- Status
haha, you'll be surprised to know that id Tech 4 was released way back when Doom 3 came. Rage = id Tech 5.
tbf, I don't need pseudogamedevs aka gamers to believe. Carmack is level-headed, downplayed D3D when it was ridiculous and now accepts it is good when it has become good.
"Crysis 2...omfg DX9 onlehhhh???" - these are posts which gave me petty laughs actually. All depends on how you use the API. Not denying that newer APIs have more features but again it all depends on how you use them.
Why not compare Crysis DX9 to Crysis 2 DX11?
Liverpool_fan
Sami Hyypiä, LFC legend
What do you mean by "support"? If by that you mean poorer performace of gl in Windows, then I think Microsoft have put you into myth like so many million others.
This is from the article ico linked:
vickybat
I am the night...I am...
No , no don't get me wrong. I didn't mean opengl doesn't perform well in windows. Cmon man i have seen rage and it looks fantastic. I am an ardent open-gl supporter.
What i meant was microsoft forcing developers to support directX and not open-gl which is bad imo.
That's why i was saying about sony to support linux platform to develop using open-gl and end micro$soft's monopoly.
I had read that article and totally support it.
Last edited:
Liverpool_fan
Sami Hyypiä, LFC legend
OK. You are totally correct.
I honestly don't blame MS, they are a corporation, they'll try to shove their proprietary standards on everyone, other companies are prone to that as well like Apple (iTunes, lock ins, etc.), and NVIDIA (CUDA, PhysX). Sad really. (Though CUDA, PhysX are cross platform, and personally I don't mind them).
I also happen to agree with you that it should be natural for Sony to push gaming in Linux (and Mac OS X), and this deadly combination of these Operating Systems with their console will be brilliant for gaming. But sadly that won't happen
I honestly don't blame MS, they are a corporation, they'll try to shove their proprietary standards on everyone, other companies are prone to that as well like Apple (iTunes, lock ins, etc.), and NVIDIA (CUDA, PhysX). Sad really. (Though CUDA, PhysX are cross platform, and personally I don't mind them).
I also happen to agree with you that it should be natural for Sony to push gaming in Linux (and Mac OS X), and this deadly combination of these Operating Systems with their console will be brilliant for gaming. But sadly that won't happen
tkin
Back to school!!
Graphics are worse than FEAR 1, its just soo bad, why did they go back?
comp@ddict
EXIT: DATA Junkyard
Why don't you just agree to the financial stuff I was blabbing about, cuz at the end of the day, we know that's the main reason. MONEY.
MONEY MONEY MONEY!
thetechfreak
Legend Never Ends
The only problem we Pc gamers face is that the latest and best hardware costs too much $$$$
Pc gamers have to meet game requirements whereas the games meet consoles requirement
Pc gamers have to meet game requirements whereas the games meet consoles requirement
vamsi_krishna
Human Spambot
As I said before, will only happen in dreams. If, sony wants to put a fight.. they have better options than this.
And, about visual differences. Please note that it is not just OpenGL or DX. Its the talent who are working on the game, the time they have got, the resources they have got.
asingh
Aspiring Novelist
I did not mean that. See Cry2. Done just on DX9, it looks better than most Dx10 games. I am sure if you blind folded a player upon launch, then showed him the screen he would not be able to see a difference. FEAR had way way worse graphics. Hardly textures and any dynamic metrics.
Comp@Addict, till you can show me substantial proof of your theory (not some forum junkies replying or speculative blogs) I can hold on to my views and debate. If you believe it is the money factor that actually PC games are coming out "bad", good for you. Also do not show me a pie chart which shows the sales break up of console vs. PC. That in inconclusive and fragments do not lead to such large conspiracy theories.
I believe else wise and gave my views. Not asking you to believe it. Rubbing it in does not always work. Thanks.
rchi84
In the zone
@thetechfreak I would have agreed with you till about 2 generations of Video cards ago. But the fact is, anyone with a Core2 Quad Q6600, 8800GT with 4GB Ram can still play most games out today at mid-high details levels, on 720p atleast.
