Support NeoGAF

[alexandros]

That's an argument that business decisions hold PC gaming back.

Business decisions that are influenced by the consoles' power level or lack thereof. Gaming is a business, there are business decisions behind everything.

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?

I would guess because a) game development is expensive and hard so there is the issue of diminishing returns and b) most multiplatform developers, having gotten used to the "first week sales are everything" console mentality, don't really understand the PC market or why future-proofing your games is a good idea.

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.

Crysis was actually pretty scalable, I could play it on medium/low on a rather low-end PC at the time. Laptops back then had no gaming capabilities whatsoever, targeting them for big-budget games was out of the question.

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.

The survey you are using as proof of your argument is actually indicative of how much consoles stagnate the hardware market. Many people didn't upgrade their gaming rigs because they simply didn't have to, myself included. There was no reason to invest in new hardware since system requirements basically plateaued.

 

[CadetMahoney]

PC format can lower settings, consoles can't.

It's not like crysis can't run at target 30fps with PS4 settings in place.

What's that saying about "30fps is fine" mantra we always hear, what's good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander.

There is nothing being held back.

 

[squall23]

Maybe other PC game developers can learn to optimize their games like CDP did to Witcher 3 because quite frankly my 8-9 year old rig has no reason to be able to run the game with everything on high and still get 60FPS.

 

[PdotMichael]

I consider my i2500k, GTX670, 8GB RAM PC to be mid-range at this point.

That would be >500€ for a PC. That's never mid-class.

Steam Hard and Software survey is a pretty good indicator what the possible gaming market is using and not the elitist PC club.

 

[dracula_x]

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.

Even then, I bet those games would look mostly the same. And that because of sky-high budgets of modern game development. Nowadays, even a not complex games like Bloodstained have actual budget around $5 million.

Hardware doesn't matter anymore to be honest, budget does and people should understand this. So even PCs with Titans as the minimum requirement wouldn't solve the problem.

 

[Renekton]

Maybe other PC game developers can learn to optimize their games like CDP did to Witcher 3 because quite frankly my 8-9 year old rig has no reason to be able to run the game with everything on high and still get 60FPS.

receipts.gif

 

[BMX Bandit]

The same subnormals who talk about consoles holding back PC make petitions to port console games to PC. They are in every major release thread. Those major releases that simply would not exist without console sales. The disconnect is hilarious to witness.

 

[Zekra Dezivad]

Almost everything in the market needs an entry level version.
The "holding back" is reasonable.
If we talk about PS360, then sure, they're holding back the games.
PS4/One? I don't think so.
People have different needs and budgets. A gaming machine with a pad at low price is what many consumers demand and consoles satisfy this demand.

I don't think gamers buy pcs with console-level specs to play console-level settings and performance. It would be maybe a little more expensive, and beyond stupid in my opinion lol

 

[alexandros]

Those major releases that simply would not exist without console sales.

Were you guys too young around the 90s or something? Many of the developers that have now gone multiplatform made their fortunes by developing big exclusive PC games.

 

[PdotMichael]

Were you guys too young around the 90s or something? Many of the developers that have now gone multiplatform made their fortunes by developing big exclusive PC games.

The key word is 90s.

 

[BMX Bandit]

Were you guys too young around the 90s or something? Many of the developers that have now gone multiplatform made their fortunes by developing big exclusive PC games.

I was PC gaming before your were a gleam in your daddy's eye, sonny. Joking aside I played Quake and Quakeworld nonstop. You should go look up the dev team sizes of Doom\Quake or any major PC release you want from the 90s. Come back after you realize the industry is entirely different now. id software in the 90s would be considered an indie team today. It isn't comparable at all.

 

[Cerity]

Makes little sense.

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.

What is your standard, off the shelf low end gaming PC going to be looking like 5 years from now though? Intel, AMD and Nvidia will release what, 4-5 new generations of their hardware. I can't imagine anyone who stays current with games still running low/mid range hardware from 5 years ago, possibly with the exception of CPU's. Even taking the console generational leap aside, taking 2006/2007 -> 2011/2012, anyone still chosing to use GPU's from then for current (2011/2012) games is, well....

