Flatline wrote on Sep 6, 2014, 18:21:
This isn't anything new though. Back in the day of gaming mags and even of current web news sites, we see screenshots that are in no way representitive of the final product. They're rendered at insanely high resolution with all bells and whistles turned on and they look *fantastic*.
I could probably, with a little digging, pull up an in-development screenshot of Half-life 2 that still looks better than what I can render on my PC with all the bells & whistles turned on.
Beamer wrote on Sep 6, 2014, 16:18:
This isn't calling out. Calling out is saying you won't buy into lies, and literally won't pay for them. