I think what did the majority of the damage to FPS is all the same military shooters that were pumped out like a factory.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Wouldn't low end and mid end PCs hold back PC gaming as much as consoles do?
- Thread starter CornBurrito
- Start date
alexandros
Banned
You should give it another chance some time, it's improved massively from those days.
This isn't true. Similar to consoles, generally people on PC also like the option of the highest end graphics being a part of the game even when they can't play with those settings. This is because people like to invest in those games anyway for when they do have even more capable hardware thanks to the library of games still being there - it is yet another reason to invest in that particular version of the game. Devs like it, since it does pay off in the long term when years later there is still relevance and interest in the game. We see this all the time, and it is why the majority of "AAA" games push for those extra effects and quality.
So have the cheats people use online that drive people away.... Like the BF3 med pack mass killings hack. Aim bots, wallhacks, act.
Sorry but that's what personally drove me away from multiplayer games on pc
Canis lupus
Member
Without consoles AAA gaming would die and the cycle of better graphics would stop.
Consoles hold back PCs as much as PCs hold back themselves. Looking at the steam hw survey, the majority of steam users have machines worse or comparable to consoles. If someone made a $50 million AAA game taking the Titan X as a baseline, he would go bankrupt.
You can ask yourself, if consoles were holding back pc's, then why doesn't the average PC exclusive look significantly better? "it's because they don't have big budgets" and then you come back to what CDPR was saying: W3 was made thanks to consoles.
So essentially, it's thanks to consoles games are bigger and look better.
Consoles hold back PCs as much as PCs hold back themselves. Looking at the steam hw survey, the majority of steam users have machines worse or comparable to consoles. If someone made a $50 million AAA game taking the Titan X as a baseline, he would go bankrupt.
You can ask yourself, if consoles were holding back pc's, then why doesn't the average PC exclusive look significantly better? "it's because they don't have big budgets" and then you come back to what CDPR was saying: W3 was made thanks to consoles.
So essentially, it's thanks to consoles games are bigger and look better.
bitcloudrzr
Member
I know it has, but it's pretty much been on the back of a significant amount of PC developers targeting console(specifically PS4) as their lead system. There really is something to be said about absolute simplicity and top of on top of solid hardware. Things like standard controls, lack of cheating for multiplayer games, etc.
The only thing I wish is for Sony to have more clout in the console space. Things like mod support has always been a thing for them, among others and it's really the other manufacturers holding more PC like benefits back.
In development and design, you never get to tick every box you want. Compromises always have to be made and you can't please everyone.
GreatestHits
Member
I think the answer is yes.
And they're lazy for not implementing above current hardware levels now.
But this is a hypothetical situation and it can't be compared, i think (console + console + PC) and (PC med + PC low + PC high)
And they're lazy for not implementing above current hardware levels now.
But this is a hypothetical situation and it can't be compared, i think (console + console + PC) and (PC med + PC low + PC high)
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Huh? It was the same button, but you held the button to equip it and just pressed to pick up. I don't see the problem.
Pretty ironic, isn't it? All these complaints about consoles holding back graphics, but in a way, it's the opposite. ^^
Mohonky
Member
What? No its not.
The i5 has been around for ages and is mid range, the GTX670 wasn't even high end on release, nvidia X70 cards are high mid range cards, but the 670 launched 3 years ago and has had 2 model revisions since then. 8gb of ram is about what you would expect as the minimum.
I would say its on the lower end of medium as far as PC's go, it's no where near High end. It is similar to what I am running but I have an i7 and 16gb ram and there is no way my system is high end as far as I or many others would argue. If I upgraded the GTX670 to something like a 970 I might argue its on the upper medium bordering low high end range.
bitcloudrzr
Member
I don't buy this argument more than publishers simply chasing BF/COD money and failing because they re seen as copycats. H Hour is trying and that is going to be a PS4 game, tactical and arena shooters can exist in the console space.
Recent iterations of UT, Quake were not very good games. Sometimes it's as simple as that.