It can scale now but it isn't going to scale well within the future, especially when new technology is always being introduced.

 

[RulkezX]

Were you guys too young around the 90s or something? Many of the developers that have now gone multiplatform made their fortunes by developing big exclusive PC games.

You'd have a point if gaming budgets had remained stagnant or at 90's levels.

 

[Dazza]

Yes definitely true, you only have to see what the biggest selling PC only games and their minimum specs are, to know this is the case. Many high end PC gamers just don't understand they are a super niche market and will always be

 

[Sjefen]

I dont think hardware is the bottleneck that holds back PC graphics, its more the budgets for gaming devs. Developing for PC only and pushing for AAA big titles is not a good business strategy. As CDPR said they need consoles sales to really expand their market and push for a bigger budget(game). PC needs consoles as much as consoles need PC, more games bigger budgets = all good

 

[gogogow]

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)

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)

You got it all wrong. A 760 is very close to a 670, so no, it's a lot more powerful than a 7870 let alone something between a 7850 and 7870. A GTX 660 (non Ti) isn't less powerful than a PS4, in fact it's comparable to a 7870.

 

[Gizuko]

Well, if the console settings of a certain game are the equivalent of "Low" on the PC side, that's probably a PR/media suicide. I think consoles do hold PCs back in that regard, low-end PCs, not so much.

I don't think however, this issue is that big right now, considering a lot of PCs wouldn't be able to run such a game on high@60fps (sorry, I'm all for high frame rates, might not apply to everyone) - meaning, low-end PCs hold high-end back just as much right now, but won't down the line.

 

[alexandros]

Come back after you realize the industry is entirely different now.

I know it is different. I am one of the biggest advocates of all games being on all platforms precisely because the industry is different now. At the time, back in the 90s and in that context, those games were big, PC exclusive, and their creators made a lot of money. In today's market the sales potential on all platforms helps finance games with big scope and production values. That is indisputable. But there is zero evidence to suggest that you couldn't make a big game for the PC.

 

[Malcolm9]

I know it is different. I am one of the biggest advocates of all games being on all platforms precisely because the industry is different now. At the time, back in the 90s and in that context, those games were big, PC exclusive, and their creators made a lot of money. In today's market the sales potential on all platforms helps finance games with big scope and production values. That is indisputable. But there is zero evidence to suggest that you couldn't make a big game for the PC.

Didn't CDPR already confirm that if they didn't make console versions of The Witcher 3 it wouldn't have happened at all, considering it was previously a very strong PC title with 1 & 2.

 

[Älg]

If consoles were truly holding back PC gaming, wouldn't all PC exclusive games looks absolutely amazing. Because currently they don't. But maybe that's because of budget constraints and what not.

 

[PdotMichael]

If consoles were truly holding back PC gaming, wouldn't all PC exclusive games looks absolutely amazing. Because currently they don't. But maybe that's because of budget constraints and what not.

People forget that many PC exclusives are big in emerging markets or general less wealthy countries in Asia or Eastern Europe where it's more about having a computer in the first place and not if a GTX670 is mid-range or whatever.

 

[alexandros]

Didn't CDPR already confirm that if they didn't make console versions of The Witcher 3 it wouldn't have happened at all, considering it was previously a very strong PC title with 1 & 2.

Not at all, smaller in scope, which makes sense.

 

[Malcolm9]

Not at all, smaller in scope, which makes sense.

Just to reiterate what CDPR stated:

Did the console versions restrict the PC version?

"If the consoles are not involved there is no Witcher 3 as it is," answers Marcin Iwinski, definitively. "We can lay it out that simply. We just cannot afford it, because consoles allow us to go higher in terms of the possible or achievable sales; have a higher budget for the game, and invest it all into developing this huge, gigantic world.

"Developing only for the PC: yes, probably we could get more [in terms of graphics] as there would be nothing else - they would be so focused, like if we would develop only on Xbox One or PlayStation 4. But then we cannot afford such a game."

So basically it would of had all pretty graphics and no substance, possibly much more linear, which wasn't their vision of what they wanted the game to be. So I'm happy they were able to produce the game they wanted for all platforms, which I'm sure most would agree with.

 

[texhnolyze]

Many high end PC gamers just don't understand they are a super niche market and will always be

This is true.
Just look at Steam stats, owners of high-end PCs are just a pretty small percentage of all.

 

[alexandros]

So basically it would of had all pretty graphics and no substance, possibly much more linear, which wasn't their vision of what they wanted the game to be. So I'm happy they were able to produce the game they wanted for all platforms, which I'm sure most would agree with.

I agree as well, but not with your assumption that the game would have been all pretty graphics and no substance. I you have played Witcher 1 and 2 then you already know that this would never have been the case. I could see Witcher 3 having a smaller world or lower production values, but no substance? Not a chance.

 

[Applecot]

800x600 says hi

 

[BMX Bandit]

I know it is different. I am one of the biggest advocates of all games being on all platforms precisely because the industry is different now. At the time, back in the 90s and in that context, those games were big, PC exclusive, and their creators made a lot of money. In today's market the sales potential on all platforms helps finance games with big scope and production values. That is indisputable. But there is zero evidence to suggest that you couldn't make a big game for the PC.

Well, it really makes no sense to bring up the 90s in this discussion. Things have advanced in a way where it can't be recreated. Unless you think a handful of people can make an engine that looks and performs better than anything on the market and build a full game besides in today's industry.

As for making big, exclusive games for PC they do exist. They just have a few things in common. F2P\IAP\and\or subscription based. Most of which aren't really pushing any boundaries graphically because they want to keep the entry point low to get as many people playing as possible.

 

[Seanspeed]

Just to reiterate what CDPR stated:

Did the console versions restrict the PC version?

"If the consoles are not involved there is no Witcher 3 as it is," answers Marcin Iwinski, definitively. "We can lay it out that simply. We just cannot afford it, because consoles allow us to go higher in terms of the possible or achievable sales; have a higher budget for the game, and invest it all into developing this huge, gigantic world.

"Developing only for the PC: yes, probably we could get more [in terms of graphics] as there would be nothing else - they would be so focused, like if we would develop only on Xbox One or PlayStation 4. But then we cannot afford such a game."

So basically it would of had all pretty graphics and no substance, possibly much more linear, which wasn't their vision of what they wanted the game to be. So I'm happy they were able to produce the game they wanted for all platforms, which I'm sure most would agree with.

You have a very weird interpretation of those comments. Nowhere do they say or imply it would have had all graphics and no substance. For a developer like them, as alexandros says, it is *far* more likely that substance would still be there, but scope would be drastically reduced, probably more like TW1 and TW2. But yes, I'm still thankful it didn't come to that. I'm super happy to trade graphics for a monster of a game like TW3.

 

[Malcolm9]

I agree as well, but not with your assumption that the game would have been all pretty graphics and no substance. I you have played Witcher 1 and 2 then you already know that this would never have been the case. I could see Witcher 3 having a smaller world or lower production values, but no substance? Not a chance.

No substance was the wrong wording on my behalf, my bad, what I meant was them being able to make the game how they wanted it to be is more accurate.

 

[alexandros]

As for making big, exclusive games for PC they do exist. They just have a few things in common. F2PIAPandor subscription based. Most of which aren't really pushing any boundaries graphically because they want to keep the entry point low to get as many people playing as possible.

A simple question: do big, exclusive console games exist outside of those being directly funded by the platform holders?

 

[derExperte]

It's much less an issue than it was ten years ago. Remember shitty cards like the GeForce4 MX? Those held everyone back because many people bought them thinking they'd be as good as a 'real' GeForce but actually lacked certain modern features so gamedevs had to work around that for far too long. Today's slower PCs are just that, slower but not completely incompatible.

 

[Theonik]

I don't think gamers buy pcs with console-level specs to play console-level settings and performance. It would be maybe a little more expensive, and beyond stupid in my opinion lol

What is your standard, off the shelf low end gaming PC going to be looking like 5 years from now though? Intel, AMD and Nvidia will release what, 4-5 new generations of their hardware. I can't imagine anyone who stays current with games still running low/mid range hardware from 5 years ago, possibly with the exception of CPU's. Even taking the console generational leap aside, taking 2006/2007 -> 2011/2012, anyone still chosing to use GPU's from then for current (2011/2012) games is, well....

