| bonzobanana said: I'm curious to know people's thoughts about the PC version then. Why wasn't that delayed? Why wasn't the xbox one version an exclusive launch with the 360 and PC following weeks or perhaps months later? Then all the focus would have been on the xbox one version. Just looking at some of the comments with regard the engine. Are people claiming somehow the source engine is to blame for the technical weakness of the xbone version? Are they claiming all three versions are compromised because of this? |
Overall PC availability hasn't been shown to hurt console game sales (see : Skyrim, etc). So they weren't that threatened by that, which means that the moneyhat to prevent a PC version was completely not worth the effort. Basically 100% of the marketing and press coverage (which is astonishingly easy to buy up these days with banner ads/etc) was focused on the XB1 release, to the point where the average joe that just heard about it would think it was only going to be on XB1.
As for the engine, yes, the Source engine they used is based on the framework of the 2004 initial release. If they had developed a new engine, or modified something newer, they could have gotten so much more out of the XB1. You must remember, the engine we're talking about was from days when even dual-cores weren't very common, and PC testing shows that even i3s run it very well, and with basically zero gain going from quads to higher core counts.
The XB1 and PS4 both use 8 weak cores, so this is an old engine that would actually perform much better with 2 or 4 fast cores.
A more modern engine would allow for MUCH better use of the next-gen console architecture. I don't expect Titanfall 2 to use the Source engine now that it's been bumped up to AAA status.
