*spin-off* Console Hardware Holding Back PC Graphics?

[obonicus]

Well, IMO this is just a blip in history, a brief period where some developers thought they'd flirt with pushing PC tech and seeing what happens. Traditionally, as Joker has already stated, PC developers just went with a common denominator, and any use of higher end, contemporary hardware was restricted to a few token guestures like slightly better shadows or reflections or such.

A common denominator? Sure. They weren't all targeting the highest-end card all the time. I don't think anyone would say they were and I don't think that anyone's saying that PC games should always target the latest hardware. It's just... how old is DX10? How many DX10 games are there?

Because games certainly never targeted the lowest common denominator. They still don't -- the lowest common denominator is all the people with IGP graphics! They did aim higher, though.

 

[j^aws]

You can look at the last couple of decades as one long SD/ HD cycle; PCs and embedded systems (custom arcade boards; consoles; home computers like Amigas and Sharp X68000s) shining at different parts of this cycle… Now that we have HD consoles, and the resolution ‘war’ seems to have settled down, the 'gap' seems closer...

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Because games certainly never targeted the lowest common denominator. They still don't -- the lowest common denominator is all the people with IGP graphics! They did aim higher, though.

How many games before Doom3 have actually required a Geforce1 as minimum hardware? And even Doom3 could be dumbed down enough to run on lesser videocards, although stencil shadows and normal mapping would cease to work IIRC.

 

[pjbliverpool]

pjbliverpool...

I think what you are calling PC High End Graphics, is in actual fact not PC high end graphics but graphics engines and tech "designed" for consoles because of their larger more profitable market.

Real PC High End Graphics, died after Crysis Warhead released and Crytek decided to move to consoles. Real PC High End Graphics, i.e. designed for bleeding edge PC tech and beyond (i.e. like Crysis at the time of release) no longer exists, as the costs are too high and there is too much working against such a product becoming commercially successful (e.g. piracy, heterogenous platform, tiny top-end hardware consumer market).

You're trying to say that those console ports, i.e. graphics tech designed for consoles are the NEW PC High End Graphics, when in actual fact they're CONSOLE High End Graphics: also throw out on PC to make some extra bob.

All these comments about consoles holding the PC space back are inane. To make such an assertion to have to ignore too much...

You know if you had read my previous posts properly, you would have realised that I'm not contradicting anything you just said.

Whether they are console ports or not, those games represent the highest end graphical games on the PC. And so by defintion the are the high end of PC graphics. The fact that they originated on consoles is the whole point of my argument. i.e. that the high end of PC gaming is now tied to console capabilities.

In the past, the PC had its own exclusives and games that were developed for it as a platform first and then ported to consoles in watered down form, hence in the past it was not tied to consoles. Now it is.

I really don't know how much plainer I can make that point so I'm not going to repeat it again, I think I've now wasted more than enough time trying to put across a point that I had initially assumed to be common knowledge.

 

[green.pixel]

Optimisations were and should IMO take place so that mid-range/mainstream hardware can play games at reasonably high details and resolution with decent framerate. Anything else above is just a premium IMO. Back in 2004, Far Cry, D3 and HL2 looked and played pretty well with my 9600XT and Northwood CPU.
Today, you can play Crysis with 50e CPU and sub-100e GPU at 1280x800/1440x900 with tweaked Very High. In november 2007. you could do that with ~2x the price of both components, still nothing high-end. IMO, that's pretty good situation.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I really don't know how much plainer I can make that point so I'm not going to repeat it again, I think I've now wasted more than enough time trying to put across a point that I had initially assumed to be common knowledge.

Well basically your point is just stating the obvious. High or medium range PC is much more powerful than consoles, so naturally if the PC port looks about the same as the console version, then naturally the PC-version is not using the full potential of the platform, everybody understands that... It is so obvious that you shouldn't have even said it, so why did you? Are you pondering on some alternate reality situation where things would be different or a way that things could go back to where more developers were focusing on the PC or what? Or was your point really just stating the obvious current situation of the gaming world?

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Let's face it, it's accessibility that is holding back PC graphics first are foremost.

The costs to get into PC gaming used to be astronomical on the high end and the low end was so gimped it wasn't rewarding. Now that they've come down significantly, there's no motivation because the consoles are still more accessible and have now become the focus of the developers.

