Yes they are, they are representable in the region they were sold. You can't just call all the statistics bullshit because there aren't any from USA. If there aren't any statistic or a really low number, just compare region with region. Is it really that hard?
Fine; in that case, it's about 9:1 console vs. PC sales for GTA IV in Europe. Which is much, but it's not as much as the 28.5:1 that you think you're seeing when looking at your list at first sight. Considering digital sales are often not included in statistics, I still have my doubts about the validity of these numbers.
And yeah, I know you never said this data was actually useful data (though you did clearly state that "Dragon Age Origins sold 0.4mil on PC", which isn't true), but I just assume that people don't post numbers that they don't think they hold value. My fault entirely .
So many people just bought the console version? That's a pretty good argument not to port to PC.
Hardly, the reason PC sales pale in comparison to consoles is because publishers have turned their focus away from it and invest that focus on consoles (mostly out of misplaced fear of piracy). That, in turn, draws attention away from the PC version, further diminishing its market share. It's a negative feedback loop. The more the publishers withdraw from the PC, the more consumers lose interest in the platform. It's just like how DirectX replaced OpenGL as an API. DirectX was a piece of shit when it started and OpenGL was a gem. Then MS started employing strategies to get developers to support DX, then OpenGL got less attention, became less maintained, and fell behind DX.
The publishers are causing this negative feedback loop by shying away. It starts a snowball effect and then they point at that phenomena (and piracy) as justification to withdraw from the platform in the future. If they put as much time and energy into the PC as they do the consoles, they would likely see a reversal. Also, games tech hasn't advanced much since the 360/PS3/Wii launch. You don't really "need" a PC for gaming anymore because nobody is pushing the hardware in terms of graphic fidelity like they did in the past. Nowadays games tech has stagnated, making a PC less relevant to gaming because 99% of the games are tuned to the consoles first, PC second. It used to be the other way around.
Not having GTAV on PC makes it easier to justify not buying it after really not enjoying IV... multiplayer was good, if broken, but the single player was a dissonant mess that couldn't decide if it wanted me to enjoy consequence free mayhem or if it wanted an "emotional" story with realistic physics and "mechanics" like ths subway everywhere.
As developers we have a skewed perspective on games. Wind Waker is pretty universally loved among developers (not completely universally, but not far off) but the general public hated it going by the sales. We love PC. The general public wants consoles. We love deferred renderers and gamma correct renderer pipelines. The general public doesn't really care. And they're the ones keeping us in jobs. (well, or not, lol) Our opinions, as people attached to the products, are almost completely invalid.
"we don't have any details to share about a pc version at this time"
well, they've barely got any details to share about the console games either, other than they exist. Judging by the reaction you'd think they'd said that there is no PC version, there never will be a PC version, and that all PC gamers have tiny, rubbish dicks.
"anyone that spams the comment section will have their commenting priviliges suspended"
i'd like to see how long your posting priviliges would go unsuspended if you starting spamming the Polycount boards
its incredible what can trigger a full thread of spluttering nerdrage really
oh and Overlord - probably best to stop going on about 'the developer' and 'the publisher' in your attempts to appear all knowing in this case.
Stinger, I know your pain, I actually ended up pirating GTA4 after I bought it on Steam, because of that f-ing aweful GFWL, just to be able to play, plus some other program kept launching with it, can't remember what it was called. Since then, I have just steered clear or any titles with GFWL.
That'd be the Rockstar Social Club junk. They patched that out in newer versions.
Waiting for GFWL to sign in three times was incredibly annoying, especially given that it occasionally needed updating and it could NEVER do it, always had to go download the installer myself.
Why do gamers always have this ridiculous sense of entitlement? Why the fuck should they make a PC version? If they decide they want to make a strictly NES version, why do you think your opinions/suggestions matter?
Though I agree with Ace, this statement is basically saying they should ignore everyone about everything. Even shareholders? Without consumers there wouldnt be shareholders. Games are a product. You listen to sell. How much you think corporations spend on focus groups every year? This is a silly statement.
Having said that anyone ragging on R* over this is a twat. They're just sore they now have less justification for buying that 670. PC Gamers HATE when peolle shit on their master race flag.
Fine; in that case, it's about 9:1 console vs. PC sales for GTA IV in Europe. Which is much, but it's not as much as the 28.5:1 that you think you're seeing when looking at your list at first sight. Considering digital sales are often not included in statistics, I still have my doubts about the validity of these numbers.
I don't doubt the numbers, I just doubt that these are the only numbers that exists, but we can't just ignore the numbers that we have in hand because they aren't complete. I posted the numbers because they were meant to give a perspective on how bad it is. Is it really that hard to click the links and make up your own idea about the sales?
If you compare EU GTA IV PS3 vs Xbox 360 vs PC sales, we see something interesting. In the first year there is a HUGE difference in sales. But the years following that the sale difference isn't that huge anymore.
The question is, what would have happen to the PC sales if they launched on the same date on all the platforms? Thankfully San Andreas was released on PS2 first. 8 months later, PC and Xbox gets the game.
According to vgchartz the global total of sales for San Andreas are
PS2, 20.81mil
PC, 0.82mil
Xbox, 1.95mil
Now when you compare that to GTA IV where the PS3 and Xbox 360 had a simultaneity release date
PS3, 9,38mil
Xbox 360, 9,87
PC, 0,70mil
Now suddenly the Playstation isn't the dominant market for the GTA series, suddenly when the GTA IV launched on the same date for PS3 and Xbox 360 their numbers are evenly matched.
Like you said platforms like Steam/Origin/GoG rarely gives out facts regarding sales. Steam for example just says that a game sold xxx% better. But you can still make something out of the statistics we have.
And yeah, I know you never said this data was actually useful data (though you did clearly state that "Dragon Age Origins sold 0.4mil on PC", which isn't true)
So you got any other facts? I more wanted to make a point how stupid Ubisofts statement about the 93-95% piracy rate they claim their games have.
but I just assume that people don't post numbers that they don't think they hold value. My fault entirely .
If you read the thread you will see that I quoted myself quoting someone and I asked him about facts to the statement he said. He took to long to provide anything so I assumed hes one of those who just pops in and says something then just leaves. So I ended up looking up any facts I could find myself and since this is a thread about GTA I only cared about that.