You asked a question quite a while ago about why there is a big fuss over PS4 vs XB1 graphic comparisons, but then PS4 vs PC gets dismissed. For me it boils down to a comparison of two similar boxes where one is always noticeably better under normal circumstances.
When you throw in a PC, you're basically asking me to buy a more expensive and separate machine from scratch to reap the benefits.
RoadHazard
Gold Member
No, because everyone has a high-end PC and can run everything on Ultra. At least according to many people on GAF, a "PC" is just that and nothing else exists.
"Why wouldn't you play this on PC? It's so much better!"
"Because I don't have one that can run it better than my PS4."
"...?"
"Why wouldn't you play this on PC? It's so much better!"
"Because I don't have one that can run it better than my PS4."
"...?"
Leafhopper
Banned
The obsession with graphics is a tad annoying at times of course.
UnrealEck
Member
In memory, being honest here, I've never seen anyone dismiss someone that says they don't own a decent gaming PC in that context.
I've seen plenty of people reccomend PC versions of games, for good reason, but I can't recall seeing anyone act like everyone has a gaming PC.
Suggesting the PC version because it's factually superior overall isn't a bad thing. It's just honesty and that's not me referring to ultra settings either.
I'd suggest the PC version of many games and if they say they don't have a PC, that's where your example of the '....' comes in, but it wouldn't end in a question mark.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Why? Couldn't they just turn down the graphic settings of the game as "console settings" and package that for the console release?
Plus no midrange PC owners will have a freaking i3 cpu that people keep using to compare to consoles.
Leafhopper
Banned
They could but the point of consoles is so you don't have to tweak that stuff. Hell there are people on this site even that don't like the fact that some console games allow for that stuff oddly enough.
Not to mention you wouldn't be able to tweak it to the degree of what you would like since it's still tied to the specs of the console. There are various things you can't change after all. Not talking just hardware of course.
copelandmaster
Member
That's like asking 'why do a comparison for cross gen games? Why buy a PS4/XB1 when I can buy Destiny on PS3/360?'
hemtae
Member
That was poor communication on my part. Sorry. FPS is a big multiplatform genre and has been hurt as a whole by designing for console gamepads. RTS genre hasn't been hurt like since it's mostly exclusive to PC with a few games on console but a well made RTS designed for controllers will always be inferior to a well made RTS designed for keyboard and mouse.
Didn't mean to imply they were both affected in the same way.
TheRedSnifit
Member
Yes, but they can't play like their PC counterparts. Go play a relatively simple PC-oriented FPS like Team Fortress 2 on Xbox, and be amazed at how (even ignoring all the updates) it's a completely different game.
Not everything can be condensed to a 'setting'. There are still core assets, geometry and things like lighting that aren't easily interchangeable with a flip of a switch. You'd still have to reduce a lot of these base graphical features to a level that a midrange PC could run them, just as you have to build in that scalability for consoles.
So yea, I think low-mid range PC's hold back higher end PC's just like consoles do. Maybe not to quite the same extent, as there is a fair bit you can do with settings, but enough that it would have an important effect on the final result.
Yea, pretty much. And that is how it does generally work with PC->console games. But many games are built with consoles as the 'target', and don't build in a lot of useful higher end scalability(entirely different assets and textures and such), as that would require a lot of time and effort for a small minority.
So there is some truth to both sides.
In the previous gen it was obvious that since consoles had less ram than even low end pc's they would hold back games even more than low end pc's would. In this generation consoles have cpus with lower ipc than a lot of low end pcs. Maybe some compromises must be made that can't be adjusted by just a slider in settings. It seems to me that only a developer can answer that.
Besides tech spesifications i think it is common sense that if a game targets multiple systems then compromises will be made or design desicions that wouldn't be made if the game was developed with a single system in mind. More so if that system was pc because of how different m/kb is from console and handheld pads and possibly how much different the playerbase is.
