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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - How stupid is it that MS doesnt allow cross platform play with Steam on PC with games such as Ark?

John2290 said:

My laptop is beefier than my last PC build which is on parity with ps4 and bought in 2012.

It's still a laptop.
You don't buy a laptop expecting any kind of longevity with gaming.
Just like you don't buy a Mac expecting to play the latest games.

The reason why Laptops are typically not suited for gaming is... Well. Power.
They have a limited TDP budget, which means on the CPU side there are cutbacks to frequency and/or core counts.
Most laptop manufacturers usually only outfit notbooks with only a single SODIMM module.
And then on the GPU side... Is where the largest cutbacks are to be had, usually they are a step down from the desktop equivalents and usually are fitted with significantly worse (And often less) DRAM, if you get any at all.

And whilst it is all well and good to state that it is beefier than a Playstation 4... Keep in mind it is not a Playstation 4.

John2290 said:

Last time I pit money into an actual PC 2010ish, Can it run Crysis was still a thing and it could run crysis very well but it can't run jack shit now.

My 3930K rig is circa 2011~. Still going strong as a spare machine.
Guess what? It's still faster than the Xbox One X or Playstation 4 Pro. - And the games that it is still running is evidence of that.

John2290 said:

And again. We are talking different systems here,you are talking Xbox. I'm talking ps4.

Doesn't matter. They are both consoles.

John2290 said:

One of my mates in particular who has put 4 thousand euro into his PC and I'm still taking the piss out of him post Horizon and now with GOW and Detroit.

Your mate isn't a representation of the entire PC gaming community.


John2290 said:

They are beyond anything vanilla on his PC and it takes some heavy modding to get there and STILL the visuals aren't as refined or polished because there is always that jancky look around the edges that remains that you just can't get rid of if the developer isn't as talented as what is coming out pf sony.

The majority of Playstation 4 games are on PC.
They pretty much always look and run better on PC.

The PC also has a ton of talented developers. The PC also has more developers.

John2290 said:

He has 4k tv and a pro and we have been in awe since UC4, we matched both horizon and GOW in HDR 4k against each other to his picks from steam and the difference was massive even in 1080p and performance mode, I can't imagine how much detroit bashes everything else in terms of facial animations.

4k? PC has 5k and 8k.
Or hows about something like 11,520x2160? It is all well and good that you have 4k, but the PC had 4k almost 15 years ago.
1080P was something 20 years ago on PC, while console gamers were still fumbling with 480P.


John2290 said:

  Its hard to gauge these things exactly going from room to rooom with different games but its appparent as all hell when seen in person, way better gauge than YT video comparisons and the two games mentioned on here that are supposed to top it, star citizen and Battlefield 2 I haven't seen but it took modded games specifically GTA5 modded to high hell to get close to Horizon and my opinion is that nothing has gotten close to GOW even modded.

I run consoles and PC. I can assure you... I haven't seen anything that can touch a high-end PC game like Battlefront 2 that has been supersampled.
That Photogrammatry is really something.

StarCitizen is a tech showcase as well, the level of simulation it has is almost next-gen in a multitude of areas.

John2290 said:

A console you can buy for 350 euro now shouldn't put ultra settings to shame.

Well. You did state prior that nothing on PC can touch God of War (I beg to differ). And now you state that a $350 console shouldn't put ultra settings to shame?
You are contradicting yourself.

John2290 said:

As for buying libraries I'm also WELL over that as it leads to a time issue. I'd advice you to rethink doing so also. I only buy as much time as I have to play and add on a few here and there that maybe I don't but the 3 thousand or so I've spent this gen I've typically played more than 75% that wasn't bought on sale or a PSN freebie.

It's my money. I've earned it.
Gaming and collecting games is my hobby to level myself out and unwind. - If anything, it allows me to do my jobs more effectively.
Do I play all the games I own? Shit no. I still have a few PS2 games in their plastic wrapping.

John2290 said:

There is much merit to buying into one console more than there is buying all of them. Last gen I barely played 20% of games across the systems and I wouldn't be surprised if it was under 10 percent with some of the wii games added in or the steam flash sales. I certainly rarley finished a game or felt satisfied in my purchase as i do now.

There is much merit to buying a console from each manufacturer as well.

 

John2290 said:

But to each there own. It's your money. Mine is mine. At least we're having fun.

Indeed.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
John2290 said:

There is a vast difference between Xbox and PS4 blth in the games and the qaulity of life we were talking about in the first place.

Also,multiplats are one thing but you're ignoring the Sony first party line up. There is nothing vanilla on PC that can match it... show me a released, vanilla game that looks better than Detroit or GoW, not just graphically by pixel but in all aspects visually. Maybe you'll find a handful but you won't find anything that gets the while package together like these games, possibly until Cyberpunk drops. Add VA, audio design,art direction etc on top if that and they slam everything else available on any platform.

Let me ask you. Have you played the last three important PS4 exclusives in this department? Horizon, GoW and detroit?

"All aspects visually". Here's the issue with that. There are top-of-console-class visual stunners on those devices and then there are games that no console could match in its entirety. Star Wars Battlefront II is a game that trounces all console games (at least, in my eyes) and it does so without any mods. Believe me, there were moments in Detroit and God of War that make their cases, but overall, they are just a step behind BFII. *Note: Detroit's character models are as good as they've gotten this gen...

As for Art Direction/Sound, etc, etc..., that gets trickier, but in my world, BFII is on top of that visual mountain all by its lonesome.



                                                                                                             

John2290 said:

There is a vast difference between Xbox and PS4 blth in the games and the qaulity of life we were talking about in the first place.

Also,multiplats are one thing but you're ignoring the Sony first party line up. There is nothing vanilla on PC that can match it... show me a released, vanilla game that looks better than Detroit or GoW, not just graphically by pixel but in all aspects visually. Maybe you'll find a handful but you won't find anything that gets the while package together like these games, possibly until Cyberpunk drops. Add VA, audio design,art direction etc on top if that and they slam everything else available on any platform.

Let me ask you. Have you played the last three important PS4 exclusives in this department? Horizon, GoW and detroit?

Horizon yes. God of War and Detroit, no. They don't interest me.
Horizon looks pretty, but do you actually understand how they achieved what they did though? The hardware isn't doing anything "special" or "magical" to achieve it's visual output, it's art is absolutely amazing, but what about the actual graphics fidelity, aka. The rendering pipeline itself? You aren't conflating art and graphics fidelity are you?

Battlefront 2 being pushed on PC is indeed superior to those on the visual fidelity front, Frosbite is indeed amazing on PC. - I think the point you are missing though is that I do actually own consoles... And can thus readily compare them to my PC in real time.

StarCitizen is pushing a degree of simulation that typically hasn't been seen in a video game and on the fidelity front is also rather impressive being on a custom fork of Amazon-altered CryEngine.

The PC is a step up over whatever the consoles are trying to push out, and so they should. - You can only get so much out of a console device that has a low-end CPU, low-end/mid-range GPU and only 8GB of Ram. (Not all of which is actually used for games.)
That's not to say that consoles have ugly games, they just don't have the heavy effects pipeline that the PC typically employs, especially with multi-plats.

I highly suggest you pay attention to CGI's threads which showcase games on the PC, he's even been accused of using bullshots before.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

MasterThief said:
EricHiggin said:
Apparently there's also millions upon millions who own both PS4's and Switch's but for some reason there is no Mario on PS consoles. This is so anti consumer...

All gaming brands should be forced to assemble into one giant brand, run by the gamers, so everyone can have everything all the time, until that company goes bankrupt shortly afterwards and everyone ends up with nothing instead.

that idea with no disrespect. is beyond retarded

 

nobody would make money. the revenue will spread thin and big budget games will die 

sarcasm



I hate cross play with PC period. always have the fucking hackers. another reason i dont play multiplayer on pc, besides mmos at times.



 

Around the Network
John2290 said:

Saying you own consoles is beside the point if you're goinh to compare Xbox games with your PC.

That is exactly the point.
I own "The most powerful console ever" - According to Microsoft's marketing.
Yet my PC consistently beats it in terms of visuals, this isn't even up for debate, I can sit them side by side and my PC beats it every time.

John2290 said:

Graphically whatever looks best to the eye is all that matters these days

False. Now you are delving into the goal post shifting fallacy.
Graphics and Art are two separate constructs, do NOT conflate the two.

You can have an extremely flexible rendering pipeline, but poor art and the game will look rather average.

John2290 said:

(and Star citizen is not released ye).

StarCitizen has been partially released with playable modules. TRY Checking it out sometime.

John2290 said:

Like I said, the whole package and since you've not played GoW or Detroit there's no point in talking about this.

I didn't realize there was a prerequisite to playing all three before being allowed to have an objective perspective on something?
Is not playing 33% of your suggestions not sufficient to having a baseline perspective in your eyes?

John2290 said:

You can have higher graphics fidelity and look much worse for example Rise of the tomb raider on PC Ultra in 4k compared to uncharted 4 in 1080p

Fidelity isn't just resolution, there is much more to it than that.
I highly suggest you read up on some of the more common rendering techniques that are being employed in PC games that tend to be missing on consoles.

John2290 said:

This was a point ten years ago, when you could see a noticeable difference by adding a few polygons, AA or upping t he resolution but as we can see from the stage with goT and TloU2 games are visually so seamless that animation and artstyle becomes the way forward,the aspects where people start to gasp.

We aren't at realism yet. There is a massive divide to get to where we are to realism.
Not to mention we are yet to even get past uncanny valley yet.

John2290 said:

Play Horizon in 4K HDR on a pro and give yourself time to explore its world because I supect anyone who writes it off so effortlessly either just brushed over it over didn't pay proper attention, play both GoW and Detroit on a pro in 4k HDR.

You aren't playing Horizon in 4k HDR on console. The Playstation 4 Pro lacks the appropriate horsepower to achieve such a feat.
In-fact, the only time such a thing will happen is with a Playstation 5 port or when Emulation on PC happens.

John2290 said:

...or don't because it will devalue what you see on your PC massively.

How will it devalue anything? Did you miss the part where I openly stated that I own consoles as well? 

John2290 said:


It all boils down to wheter you want the best looking series of pictures in fast succession on your screen or a masterfully blended version of those pictures that doesn't try to achieve parity with real life but instead side shifts to swerve around the uncanny and the janky but still retain a level of realism in its consistency.

No. There is so much more to it than that.
Video games are an art form, there are parts of that which are subjective and others which are objective.
You seem to be throwing one part away in order to justify the other.


John2290 said:


Everything holds true to life in colour palette and visuals,its like they took a picture and made it move graphically but you put that game in moion even on the highest settings and it looks janky and things start to loom stiff and out of place, even if you ignore the random pop in the distance and focus on the best the game has to offer, the landscapes it all starts to look wrong.  Even the detail on NPCs faces which I remember going wow, that's imlressive once you see them in motion it removes that wow and replaces it with 'ouch' and when you put GOW's environments next to something like that or detroits animations it makes it look lime a leap between hardware when in fact its just talent with a big budget and a focused list of specs.

That is the visual representation they were going for. Good for them.
However, Kingdom Come deliverance isn't the best the PC has to offer anyway.

John2290 said:


Done with this, there's no point in arguing the graphical point unless we were in person and in front of two screens side by side comparing ps4 and PC

...Except I can do this without you anyway? Did you miss the point where I also own consoles? ;)

John2290 said:


and even then as GoW and Detroit can't be played on PC it gets murky.

They will be playable on PC eventually. It's a matter of when, not if.

John2290 said:


Anyone with sense who who has recently played games on both systems would, after some game time, see that those two games are leaps ahead of anything else released on any system and in places, horizon for an open world title it holds its own regardless of the path they took to achieve those visuals my eyeballs don't really have any preference for how their meals are prepared.

Are you suggesting I have no sense?
Are you suggesting I am ignorant on technology and graphics?
Are you suggesting that those games have the best graphics despite being provided examples that contradict such a statement?

These are genuine questions.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

irstupid said:
RaptorChrist said:

Maybe in 2010 (just picking a random year here) it made perfect sense, but as of lately it hasn't been a very acceptable practice, and if gamers voice their opinions, they can help change the industry (such was the case with loot boxes).

But to be fair, Sony is taking an unfair amount of backlash over this, as I have heard that the same goes for gamers who play Fortnite on Switch first and then subsequently try to play it on PS4 afterwards. If that's true then both companies have got issues.

From what I understand, you get the same issue whether going from PS to Xbox, PS to Switch, Switch to PS or Xbox to PS.

But to blame all three companies is not right. The message and not allowing you to do so is something that would have been implemented by Epic due to Sony not allowing crossplay. The way Epic designed the system is that as soon as your account logs into ANY console, it gets locked into that Crossplay ecosystem. There are two crossplay ecosystems (PS, PC, Mobile) (Xbox, Ninty, PC, Mobile)

Nintendo and Microsoft are both open to the idea of all systems crossplay and want it so. Sony is not. Thus Epic set up this system as it is. Nintendo and Microsoft have nothing to do with the system. It is Epics system, which is set up as it is due to Sony's lack of cooperation.

Oh damn, I stand corrected.

*Grabs pitchfork*



John2290 said:
CGI-Quality said:

"All aspects visually". Here's the issue with that. There are top-of-console-class visual stunners on those devices and then there are games that no console could match in its entirety. Star Wars Battlefront II is a game that trounces all console games (at least, in my eyes) and it does so without any mods. Believe me, there were moments in Detroit and God of War that make their cases, but overall, they are just a step behind BFII. *Note: Detroit's character models are as good as they've gotten this gen...

As for Art Direction/Sound, etc, etc..., that gets trickier, but in my world, BFII is on top of that visual mountain all by its lonesome.

Like I replied to Pirmelite...

'Example, Kindom come delieverence looks absoluelty stunning on PC, if you pan that camera in some places quite slowly you'd be forgiven if you thought you were controlling a HD cctv camera. Everything holds true to life in colour palette and visuals,its like they took a picture and made it move graphically but you put that game in moion even on the highest settings and it looks janky and things start to loom stiff and out of place, even if you ignore the random pop in the distance and focus on the best the game has to offer, the landscapes it all starts to look wrong.  Even the detail on NPCs faces which I remember going wow, that's imlressive once you see them in motion it removes that wow and replaces it with 'ouch' and when you put GOW's environments next to something like that or detroits animations it makes it look lime a leap between hardware when in fact its just talent with a big budget and a focused list of specs.'

This is what i mean by visual aspects and my eyeballs don't have a preference for how their meals are prepared. 

None of that actually tackled what I said. :p



                                                                                                             

John2290 said:
CGI-Quality said:

None of that actually tackled what I said. :p

Yes. It does. You're saying Battlefield 2 is better,personally I haven't seen it in person on PC and I really want to now however I'm pointing out that regardless of how good BF2 looks Sony are pulling graphical style away from that realsim factor, around the uncanny vally and adding a level of art ontop of the graphics to make visuals blend into everything else. Since you've played GOW, Horizon or Detroit you should know what I mean or even looking at the e3 demos for GoT or TloU2 if those demos were real time game play even the animation and composition are blending into what you could once call simply graphics. 

Composition like, that should speak volumes of what I'm talking about here. You can make the best looking...whatever the hell they done with scanning real world environments in kingdom come and upthe foiliage to insane levels  on a really powerful PC but it doesn't address the core aspects of the visuals that Sony are tackling anf succeeding with, the stuff that stitches everything together visually.

I'm at a loss for words unfortunately and unable to point out what I mean here but the best I can say is the stitching of everything together, the side swirving the uncanny but still keeping visuals to a high graphical standard and some what realism in the consistency. Bf2 and PC games might have more detail and perhaps the lighting does reflect well to flash out the enviroments and make it look realistic from what I'm looking at now but it still looks janky around the edges, its bot stitched together to the degree GoW or Detroit are and I doubt that'll change in person. 

There are certain things in the two Sony games we are mentioning that I never even thought would becoming so impactful visually. Specifically the degree to which everything graphically flows into other areas and seamlessly blends like how AA used to be important to meld everything and avoid jaggies (still is) now their is something around the edges that sony pull off that is unseen on PC. 

...until Cyberpunk ofc.

Much of what you're saying wasn't argued against, though. That's why I said that you didn't tackle anything. Your view of "Sony's style" doesn't remove the idea that there are games on a stronger platform that do things better. None of Sony's games are running those graphics at anything over 60Hz, for example. Where as any BFII footage I show you, I'm getting at least 110 fps. That is a big deal, as it plays right into graphics and performance. Believe me, I totally understand your enthusiasm for Sony's best looking games, but I have the pleasure of being on a platform that does things better.

Also, there is nothing "janky" about Battlefront II's [PC] presentation. :p

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 18 June 2018