Tekoppar is right imho, the sales would be nowhere near as different if they were all released on the same date. Hell if Rockstar actually embraced the pc as a platform, went with steam integration and a workshop for the rather huge modding scene (considering how amazingly difficult it is to mod GTA with no support its always amazed me how determined the modders are). Got rid of GFWL and the social bullshit and actually made it run well on pc I think there would be a massive difference in the sale figures. Especially sales over time, I can easily imagine if it has proper PC support the sales might not initially beat the consoles, but over time with a supported modding community the sales would continue more strongly than the flash in a pan that the console sales would be.
I'd like to make a little point here - using borderlands 2 as an example. The reason being that the game was released on all 3 platforms simultaneously - and that the PC port actually had enough work put into it to be decent.
according to VGchartz the sales numbers are as follows: (september 18 - october 27)
Xbox: 1.7
PS3: 0.92
PC: 0.35
that's in ~ one month - so the actual growth over the next year or so is obviously TBD. The point is that yes, PC is still trailing - I think that's something everybody here has agreed on - but it's still a fairly significant number to be made in 1 month.
I suspect (though i'm hazarding a guess here with no numbers) that it's at least covered the cost of the port, and even if it only broke even it's still been only a month. it's also built some good will between PC gamers and Gearbox, which can only help their consumer base in the long run.
comparatively, BL1's PC port was awful (so i've heard), and though it was also released simultaneously with the other platforms, it's numbers are evident of it's quality:
PC:.08
Xbox:3.01
PS3: 1.7
and that's from october '09 - to october '12. the PC port of BL2 more than trippled that in a month. I also have to ask - how many people who would rather have gotten it on PC were hesitant because of the quality of the BL1 port? and how many of those that got BL2 will not have that hesitation on the next Gearbox game?
also: what kind of risk assessment did Gearbox do? it went against all of the numbers for them to spend the time and money to make a decent port instead of halfassing or neglecting it altogether (as most do) - but they did it anyways. because they trusted it would pay off. and lo! it did, at least well enough.
additionally - Gearbox advertised the PC port well - bundling it with the Nvidia cards and broadcasting the difference between the platform capabilities fairly loudly.
So my humble conclusion:
is a PC port worth R* persuing it? only if they do it properly.
if they do it the same way they've done other games - than no, don't bother. I think that Gearbox has shown that a decent PC port can actually make money - but a crappy or halfassed one only leaves the developer bitter at having spent the money to keep the customers happy without having been appropriately compensated for their efforts.
*edit - one more point. I would like to point out that using any PC sales older than 2007 or so is a waste of time as it doesn't account for the current popularity of steam and other services widely used for PC game distribution now. the PC market has broadened significantly now that people can buy PC games from their desk without going to the same shelf that holds console versions.
Its sad really. Games lose alot of quality just because of convenience...
If the next xbox's native res was 1080p (and games were optimized to look their best at that res and lower tvs were scaled down) i'd be a happy camper with no complaints. But noooooo, modern consoles look like garbage.
If I could run my xbox on a computer monitor id be even happier, then I could just switch input modes to game.
I really don't care whether or not people develop for the PC. The whole $60 PC game trend these past couple years is starting to annoy me anyway. Less games to buy means more money in my pocket and more time spent being productive. There has never been a scenario where a game didn't come out for the PC and I thought "Welp, going to have to guy buy a 360 so I can pick this up." Generally if it's a game I'd like to play on my PC, and it doesn't come out for PC, I'm not going to short myself out on the experience by buying it for a console if that's not the version I'm after.
I already have more games than I have time for that I've picked up from random deals or craziness like holiday sales on Steam. (...really, being late to the party so far as picking up games go has been great from a financial standpoint, haha).
It's stupid to please the pc gamers when they ask for a pc version... Most of the people asking for a pc port will not buy the game, and instead of it... as we all know, they will pirate the game.
The facts are in the sales, and just comparing the different platforms. If they do a pc port... they will waste money and time.
It's stupid to please the pc gamers when they ask for a pc version... Most of the people asking for a pc port will not buy the game, and instead of it... as we all know, they will pirate the game.
The facts are in the sales, and just comparing the different platforms. If they do a pc port... they will waste money and time.
Call of duty black ops 3 + season pass = 100ย
I paid 130ย for the guild wars CE .
You're making a supposition on nothing but your own personal opinion. You can't use infringement as a scapegoat for all that ails the industry nor is it a justification for ignoring the customers. People who are just going to download it for free regardless aren't going to complain to developers to make a PC version, they don't care. If you won't make a PC game, they'll just download some other PC game. They can always find enough PC games to download to be too busy to care if one developer or another doesn't do a port.
The sales, by the way, only show interest in a particular platform, nothing more. What you have to ascertain is what factors are driving that shift in interest. Lack of technical advancement in visual fidelity has been rather stagnant due to this extended console cycle. This reduces the demand for high-end graphics from PCs. Publishers are risk adverse to infringement, so they have been shying away from PC development in favor of the more "secure" consoles (Although the modding scene casts doubt on that). Then you have the marketing. Console versions have been pushed into the limelight at the expense of PC being relegated to the back line. Less technical progress, less publishers support, and less marketing hype have been slowly reducing the PC's notoriety.
Console versions have been pushed into the limelight at the expense of PC being relegated to the back line. Less technical progress, less publishers support, and less marketing hype have been slowly reducing the PC's notoriety.
This - and add a 6-12 month delay and you'll find your real lack of PC sales. Games are marketed and retailed in such a fashion that they sell when they come out; if the title isn't available for a platform in this timescale then sales on that platform are likely to be diminished in favour of the one that got it first (which is why timed exclusives even exist). I'd expect the majority of people who think of themselves as 'hardcore PC gamers' or 'PC first gamers' still own at least console and buy plenty of titles. Case in example, players eagerly anticipating Gears of War would likely have purchased it on the 360, rather than wait 12 months for the sloppy PC port (especialy as when the PC port finally arrives at full price, the console title is now in the bargain bin).
Games that are marketed as PC games still sell well, including ports, and sometimes including late ports. Valve and Blizzard are doing just fine. Games like Crysis still sold millions of copies.
I'd like to point out to a forum of very tech-savvy 3d artists/programmers/etc. that the average person, who is far from tech-oriented, likes convenience - not a top-of-the-line PC with a giant price-tag and it's fair share of headaches whenever anything goes wrong. How many of you are the go-to guy/gal for fixing computer issues for family members? We do not represent a majority.
The average person had a PC primarily for the access of the Internet, and consequently the PC videogame market enjoyed its success as a byproduct of the PC being the dominant tech-platform, with the advent of all the smartphones, tablets, and anything short of a toaster that can go online, play their Netflix and Minesweeper - the PC is not that special.
