games are included in that report for PC, I don't think the number is so significant that it dwarfs actual PC games numbers. Which then tells us that EA games are actually selling pretty damn well on the PC.

 

[Thunder Monkey]

facts are here, EA"s financial statement Q1 2014

http://investor.ea.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=779751

revenue by platform
PC: 298 million
360: 256 million
PS3: 238 million

That simultaneously shows why the idea that the PC is dead platform is bunk, and why consoles are where the baseline is raised. Every time consoles increase in power we see an industry wide initiative to hit a higher bar in realtime rendering. This is because there is a larger well of money to be had in them. This doesn't change the fact that for the first generation ever PC's have a theoretical advantage in excess of 3-4x overall. While generally having a much larger pool of VRAM and much more memory overall. Neither console can compete with that.

But this does cost money. And why that high end of PC is usually owned by less than 2% of the gaming populace at any given time. I mean the right GPU setup with the right CPU and you potentially have a system with performance in the 3-4x area over the PS4. CPU's that are a few weight classes above the Jags in PS4 and One. GPU's with 6 gigs of VRAM at insanely high bandwidth.

It's not a contradiction to say that consoles can increase the baseline for videogame realtime rendering and are at a severe disadvantage to even moderately priced PC's this generation. The difference in capability is only going to get larger as the generation goes on. This will become a potential limiter by the midpoint of the generation. Especially if realtime GI solutions don't pay off on PS4/One. But given we were already close on PC hardware I think it's only a matter of time before we see it introduced on PC's. I was really hoping the sparse voxel octree approach would pay off, and in a matter of years it should. But I wonder if consoles will be able to take part without destroying IQ even further.

 

[Scrabble]

No, it did have a real impact on making games. Nearly every multiplayform game had higher quality audio than the 360 counter part. That is why games were around 12GB on PS3 and 8GB on the 360. There were also multiplatforms that did not even need multiple discs unlike the xbox 360 version. Exclusive games used the blu-ray even more than multis. Saying Blu-ray did not have any impact is just not true. It probably did not have the impact Sony or some fans were hoping for, but at least we did not have two DVD consoles.

I'm not saying it didn't have any impact, of course it had some, but enough to justify a manufacturing price of 900+ dollars and a sale price of $600? You would have seen a substantial difference in visuals between the ps3 and 360 had sony shipped with a dvd player, and used the $200 difference to increase gpu/cpu specs, more ram, etc. As it stands, the ps3 and 360 were essentially the same power, the only difference is that ps3 cost $200 more. That $200 difference didn't exactly trickle down into making ps3 games look substantially better than 360 games, and is some cases look much worse than their 360 counterparts.

 

[cobragt4001]

A 670 would probably run it at 15 fps. PS4 hits 30 fps because of coding to the metal get 2x the performance.

My 670's are outdated confirmed D:

 

[OldAsUrSock]

I'm not saying it didn't have any impact, of course it had some, but enough to justify a manufacturing price of 900+ dollars and a sale price of $600? You would have seen a substantial difference in visuals between the ps3 and 360 had sony shipped with a dvd player, and used the $200 difference to increase gpu/cpu specs, more ram, etc. As it stands, the ps3 and 360 were essentially the same power, the only difference is that ps3 cost $200 more. That $200 difference didn't exactly trickle down into making ps3 games look substantially better than 360 games, and is some cases look much worse than their 360 counterparts.

A type of disc does not make games instantly look better. I so not know where this idea came from.

 

[Scrabble]

A type of disc does not make games instantly look better. I so not know where this idea came from.

Thanks for proving my point. I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If sony had taken the cost of including a bluray drive and put it towards increasing specs that matter, than ps3 would have been substantially more powerful than a 360 at it's $600 price point.

 

[Can Crusher]

Using PC game sales as an argument for why PC should be the default platform for gaming, while neglecting to mention the amount of f2p and facebook style games is desingenous.

By that measure, mobile gaming should take over and PC and consoles should simply die, because there's really no need for either. They are both dinosaurs.

 

[Principate]

Using PC game sales as an argument for why PC should be the default platform for gaming, while neglecting to mention the amount of f2p and facebook style games is desingenous.

By that measure, mobile gaming should take over and PC and consoles should simply die, because there's really no need for either. They are both dinosaurs.

