• Xbox 360 has 'a lot more than two years' left, MS boss says
    267 replies, posted
Well, I just don't get why people say that progress is being hold back for PC? Look at Unreal Engine, Source engine might be dated now or Cryengine. Those look amazing on pc.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36259706]Well, I just don't get why people say that progress is being hold back for PC? Look at Unreal Engine, Source engine might be dated now or Cryengine. Those look amazing on pc.[/QUOTE] They do look good, but it could be a lot better, since they have to design these engines to work well on consoles too.
I thought that pc version are already advanced and that the console version have certain visual options/features already cut.
ITT: Legitimate Xbox hate and PC gaming Nazi's.
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;36259768]ITT: Legitimate Xbox hate and PC gaming Nazi's.[/QUOTE] I agree that FP has a huge hate towards consoles and use a lot of generalized and unfair arguments against them. But these people prove some points. The console is dying, you cannot deny that fact.
Our 7 years old software isn't outdated enough and we feel that we could hold back other platforms for a little more.
[QUOTE=mysteryman;36258920]It boils down to the devs and how they use the tech. But the ps3 does offer a superior cpu [B]and offers dedicated gpu ram in addition to system ram[/B]. The xbox just has ram shared by both the gpu and cpu. Also to clarify on what i said above: I don't mean the games port functionally as well to pc, i meant graphically.[/QUOTE] This is actually incorrect. The PS3 has 256MB system RAM and 256MB VRAM. The 360 has 516MB system RAM with a custom GPU with 10MiB DRAM, which is roughly the same as 516MB VRAM. RAM is the one place the 360 is stronger than the PS3, with the PS3 having the better CPU. Other than that they're mostly the same, shit.
Still when you think about it :v: 512 MB of Ram is a fucking joke.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36259755]I thought that pc version are already advanced and that the console version have certain visual options/features already cut.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately it's often the other way around. Many games are developed with the Xbox 360 in mind and then ported to other platforms after, hence why Skyrim had such shitty assets on PC when it was first released and now, thanks to the modding community, it's one of the better looking games out there. I have nothing really against consoles; I love my PS3 and I'm amazed what they continue to do with it, but I can comfortably acknowledge that we could be so much further ahead if the Xbox 360 wasn't the "priority" development platform.
I think Skyrim is just generelly badly designed, it wasn't better on consoles. Bethesda isn't exactly known for great coding/design. All their games had some really big flaws and issues. But I get your point. Edit: I actually enjoy these discussions a lot.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36259979]Still when you think about it :v: 512 MB of Ram is a fucking joke.[/QUOTE] Indeed, though to be fair, a console can do a lot more with 512mb than a PC can, so developers can use every last bit of it.
[QUOTE=mysteryman;36258158]You're happy that a 7 year old console will continue to hold back gaming for the rest of us? Awesome. [/QUOTE] Too much wall of text, anyway do you think developers/publishers are stupid? They will just simply ignore the xbox and make games for pc/wii u/ps4
[QUOTE=JeanLuc761;36259999]Indeed, though to be fair, a console can do a lot more with 512mb than a PC can, so developers can use every last bit of it.[/QUOTE] Indeed, the 360 can run it's OS in the background on only 16MB of RAM, leaving the rest for the game.
[QUOTE=7331;36260032]Too much wall of text, anyway do you think developers/publishers are stupid? They will just simply ignore the xbox and make games for pc/wii u/ps4[/QUOTE] Xbox has such a large community and fanbase, you will miss out a lot of sales if you simply ignore that aspect, especially for those huge AAA devs. It's naive to think that they would simply [i]ignore[/i] them.
I think the thing most of you seem to be missing is that gameplay is more important than graphics. The 360 has 2 years left, because the folks at Microsoft has probably calculated that it will be able to cope with the average increase in gfx technology to a certain extent which still allows it to deliver a stable form of gameplay. [editline]9th June 2012[/editline] Consoles are good because you don't need to buy new shit for them every two years. In most cases, it will last without a replacement longer than a PC lasts without needing a new graphics card. Microsoft obviously want to increase its longevity a bit more to further increase the satisfaction of those who don't want to deal with PC gaming.