There are very few games that push hardware, because publishers have realized that bleeding edge graphics don't sell more copies. The best selling games are still light on hardware requirements. E.g. COD series, The Sims, World of Warcraft, EA's sports franchises etc..
Because console development is still the Lowest denominator for base level performance, the minimum requirements for running most games is still very light on the pocket.
Why is that a bad thing for the consumer though? Or for the games developer?
Would you rather have a thriving games industry where developers and publishers can make money (and remember, AAA game production costs almost as much as movies these days) or be in a situation where they lose money and more studios fold up, which would eventually kill off the video gaming industry?
No, games won't die. They will move onto the Facebook/Mobile platforms, which are more attractive than consoles are.. That's the nightmare facing us a decade from now
There are very few games that push hardware, because publishers have realized that bleeding edge graphics don't sell more copies. The best selling games are still light on hardware requirements. E.g. COD series, The Sims, World of Warcraft, EA's sports franchises etc..
Because console development is still the Lowest denominator for base level performance, the minimum requirements for running most games is still very light on the pocket.
Why is that a bad thing for the consumer though? Or for the games developer?
Would you rather have a thriving games industry where developers and publishers can make money (and remember, AAA game production costs almost as much as movies these days) or be in a situation where they lose money and more studios fold up, which would eventually kill off the video gaming industry?
No, games won't die. They will move onto the Facebook/Mobile platforms, which are more attractive than consoles are.. That's the nightmare facing us a decade from now
thetechfreak
Legend Never Ends
The 8800 is a good card. Its only Dx10 and Dx11 is already out. No it will hant and pant in a newes game at 720prchi84 said:
Even my 9500Gt struggles in a few games with everything maxed out at 720p.
The Ps3 with arguably best hardware among other consoles has Gpu equivalent to 7800 so you should get the idea how outdated the Gpu is.
Sims may be light on hardware. Call of Duty isnt exactly light. Black Ops is a very processor intensive and not a very well optimised game for Pc. Black Ops COMPLETELY failed to run in my previous Celeron rig.rchi84 said:
The reason why the Ps3 can run these games is not because of the 7800 gpu. But because of the 8 core Cell processor.
comp@ddict
EXIT: DATA Junkyard
conspiracies?
Bro stop watching TV, it's harming you. You mean to say console sales outnumber PC sales 10 to 1 isn't a big factor? You mean to say it's nothing?
Oh wait, it's no point quarelling with you, because you won't agree. So i rest my case with you. Your opinions and my opinions separate.
---------------------------------------
Game Devs won't spend time on PC to optimize it, or make better quality textures, or squeeze the last out of the PC (you may have heard several times, this game that game pushing console to the limits but never that for PC, for PC it's a benchmark of poor optimization).
Why do you think that happens? Well, Devs simply don't want to spend on polishing the game to take advantage of high-end PC hardware, simply because their time and effort won't pay off with sales figures.
If the DEVS don't want excessive money fine, but you have to agree here, the Publisher, all they care about is money (activision anyone?), and if the game won't sell well, the DEVS get hit, if the game doesn't profit much, the DEVs lose their jobs, studio shut down, end of their dreams.
So, DEVs in a way have no option but to continue making games on console and then bringing it to PC for the extra sales.
This is very very opposite to what Battlefield 3 (god bless DICE) is, it's being developed on PC, with maxed out stuff, and then being "scaled down" to fit on consoles. And EA has played it out well, the sentiments of PC gamers, especially after Crysis 2 and all, EA hit the nail with Battlefield 3, and it speaks for itself, pre-orders of BF3 are wayy ahead of MW3, and it's no surprises to guess which of the 2 end up with more PC sales (more total sales across platforms for that matter might be in question too!).
Thats what I meant, they are developing for consoles for money reasons, and that's something I am blaring my foghorn to make you all agree to, but some people wont.
:nightmare:
Well, the next nightmare will be Free-2-Play games, with their sole objective being to sell us 0.99$ items (much like today's major Mobile OSes)
See topic of debate, consoles reason behind PC potential not being used in games
yeah it is never pleasant to hear a developer proudly proclaim that their game will look the same across all platforms.
