Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Evening Consolidation

View
79 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >

79. Re: Evening Consolidation Feb 21, 2013, 22:44 ChandlerL
 
Bhruic wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 05:35:
No we wouldn't. Some developers started making DX10 only games when XP was still a substantial share of the market. They were doing exactly what you claimed devs wouldn't do - cutting out a large share of the market.

I hear where you're coming from, Bhruic, except adding token features to a DX10 release (better AA, improved DOF, softer shadows) had more to do with funding from NVIDIA and ATI as well as checking a box. It's not the same thing as creating a game with a larger memory footprint that simply wouldn't fit in a 2GB process without serious extra work and major feature reductions. Many of the folks have been 64-bit for quite many years yet 64-bit >2 GB games are barren. Developing a 64-bit title makes things easier.

SWTOR comes to mind-- there's a recent title who's creators wanted to remain 32-bit to such a degree, they opted to fit their memory footprint in two communicating spawned processes in order to break the 2GB barrier and the games performance suffered for it.

This comment was edited on Feb 21, 2013, 23:21.
 
Avatar 57459
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
78. Re: Evening Consolidation Feb 21, 2013, 22:40 ChandlerL
 
jacobvandy wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 04:04:
First, it's called a representative sample, and it's the largest one we've got. That's how data is collected and analyzed, regardless of what the subject matter is, because it's impossible to collect information from every single person on Earth. Second, supporting 64-bit does NOT exclude 32-bit support... Every game you listed as an example does both.

You said the reason we don't see more 64-bit games is because of the install base of 32-bit operating systems, and I pointed to counter-evidence that most gamers are on a 64-bit OS now. It's not a matter of "if what I said is true," because those are facts. Ergo, the reason we don't have more 64-bit games has to do with something else. Laziness, maybe, or the fact that a sizable chunk of gamers still have 4GB or less of RAM, so 64-bit support wouldn't do anything for them.

Look, I think you and I are agreeing on most things here except for whether Steam is a representative sample of gamers at large. Marc Rein doesn't think so. Neither do the boys over at Activision. Not sure what the other majors think but if I see them at PAX E, I will ask them-- so that's our sticking point here. Nothing's being dismissed but the perception of these guys is what it is. Steam info is readily available to all, yet they don't agree with the numbers Steam is presenting them as representative of their gamers.

The second part you mentioned is perhaps it's because of folks with <4 GB RAM. If I'm to use the Steam numbers as a slice, however, most people have >4 GB RAM-- according to Steam.

At any rate, sounds like we agree on everything except that. Perhaps the big devs out there will come around to the Steam data, and move things forward. Perhaps the 64bit consoles will drag them kicking and screaming to 64-bit PC as well since re-doing it for the lower memory footprint of a 32-bit PC release may present obstacles that impact ROI enough to warrant some market alienation.

Time will tell, mate.

Good conversation, though jacobvandy, keep it comin'. This kind of information gathering from gamers is one of the more enjoyable parts of my job.

This comment was edited on Feb 21, 2013, 23:22.
 
Avatar 57459
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
77. Re: Evening Consolidation Feb 21, 2013, 14:26 ASeven
 
Apparently, development costs of AAA games are going to rise even more.

If they do indeed rise even more then it all fits to what I said would happen right before publishers start crashing hard. The gaming industry cannot and will not be able to sustain bigger development costs.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
76. Re: Evening Consolidation Feb 21, 2013, 11:38 Beamer
 
Bhruic wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 05:35:
Yes, because he gets private stats on what "most PC gamers" are playing on. Funny how you dimiss Steam as being not representative of PC gamers, but then accept Rein's comment on face value.


Please. Laptop sales outnumber desktop sales ridiculously.

I don't think anyone with a brain would argue that far more people play games on laptops than on desktops.

What you need to argue about that is whether those people count. They're people playing Farmville or Yahoo Sudoku or Minesweeper. Those casual users just don't matter when discussing a hardcore game. They'll never play XCOM or even Gears of War.

So yeah, there's a ton of money to make off of them, but don't do what Nintendo did and assume you can throw them the same stuff you throw hardcore gamers and make anyone happy.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
75. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 21, 2013, 11:22 Creston
 
Verno wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 08:30:
Bhruic wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 07:19:

Not to mention the fact that there's no reason for them to make use of the 8gb of RAM. Just because the system has it available, doesn't mean it will necessarily get used.