Combine this with the inherent piracy issues (which are extremely overblown by the suits, but still), the tech-support and QA headaches (everyone and their grandma has a different configuration) and then compare it with a console, which is the same across the entire population, has set-in-stone specs, and which can be expected by the average consumer to do what it's meant to, aka play games with few issues, the opportunity cost of a PC version becomes harder to justify. Also add in that if you begin by writing code for a console, the PC port becomes inherently more time-consuming to debug and port - thus the bare-minimum effort we commonly see.
The PC [videogame] market is a niche by definition; it enjoyed greater popularity in the past (think early-90's 2000's), and thus received greater developer focus due to being able to provide the most high-fidelity experience (also keep in mind the development-cost-to-fidelity ratio at the time). The graphics fidelity gap is negligible now; you could argue this is because of the focus on current console-level tech, but let's face it, we're over the huge differences in graphics-quality we've seen in the past.
What we have now is largely-serviceable while still taking absolutely gargantuan amounts of time and money to produce content for, which is not helping. This assertion that "the consoles are limiting graphics", while being true, would not make necessarily better games when fixed but would certainly drive the cost of developing them even higher in this already miserable-to-work-in risk-averase climate. We are down to developing minutia like fancier methods of things like AO and SSS, which the average person frankly does not give a shit about nor would notice; the broad strokes of videogame realism are 'good enough'. Graphics fidelity will continue to increase, of course, but not at the same breakneck pace.
We're reaching a middle point in development time/cost vs tech leaps - a 20-60 million game every 5 years for nil return once it releases is unsustainable. I'd say the sweet spot for diversity of game ideas vs. cost/willingness to do it was the PS2-era, but that's past now.
TLDR; bleeding-edge graphics do not make better games, but do make more-expensive-to-develop games, exacerbating the already giant costs and slash-and-burn publisher attitudes. PC [videogame] community a minority, with a nasty downside of piracy, and more involved tech-support. Combined, produces a market that reinforces console dominance.
I'm one of those people that would absolutely *love* a PC port of RDR, but the realities are understandable, and so is GTA V not getting released on PC. Going forward, I do not expect to have the same grand, throw-money-at-it game productions enjoyed before, except as outliers.
...TLDR; bleeding-edge graphics do not make better games, but do make more-expensive-to-develop games, exacerbating the already giant costs and slash-and-burn publisher attitudes. PC [videogame] community a minority, with a nasty downside of piracy, and more involved tech-support. Combined, produces a market that reinforces console dominance.
I don't deny that graphic fidelity doesn't make a better game, but it was driving the hardware forward. Now bleeding edge hardware isn't a mandate anymore, making PC's as a platform less significant. However, pure system horsepower can limit how much of the current level of fidelity you can include. It can mean the difference between load screens every few steps or none at all. You could build huge worlds the likes of which no console could touch at the same fidelity the current gen is capable of now. RDR no loading, not even between interior cells. Same with GTA V, Skyrim, or anything else simulating a large environment. There's just so very much more you can do with lots of processing power of a hefty PC besides pure graphics.
couldn't care less about bleeding edge graphics, our existing level of tech is enough for a while. all i care is that we can run those games at real 1080p 60fps with no scaling and no input lag. anti aliasing would be nice.
couldn't care less about bleeding edge graphics, our existing level of tech is enough for a while. all i care is that we can run those games at real 1080p 60fps with no scaling and no input lag. anti aliasing would be nice.
Even then it would be sooooooo much work to make it work under every OS, resolution, chipsets, drivers etc...
What for? We can already do almost anything at near-photorealism. It couldn't possibly be enough of an improvement for customers to actually bother buying the thing.
I'm quite genuinely intrigued to hear what game you have in mind that could not possibly be made to a saleable standard on today's hardware.
There were big leaps from SNES-PS1-PS2-360, but now we have more polygons than we know what to do with, normal maps to simulate more, amazing lighting systems and reprogrammable GPUs for totally custom surfaces. Our only limit is the resources to make something, which more powerful hardware would likely exacerbate at this stage. What is it you want?
it's not for graphical fidelity (other than internal rendering resolution and stable 60fps framerate), like i said, our rendering tech right now is fine and will last us a long while. the purpose is to save development time and worry less about optimization.
if you've ever needed to work on a shipped console game you'll know the insane vram restraints we are being limited by. low res textures, cutting content, obsessively simplifying shader code and running at a lower internal resolution is something that absolutely needs to go. it will save development time and allow gamers to enjoy the games they are happy with now with a cleaner image and better framerates.
That won't happen. Someone will instead push the boundaries of the new hardware, (bigger worlds?) and you'll be left to compete with them, or be overshadowed by them.
I doubt the general public would ever buy a console specifically to make developers' lives easier.
alright then. guess we'll just have to continue having fun trying to shoehorn 2012 games into 2005 hardware just because someone will eventually push the boundaries of that new console. wait, why is there more than one playstation?
There were big leaps from SNES-PS1-PS2-360, but now we have more polygons than we know what to do with, normal maps to simulate more, amazing lighting systems and reprogrammable GPUs for totally custom surfaces. What is it you want?
Cant answer for Racer but what I'd like to see from a console is ~4xGtx680, 16 core processor and 32gbs of ram and a 1tb ssd. That would do it for me. Atleast for the next 8 or 10 years. Maybe some more hard disk space and even more ram.
I don't get why I see so many developers and gamers adopt the 'we don't need better hardware' what we have now is good enough. Sure, I get that better hardware doesnt equal better graphics or gameplay, but is 10 year old tech really what we consider good enough?
We could have so much more. Physics, destroyable terrain, cloth and fluid simulation, realtime raytracing, soft shadows and so on.
Compare what has happened to the hand held market (phones, tablets) and the gaming hardware market in the last 10 or so years.
But if all indications and rumors are true about the next consoles we'll end up with a pretty low or mid range pc in terms of specs, which I'm sure studios will work wonders with, but I don't know, it saddens me a bit how long the iteration cycles are and how comparably weak machines we get. It wouldn't surprise me if phones would start to outperfom the next gen consoles towards the end of its cycle (2020ish?).
What for? We can already do almost anything at near-photorealism. It couldn't possibly be enough of an improvement for customers to actually bother buying the thing.
I'm quite genuinely intrigued to hear what game you have in mind that could not possibly be made to a saleable standard on today's hardware.
