By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - What’s inside Durango’s Alpha kit?

selnor on 30 September 2012
Player2 said:
selnor said:
CCFanboy said:
BenVTrigger said:
Kinect 2.0 is completly optional people.

If a developer wants to make full use of the raw power of the console it doesnt matter how much power Kinect requires, as they dont even have to touch Kinect if they dont want to


I could be wrong but wouldn't they dedicate part of the cpu to kinect? Otherwise the cpu will divide resources and that would just complicate matters. It would be easier to dedicate at least one core to it. Yes it give devs less to work with but if still sounds powerful for a leap even with several cores dedicated to other things like multimedia features. It depends on what cpu they are using though.

@ selnor I like your crystal ball buddy but third parties are driven by money and not power. You tend to forget that however powerful these systems are nintendo's games are more powerful. Mario sets the world on fire faster than the processor in this. If nobody buys the system then the tech in this will be like the tech currently in vita right now. Sitting there..... wasting potential..... hoping people use it...... flexing its muscles....... and being given the short end of the stick as well. We simply don't know enough about anything at all. It all comes down to how the public react.


So if they are driven by money is that why when the Wii was destroyig the 360 and PS3 in sales, the wii got no decent third party games?

No it was because it was underpowered and would require games to look like arse to be on the wii to. Effectively having 2 completely different teams making the same game with completely different engines.

Because third parties were expecting the PS3 to win like the previous two gens, so they started developing games for PS3 at the beginning of the gen. Then when it didn't sell X360 saved their ass.

That and third parties don't want to put their games in the system with the strongest (sales wise) first party games (and compete with them) unless it's completely necessary.

Thats clasping at straws.

Developers dont want to build 2 completely different engines for the same game. And devs known for visuals and epic stories arent going to choose the Wii as a console to developer for. Otherwise the PC version would suffer MASSIVELY more than they have this gen.



Around the Network
Player2 on 30 September 2012
selnor said:
Player2 said:
selnor said:


So if they are driven by money is that why when the Wii was destroyig the 360 and PS3 in sales, the wii got no decent third party games?

No it was because it was underpowered and would require games to look like arse to be on the wii to. Effectively having 2 completely different teams making the same game with completely different engines.

Because third parties were expecting the PS3 to win like the previous two gens, so they started developing games for PS3 at the beginning of the gen. Then when it didn't sell X360 saved their ass.

That and third parties don't want to put their games in the system with the strongest (sales wise) first party games (and compete with them) unless it's completely necessary.

Thats clasping at straws.

Developers dont want to build 2 completely different engines for the same game. And devs known for visuals and epic stories arent going to choose the Wii as a console to developer for. Otherwise the PC version would suffer MASSIVELY more than they have this gen.

See my first point, they already spent money building engines for the PS3. So they decided that not developing games for the Wii was the most profitable option.

Epic stories doesn't need top graphics. If a game dev need top visuals, PC have been always there.

For ages most PC games have been PC exclusives. Why they have to be in consoles now?

 

Is it so hard to understand that every company wants to face the less possible competition (which should lead to more money)?

If third parties are driven by system power and not money, why XBOX got less support than PS2?



HoloDust on 30 September 2012
selnor said:

Developers dont want to build 2 completely different engines for the same game. And devs known for visuals and epic stories arent going to choose the Wii as a console to developer for. Otherwise the PC version would suffer MASSIVELY more than they have this gen.

I mostly agree - if these are 720 specs, I have a feeling that developers will be able to squeeze out of 720 what they were demoing on PCs lately, and I don't see that easily portable to WiiU. On the other hand, if WiiU user base becomes significant, and multiplat PS3/360/WiiU titles sell well on WiiU, it just might convince them that there is profit there, so they port at least some of high-end 720/PS4 titles.



CCFanboy on 30 September 2012
Player2 said:

Epic stories doesn't need top graphics. If a game dev need top visuals, PC have been always there.

For ages most PC games have been PC exclusives. Why they have to be in consoles now?

 

Is it so hard to understand that every company wants to face the less possible competition (which should lead to more money)?

If third parties are driven by system power and not money, why XBOX got less support than PS2?


While I agree more third parties will expand to more things next gen it all depends on how well wii u handles stuff. Aside from a rumored engine at dice all the engines I've seen for next gen are being made to be more scalable. Square enix said their new engine is only running on pc right now but could be scaled down to stuff like ps3 and tablets. So wii u could possibly run that. Unreal 4 has been confirmed to be able to be scaled to wii u but it depends on how well wii u can run it in comparison. Some developers will always put power first (like epic) but I agree some will be more realistic with budgets next time.



One more thing to complete my year = senran kagura localization =D

selnor on 30 September 2012
Player2 said:
selnor said:
Player2 said:
selnor said:
 


So if they are driven by money is that why when the Wii was destroyig the 360 and PS3 in sales, the wii got no decent third party games?