As was mentioned, according to Steam, the average gamer is only now beginning to upgrade their PCs to have some sort of performance parity with consoles despite the economics of the situation.

I think this will change, however, if the consoles really do attempt to extend their lives as long as is being threatened. Companies, particularly those who make 3D engines, make their names with bleeding state of the art tech that has to be demonstrated on something and consoles simply won't have that power.

It's a cyclical thing, IMO, and right now the 'enthusiast' market on the PC isn't large enough to justify a development investment of that nature. But as consoles remain stagnant and superior PC graphics become easier to create because of the abundance of resources on the PC, that market will rebound.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Well basically your point is just stating the obvious. High or medium range PC is much more powerful than consoles, so naturally if the PC port looks about the same as the console version, then naturally the PC-version is not using the full potential of the platform, everybody understands that... It is so obvious that you shouldn't have even said it, so why did you? Are you pondering on some alternate reality situation where things would be different or a way that things could go back to where more developers were focusing on the PC or what? Or was your point really just stating the obvious current situation of the gaming world?

Because my point wasn't simply to state the obvious, it was part of an explanation of another point that I was making.

As you say, its blatently obvious which is why i'm so amazed its being disputed.

The original comment that I was arguing against was that PC gamers should be greatful to consoles because its resulting in more optimised PC engines. My counter point was that while more optimised engines are a good thing, on balance, PC gamers should not be greatful to consoles since the consoles have effectively wiped out the PC games market outside of console ports. And hence were the PC used to get exclusive games which weren't tied to console capabilities, and could potentially allow experiences beyond those possible on a console, now it doesn't and hence PC graphics are limited by the current consoles capabilties.

For some reason a lot of people decided to take that as an insult to games consoles and started talking about the reasons why the consoles have overtaken and all but killed off the high end PC only games market. Which if you read my above argument carefully, has absolutely zero relevance to what I was saying.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

And hence were the PC used to get exclusive games which weren't tied to console capabilities, and could potentially allow experiences beyond those possible on a console, now it doesn't and hence PC graphics are limited by the current consoles capabilties.

For some reason a lot of people decided to take that as an insult to games consoles and started talking about the reasons why the consoles have overtaken and all but killed off the high end PC only games market. Which if you read my above argument carefully, has absolutely zero relevance to what I was saying.

How do the factors that promoted consoles and killed off the high end PC games market have no relevance to what you were saying when, when your entire point is that PC graphics are limited by the current consoles capabilities?

Now I'm with Dr. Evil - If you didn't want to discuss the influences of the market, or the cyclical nature of hardware development cycles, what did you want? A yes or no answer?

 

[Laa-Yosh]

Argh... once again it's backwards.

PC gaming isn't dying because devs are moving to consoles. Devs are moving to consoles because they can't make enough money on the PC.

 

[V3]

Argh... once again it's backwards.

PC gaming isn't dying because devs are moving to consoles. Devs are moving to consoles because they can't make enough money on the PC.

Yes. Consoles gaming are supporting PC gaming. PC graphics screwed themselves when the price and performance differences between gaming and integrated chips were so large at some point. That is how PC got its reputation as being expensive and many people just moved on.

All that are left are the Casuals, MMO players, graphic fanatics, and the dreaded Pirates. Consoles are starting to make inroads into MMO as it did with FPS. Casuals went to Wii. The graphic fanatics are not getting what they are after because consoles are holding (supporting) back PC development. Therefore, by next generation all that are left will be 'arrrghhh yaahoy'.

 

[Lucid_Dreamer]

The "limitation" of a large consumer base provides more resources but more poignently: the PC market is what is holding back PC game development. Blame brand new $700 dekstops and notebooks with GPUs 20% the performance of 4 year old consoles...

I totally agree. If it were consoles holding back PC graphics, all or most PC exclusives would be much better. Since that isn't the case (with Crysis being about the only graphical crowning jewel for PC), consoles are obviously not holding back PC visuals.

 

[pjbliverpool]

How do the factors that promoted consoles and killed off the high end PC games market have no relevance to what you were saying when, when your entire point is that PC graphics are limited by the current consoles capabilities?