And what do we get, POOR performance, despite splurging on our hardware. True we play at 1920x1080, but our hardware is manifold stronger too ain't it.
rchi84
In the zone
@thetechfreak You played Black Ops on a Celeron? I am going to report you to Maneka Gandhi, for cruelty lol.
I never said that the 8800GT will max out games yaar. I said it can run them fine at mid to high levels at 720p, which will still look better than the consoles. and the DX 10/11 thing, imho, isn't as easy to point out the differences than it was with 9.0b and 9.0c.
Look at it from another angle. Because devs don't focus on pushing hardware, PC gaming is as affordable as consoles are these days. esp if you factor in the cheaper prices for PC games, in the long run, your investment in PC+games will work out to be far cheaper than Console+games.
@comp@addict I used to believe that PC sales were much worse than consoles too, but I read an interview with Gabe Newell, who said that the problem is, no one ever asks Valve or D2D about the number of digital sales they've made. They still track physical copies moved, which I think the more advanced markets in America, Europe and Far East Asia have long come out of.
Revenue wise, WoW is still leaps and bounds ahead of the next competitor, so I think the PC is a viable platform still.
The problem is, the most common GPU out there is still Intel sh**$y onboard chips. that's what holding PC gaming back..
I never said that the 8800GT will max out games yaar. I said it can run them fine at mid to high levels at 720p, which will still look better than the consoles. and the DX 10/11 thing, imho, isn't as easy to point out the differences than it was with 9.0b and 9.0c.
Look at it from another angle. Because devs don't focus on pushing hardware, PC gaming is as affordable as consoles are these days. esp if you factor in the cheaper prices for PC games, in the long run, your investment in PC+games will work out to be far cheaper than Console+games.
@comp@addict I used to believe that PC sales were much worse than consoles too, but I read an interview with Gabe Newell, who said that the problem is, no one ever asks Valve or D2D about the number of digital sales they've made. They still track physical copies moved, which I think the more advanced markets in America, Europe and Far East Asia have long come out of.
Revenue wise, WoW is still leaps and bounds ahead of the next competitor, so I think the PC is a viable platform still.
The problem is, the most common GPU out there is still Intel sh**$y onboard chips. that's what holding PC gaming back..
vickybat
I am the night...I am...
As I said before, will only happen in dreams. If, sony wants to put a fight.. they have better options than this.
And, about visual differences. Please note that it is not just OpenGL or DX. Its the talent who are working on the game, the time they have got, the resources they have got.
Dreams do become true sometimes and its not at all unrealistic to speculate.
You are not again getting the point. The whole point of this discussion wasn't about dx or open-gl being superior or something but more developers accepting open-gl as an alternate.
Open-gl can do everything that dx can and i was just speculating on a fact that might revive open-gl. Now i don't know it might happen or not and yes it might never happen.
But it was simply just how i thought about the solution. Offcourse you're right about the fact that game developement requires hardwork and talent to make a difference is visual fidelity and gameplay.
I never denied that did i? But i just thought of a way that might help open-gl development and thats all mate.
@ comp@ddict
Yes i somewhat agree with you. You do have a point. Publishing on consoles does make money. Games are going multiplatform for this very reason and third party developers are
developing for all the platforms rather than exclusively developing for one. There is only one reason behind this and that is to make more money.
Lets hope battlefield 3 changes this scenario forever. Only the sales will determine the final outcome.
Last edited:
thetechfreak
Legend Never Ends
I got almost everygame running in my Celeron. Even Crysis 2 at low resolution and gamer graphics gave me 30 FPS and I finished itrchi84 said:
GTA IV at low Res with low settings game me 20 FPS. I even finished it at this res.
This I agree with you 100%rchi84 said:
It would be great if it happened. But it wont happen anytime soonvickybat said:
comp@ddict
EXIT: DATA Junkyard
Haha, hopefully it will become APUs in some time now. That would change a lot.
Battlefield 3 FTW, hope EA doesn't screw it up..
- Status