No it was because it was underpowered and would require games to look like arse to be on the wii to. Effectively having 2 completely different teams making the same game with completely different engines.

Because third parties were expecting the PS3 to win like the previous two gens, so they started developing games for PS3 at the beginning of the gen. Then when it didn't sell X360 saved their ass.

That and third parties don't want to put their games in the system with the strongest (sales wise) first party games (and compete with them) unless it's completely necessary.

Thats clasping at straws.

Developers dont want to build 2 completely different engines for the same game. And devs known for visuals and epic stories arent going to choose the Wii as a console to developer for. Otherwise the PC version would suffer MASSIVELY more than they have this gen.

See my first point, they already spent money building engines for the PS3. So they decided that not developing games for the Wii was the most profitable option.

Epic stories doesn't need top graphics. If a game dev need top visuals, PC have been always there.

For ages most PC games have been PC exclusives. Why they have to be in consoles now?

 

Is it so hard to understand that every company wants to face the less possible competition (which should lead to more money)?

If third parties are driven by system power and not money, why XBOX got less support than PS2?

Because alot of people cant be bothered with the PC hassle.

Xbox vs PS2 is nothing like wii vs 360 or wii u vs these specs. Completely different.

Nintendo wont win over the PS xbox crowd tey are aiming for right now with the underpowered machine they have. I'm one of those people they are aiming for this. And theres no chance with those specs I'm taking the plunge.

Im telling you, Nintendo will be missing out on games due to power by 2014.



Around the Network
20happyballs on 30 September 2012
ninetailschris said:
HoloDust said:
Minimum system requirements for Far Cry 3 are 4GB of RAM (reminder that both Win7 and Win 8 use less than 512MB of RAM)
Epic, Crytek and Square asked for lot of memory. Crytek specifically asked for minimum of 8GB (and I would bet Epic wants that too, them being one that pushed Microsoft to increase RAM in 360)
As for 8 cores - bulldozers have 8 cores @95W TDP - if they use GPU similar to 7970m (basically mobile downclocked 7870 with TDP of 75-100W) I don't see problem with system's TDP, so why not...


Um this isn't PC ram this console Ram.  Console ram is customized and doesn't need 4 ram because it doesn't have to do 3-4 things the same at time while runing the game. PC runs general purpose like ram not like console. Please give me quote were Square/Creak asked for 8gb ram because I know your bsing because that would be completely overshot. The most they would as for is 3-4 ram because consoles don't need to run multiple apps at a time. When people say need 4ram to run ultra on fry  Cry what your saying is that much PC ram not console. Trying running skyrim with 2 gb ram with xbox360 chip on a pc at normal setting you will be lucky to get 10 frames per second and that's 4 times the ram.

Regarding  GPU please link to the GPU Specfic you think it will have in and then link me to Core you think it will have. Then I will show why it will not work.

Ram is a relatively cheap way to make a huge difference for games. I don't see why 8 gigs sounds unreasonable. The reason pc games don't ulilitize that much ram is because the games/game engines are designed for less. Not much people have more than 4 gigs in their systems. However, because game engines can be designed to utilize more, nextgen games will use more. 





DirtyP2002 on 30 September 2012
Player2 said:
selnor said:
CCFanboy said:
BenVTrigger said:
Kinect 2.0 is completly optional people.

If a developer wants to make full use of the raw power of the console it doesnt matter how much power Kinect requires, as they dont even have to touch Kinect if they dont want to


I could be wrong but wouldn't they dedicate part of the cpu to kinect? Otherwise the cpu will divide resources and that would just complicate matters. It would be easier to dedicate at least one core to it. Yes it give devs less to work with but if still sounds powerful for a leap even with several cores dedicated to other things like multimedia features. It depends on what cpu they are using though.

@ selnor I like your crystal ball buddy but third parties are driven by money and not power. You tend to forget that however powerful these systems are nintendo's games are more powerful. Mario sets the world on fire faster than the processor in this. If nobody buys the system then the tech in this will be like the tech currently in vita right now. Sitting there..... wasting potential..... hoping people use it...... flexing its muscles....... and being given the short end of the stick as well. We simply don't know enough about anything at all. It all comes down to how the public react.


So if they are driven by money is that why when the Wii was destroyig the 360 and PS3 in sales, the wii got no decent third party games?

No it was because it was underpowered and would require games to look like arse to be on the wii to. Effectively having 2 completely different teams making the same game with completely different engines.

Because third parties were expecting the PS3 to win like the previous two gens, so they started developing games for PS3 at the beginning of the gen. Then when it didn't sell X360 saved their ass.

That and third parties don't want to put their games in the system with the strongest (sales wise) first party games (and compete with them) unless it's completely necessary.


come on, that is just wrong.

Sure  a lot of people expected the PS3 to win, but it was obvious that it wouldn't achieve this as early as 2008. Even since then the Wii had no 3rd party support. Devs did not change their strategy.