There were big leaps from SNES-PS1-PS2-360, but now we have more polygons than we know what to do with, normal maps to simulate more, amazing lighting systems and reprogrammable GPUs for totally custom surfaces. Our only limit is the resources to make something, which more powerful hardware would likely exacerbate at this stage. What is it you want?
Really? Maybe it's just me, but I see A LOT of room for improvement.
Compare what has happened to the hand held market (phones, tablets) and the gaming hardware market in the last 10 or so years.
My point exactly.
Here's an experiment for you folks: put a screenshot of Uningine's Heaven demo and Bioshock Infinite side by side and tell me what exactly in the former will inspire consumers to throw down a few hundred to upgrade.
I really, really don't mean to insult your opinions and experience as artists but I personally see no reason why anybody would buy a newer console right now. Good games shift units. Not marginal fidelity bumps.
That won't happen. Someone will instead push the boundaries of the new hardware, (bigger worlds?) and you'll be left to compete with them, or be overshadowed by them.
yes, but growth is limited by the escalating cost of production as you get the effects of diminishing returns on hiring yet another dozen environment artists etc, and in a world where you already have to sell multiple millions of copies of a big-budget game just to break even with it, it seems like making games for less money could bring more (and more reliable) profits than making games that gamble on having to sell even more than that
I think that's why making games where the gamers are actually making the content will be more feasible in the future. Provide the players with the base materials and tools, ingame, and have an awesome setting for them to use them. Of course there is still lot of development to get tools and such to work, but the content could be mainly made by the players.
Here's an experiment for you folks: put a screenshot of Uningine's Heaven demo and Bioshock Infinite side by side and tell me what exactly in the former will inspire consumers to throw down a few hundred to upgrade.
I really, really don't mean to insult your opinions and experience as artists but I personally see no reason why anybody would buy a newer console right now. Good games shift units. Not marginal fidelity bumps.
Throw down a screenshot of BF3 on the PC, and BF3 on either console. For the consoles, the game runs at 720p, has a 24 player limit, typically 2 fewer objectives, and fewer vehicles, compared to the PC. DICE's explanation is the lack of hardware capabilities for either console. So yeah, I'd like to see a newer console. When games require downgrades to make them work on the consoles, then it is time to step forward.
Game studios develop for the hardware that is out there. If you offer more hardware, then the games will follow up with more.
yes, but growth is limited by the escalating cost of production as you get the effects of diminishing returns on hiring yet another dozen
So how does this affect what consumers see? You're still going to have massive studios making games that look great either way. What's compelling them to make a huge investment in new consoles, and vendors to start making a loss again to ship them?
When games require downgrades to make them work on the consoles, then it is time to step forward.
Which is why it sold more on PC than either console... oh wait.
I'm sorry, I just don't think the people who buy the vast bulk of games really care that much. I wonder how many out there are using a SD standard to connect their console and TV like some I've had to correct. Spending some time around those who buy games rather than developing them is an eye opener and part of the reason I see continuing to persue a career in this industry pointless
Just because they sold more than the PC, doesn't mean those players don't desire what the PC offers. Many of those sales are driven by the hardware people already had. People have strayed away from a $600 PC upgrade, just so they can play a game. They already have their console. When they promoted the game, what system was the video from? The PC. What drove the sales? The video promotions.
I know several people (myself included), that bought the PC version months after playing it on the console, because we wanted to experience what we were missing out on. My PS3 buddies are often jealous of the extras the PC guys get, and the Armored Kill release is HORRIBLE on the consoles, compared to the PC, because of the lower player count. People are BEGGING DICE to up the player count for the consoles, and the answer always is "we can't".
People don't know what they want until it's there. If they offer a new console system, that matches/outperforms the highest end PC right now, people are going to fight each other to get one. I think you grossly underestimate what consumers care about.
And I wonder how many gamers you've actually seen running in SD. Most gamers are technically savvy enough to know the difference between SD and HD. Unless they have a tube TV, the hardware itself will automatically put it into HD.
Back to the original subject, Rockstar can offer whatever they want. I think it's ridiculous how often PC gamers get pissed about a game not coming out on the PC. Rockstar isn't stupid, and they are probably basing their decisions on where the money is. True, it's unfortunate, being an old school PC gamer/modder myself, I really wish more games would come out for the PC, but there are way more issues revolving around the PC market, that I'm not surprised they have strayed away.
I think the only mistake Rockstar (and all studios) make is, keeping it a secret, and playing the stupid games. Right now, they know if they're going to make a PC version. If they aren't going to, then just say it. I don't know why the gaming industry thinks it's better to avoid an issue, than to just be upfront with consumers. If the news is bad, then the consumers are going to be pissed anyway. Hell, they may even hurt sales, because if there is the slightest hint that a PC version is coming, people may wait for it, rather than buying the console version.
I have to agree with Not. Right now my pc is coming to the time where i am thinking about upgrading it again just because i am starting to get lag and not reach high settings standards in some games. My pc lasted me since 2008 and it is bliss when you have a computer that can run anything at highest res. I am looking at spending money to get say a new Processor, MOBO, GPU and prbly RAM. So i'll be spending maybe a grand? maybe a little more. If i see the new consoles having a over the top line of components in it i would most definetely pick one up and hold on upgrading my pc right away.
I do think tho that pc has better deals on games tho. Games are often at lower prices, more sales, and i don't have to wait for the game to reach me. PSN has it right now, i like downloading my games from the store. I am a psn+ subscriber and i get like 10% off my games on release. That is freaking awesome to me. Too bad it came in at the end of the consoles cycle. I just hope that xbox picks up their pace with their mandatory xbla subscription, cuz right now psn+ will get renewed cuz i actually use it.
hmm.. about not telling about the consoles i guess i will agree with that. I know right now that i got a version of ac3 on ps3, an i am for sure picking it up on pc so i can enjoy the high end look of the game when its bug free.
I do like pc games tho that look awesome even with old hardware. Like Xcomm. Very few pc's out there are not able to run that game, and its freaking awesome. Diablo 3 with its problems and all, also can run in a very average pc out there. I like that. So maybe something to consider.
My argument to the whole thing would be joe average gets home from work and wants to lounge on the couch and just veg out. Most people outside the industry i know who play games dot want to spend 300-600 bucks on a graphics card every few years, and dint want to spend their time sitting infront of a computer. Think of gtas target audience. When i used to work for eb games years ago, 9/10 people who came in to buy gta san andreas looked like wanna be thugs who sat on thier couch somking weed and playing video games all day when they were not working. Nothing wrong with that, but there is no way in hell they wanna figure out how to use and upgrade a pc when they can just toss the disc in their console and chill.