It can scale now but it isn't going to scale well within the future, especially when new technology is always being introduced.

You are overestimating how many people get PCs just to game on and they replace them accordingly.
To most people gaming on PC, gaming is a secondary feature, if their systems stopped running games or they needed to get pricier hardware they wouldn't play games and that is just wasted money for developers.

 

[napata]

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)

A 660 is stronger than the gpu in a PS4.

 

[Fried Food]

People will always find some excuse for things not going the way they think they should. Since everything is about money these days, yes, low tier PCs do "hold back" pc games some amount. Games need to be designed in such a way that it is possible for them to be scallled back. Imagine a PC game that could only be played at max settings. A game that was inoperable, period, on anything less than dual titan black X OMEGAs. People will say thats not what pc gaming is about. I'm saying why is that?

 

[BMX Bandit]

A simple question: do big, exclusive console games exist outside of those being directly funded by the platform holders?

What does that have to do with consoles allegedly holding PC games back?

 

[Xando]

The problem is that console hardware doesn't evolve as fast as PC hardware. PC hardware makes a jump every 2-4 years while console hardware stays the same for 5-7 years.

 

[alexandros]

What does that have to do with consoles allegedly holding PC games back?

The business part of the discussion is separate to the tech one.

 

[gdt]

I can turn down graphics settings on pc if my hardware is weak. If consoles are weak you have to butcher the game permanently instead.

Ding ding ding. PC games can scale.

 

[Crzy1]

The longer-in-the-tooth the consoles get, the more drastic it becomes, by the time the PS4 and Xbone came around, PCs were really being held back by consoles, even low tier PCs. The same will be true in this generation, if the Titan X is the top tier card now, comparably performing midrange cards will be available in the next 2 years (or less) for entry level prices ($250-$300) and there won't be anything for them to really flex their muscle with, much like the GTX 600 and Radeon 7000 series cards right around the end of the last console cycle. The cards at the very top at that time will be significantly faster than those midrange cards and will really have very little to test them beyond synthetic benchmarks. By that time, the current consoles will be absolutely ancient and likely have top-end mobile platforms within shooting distance of them.

It does help to keep things future proof, which I don't mind, I can pretty much count on not having to upgrade for at least 2 more years if not more than that, but it's always a shame to see what could have been and what we actually get.

 

[Seanspeed]

The problem is that console hardware doesn't evolve as fast as PC hardware. PC hardware makes a jump every 2-4 years while console hardware stays the same for 5-7 years.

PC hardware improves every 6-12 months.

 

[TGO]

Consoles sets the standards in games development.
While PC components are more then capable the generation jump wouldn't happen like it does.
It'll move more slowly and we wouldn't be seeing the games we are getting now.
So in a sense, they are holding them back but they don't really move forward as much as they do without them, and that jump depends on the jump the consoles make.

 

[Aizu_Itsuko]

The only thing "holding back" PC gaming is the reality of the market. Despite what the owners of a high end gaming PC wish (myself included), companies can't simply design their games around such a niche market unless they want to go bankrupt.

A purely PC focused game can go way beyond what today's consoles can run, but it doesn't always make sense financially to only make a PC version (especially when it's a very expensive game).[/B]

Software is not necessarily limited by currently available hardware, meaning you could release a game right now that nobody would be able to run until 2030. Not limited to PC either.

 

[Glomby]

Were you guys too young around the 90s or something? Many of the developers that have now gone multiplatform made their fortunes by developing big exclusive PC games.

Thats excactly the point. Back then games were like §100 or more. Nowadays people don't wanna spend money on games at all.

I literally don't know anybody who buys full price pc games, everybody just waits for the next steam sale. On consoles people spend way more money on games. So maybe if PC players wouldn't be so cheap when it comes to games things would be different now, but the overall consensus is that spending thousands of dollars for hardware is fine, but games have to be dirt cheap....

EDIT: Oh and what about this: If you have all the hardware power available people don't like to optimise there shit. Some might do it and will produce pretty great games but the majority of developers might still output games that look like console games right now but actually requiere titans to run.