Besides tech spesifications i think it is common sense that if a game targets multiple systems then compromises will be made or design desicions that wouldn't be made if the game was developed with a single system in mind. More so if that system was pc because of how different m/kb is from console and handheld pads and possibly how much different the playerbase is.
bitcloudrzr
Member
The difference between a PS3-PS4 to a PS4-PC is not the same.
That's fine, but the core experience can still be done well. I think the problem has been the developer/publisher trying to turn a series into something it's not. That has led to more disappointing games than just because of platform alone. BFME2 was a different experience on the 360, but it was functional, a good game and still a lot of fun with controllers.
longdi
Banned
It is not the mid-end PC problem.
It is PS4/One using tablet class CPU integrated into one APU that is holding us back.
PS4 could have also used a more forward thinking GPU with faster tessellation and efficient ROP (think R9 285 GCN1.2), or even the full 7870 config. These are already mid-range GPU now and then.
One's GPU could even be out-classed by Intel upcoming integrated Broadwell CPU that has 128mb of edram for the graphics!
It is PS4/One using tablet class CPU integrated into one APU that is holding us back.
PS4 could have also used a more forward thinking GPU with faster tessellation and efficient ROP (think R9 285 GCN1.2), or even the full 7870 config. These are already mid-range GPU now and then.
One's GPU could even be out-classed by Intel upcoming integrated Broadwell CPU that has 128mb of edram for the graphics!
Then why don't all pc games look that the most fantastic games ever? Why doesn't Leage of legend look amazing on high settings?
It's because you can't aim for laptops and high end gaming PCs at the same time. PC games can scale but the scaling can only go so far.
cripterion
Member
How do you know? Have you been to this alternate world where consoles don't exist to make that assertion?
The argument about consoles holding back PC Gaming is not primarily about graphics. Its also about scope, controls and features.
Look at Diablo 3 and tell me it wasnt held back because of consoles. (maximum controls, i.e. spells)
Look at DA:I and tell me the controls werent butchered for unified console controls
Look at... look at .... sorry I need a moment. *wishing tears out of eyes and control breathing* Look at X-Rebirth and tell me that it wasnt an (butchered) attempt at consolofication of the best Space-Eco-Series ever.
Look at Diablo 3 and tell me it wasnt held back because of consoles. (maximum controls, i.e. spells)
Look at DA:I and tell me the controls werent butchered for unified console controls
Look at... look at .... sorry I need a moment. *wishing tears out of eyes and control breathing* Look at X-Rebirth and tell me that it wasnt an (butchered) attempt at consolofication of the best Space-Eco-Series ever.
bitcloudrzr
Member
The PS4's gpu while it doesn't have as much horsepower, is architecturally similar to the 290x. They went for compute efficiency as a solution to the low end cpus and consider the silicon budget, price concerns power usage, cost of development(system and games) they did what they had to.
Having more power would always be welcome, but they had to work within these restrictions. They did a good job and graphic fidelity would have been even worse if they decided to go for a more powerful cpu.
Intel's gpus are still very poor in gaming performance, EDRAM or not.
Not really, the ability for scalable graphics options means you can design the game to suit low, mid and high end PC. Furthermore you can design the game to be future proofed for future PC, similar to what Crysis did, at the time barely anyone could run it at Ultra, now plenty can and it still looks gorgeous. Same goes for Crysis 3 and Ryse.
Scalable options is key.
Scalable options is key.
Visualante2
Member
Personally I don't think low end PC hardware is holding PC games back enough. Considering most multiplatform ports only offer some visual touches to the same old console concepts it's really frustrating when my middle of the road GPU can't handle a game. It feels that AMD and in particular Nvidia have too much power over PC ports and use that influence to drive new, expensive hardware sales instead of supporting a broad range of systems.
I wish cards below the *50 for nvidia, and the *60 for AMD would just stop existing alltogether.
Those cards are straight up USELESS, yet, due to their low cost, pc building companies like dell etc put them inside desktops and laptops just to tick the "graphics card" box in the spec sheet, confusing customers.