Because thats not my entire point. That was merely an explantion of why PC gamers should not be greatful to consoles for improving the PC graphical experience. I'm fully aware of all the reasons why the PC has declined and I have no argument against any of those reasons that have been put forward in this thread. So why would I want to discuss them? Seems like a pretty boring dicussion to all say the same thing and agree with each other. My point was that PC graphics are bound to console graphics where they did not used to be, and hence PC gamers have no reason to be greatful towards consoles on balance.

The bold was my point, hence my frustrationat having thefirst part picked at for reasons which Iwas never trying to deny in the first place.

Now I'm with Dr. Evil - If you didn't want to discuss the influences of the market, or the cyclical nature of hardware development cycles, what did you want? A yes or no answer?

No,I want people to accept what several people have nowsaid is accurate albeit, blatently obvious. If people want to argue anything, it should be that PC gamers do owe something to consoles for improving the PC gaming experience, not whether PC graphics are tied to console graphics, which they quite obviously are.

Or let me put it another way, if I were to say I don't like the sky because its blue. Would you try to argue with me over the scientific reasons as to why the sky is blue? And would you be suprised if I said I don't care why its blue, that has nothing to do with what I said?

 

[Prophecy2k]

Because thats not my entire point. That was merely an explantion of why PC gamers should not be greatful to consoles for improving the PC graphical experience. I'm fully aware of all the reasons why the PC has declined and I have no argument against any of those reasons that have been put forward in this thread. So why would I want to discuss them? Seems like a pretty boring dicussion to all say the same thing and agree with each other. My point was that PC graphics are bound to console graphics where they did not used to be, and hence PC gamers have no reason to be greatful towards consoles on balance.

The bold was my point, hence my frustrationat having thefirst part picked at for reasons which Iwas never trying to deny in the first place.



No,I want people to accept what several people have nowsaid is accurate albeit, blatently obvious. If people want to argue anything, it should be that PC gamers do owe something to consoles for improving the PC gaming experience, not whether PC graphics are tied to console graphics, which they quite obviously are.

Or let me put it another way, if I were to say I don't like the sky because its blue. Would you try to argue with me over the scientific reasons as to why the sky is blue? And would you be suprised if I said I don't care why its blue, that has nothing to do with what I said?

Dude, it really seems like you're going around and around now! No one disagreed with you that PC video games graphics are now tied to consoles because there are no more triple AAA PC exclusives (bar MMOs), and all PC gets now is upres'd console ports.

I was arguing with you using that as your reason to insinuate that the existence of consoles are the reason for this. In fact I would say it's more that rising developement costs from increasing graphics fidelidy is what necessitates the existence of consoles in the first place, i.e. the need for a dedicated high performance gaming platform that's also reasonable affordable to the mass market.

What I'm arguing with is was your assertion that "consoles are holding back PC graphics" - which is not strictly true for the plethora of reason many have already stated on this thread but you simply chose to ignore or evade.

Your point in which you stated

PC gamers have no reason to be greatful towards consoles on balance.

I once again disagree with as one only needs to observe how bad the first Crysis game was at scaling to know that it was a big problem for Crytek with that game. With the whole $400 PC to run Crysis Warhead, Crytek ostensibly recognised that people who were running even some of the medium to high end rigs at the time of the release of Crysis still couldn't run the game at a decent framerate. It simply didn't scale well.

So in saying that the console optimisations will help the PC version run better, I would agree that this is something that ALL PC gamers should be happy with, with respect to Crytek's games. Those running lesser hardware will benefit from higher framerates and visual fidelity, and those with the monster rigs can slap on all the bells and whistles and enjoy the game.

Hence even your overall point you seem so passionate about defending I strongly disagree with.

Sorry mate

 

[Neb]

I totally agree. If it were consoles holding back PC graphics, all or most PC exclusives would be much better. Since that isn't the case (with Crysis being about the only graphical crowning jewel for PC), consoles are obviously not holding back PC visuals.

