Quantcast
Are Pc-Gamers graphics complainments against consoles justified?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Are Pc-Gamers graphics complainments against consoles justified?

cpg716 said:
JNK said:

So scince last year on youtube and on many other gaming related forums people argue about "downgrades" and "bad graphics" and in their opinion, they suffer from the "bad consoles".

 

I tried to think about this blame from a neutral/developers viewpoint and i came to the conclusion, it isnt justified. Here are my arguments:

 

1. Pc gaming is relativly unrelevant. More People do play multiplattsform games on consoles. Developer should focus on their biggest market

Um.. PC Gaming revenue has overtaken console..  it did so in 2014.. and its increasing..     Console gaming revenue has been shrinking (although it did see a postive in June)..   so..  this makes your first point and most other points..   well.. incorrect..



Because of free to play web games :)
Game dev/pub are making way more on consoles (with AAA) so it is irelevant in a way, esp. with the fact that the majority of those people paying for free to play web games have a very bad computer anyway



Around the Network

Buy high end gaming rig that costs top dollar, wait for steam sales, humble bundle etc to get games at low cost. N.B. Yes this is a joke.



No, for many reasons.

These consoles are the most PC-like ever. PC should benefit in theory due to optimisations shared between them.

Most games are design led on PC anyway, it's just in the QA phase that most of the problem is.

And devs and pubs get less $ per PC game than the console equivalent, both day 1 and a lot wait for the inevitable 50%+ steam sale reduction. Not sustainable for large titles. Yes 2nd hand sales on console, but that's cancelled out by piracy. I can't get my head around the PC elitists complaints.

Yes there's general cause for concern of shocking PC versions of games, but to blame consoles is baseless as far as I can see.

And what about bad performing console games? AC Unity for example was a mess on consoles too.



Now playing through: Fallout 4 (PS4)

PSN: beeje13, XBL: beeje13 x

Pre ordered: Far Cry Primal (PS4)

Too many other titles that are on my wishlist to mention here. And a backlog :O

Console history : PS, PS2, Gameboy Advance, PS3, PSP, PS4, Xbox One...

<

FloatingWaffles said:

3. Can you name any specific exclusive PC Games? I honestly just can't think of any and it's usually up to the developer when developing a PC game whether they want to make it accessable to almost every PC out there or mostly high end PCs.


Xcom 2 will be pc exclusive but wont have better graphics as multiplat games like Witcher 3, Watch dogs and co.

 

Other PC Exclusives like: Counter Strike GO, Pillars of eternity, LOL, Heroes of the storm and more would even be possible with same graphics on a 7th gen console.

 

The only pc exclusive with really great graphics i do remeber where crysis in 2007 and star citizen (which will be crowed funded so this will be a complete different situation. As far as I know each Star citizen player/backer already paid 300+$ in average. Thats alot more money per player as normal AAA titles (where pc players do pay ~20-30$ at most)



I can see merits on both sides of the equations. PC gamers, nay I say anyone who buys any game should have a game that is playable in full on whatever system it is purchased on. I hate the argument that the graphics and mods make the PC version superior, as mods are not something the developers created, so are not part of the game, thus should not rate in an evaluation or review of the game (though it is a nice perk for the pickup of a PC version). As for the superior graphics of the PC version, I still regularly play my SNES and PS1 games, improved visuals don't mean anything if the game is broken and unplayable.

On the Console version, as long as the game is fully playable and its graphics are on par with other games of its ilk, then then the developer has done its due diligence.



Why hate systems that bring you great games?

PSN: Aceburg0413

XBOX Live: Sheep of Doom13

Nintendo:  SheepofDoom13

3DS FC:  3222 - 5562 - 9867

Around the Network

Of course not.
PC hardly get any really big exclusive games, it doesn't have the same power to actually attract content like that as someone making their own platform.
PC top quality parts are really expensive and totally out of reach to most people, making games to fit console top quality is already a struggle, very expensive and risk, there would be no actual boost without them, actually we would have way less solutions on how to code games, as they would really too much in specs that can handle raw coding rather than actual well managed and thoughtful solutions.
Without consoles we would actually have a way, way smaller gaming community and that would actually mean less money to developers to make games so lesser games would come, also, less creativity would happen.

Both console and PC gaming serve their purpose and are needed.
Actually, consoles are the last choice to get rid of if we would need to get rid of one.



JNK said:

So scince last year on youtube and on many other gaming related forums people argue about "downgrades" and "bad graphics" and in their opinion, they suffer from the "bad consoles".

 

I tried to think about this blame from a neutral/developers viewpoint and i came to the conclusion, it isnt justified. Here are my arguments:

 

1. Pc gaming is relativly unrelevant. More People do play multiplattsform games on consoles. Developer should focus on their biggest market

That would be the PC then, since it takes both Playstation and Xbox together (and that's between 2 hardware Generations) for them to get past PC, which had been rising again since 2013. So, all but irrelevant, especially in mainland europe, where PC gaming always stayed strong.