Most of the opionions for pc here seem like industry people who forget who we are actually making games for most of the time:
-=[xx]=-Sm0k3sM4dBlunts420-=[xx]=- aka joe average gamer.
In terms of cash, justifying breaking even on a pc port is rediculous when you could use the same cash to improve or market a console game that is going to give you an exponentially greater return on investment. At the end of the day, its a buisness designed to make as much money as they can with as little risk as possible in the shortest amount of time. Its just a video game guys not the end of the world, seriously the average gamers comment on ign or whatever makes me think people need to harden the fuck up or call the whaaaaaaaambulance.
On the topic of new consoles, specifications etc: why do you think all modern combat shooters play the way they do? Because they need to precisely know your position and movement patterns so they can optimize their high-end graphics around it.
It's the same reason that tech demos always look better than games do: more control of the currently visible screen.
And yes, while we can currently push the limits of these consoles a lot, that doesn't mean we should stick with them indefinitely. I love the C64, and if you compare these two videos you can see how much further it can be pushed than games have pushed it:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBegD7k2wvo"]Coma Light 13 - Oxyron - Commodore 64 demo - X2012 - YouTube[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLHhyI35Dgw"]20 Games That Defined the Commodore 64 - YouTube[/ame]
But I would still rather have a Playstation than this, and a C64 is in no way viable competition. Pushing hardware only gets use so far, getting newer hardware gets us much further again.
We will eventually hit limits of usefulness, like our current phonescreens are (in my opinion) high enough resolutions until the end of my life, but we aren't there quite yet when it comes to CPU&GPU.
And consumers <i>will</i> buy incremental upgrades. Look at cars. Look at the CoD series. Look at iPhone sales. Plenty of people spend wads of cash on not-very-significant changes.
Plus, y'know, going from left to right in this image is NOT incremental.
Anyone with more than about 33~50% visual efficiency can see the difference.
And consumers <i>will</i> buy incremental upgrades. Look at cars. Look at the CoD series. Look at iPhone sales. Plenty of people spend wads of cash on not-very-significant changes.
In the case of the CoD series, you're confusing hardware with software. Of course people will buy incremental releases of software, it gives them new levels/weapons/gamemodes to play. Buying new hardware just means that you get a choice of a different range of games. If as a consumer you were happy with the quality of the games on your current console, there would be no reason to move to a new one. If a new console blows minds compared to the old one, that is likely to motivate a sale. Given how good this generation has been graphically, I doubt this is even possible.
Phones are also a different issue, because they're usually bought with 12-24 month contracts, while games consoles excepting subscription services like Live (which doesn't give you a new console every time it runs out) do not have contracts.
I'd argue that the two images are similar enough that I'd be fine playing either. The graphics programmer in me craves fidelity, but I know from experience now that if the game is good I'll enjoy it at 640x480 and completely forget about the fidelity unless it's so bad it interferes with the gameplay. Quite recently saw a poor film in digital 4K. You know how much it improved the film? Not in the slightest. However, I can happily enjoy a VHS of an absolute classic.
This is not to say graphics are not important, and artistry is irrelevant, because they are very important.
Most of the opionions for pc here seem like industry people who forget who we are actually making games for most of the time:
-=[xx]=-Sm0k3sM4dBlunts420-=[xx]=- aka joe average gamer.
Lolz. The PC vs Console discussion again. Utterly and completely pointless people. Stop whining about platforms and be happy that you get to play (hopefully)awesome games.
Snader: Seriously. If you didnt have a comparison screenshot there, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference and you'd have NOTHING to complain about.
Snader: Seriously. If you didnt have a comparison screenshot there, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference and you'd have NOTHING to complain about.
Maybe his example wasn't a good one, but what about this for a comparison?
That is a SIGNIFICANT difference. To your point, graphically will it change if I'll play the game? No (obviously, since I bought it for the PS3 first). Would I like my PS3 to render it like the PC version? Hell yeah.
But beyond just graphics, when you take elements out of the game, so it will work on the console, then it's time for consoles to advance. I think we've reached that point.
notman, for the sake of truthiness those PS3 shots are clearly not direct game captures and have been compressed to hell to make the pc shots look better.
that said, there is a clear difference if you have a fair comparison.
Honestly, you're probably right, since I was looking for a quick example. I know when switching between the systems, there is a very distinct difference. Not just in the clarity, but also in the details that appear on the screen.
What you just listed takes a large team of people a good year to produce the 3 mins worth of content. That, while noticeable, is not sustainable with current development pipelines. It's just a giant money and time sink that will only burn out more people. Consider that it also is in the confines of a movie, where camera angle is controlled, allowing for painting of backdrops and a lot of trickery. Imagine having to make those assets and the world that has to be viewed from all angles.
Yes, it looks better, but is not going to happen for a while until development tools evolve. Hence, 'good enough'.
Some of the things you said is very true, but the last thing you said is very very true.
It's not going to happy for a while, but it IS going to happen. My point was not that the next playstation or xbox will be or should be like that. My point is that it's silly ( in my opionion ) to not WANT or ASSUME that we should work towards this.
The video was just an exaggerated example to show that our current games will be seen as pretty ugly in 3-5 years. ( forget art direction/theme/style etc, just talking about the look of the games overall)
Replies
And yeah, I know you never said this data was actually useful data (though you did clearly state that "Dragon Age Origins sold 0.4mil on PC", which isn't true), but I just assume that people don't post numbers that they don't think they hold value. My fault entirely
Hardly, the reason PC sales pale in comparison to consoles is because publishers have turned their focus away from it and invest that focus on consoles (mostly out of misplaced fear of piracy). That, in turn, draws attention away from the PC version, further diminishing its market share. It's a negative feedback loop. The more the publishers withdraw from the PC, the more consumers lose interest in the platform. It's just like how DirectX replaced OpenGL as an API. DirectX was a piece of shit when it started and OpenGL was a gem. Then MS started employing strategies to get developers to support DX, then OpenGL got less attention, became less maintained, and fell behind DX.
The publishers are causing this negative feedback loop by shying away. It starts a snowball effect and then they point at that phenomena (and piracy) as justification to withdraw from the platform in the future. If they put as much time and energy into the PC as they do the consoles, they would likely see a reversal. Also, games tech hasn't advanced much since the 360/PS3/Wii launch. You don't really "need" a PC for gaming anymore because nobody is pushing the hardware in terms of graphic fidelity like they did in the past. Nowadays games tech has stagnated, making a PC less relevant to gaming because 99% of the games are tuned to the consoles first, PC second. It used to be the other way around.