Well I always had a decent rig and I liked it, but I had to upgrade my pc a lot recently, it was costly. Even when I ordered all the single pieces and put it together myself. At some point I just did not want to spend any money on it. First graphics, then new Ram, harddrive, then you notice that you need a new power supply with more power. I got a console and I could not worry about such things, which was really relaxing.
The thing is hardware obsolescence doesn't only limit graphics, it also limit every technical aspect of the game. Some games require a lot of CPU power to operate (take X3 for example). Also, keep in mind that without hardware limitation, developers are free to make innovative games without having to worry about, say, big spaces taking too much GPU, or more possibilities in sandbox games, or games with a gigantic world (using procedural generation, you can actually make some big and diverse spaces).
Yeah, but people have generally not the knowledge/money to get gaming rigs that can run such huge games.
[QUOTE=mysteryman;36258693]Ummm, yeah. Go ahead and play a game made in 2003, one that doesn't offer the choice to play in 1920x1080, edit in in the config file, then run it. Then tell me textures aren't stretched, or not fully accurate. [/QUOTE] Well obviously the textures are low resolution compared to today's standards, but the game itself will still actually run in 1920x1080, and it will also render the game that way. The xbox only has a very few amount of games that actually render in 1080p. Others are just upscaled from smaller resolutions.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36260215]Well I always had a decent rig and I liked it, but I had to upgrade my pc a lot recently, it was costly. Even when I ordered all the single pieces and put it together myself. At some point I just did not want to spend any money on it. First graphics, then new Ram, harddrive, then you notice that you need a new power supply with more power. I got a console and I could not worry about such things, which was really relaxing.[/QUOTE] You're never forced to upgrade your PC. You can easily play new games with a Geforce 200 series. You only need to upgrade if you want to play at high resolutions with high graphical settings. You can easily mimick the quality you get on consoles without upgrading all the time. Fullscreen at 1280x720 and set the options to low or medium and make sure AA is turned off and you have the console experience.
[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;36260105] Microsoft obviously want to increase its longevity a bit more to further increase the satisfaction of those who don't want to deal with PC gaming.[/QUOTE] Haha that is just ridiculous. They want more people to buy xbox, games for it and subscriptions, then release a new console so people can buy more. They say they won't release a new console so that people who currently don't own xbox but are considering don't decide to save up for the next xbox and buy current one instead. The only place where you can say that microsoft cares about their community is on a comedy show. [editline]9th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=dgg;36260283]You're never forced to upgrade your PC. You can easily play new games with a Geforce 200 series. You only need to upgrade if you want to play at high resolutions with high graphical settings. You can easily mimick the quality you get on consoles without upgrading all the time. Fullscreen at 1280x720 and set the options to low or medium and make sure AA is turned off and you have the console experience.[/QUOTE]Most games today don't even use real AA because of deferred and dx9
[QUOTE=Antdawg;36255691]The funny thing though is that if you took the captions off of the Mass Effect and Fallout ones it might actually be a bit hard to tell which is which. The 360 has aged very well and new releases on it can still look amazing for the old hardware it runs on.[/QUOTE] The only reason Mass effect is hard to tell apart, is because they use the same cooked content for consoles and PC, even though the PC easily supports 4x the texture resolution without any issue. It's the most visible in mass efffect 1 which actually did have 4x the texture resolution compared to ME2 and Me3. While consoles generally really quickly used lower mipmaps, the PC was able to use the full mips even on distance characters.