It's rumored the Xbox successor will reserve up to 3GB for OS bullshit which just lends credence to the idea that devs will likely not go above 4-5GB due to multiplatform concerns. I have no idea what the fuck Microsoft needs 3GB for in a console, just seems nuts.

Well, plastering 187 ads on the dashboard takes up a good chunk of memory, ya know?

Creston
 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
74. Re: More Big Picture Details Feb 21, 2013, 09:53 HorrorScope
 
Ozmodan wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 08:47:
Gee the PS4 will be about as good as my 3 year old PC, not bad. Bet AMD gave them a great deal. Doubt I will ever purchase one as I would rather spend that 500 on a much faster PC.

I bet it will run in comparison to pc's around $1000 once benches get out. That said, the controller for almost everything mentality pretty much wipes a console out of my future at any price, even if given to me for free. Sure I'd take it, but I'd still be on my pc playing.
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
73. Re: More Big Picture Details Feb 21, 2013, 09:49 HorrorScope
 
Bhruic wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 07:19:
Not to mention the fact that there's no reason for them to make use of the 8gb of RAM. Just because the system has it available, doesn't mean it will necessarily get used.

Whatever is free will all be used up in many games, if nothing else they'll be less efficient. But texture rez is going to get a huge boost as will level size, memory usage + memory usage.

I point to more memory as the big win for pc gamers. That goes in line with consoles pushing 64 bit gaming forward on the PC. Console updates have that affect, this is what pushes some people to finally update.
 
Avatar 17232
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
72. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 21, 2013, 09:33 nin
 
ASeven wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 08:31:
Makes me wonder on the price. I can't see this being sold at a price of around $400 without Sony selling each unit at a loss.

Anything about $499 is suicide, in todays market. $449 is pushing it. I wish they wouldn't go the tiered route of base entry and a moderate price and high end at a ludicrous price (Though I suspect they will).

 
http://www.nin.com/pub/tension/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
71. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 21, 2013, 09:14 kyleb
 
Bhruic wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 07:19:
It's interesting how you managed to explain the reason they won't switch to 64 bit immediately in your first two sentences, but still suggested they will in your last.
Those first two sentences you quoted do explain why some early next generation multi-platform games won't necessitate 64 bit for the PC versions, but I've no doubt others will.

Bhruic wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 07:19:
Not to mention the fact that there's no reason for them to make use of the 8gb of RAM. Just because the system has it available, doesn't mean it will necessarily get used.
Quite to the contrary, because it's there it will get used. Not by all games of course, and not efficiently by many developers at least early on, but some are bound to have already been working on ways to use it in games that will come out along with the launch of the new consoles or shortly thereafter.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
70. Re: Evening Consolidation Feb 21, 2013, 08:52 Verno
 
Styrbjorn wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 08:40:
I'm curious if the 8 cores of the PS4 are powerful enough to properly emulate the 1+7 core cell processor of the PS3. Not a given since emulation incurs large performance losses. But since the core counts line up... maybe. And if so, if it would ever be implemented. Backwards compatibility would make it a day one purchase for me.

The AMD processor they're using wouldn't be anywhere near powerful enough, some guy was hacking on a very basic emulator and said it would be a 50:1 CPU power factor and that we might not see a proper emulator for a decade. They will be using some form of Cell SoC to facilitate the streaming of PS3 games I imagine. The PS4 will just be running a streaming client for those basically.

I am disappointed in lack of BC but if it can help make the price more palatable and they have good launch games then I don't think it'll be a hard sell.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Infamous Second Son, Madden
Watching: Spartan, Possible Worlds, The Changeling
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
69. Re: Evening Consolidation Feb 21, 2013, 08:47 Ozmodan
 
Gee the PS4 will be about as good as my 3 year old PC, not bad. Bet AMD gave them a great deal. Doubt I will ever purchase one as I would rather spend that 500 on a much faster PC.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
68. Re: Evening Consolidation Feb 21, 2013, 08:40 Styrbjorn
 
I'm curious if the 8 cores of the PS4 are powerful enough to properly emulate the 1+7 core cell processor of the PS3. Not a given since emulation incurs large performance losses. But since the core counts line up... maybe. And if so, if it would ever be implemented. Backwards compatibility would make it a day one purchase for me.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
67. Re: Evening Consolidation Feb 21, 2013, 08:36 Verno
 
Oh and since you asked earlier Redmask, Sony will not be blocking used games it seems. That's what they told Eurogamer on the record so hopefully they stay true to that.  
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Infamous Second Son, Madden
Watching: Spartan, Possible Worlds, The Changeling
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
66. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 21, 2013, 08:31 ASeven
 
Makes me wonder on the price. I can't see this being sold at a price of around $400 without Sony selling each unit at a loss.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
65. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 21, 2013, 08:30 Verno
 
Bhruic wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 07:19:

Not to mention the fact that there's no reason for them to make use of the 8gb of RAM. Just because the system has it available, doesn't mean it will necessarily get used.