I have colleagues attending compsci with me, who insist in saying that a graphics card with 2gb of memory is good, totally ignoring the model number.
And those sleazy manifacturers made it so, they convinced people MEMORY is some driving factor in a graphics chip's performance, who cares about the actual rendering cores right?
And by the way, stop selling products with supergood cpus like I7, and pair them with shit cards, what the hell.
EDIT: I agree with the "consoles ruining design" thing more than graphics though. Take it this way: console players get upset when their favourite devs start making games for mobile platforms, dumbing them down to barebones. Well, take a seat, we have been experiencing this for the past 10 years. It hurts.
Those cards are straight up USELESS, yet, due to their low cost, pc building companies like dell etc put them inside desktops and laptops just to tick the "graphics card" box in the spec sheet, confusing customers.
I have colleagues attending compsci with me, who insist in saying that a graphics card with 2gb of memory is good, totally ignoring the model number.
And those sleazy manifacturers made it so, they convinced people MEMORY is some driving factor in a graphics chip's performance, who cares about the actual rendering cores right?
And by the way, stop selling products with supergood cpus like I7, and pair them with shit cards, what the hell.
EDIT: I agree with the "consoles ruining design" thing more than graphics though. Take it this way: console players get upset when their favourite devs start making games for mobile platforms, dumbing them down to barebones. Well, take a seat, we have been experiencing this for the past 10 years. It hurts.
This is definitely more of a legit complaint/concern than the graphics thing.
CouchMaster
Member
Yup, if PC sales weren't the smallest slice of overall sales pie chart maybe you would get AAA games taking full advantage of the hardware.
alexandros
Banned
Because of its business model and the regions it's popular in. For a F2p game it's absolutely essential to get as many people as possible to at least try it out.
dragonelite
Member
My PC build is kinda old gpu a 6950. But I do buy games on steam I know i can't run just incase I'm going to build a new gaming rig I'm waiting on r3xx series gpu and gonna do a complete build with skylake release.
petran79
Banned
An overclocked i3 with a mid-range GPU can run all games above mid-level quality
Auto-Reply
Member
I believe there is often a development priority towards consoles due to higher initial revenue/profit when games are sold.
If that is true then there will be limits set towards the specs of said consoles because of budget/development time planning. So the weaker the console, the less time and money will be spend on things that are actually viable for high end pc's, thus holding it back... in some way or another. A lot of extras we've seen in pc versions of games are only there because they do not require much investment overall or are a side effect of developing assetts for the console versions where pc gamers get higher fidelity assetts because they exist already, sometimes extras/more advanced tech are only available because of GPU manufacturers like Nvidia working with the developers.
If that is true then there will be limits set towards the specs of said consoles because of budget/development time planning. So the weaker the console, the less time and money will be spend on things that are actually viable for high end pc's, thus holding it back... in some way or another. A lot of extras we've seen in pc versions of games are only there because they do not require much investment overall or are a side effect of developing assetts for the console versions where pc gamers get higher fidelity assetts because they exist already, sometimes extras/more advanced tech are only available because of GPU manufacturers like Nvidia working with the developers.
BlitzerRadic
Member
Is there such a thing as a high end AAA PC game? The last AAA PC game I can think of was Diablo 3, and that was targeted at mid to low PCs.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
My rig can run all the games I want to play on PC, but it doesn't even meet the specified minimum requirement for Witcher 3.
longdi
Banned
Broadwell integrated GPU is according to Intel, 40% faster than Haswell's, so it will have around 1.2Tflops of compute power, and it is not restricted by mobile thermals. It will be interesting to see how many games Broadwell (and overclocked) can run at mid quality settings at 720p! 
i3 750Ti is considered the lower end of a gaming PC. Developers now develop for console specs not PC specs.
PS4/One obviously built for safety against the fear of mobile gaming taking over. The new consoles dont seem able to last beyond 5 years.
i3 750Ti is considered the lower end of a gaming PC. Developers now develop for console specs not PC specs.