Most exclusive are better techwise and visually it is just they are ignored by some for obvious reasons and only the best of the best is "targeted", that is Crysis or Warhead or Crysis Wars (3 games btw! ). But looking at what PC's are capable of in realtime with Crysis games and then compare to any console game or multiplatform (or what has been shown of CE3 so far) it is jarringly obvious PC visuals for multiplatforms are held back [strike]quite a lot[/strike] tremendously. Even compared to several exclusives (anno1404 vs Red Alert or other multiplatform RTS, or Clear Sky etc etc) However nowdays several devs are adding more than usual graphical tech for visual increase in multiplaforms however those games are not released yet.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

hence PC gamers have no reason to be greatful towards consoles on balance.

Oh Jesus, is there a large contingent of people who said they did?

That's as absurd a notion as attempting to refute that consoles are holding back PC graphics.

If that's where you were going, I'd like to hear people try to make that claim as well.

I see Prophecy trying to make the claim that there's a benefit because limited console power results in games being available to PC gamers on lesser hardware, but I think that's silly.

Games were usually available to all ranges of PC gamers, you'd just have to adjust your resolution and AA accordingly.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

People seem to be getting confused over what the debate is.

1) Are PC graphics as good as they can be?
2) If not, is this due to the presence of the consoles or other factors?

I can't see that whys and reasons beyond these two points aren't really relevant to the topic at hand. IMO I answer both questions with 'no'.

1) No, PC graphics could be better
2) No, the lowest common denominator a PC developer targets for econimc reasons is what sets the graphical effort they go to, and that's set by whatever hardware the game will run on, whether console or high-end PC or low-end PC. In this respect the consoles just represent millions of lowish-spec'd PCs in a market of many more millions of lowish-spec'd PCs and a few high-spec'd PCs. the only negative impact they have is a positive impact on game developers, who perhaps would have ignored the low-end PC space but as the proves fiscally unwise, now have a stable revenue platform for their software. That is, if PS360 did not exist, Developer X would write "Super Game Pro" for higher-end PCs and shun the lower-end, but with the console markets they aim their graphics a little lower and get a much bigger ROI. And it's only a few rare developers who'd shun the low-end.

 

[dobwal]

Does console gaming hold PC graphics back?

Its sure does. Why? Because consoles compete much better for gamers especially young gamers by incorporating some of the "used to be" unique features of PC gaming.

I know one of the main features that attracted me to PC gaming was online multiplayer. If you wanted to go online and have a death match until the arrival of Live and PS2 online that was impossible on anything other than a PC. Another thing, prior to Halo, FPSes were pretty limited on console while being the top genre on the PC gaming scheme. Now FPSes are a major genre and online multiplayer has become pretty standard fare on consoles.

With the release of the 360 and PS3, you end up console that became much better at competing against top end PC visuals. During the Xbox/PS2 gen, all those highend concepts images shown years in advance to hype the launch of those consoles were passed by mid grade PC video cards by the time of those consoles' launches. While now, only a handful of PC games are able to completely outshine whats offered by three years old current gen consoles. Console have basically killed top end gaming by attrition by reducing the flow of new gamers moving toward PC gaming in general and thus removing much of the need to produce high end visual games.

One of the most important aspect of highend visuals were not sales of a game to people with highend PCs but as a marketing tool to promote a title to pc gamers across the spectrum including those low of the low discreet video cards. Now most newbies move into console market because its an overall more attractive market with bigger libraries, its relatively cheaper investment, provides a more stable enviroment while giving you everything that used to be unique to the PC gaming market.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

With the release of the 360 and PS3, you end up console that became much better at competing against top end PC visuals. During the Xbox/PS2 gen, all those highend concepts images shown years in advance to hype the launch of those consoles were passed by mid grade PC video cards by the time of those consoles' launches.

I played Dungeon Seige on hardware far more powerful than a PS2 and yet it looked vastly inferior to Champions of Norrath. Your point only holds true if the availability of faster hardware always resulted in better graphics. It didn't, which is the principle argument of those who vote 'no' on the title question.

 

[dobwal]

I played Dungeon Seige on hardware far more powerful than a PS2 and yet it looked vastly inferior to Champions of Norrath. Your point only holds true if the availability of faster hardware always resulted in better graphics. It didn't, which is the principle argument of those who vote 'no' on the title question.

Agreed. Even though I might add that my memory is that with the arrival of Ti4400 and Ti4200 in Feb and April 02 created a general perception that PC tech had moved forward beyond what was capable on consoles at that time. And the PC market produced more examples to feed that perception then we have now.