Eh your example is also disingenuous one of those can't play the games that would push those consoles while the other can do so handily. making mobiles the base would be pointless as they satisfy and entirely different market in a different manner. PC's does both types but satisfies one different (not mobile). If PC gaming reached popular enough those no reason why it shouldn't. Much like why in the past gen there was a shift towards consoles.

 

[Poetic.Injustice]

But you're basing that off pre-alpha footage. Lets wait until launch before making that conclusion.

We'll see, I'm highly skeptical that it will reach that level of visual fidelity.

 

[RoboPlato]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjUaA5lDeDY

Have you guys seen that video by Digital Foundry on Watch Dogs? Comparing PS4 with what they showed on PC last year!

Way closer than I thought it was, and I didn't think it looked all that much worse to begin with. Biggest change is the slow mo gunshots lighting the raindrops, an effect I didn't expect to make it into the final game anyway. If they can improve the AA a bit and get higher precision motion blur in the final game could be very close.

 

[Saty]

Crysis 1 overall was a disappointment for Crytek, it wasn't the blockbuster they were hoping for. It turned a profit but it wasn't huge and it was one of the most pirated games of all time. There's a reason why they turned their focus to consoles, just like Epic and many other devs.

It wasn't a disappointment. Selling a million copies in a month and half is something a lot of multiplatform games dream of. They went to consoles because they thought the games will sell more and they will make more money - but it didn't turn out this way. Crysis 2&3 haven't sold more than their PC exclusive. If Crysis1 was a disappointment, i dare to think how you would classify their console outing.

In which deluded world do you live in? A game selling million copies in a month and a half is a resounding success for a typical multiplatform release and especially for a high-end PC exclusive. Witcher 2 selling more than a million copies in its first year is a success.

If you wish to argue that high-end PC exclusives aren't being made because they won't sell then please go and find other examples. Crysis 1 isn't one.

I can't think of any high-end PC exclusive in recent years that wasn't a success.

 

[Dictator93]

apparently even crossfire is worth the trouble now, so i'm going skiing with dante.

Very nice. So, would you say SLI is worth the trouble now? How about non-AAA games?

Obviously still weigh the risks of it... but it has gotten way better over the years.

It wasn't a disappointment. Selling a million copies in a month and half is something a lot of multiplatform games dream of. They went to consoles because they thought the games will sell more and they will make more money - but it didn't turn out this way. Crysis 2&3 haven't sold more than their PC exclusive. If Crysis1 was a disappointment, i dare to think how you would classify their console outing.

In which deluded world do you live in? A game selling million copies in a month and a half is a resounding success for a typical multiplatform release and especially for a high-end PC exclusive. Witcher 2 selling more than a million copies in its first year is a success.

If you wish to argue that high-end PC exclusives aren't being made because they won't sell then please go and find other examples. Crysis 1 isn't one.

I can't think of any high-end PC exclusive in recent years that wasn't a success.

I cannot either!

 

[velociraptor]

It wasn't a disappointment. Selling a million copies in a month and half is something a lot of multiplatform games dream of. They went to consoles because they thought the games will sell more and they will make more money - but it didn't turn out this way. Crysis 2&3 haven't sold more than their PC exclusive. If Crysis1 was a disappointment, i dare to think how you would classify their console outing.

In which deluded world do you live in? A game selling million copies in a month and a half is a resounding success for a typical multiplatform release and especially for a high-end PC exclusive. Witcher 2 selling more than a million copies in its first year is a success.

If you wish to argue that high-end PC exclusives aren't being made because they won't sell then please go and find other examples. Crysis 1 isn't one.

I can't think of any high-end PC exclusive in recent years that wasn't a success.

It's pretty funny/sad how things go to shit when PC devs go multiplatform.

 

[FACE]

It's pretty funny/sad how things go to shit when PC devs go multiplatform.

I hope CDPR ends that streak.

 

[Always-honest]

Way closer than I thought it was, and I didn't think it looked all that much worse to begin with. Biggest change is the slow mo gunshots lighting the raindrops, an effect I didn't expect to make it into the final game anyway. If they can improve the AA a bit and get higher precision motion blur in the final game could be very close.

Yeah, final result should be very similar. And who knows what will end up in he final maxed pc version. Although it will be the ultimate version, now doubt.