Imagine not having GamePass on your console...

Player2 on 30 September 2012
DirtyP2002 said:
Player2 said:
selnor said:
CCFanboy said:
BenVTrigger said:
Kinect 2.0 is completly optional people.

If a developer wants to make full use of the raw power of the console it doesnt matter how much power Kinect requires, as they dont even have to touch Kinect if they dont want to


I could be wrong but wouldn't they dedicate part of the cpu to kinect? Otherwise the cpu will divide resources and that would just complicate matters. It would be easier to dedicate at least one core to it. Yes it give devs less to work with but if still sounds powerful for a leap even with several cores dedicated to other things like multimedia features. It depends on what cpu they are using though.

@ selnor I like your crystal ball buddy but third parties are driven by money and not power. You tend to forget that however powerful these systems are nintendo's games are more powerful. Mario sets the world on fire faster than the processor in this. If nobody buys the system then the tech in this will be like the tech currently in vita right now. Sitting there..... wasting potential..... hoping people use it...... flexing its muscles....... and being given the short end of the stick as well. We simply don't know enough about anything at all. It all comes down to how the public react.


So if they are driven by money is that why when the Wii was destroyig the 360 and PS3 in sales, the wii got no decent third party games?

No it was because it was underpowered and would require games to look like arse to be on the wii to. Effectively having 2 completely different teams making the same game with completely different engines.

Because third parties were expecting the PS3 to win like the previous two gens, so they started developing games for PS3 at the beginning of the gen. Then when it didn't sell X360 saved their ass.

That and third parties don't want to put their games in the system with the strongest (sales wise) first party games (and compete with them) unless it's completely necessary.


come on, that is just wrong.

Sure  a lot of people expected the PS3 to win, but it was obvious that it wouldn't achieve this as early as 2008. Even since then the Wii had no 3rd party support. Devs did not change their strategy.

Because PS3+X360 have a bigger userbase than Wii, and it was cheaper to do that instead of start Wii developement from scratch.



Player2 on 30 September 2012
selnor said:
Player2 said:
selnor said:
Player2 said:
selnor said:
 


So if they are driven by money is that why when the Wii was destroyig the 360 and PS3 in sales, the wii got no decent third party games?

No it was because it was underpowered and would require games to look like arse to be on the wii to. Effectively having 2 completely different teams making the same game with completely different engines.

Because third parties were expecting the PS3 to win like the previous two gens, so they started developing games for PS3 at the beginning of the gen. Then when it didn't sell X360 saved their ass.

That and third parties don't want to put their games in the system with the strongest (sales wise) first party games (and compete with them) unless it's completely necessary.

Thats clasping at straws.

Developers dont want to build 2 completely different engines for the same game. And devs known for visuals and epic stories arent going to choose the Wii as a console to developer for. Otherwise the PC version would suffer MASSIVELY more than they have this gen.

See my first point, they already spent money building engines for the PS3. So they decided that not developing games for the Wii was the most profitable option.

Epic stories doesn't need top graphics. If a game dev need top visuals, PC have been always there.

For ages most PC games have been PC exclusives. Why they have to be in consoles now?

 

Is it so hard to understand that every company wants to face the less possible competition (which should lead to more money)?

If third parties are driven by system power and not money, why XBOX got less support than PS2?

Because alot of people cant be bothered with the PC hassle.

Xbox vs PS2 is nothing like wii vs 360 or wii u vs these specs. Completely different.

Nintendo wont win over the PS xbox crowd tey are aiming for right now with the underpowered machine they have. I'm one of those people they are aiming for this. And theres no chance with those specs I'm taking the plunge.

Im telling you, Nintendo will be missing out on games due to power by 2014.

PC hassle have been much worse before. Remember the days of DOS games, with 6+ diskettes, passwords in the manual that your mother throw into the trash can (now THAT was a DRM) and Sound Card problems? Now it is much easier, yet they decide to go PC/console multi now. Why they want to reach those people now?

Yes, Xbox vs PS2 was completely different from Wii vs X360. Unlike X360->Wii, PS2->Xbox ports were piss easy to do, yet very few devs did it, which supports my theory of money over power even more.

Not every PS3 or X360 owner is interested in system power. Look at the N64 or Xbox sales. When where those "specs are king" guys then?

Nintendo will be missing games by 2013. Power will be one of the many excuses.



CCFanboy on 30 September 2012

Ps3 and 360 won't just become irrelevant when the next two come out. They will still be getting multiplats for another few years yet. Bethesda aren't jumping on anything until they've seen how they've sold. In order for wii u to lose third party support by 2014 all kinds of games for ps3 and 360 must get cancelled and moved to the others and thats not going to happen when both will still have fanbases.

Companies might be excited by the new systems but they probably aren't so confident to jump right on them. Especially not with ps4. The faith in sony is crumbling. Vita is evident of that.



One more thing to complete my year = senran kagura localization =D