As developers we have a skewed perspective on games. Wind Waker is pretty universally loved among developers (not completely universally, but not far off) but the general public hated it going by the sales. We love PC. The general public wants consoles. We love deferred renderers and gamma correct renderer pipelines. The general public doesn't really care. And they're the ones keeping us in jobs. (well, or not, lol) Our opinions, as people attached to the products, are almost completely invalid.
"we don't have any details to share about a pc version at this time"
well, they've barely got any details to share about the console games either, other than they exist. Judging by the reaction you'd think they'd said that there is no PC version, there never will be a PC version, and that all PC gamers have tiny, rubbish dicks.
"anyone that spams the comment section will have their commenting priviliges suspended"
i'd like to see how long your posting priviliges would go unsuspended if you starting spamming the Polycount boards
its incredible what can trigger a full thread of spluttering nerdrage really
oh and Overlord - probably best to stop going on about 'the developer' and 'the publisher' in your attempts to appear all knowing in this case.
Waiting for GFWL to sign in three times was incredibly annoying, especially given that it occasionally needed updating and it could NEVER do it, always had to go download the installer myself.
Though I agree with Ace, this statement is basically saying they should ignore everyone about everything. Even shareholders? Without consumers there wouldnt be shareholders. Games are a product. You listen to sell. How much you think corporations spend on focus groups every year? This is a silly statement.
Having said that anyone ragging on R* over this is a twat. They're just sore they now have less justification for buying that 670. PC Gamers HATE when peolle shit on their master race flag.
I don't doubt the numbers, I just doubt that these are the only numbers that exists, but we can't just ignore the numbers that we have in hand because they aren't complete. I posted the numbers because they were meant to give a perspective on how bad it is. Is it really that hard to click the links and make up your own idea about the sales?
If you compare EU GTA IV PS3 vs Xbox 360 vs PC sales, we see something interesting. In the first year there is a HUGE difference in sales. But the years following that the sale difference isn't that huge anymore.
The question is, what would have happen to the PC sales if they launched on the same date on all the platforms? Thankfully San Andreas was released on PS2 first. 8 months later, PC and Xbox gets the game.
According to vgchartz the global total of sales for San Andreas are
PS2, 20.81mil
PC, 0.82mil
Xbox, 1.95mil
Now when you compare that to GTA IV where the PS3 and Xbox 360 had a simultaneity release date
PS3, 9,38mil
Xbox 360, 9,87
PC, 0,70mil
Now suddenly the Playstation isn't the dominant market for the GTA series, suddenly when the GTA IV launched on the same date for PS3 and Xbox 360 their numbers are evenly matched.
Like you said platforms like Steam/Origin/GoG rarely gives out facts regarding sales. Steam for example just says that a game sold xxx% better. But you can still make something out of the statistics we have.
So you got any other facts? I more wanted to make a point how stupid Ubisofts statement about the 93-95% piracy rate they claim their games have.
If you read the thread you will see that I quoted myself quoting someone and I asked him about facts to the statement he said. He took to long to provide anything so I assumed hes one of those who just pops in and says something then just leaves. So I ended up looking up any facts I could find myself and since this is a thread about GTA I only cared about that.
Not true. GTA 1 and 2 were PC games and GTA 3 and 4 were released in between the Playstation and Xbox releases.
according to VGchartz the sales numbers are as follows: (september 18 - october 27)
Xbox: 1.7
PS3: 0.92
PC: 0.35
that's in ~ one month - so the actual growth over the next year or so is obviously TBD. The point is that yes, PC is still trailing - I think that's something everybody here has agreed on - but it's still a fairly significant number to be made in 1 month.
I suspect (though i'm hazarding a guess here with no numbers) that it's at least covered the cost of the port, and even if it only broke even it's still been only a month. it's also built some good will between PC gamers and Gearbox, which can only help their consumer base in the long run.
comparatively, BL1's PC port was awful (so i've heard), and though it was also released simultaneously with the other platforms, it's numbers are evident of it's quality:
PC:.08
Xbox:3.01
PS3: 1.7
and that's from october '09 - to october '12. the PC port of BL2 more than trippled that in a month. I also have to ask - how many people who would rather have gotten it on PC were hesitant because of the quality of the BL1 port? and how many of those that got BL2 will not have that hesitation on the next Gearbox game?
also: what kind of risk assessment did Gearbox do? it went against all of the numbers for them to spend the time and money to make a decent port instead of halfassing or neglecting it altogether (as most do) - but they did it anyways. because they trusted it would pay off. and lo! it did, at least well enough.
additionally - Gearbox advertised the PC port well - bundling it with the Nvidia cards and broadcasting the difference between the platform capabilities fairly loudly.
So my humble conclusion:
is a PC port worth R* persuing it? only if they do it properly.
if they do it the same way they've done other games - than no, don't bother. I think that Gearbox has shown that a decent PC port can actually make money - but a crappy or halfassed one only leaves the developer bitter at having spent the money to keep the customers happy without having been appropriately compensated for their efforts.
*edit - one more point. I would like to point out that using any PC sales older than 2007 or so is a waste of time as it doesn't account for the current popularity of steam and other services widely used for PC game distribution now. the PC market has broadened significantly now that people can buy PC games from their desk without going to the same shelf that holds console versions.
If the next xbox's native res was 1080p (and games were optimized to look their best at that res and lower tvs were scaled down) i'd be a happy camper with no complaints. But noooooo, modern consoles look like garbage.
If I could run my xbox on a computer monitor id be even happier, then I could just switch input modes to game.
I already have more games than I have time for that I've picked up from random deals or craziness like holiday sales on Steam. (...really, being late to the party so far as picking up games go has been great from a financial standpoint, haha).
I think the only pc game I've bought for $60 was skyrim
The facts are in the sales, and just comparing the different platforms. If they do a pc port... they will waste money and time.
Call of duty black ops 3 + season pass = 100ย
I paid 130ย for the guild wars CE
You're making a supposition on nothing but your own personal opinion. You can't use infringement as a scapegoat for all that ails the industry nor is it a justification for ignoring the customers. People who are just going to download it for free regardless aren't going to complain to developers to make a PC version, they don't care. If you won't make a PC game, they'll just download some other PC game. They can always find enough PC games to download to be too busy to care if one developer or another doesn't do a port.