2. Actual AAA-titles (like Witcher 3) wouldnt be possible at all in this quality without console versions, because the pc sales would never fit the developement costs.

Looking at Star Citizen's 100 Million $ PC only development, not sure this is true anymore. Also PC only series like Total War, Civilizations, Hearts of Iron and their high production values prove they could do without the consoles, it just would be more risky. And since publishers have become so awfully risk-averse...

3. There are already alot pc exclusive games but they are mostly looking even worse then multiplattform games on pc.

Most of them are strategy titles, where graphics are much less valued than on your typical console game. Their high amount of units stress hardware in different ways, however: High CPU power is needed for their AI routines and things like pathfinding, and their sheer numbers of units and size of maps tend to stress RAM, both the standard one and the video RAM. Games like Star Citizen, on the other hand, while rare, leave consoles in the dust.

4. PC gamer dont pay alot for software. Some do pirate, many do use VPN´s/Keystores, Steamsales and co to buy cheap digitally. So when a console gamer pay 60 bucks for a game like witcher 3, a pc gamer will pay only like 10-30 bucks. Even if you substract sonys/microsofts licensing costs, a developer will still earn more money per sold console game as per sold pc game.

I also pay such low prices on my consoles, believe it or not. In both cases, I just wait for sales or buy used copies.. I do agree however that I'm in the minority on console gamers which do so, but it's still possible

 

So why should PC gamers get a better experience as a console gamer if they buy less copies at all and also pay less per copy? PC gamers should be thankfull that they get mostly slightly better graphics at all. There is no justify for this at all. Scince they pay less for their software, it would be more fair if they get a inferior product.

Now that would make the games an incredibly tough sell on PCs. The prices for games on PC at launch is roughly the same as on consoles, with all the royalties and other fees on consoles deduced (if they even deduce them, not always the case at launch), so they are not actually earning any less money for the same amount of sold games. Also, pc games have an advantage in sales consoles have not: Older games keep on selling for a long time (ie years, not just weeks or month like on consoles) if their quality is good. downgrading them from the get-go would kill those sales right away.

If a game development have a Budget of 10 mil. Why should anybody  spend anything from this budget to make a graphical superior pc version? The money should be used to make a as good as possible experience on all plattforms which is similar on quality on all 3 plattforms. Because: For each graphical pc upgrade, you have to cut off ressources for the consoles versions. There is no infinite budget and anytime when you put ressources/money into something (pc graphics) anything else will suffer. That wouldnt be fair.

PC already gets screwed over when it comes to quality, just check the PC ports of most "AAA" titles released in last 2 years. PC versions are more buggy naturally because of the staggering amount of different possible configurations, but quality control has still gone worse over the last couple of years., resulting in such barely playable ports like Arkham Knight or Assassin's Creed Unity

But more to the point, asking a PC gamer to play multiplat games at console standard would be like asking a PS4 gamer to be content with PS2 or 3 graphics. Try justifying that to the consumer.


Your thoughts?





Intrinsic said:
cpg716 said:

Um.. PC Gaming revenue has overtaken console..  it did so in 2014.. and its increasing..     Console gaming revenue has been shrinking (although it did see a postive in June)..   so..  this makes your first point and most other points..   well.. incorrect..



Please... get your facts right. Its not as simple as you make it sound. Developers.... the people making the games we play..... will tell you any and everyday that they make more money from the console dales of their game. And this is assuming that somehow you choose to ignore that every mutiplat game sells more on consoles than they do on PC. 

And as far as "revenue" goes.... you do realize that the sale of a single GPU even at $2000 is counted in its entirety towards "revenue" right? What good is that for a developer?

His point is entirely accurate. Consoles are a developers biggest market. Don't believe that, just look at any NPD top ten software sales. 

The stat is true even when not taking into account hardware revenue. PC gaming makes a lot of money although a large proportion of that revenue is from alternative business models rather than solely the initial sales or even follow up DLC.

Also, NPD aren't particularly reliable when it comes to tracking the revenue of these alternative business models and aren't even that great for tracking digital sales which make up most of PC sales considering they don't get data from the likes of Valve or many of the other digital download providers. NPD is only a very small piece of the picture. 



BraLoD said:
Of course not.
PC hardly get any really big exclusive games, it doesn't have the same power to actually attract content like that as someone making their own platform.
PC top quality parts are really expensive and totally out of reach to most people, making games to fit console top quality is already a struggle, very expensive and risk, there would be no actual boost without them, actually we would have way less solutions on how to code games, as they would really too much in specs that can handle raw coding rather than actual well managed and thoughtful solutions.
Without consoles we would actually have a way, way smaller gaming community and that would actually mean less money to developers to make games so lesser games would come, also, less creativity would happen.

Both console and PC gaming serve their purpose and are needed.
Actually, consoles are the last choice to get rid of if we would need to get rid of one.

A few things..   You can build/buy a PC that does 1080p gaming for $400-500.. and do 1440p gaming at $650..   not really expensive..   you can do SOLID 1080p/60fps gaming EVERY SINGLE DAY on  PC that cost the same as X1/PS4..    people have this OLD misconception that it cost $1000s to do this..