It's rumored the Xbox successor will reserve up to 3GB for OS bullshit which just lends credence to the idea that devs will likely not go above 4-5GB due to multiplatform concerns. I have no idea what the fuck Microsoft needs 3GB for in a console, just seems nuts.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Infamous Second Son, Madden
Watching: Spartan, Possible Worlds, The Changeling
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
64. Re: Evening Consolidation Feb 21, 2013, 07:24 Redmask
 
Not many places are linking the specs part of the press kit for some reason: http://i.imgur.com/GnZ3Hdq.png

6x BD drive, about time! Looks like they are going with the same integration as the PS3 with builtin peripherals instead of the MS rape you approach.
 
Avatar 57682
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
63. Re: Evening Consolidation Feb 21, 2013, 07:23 Bhruic
 
InBlack wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 06:25:
Bhruic one little correction to your post, the DX10 push was not done out of the goodness of their heart, Nvidia and ATI/AMD gave developers a lot of 'push' to move in that direction, not to mention the DX10 exclusivity that was limited to Vista and the MS push for gamers to adopt that OS.

Well, that's not really a correction, as I didn't say they did it from the goodness of their heart, but yes, they did get encouragement to adopt it. But that's really part of my point - they are willing to do it if there's a good reason to do it. There's no sufficiently good reason to make 64 bit at this point.

Indeed, we have plenty of games today that have both DX9 and DX11 features. So developers are obviously well familiar, as well as comfortable with the idea of creating feature options. And yet how many games come out with 32 bit and 64 bit exes? It's understandable that we don't have any exclusive 64 bit games, but we have very few - if any - games that even have the option. Developers obviously aren't interested in making 64 bit games at this point.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
62. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 21, 2013, 07:19 Bhruic
 
kyleb wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 07:06:
Because money. There's a lot more people with PS3s and 360s out there to buy the game than there will be people with PS4s and the new Xboxs for a long time.

...

When designing games to utilize anywhere near the 8gb of RAM on the consoles for more than just fancier graphics, they're going to have to use 64 bit for the PC versions.

It's interesting how you managed to explain the reason they won't switch to 64 bit immediately in your first two sentences, but still suggested they will in your last.

Not to mention the fact that there's no reason for them to make use of the 8gb of RAM. Just because the system has it available, doesn't mean it will necessarily get used.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
61. Re: Out of the Blue Feb 21, 2013, 07:06 kyleb
 
Rigs wrote on Feb 20, 2013, 21:10:
Bungie said 'Destiny' would be released for PS3 and PS4, but why?
Because money. There's a lot more people with PS3s and 360s out there to buy the game than there will be people with PS4s and the new Xboxs for a long time.

mag wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 00:00:
Come on. Did you really expect them to stick a $500 video card in a $400 console?
MS proved such feats possible with both the 360 and original Xbox, but I wasn't holding my breath, and am not expecting the 360's GPU to be much different than the PS4's.

jacobvandy wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 02:42:
I know we're all used to calling PC versions ports... But with identical hardware, it's not really a port, is it?
It is, much like PC games which are later converted to run on Linux are ports. That said, a lot of people incessantly misuse the the term port to refer to what are actually multi-platform developed games.

Bhruic wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 05:35:
If you think that developers will immediately switch to 64 bit simply they are making it for PS4/XboxWhatever, you're delusional.
When designing games to utilize anywhere near the 8gb of RAM on the consoles for more than just fancier graphics, they're going to have to use 64 bit for the PC versions.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
60. Re: Evening Consolidation Feb 21, 2013, 06:25 InBlack
 
Bhruic one little correction to your post, the DX10 push was not done out of the goodness of their heart, Nvidia and ATI/AMD gave developers a lot of 'push' to move in that direction, not to mention the DX10 exclusivity that was limited to Vista and the MS push for gamers to adopt that OS.  
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
79 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo