|
|
 |
| [Feb 10, 2012, 9:49 pm ET] - Share - Viewing Comments |
Post Comment
Enter the details of the comment
you'd like to post in the boxes below and click the button at
the bottom of the form.
 |
| 20. |
Re: etc., etc. |
Feb 12, 2012, 16:34 |
Dev |
|
|
Orogogus wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 15:49:
Those two AAA PC-only games don't push the GPU the way that Skyrim or any dozen multiplatform games do, though, and are a counterargument against the supposition that PC hardware would be pushed further without consoles. The evidence suggests that PC developers would broaden their markets towards an even lower denominator instead of delving further into the niche crowd that actually installed a video card in their PC. My argument is they don't push the hardware since the hardware wasn't pushed to be advanced enough to make the average gaming PC higher end, due to consoles dragging the whole PC gaming development down. In other words the lowest common denominator would be higher than it is today without consoles dragging it down.
Orogogus wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 15:49:
I Googled upcoming 2012 PC exclusives and came up with this link: http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1216513p1.html . Nothing looks like it's pushing significantly more polygons that the consoles. And for my argument thats just more evidence that consoles are holding things back.
Orogogus wrote on Feb 12, 2012, 15:49:
It's just generally hard to believe that there's so much money in high-end PC exclusives, yet every single developer and publisher has opted not to exploit it, and most of the big titles that used to be PC-only (e.g. S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Crysis, Battlefield, Witcher) have gone multiplatform. If it were otherwise, then shouldn't genres still centered on the PC -- strategy games, mostly -- have seen their visuals surge past shooters? Thats because there's far MORE money available in today's market going multiplatform and dumbing down a game in both gameplay and graphics to work on consoles. I.e. going 3 platforms (pc, xbox, ps3) instead of 1 platform.
There's no visual surging because thats not where the most money is right now. My argument is that without consoles holding it back, it would be further advanced than it is today.
And its not just software, its hardware too. Without the software demand, the hardware development has slowed down.
All these things you are pointing at is the current state of the entertainment market today. I'm arguing that without consoles (which is NOT how it is today) it would be far different. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Twitter 