Steam as of March has 125 million ACTIVE users..  and has been adding about 25-30 million users every 6 months.. in the past year..  Likely will be at 175 million ACTIVE users by end of 2015..   again a growth rate FAR large then console.  TOTAL  PS4/X1 users will be at MOST 50 million by end of 2015..  And STEAM is NOT every single gamer.. as there are SEVERAL ways to purhcase games on a PC.     GoG/Origin/Steam/etc.. Estimates for total PC gamers is anywhere from 300-700 million.    Which at the top end.. would be larger then 6th, 7th, and 8th generation console gaming COMBINED.. 

If consoles didn't exist.. PC gaming would likely just be larger..   we are starting to get even more smaller and cheaper "console" like PC gaming units..  This will even more continue to help build PC gaming.. which again.. already has higher revenues then console ...  because A) way more games.. and B) way more users..



XBLive: cpg716     PSN ID: cpg716  Steam: Luv4Tech77

Predictions on 12/01/15 - Generation 8 Totals:

PS4: 85-95m
X1: 55-65m
WiiU: 20-30m

Bofferbrauer said:

That would be the PC then, since it takes both Playstation and Xbox together (and that's between 2 hardware Generations) for them to get past PC, which had been rising again since 2013. So, all but irrelevant, especially in mainland europe, where PC gaming always stayed strong.

Games doe sell alot more on consoles, even if not combined. Witcher 3 sold 2,5mio on Ps4 but 1,3mio on pc.

Looking at Star Citizen's 100 Million $ PC only development, not sure this is true anymore. Also PC only series like Total War, Civilizations, Hearts of Iron and their high production values prove they could do without the consoles, it just would be more risky. And since publishers have become so awfully risk-averse...

Star Citizen was crowd funded. Thatsy why it has this budget. I already said something about it. A star citizen player/backer paid 300+$ in average as far as im informed. On Normal Multiplats (Witcher 3, GTA V, Batman, COD...) they are paying 10-30$ 

Most of them are strategy titles, where graphics are much less valued than on your typical console game. Their high amount of units stress hardware in different ways, however: High CPU power is needed for their AI routines and things like pathfinding, and their sheer numbers of units and size of maps tend to stress RAM, both the standard one and the video RAM. Games like Star Citizen, on the other hand, while rare, leave consoles in the dust.

At the moment star citizen is very very buggy. Graphics is good but not better as a game like order 1886. Star citizen looks incredible good for the game it is though.

I also pay such low prices on my consoles, believe it or not. In both cases, I just wait for sales or buy used copies.. I do agree however that I'm in the minority on console gamers which do so, but it's still possible

Witcher 3 was already avaibale for 8€ last week (keystore). It was 25€ on the cheapest keystores at launch. Even CDProjektRed worried about those low prieces. Dont compare them to 60€ retail or 70€ digital on console. Even used witcher 3 is still 40-45€. Take off 10€ for licensing, transport, package and disc, but still way more expensive.

Now that would make the games an incredibly tough sell on PCs. The prices for games on PC at launch is roughly the same as on consoles, with all the royalties and other fees on consoles deduced (if they even deduce them, not always the case at launch), so they are not actually earning any less money for the same amount of sold games. Also, pc games have an advantage in sales consoles have not: Older games keep on selling for a long time (ie years, not just weeks or month like on consoles) if their quality is good. downgrading them from the get-go would kill those sales right away.

I never said it should get worse. I think it fair and ok how is it handeld at the moment (arkham knight was obviusly not ok). But games like Witcher 3, GTA V and co are good enough on pc. But many PC gamers do still complain.

PC already gets screwed over when it comes to quality, just check the PC ports of most "AAA" titles released in last 2 years. PC versions are more buggy naturally because of the staggering amount of different possible configurations, but quality control has still gone worse over the last couple of years., resulting in such barely playable ports like Arkham Knight or Assassin's Creed Unity

Assassins Creed Unity was buggy on all plattforms. Games like Witcher 3 run 20 fps on console, the pc version is even better (on similar hardware). Still, many pc gamers do complain about "bad graphics".

But more to the point, asking a PC gamer to play multiplat games at console standard would be like asking a PS4 gamer to be content with PS2 or 3 graphics. Try justifying that to the consumer.

No. Your comparison is completly off. The differences between 6th or 7th gen and 8th gen is alot bigger as the differences between 8th gen and high end gaming pcs.

The Ps4 is about 100x as strong as the ps2 and 10x as strong as the ps3.

The ps4 do have 1850 Gflops, ps3 ~150 Gflops and ps2 ~12 Gflops.

 

Even high end graphics card like the Nvidia Titan X does "only" have 6000 Gflops and are "only" 3x as strong as the ps4 graphics power.

+ The titan X is for sure not the "standart". The Average GPU used in Gaming pcs (780, 970, 980) do have between 3k and 4k Gflops and are only 2x as strong as the Ps4.