There is no evidence whatsoever that consoles hold anything back, I'd say if anything consoles made things way better. If it wasn't for consoles, developers wouldn't optimise there games that much to squeeze every bit of power out of the limited hardware. The PC market gets way better optimised games right now than without consoles. If anything PC gamers can thank consoles, because thats the reason you can play TW3 at 1080p 60fps on a 980 and not just 30 fps or something like that.

PC are pushing the hardware, because thats how you make money with pc gaming, while consoles will push the software (in terms of optimisation) together we have a great middleground of great looking and well performing games. PC only wouldn't be nearly as great as it is now with consoles. Of course I have no evidence as well, but who has anyways...

 

[Fdkn]

The business part of the discussion is separate to the tech one.

It shouldn't.

Games are a business, not a charity.

 

[lukeskymac]

The only thing "holding back" gaming is the average user's hardware budget. If every COD and FIFA player out there were willing to drop $600+ for a console, we would have had different consoles that would "hold back" less.

But of course it's easier to just blame consoles, so that's what people do.

Business decisions that are influenced by the consoles' power level or lack thereof. Gaming is a business, there are business decisions behind everything.

Why am I surprised that you have it completely backwards?

 

[Qassim]

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.

I'm not even necessarily just talking about arena shooters, I'm talking about games where (one example) small adjustments are necessary to keep your gun accurate whilst you're firing it, where each gun has fairly significant differences in how they handle and it takes time to learn and master them.

CSGO on consoles was one of those that showed how much it couldn't really be done on the controllers. I remember seeing on the official playstation forums loads and loads of people saying that the guns in CSGO were inaccurate, when they're not, it's just pretty much impractical to get control of the guns mid-spray down on an analogue stick. And that's just CSGO, it doesn't have the most complicated gun mechanics, rather simple in fact, but it still has some added depth over what you find in most shooters these days and there is something there to master.

Anything that requires the player to do multiple things at once whilst shooting at someone is avoided on games designed around controllers and that is something that has removed a lot, and I mean a lot, of depth out of gun mechanics in games. It's why I find 99% of FPS games so boring now, the core mechanics of them have been neutered, there's nothing there for me to learn so they pack in 1000s of stupid, meaningless side attractions (perks, gun upgrades, attachments, etc).

 

[Parhelion69]

yep, this is the biggest factor actually. Most publishers have to make sure their games sell the best possible, so they have to make their games playable on lower end PCs, and there's so much you can do with graphical effects, for instance poly models can't be much different because that'd mean more budget and time.

See World of Warcraft (or any blizzard game), they do have gorgeous art, but technically are mediocre, and made to be playable on a potato. Also, just about every popular PC game isn't groundbreaking on a graphical and technical level. See Lol, Hearthstone, CS, Dota 2, TF, etc.

 

[Renekton]

What is your standard, off the shelf low end gaming PC going to be looking like 5 years from now though? Intel, AMD and Nvidia will release what, 4-5 new generations of their hardware. I can't imagine anyone who stays current with games still running low/mid range hardware from 5 years ago

Depends if people will upgrade their PCs at all, or just spend the money elsewhere (e.g. car, smartphone, new tablet, etc). Some gamers might be content with i3/750Ti for foreseeable future.

For this we need to keep snapshots of Steam HW survey each year.

The problem is that console hardware doesn't evolve as fast as PC hardware. PC hardware makes a jump every 2-4 years while console hardware stays the same for 5-7 years.

PCs don't upgrade themselves, owners have to pump in fresh $$$.

 

[Deadbeat]

If consoles were truly holding back PC gaming, wouldn't all PC exclusive games looks absolutely amazing. Because currently they don't. But maybe that's because of budget constraints and what not.

Well it does on the budget of the game. But making high quality assets and then having to downgrade them due to weak console hardware is also a waste of resources. For a PC exclusive that wasnt held back by console hardware look at Arma 3 and tell me how that would have worked out.

 

[Gaogaogao]

tell that to crysis 1. crytek didn't give a FUCK about current PCs.

as a result, there will never be another game like crysis 1.