The sales, by the way, only show interest in a particular platform, nothing more. What you have to ascertain is what factors are driving that shift in interest. Lack of technical advancement in visual fidelity has been rather stagnant due to this extended console cycle. This reduces the demand for high-end graphics from PCs. Publishers are risk adverse to infringement, so they have been shying away from PC development in favor of the more "secure" consoles (Although the modding scene casts doubt on that). Then you have the marketing. Console versions have been pushed into the limelight at the expense of PC being relegated to the back line. Less technical progress, less publishers support, and less marketing hype have been slowly reducing the PC's notoriety.
This - and add a 6-12 month delay and you'll find your real lack of PC sales. Games are marketed and retailed in such a fashion that they sell when they come out; if the title isn't available for a platform in this timescale then sales on that platform are likely to be diminished in favour of the one that got it first (which is why timed exclusives even exist). I'd expect the majority of people who think of themselves as 'hardcore PC gamers' or 'PC first gamers' still own at least console and buy plenty of titles. Case in example, players eagerly anticipating Gears of War would likely have purchased it on the 360, rather than wait 12 months for the sloppy PC port (especialy as when the PC port finally arrives at full price, the console title is now in the bargain bin).
Games that are marketed as PC games still sell well, including ports, and sometimes including late ports. Valve and Blizzard are doing just fine. Games like Crysis still sold millions of copies.
The average person had a PC primarily for the access of the Internet, and consequently the PC videogame market enjoyed its success as a byproduct of the PC being the dominant tech-platform, with the advent of all the smartphones, tablets, and anything short of a toaster that can go online, play their Netflix and Minesweeper - the PC is not that special.
Combine this with the inherent piracy issues (which are extremely overblown by the suits, but still), the tech-support and QA headaches (everyone and their grandma has a different configuration) and then compare it with a console, which is the same across the entire population, has set-in-stone specs, and which can be expected by the average consumer to do what it's meant to, aka play games with few issues, the opportunity cost of a PC version becomes harder to justify. Also add in that if you begin by writing code for a console, the PC port becomes inherently more time-consuming to debug and port - thus the bare-minimum effort we commonly see.
The PC [videogame] market is a niche by definition; it enjoyed greater popularity in the past (think early-90's 2000's), and thus received greater developer focus due to being able to provide the most high-fidelity experience (also keep in mind the development-cost-to-fidelity ratio at the time). The graphics fidelity gap is negligible now; you could argue this is because of the focus on current console-level tech, but let's face it, we're over the huge differences in graphics-quality we've seen in the past.
What we have now is largely-serviceable while still taking absolutely gargantuan amounts of time and money to produce content for, which is not helping. This assertion that "the consoles are limiting graphics", while being true, would not make necessarily better games when fixed but would certainly drive the cost of developing them even higher in this already miserable-to-work-in risk-averase climate. We are down to developing minutia like fancier methods of things like AO and SSS, which the average person frankly does not give a shit about nor would notice; the broad strokes of videogame realism are 'good enough'. Graphics fidelity will continue to increase, of course, but not at the same breakneck pace.
We're reaching a middle point in development time/cost vs tech leaps - a 20-60 million game every 5 years for nil return once it releases is unsustainable. I'd say the sweet spot for diversity of game ideas vs. cost/willingness to do it was the PS2-era, but that's past now.
TLDR; bleeding-edge graphics do not make better games, but do make more-expensive-to-develop games, exacerbating the already giant costs and slash-and-burn publisher attitudes. PC [videogame] community a minority, with a nasty downside of piracy, and more involved tech-support. Combined, produces a market that reinforces console dominance.
I'm one of those people that would absolutely *love* a PC port of RDR, but the realities are understandable, and so is GTA V not getting released on PC. Going forward, I do not expect to have the same grand, throw-money-at-it game productions enjoyed before, except as outliers.
I don't deny that graphic fidelity doesn't make a better game, but it was driving the hardware forward. Now bleeding edge hardware isn't a mandate anymore, making PC's as a platform less significant. However, pure system horsepower can limit how much of the current level of fidelity you can include. It can mean the difference between load screens every few steps or none at all. You could build huge worlds the likes of which no console could touch at the same fidelity the current gen is capable of now. RDR no loading, not even between interior cells. Same with GTA V, Skyrim, or anything else simulating a large environment. There's just so very much more you can do with lots of processing power of a hefty PC besides pure graphics.
Even then it would be sooooooo much work to make it work under every OS, resolution, chipsets, drivers etc...
even though i straight up don't play console games, we need it as developers more than anything
What for? We can already do almost anything at near-photorealism. It couldn't possibly be enough of an improvement for customers to actually bother buying the thing.
I'm quite genuinely intrigued to hear what game you have in mind that could not possibly be made to a saleable standard on today's hardware.
There were big leaps from SNES-PS1-PS2-360, but now we have more polygons than we know what to do with, normal maps to simulate more, amazing lighting systems and reprogrammable GPUs for totally custom surfaces. Our only limit is the resources to make something, which more powerful hardware would likely exacerbate at this stage. What is it you want?
if you've ever needed to work on a shipped console game you'll know the insane vram restraints we are being limited by. low res textures, cutting content, obsessively simplifying shader code and running at a lower internal resolution is something that absolutely needs to go. it will save development time and allow gamers to enjoy the games they are happy with now with a cleaner image and better framerates.
I doubt the general public would ever buy a console specifically to make developers' lives easier.
but what do i know i don't play many video games
Cant answer for Racer but what I'd like to see from a console is ~4xGtx680, 16 core processor and 32gbs of ram and a 1tb ssd. That would do it for me. Atleast for the next 8 or 10 years. Maybe some more hard disk space and even more ram.
I don't get why I see so many developers and gamers adopt the 'we don't need better hardware' what we have now is good enough. Sure, I get that better hardware doesnt equal better graphics or gameplay, but is 10 year old tech really what we consider good enough?
We could have so much more. Physics, destroyable terrain, cloth and fluid simulation, realtime raytracing, soft shadows and so on.
Compare what has happened to the hand held market (phones, tablets) and the gaming hardware market in the last 10 or so years.
But if all indications and rumors are true about the next consoles we'll end up with a pretty low or mid range pc in terms of specs, which I'm sure studios will work wonders with, but I don't know, it saddens me a bit how long the iteration cycles are and how comparably weak machines we get. It wouldn't surprise me if phones would start to outperfom the next gen consoles towards the end of its cycle (2020ish?).
Really? Maybe it's just me, but I see A LOT of room for improvement.
Throw down a screenshot of BF3 on the PC, and BF3 on either console. For the consoles, the game runs at 720p, has a 24 player limit, typically 2 fewer objectives, and fewer vehicles, compared to the PC. DICE's explanation is the lack of hardware capabilities for either console. So yeah, I'd like to see a newer console. When games require downgrades to make them work on the consoles, then it is time to step forward.
Game studios develop for the hardware that is out there. If you offer more hardware, then the games will follow up with more.
Which is why it sold more on PC than either console... oh wait.
I'm sorry, I just don't think the people who buy the vast bulk of games really care that much. I wonder how many out there are using a SD standard to connect their console and TV like some I've had to correct. Spending some time around those who buy games rather than developing them is an eye opener and part of the reason I see continuing to persue a career in this industry pointless
I know several people (myself included), that bought the PC version months after playing it on the console, because we wanted to experience what we were missing out on. My PS3 buddies are often jealous of the extras the PC guys get, and the Armored Kill release is HORRIBLE on the consoles, compared to the PC, because of the lower player count. People are BEGGING DICE to up the player count for the consoles, and the answer always is "we can't".
People don't know what they want until it's there. If they offer a new console system, that matches/outperforms the highest end PC right now, people are going to fight each other to get one. I think you grossly underestimate what consumers care about.
And I wonder how many gamers you've actually seen running in SD. Most gamers are technically savvy enough to know the difference between SD and HD. Unless they have a tube TV, the hardware itself will automatically put it into HD.
Back to the original subject, Rockstar can offer whatever they want. I think it's ridiculous how often PC gamers get pissed about a game not coming out on the PC. Rockstar isn't stupid, and they are probably basing their decisions on where the money is. True, it's unfortunate, being an old school PC gamer/modder myself, I really wish more games would come out for the PC, but there are way more issues revolving around the PC market, that I'm not surprised they have strayed away.
I think the only mistake Rockstar (and all studios) make is, keeping it a secret, and playing the stupid games. Right now, they know if they're going to make a PC version. If they aren't going to, then just say it. I don't know why the gaming industry thinks it's better to avoid an issue, than to just be upfront with consumers. If the news is bad, then the consumers are going to be pissed anyway. Hell, they may even hurt sales, because if there is the slightest hint that a PC version is coming, people may wait for it, rather than buying the console version.
I do think tho that pc has better deals on games tho. Games are often at lower prices, more sales, and i don't have to wait for the game to reach me. PSN has it right now, i like downloading my games from the store. I am a psn+ subscriber and i get like 10% off my games on release. That is freaking awesome to me. Too bad it came in at the end of the consoles cycle. I just hope that xbox picks up their pace with their mandatory xbla subscription, cuz right now psn+ will get renewed cuz i actually use it.
hmm.. about not telling about the consoles i guess i will agree with that. I know right now that i got a version of ac3 on ps3, an i am for sure picking it up on pc so i can enjoy the high end look of the game when its bug free.
I do like pc games tho that look awesome even with old hardware. Like Xcomm. Very few pc's out there are not able to run that game, and its freaking awesome. Diablo 3 with its problems and all, also can run in a very average pc out there. I like that. So maybe something to consider.
Most of the opionions for pc here seem like industry people who forget who we are actually making games for most of the time:
-=[xx]=-Sm0k3sM4dBlunts420-=[xx]=- aka joe average gamer.
In terms of cash, justifying breaking even on a pc port is rediculous when you could use the same cash to improve or market a console game that is going to give you an exponentially greater return on investment. At the end of the day, its a buisness designed to make as much money as they can with as little risk as possible in the shortest amount of time. Its just a video game guys not the end of the world, seriously the average gamers comment on ign or whatever makes me think people need to harden the fuck up or call the whaaaaaaaambulance.
It's the same reason that tech demos always look better than games do: more control of the currently visible screen.
And yes, while we can currently push the limits of these consoles a lot, that doesn't mean we should stick with them indefinitely. I love the C64, and if you compare these two videos you can see how much further it can be pushed than games have pushed it:
[ame="
[ame="
But I would still rather have a Playstation than this, and a C64 is in no way viable competition. Pushing hardware only gets use so far, getting newer hardware gets us much further again.
We will eventually hit limits of usefulness, like our current phonescreens are (in my opinion) high enough resolutions until the end of my life, but we aren't there quite yet when it comes to CPU&GPU.
And consumers <i>will</i> buy incremental upgrades. Look at cars. Look at the CoD series. Look at iPhone sales. Plenty of people spend wads of cash on not-very-significant changes.
Plus, y'know, going from left to right in this image is NOT incremental.
Anyone with more than about 33~50% visual efficiency can see the difference.
Phones are also a different issue, because they're usually bought with 12-24 month contracts, while games consoles excepting subscription services like Live (which doesn't give you a new console every time it runs out) do not have contracts.
I'd argue that the two images are similar enough that I'd be fine playing either. The graphics programmer in me craves fidelity, but I know from experience now that if the game is good I'll enjoy it at 640x480 and completely forget about the fidelity unless it's so bad it interferes with the gameplay. Quite recently saw a poor film in digital 4K. You know how much it improved the film? Not in the slightest. However, I can happily enjoy a VHS of an absolute classic.
This is not to say graphics are not important, and artistry is irrelevant, because they are very important.
Agreed
I do hope that the newer consoles have similar internal architecture to eachother and the PC that would make ports easier to produce.
Snader: Seriously. If you didnt have a comparison screenshot there, you wouldnt be able to tell the difference and you'd have NOTHING to complain about.
Maybe his example wasn't a good one, but what about this for a comparison?
More here: http://www.gamepur.com/news/5547-bf3-beta-pc-ultra-vs-ps3-screenshot-comparison.html
That is a SIGNIFICANT difference. To your point, graphically will it change if I'll play the game? No (obviously, since I bought it for the PS3 first). Would I like my PS3 to render it like the PC version? Hell yeah.
But beyond just graphics, when you take elements out of the game, so it will work on the console, then it's time for consoles to advance. I think we've reached that point.
that said, there is a clear difference if you have a fair comparison.
[ame="
Are we seriously considering the current consoles 'good enough'?
Yes, it looks better, but is not going to happen for a while until development tools evolve. Hence, 'good enough'.
It's not going to happy for a while, but it IS going to happen. My point was not that the next playstation or xbox will be or should be like that. My point is that it's silly ( in my opionion ) to not WANT or ASSUME that we should work towards this.
The video was just an exaggerated example to show that our current games will be seen as pretty ugly in 3-5 years. ( forget art direction/theme/style etc, just talking about the look of the games overall)