[QUOTE=dgg;36260283]You're never forced to upgrade your PC. You can easily play new games with a Geforce 200 series. You only need to upgrade if you want to play at high resolutions with high graphical settings. You can easily mimick the quality you get on consoles without upgrading all the time. Fullscreen at 1280x720 and set the options to low or medium and make sure AA is turned off and you have the console experience.[/QUOTE] Yeah, graphics card are decent for a while after an investement, but then you notice that you CPU is somewhat lacking. The list goes on, it's a cycle. Also I had to upgrade it to play it somewhat decent. I am not a guy who needs highend graphics, but playing a multiplayer game which lags because of your rig is a pain in the ass, actually low FPS is always a pain in the ass. I prefer now to play older games or Indie games. I would love to play Battlefield 3 or Red Orchestra, but it runs like shit on my pc. Perhaps I am not forced to upgrade my pc, but if I want to play some more advanced games I really need to. If you buy a new Nvidia, you spend at least over 200 €, with which I already could buy a console.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;36260362] It's the most visible in mass efffect 1 which actually did have 4x the texture resolution compared to ME2 and Me3. [/QUOTE] You sure about that? Mass Effect 1 used 1024x1024 for most textures with a few exceptions at 2048x2048, with Mass Effect 2 and 3 following suit.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36260409]Yeah, graphics card are decent for a while after an investement, but then you notice that you CPU is somewhat lacking. The list goes on, it's a cycle. Also I had to upgrade it to play it somewhat decent. I am not a guy who needs highend graphics, but playing a multiplayer game which lags because of your rig is a pain in the ass, actually low FPS is always a pain in the ass. I prefer now to play older games or Indie games. I would love to play Battlefield 3 or Red Orchestra, but it runs like shit on my pc.[/QUOTE] No, not with low settings. GFX and CPU is just as liveable if they are from the same generation. Like I said, lower your resolution to 720p, set the options to low or medium and make sure Anti-Aliasing (AA) is turned off and you should be able to play without much of a hassle. The reason some games might still play as shit is because they are straight unoptimized ports that even struggles with the most high end setup. Which has nothing to do with your hardware, but all to do with the game.
[QUOTE=mysteryman;36257717]what i'm saying is you should not leave the gpu's job to the cpu, which is pretty much what devs are doing for most new xbox games.[/QUOTE] what you are saying is completely weird, CPU's can't do anything GPU's do at a reasonable rate, which is the reason they created GPU's in the first place. exactly what job is the CPU doing that the GPU is supposed to do?
Yes, some games even run like shit when set to low, like Bad Company 2, Red Orchestra, Stalker, Skyrim. Besides then the game looks like utter shit. When having a console I can play it decently. Playing game with bad performance is worse than not actually playing the game.
Yeah, but the reason most games are unoptimized on PC is because they are direct ports of console versions.
[QUOTE=junker|154;36260468]Yes, some games even run like shit when set to low, like Bad Company 2, Red Orchestra, Stalker, Skyrim. Besides then the game looks like utter shit. When having a console I can play it decently. Playing game with bad performance is worse than not actually playing the game.[/QUOTE] But what resolution do you play them in? And just what is your setup anyways?
[QUOTE=_Axel;36260497]Yeah, but the reason most games are unoptimized on PC is because they are direct ports of console versions.[/QUOTE] Red Orchestra for instance isn't, Stalker neither, Empire Total War was also horrible in terms of performance. Bad Company was a somewhat bad port, it just runs well on quad cores. You cannot generalize that, there are to many games that are not ports. [editline]9th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=dgg;36260529]But what resolution do you play them in? And just what is your setup anyways?[/QUOTE] I have two pcs right now. [quote]Windows 7 64-BitIntel Core i7-2Ghz Nvidia Geforce 540 with 1760 Mb Ram 6GB DDR3 Memory[/quote] Although that one is a laptop, but still marked as a gaming laptop. It was a gift to me. Still with such a rig I could play most things but I cannot. [quote]Windows 7 32-Bit Nvidia Geforce 880GTX Intel Core Duo 3,8 Ghz 3 GB DDR3 Ram[/quote] Something like that, it is already a bit older but still it should play some newer games. But it dies at newer games.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.