PS4/One obviously built for safety against the fear of mobile gaming taking over. The new consoles dont seem able to last beyond 5 years.
JordanN
Banned
This is it.
We're long past the days where raw power would give you better looking games without costing much. Today, your average PC game wont look better due to the time it takes to create art assets that resemble high end CG.
BlitzerRadic
Member
You know there are more than 6 buttons on a controller, right?
That's an argument that business decisions hold PC gaming back. The need to make back money on a game means publishers write for the widest possible audience, which includes consoles.
The question that needs asking is why don't publishers think it worthwhile spending more money in creating better assets, engine improvements etc for PC? The PC user base with the hardware to run such things is, apparently, a huge thing and publishers are leaving money & goodwill on the ground by not catering to the twin-Titan crowd running 16gb i7 rigs.
Emulated Hype
Member
Glass Half Full: Consoles are keeping my lower-end PC relevant.
Theonik
Member
Yes an no. Most PC games are geared to work on the lowest common denominator. You will never get many games that will be designed to run on high-end PCs. That being said, PC games do offer choice in terms of scaling between different machines as a side-effect of that so at least in terms of general visual fidelity is concerned it's not a problem. Eventually though PCs also catch up with consoles too. And no, people greatly oversestimate the average gamer PCs that developers were targeting. They are weaker than PS4 even in some cases. If anything, consoles save us from devs developing for those.
Exactly. PC developers are rarely going to go after the high end. Crysis is an example of a developer going after the highest end. Couldn't play that on a laptop when it came out because scaling is limited.
OP is right. Mid and low tier PCs are going to limit what games look like just as much as consoles are.
SolidusDave
Member
This is the correct.
Some are really missing the point here, just because you can scale down a game to make it playable on lower-end PCs doesn't mean they are not holding games back. Just imagine how a game would look / what stuff it would pull off it PCs with Titans or whatever were set as the MINIMUM requirement.
But that's ok! It's about selling copies of the game (i.e. more people being able to enjoy your game) and not about catering to some small exclusive club (arguably the last time that happened was maybe Crysis to pimp their engine?).
Consoles just give a rough target to develop for as that's the hardware most have.
And from
http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey?platform=pc
You can basically see that there are peaks for low, mid range and high range systems:
(comparisons with PS4 hardware are just an estimate, don't lynch me for it)
CPU:
48% 2 cores
44% 4 cores (=PS4)
7% around 1.7 Ghz (=PS4)
38% around 2.3 Ghz
30% around 3.3 Ghz
RAM:
35% around 4 GB RAM
33% around 8 GB RAM (=PS4)
13% 12+ GB
GPU:
Most people have DX10/11 cards, but people more in the know than me can look if there's some kind of distribution, I will just list the cards with the highest percentages:
14% around a Intel HD Graphics 4000 (<PS4)
9% around a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 (=PS4)
9% around a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 660 (<PS4)
8% around a NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970 (>PS4)
14% around 0.5 GB VRAM
35% around 1 GB VRAM
28% around 2 GB VRAM
8% around 4 GB VRAM
(N/A on PS4, uses the system GDDR5 RAM)
Display resolution:
39% around 720p
37% around 1080p (=PS4)
Obviously the low end is provided mostly by cheap laptops etc and skews these surveys as those people/machines are probably not a target of AAA games.
But even ignoring the low end range, most people still have a PC that is comparable to a PS4. The main difference is that on PC most people have a CPU that is more powerful than the PS4's.
The extreme enthusiasts ("PC master race") playing their games in 4K don't really show up in these stats apart from maybe some of the high ranking GPUs.
Makes little sense.PC games can be scaled back with lower resolution textures and lower polygon models at the flick of a switch. So games can be designed to look best on top end stuff and still look and play reasonably well on normal PCs
Console settings is just another setting in the PC spectrum. A game can scale back to PS4 settings (roughly i3/750Ti) or up to Titan X. It can scale up from lower-end PC / PS4 settings alike.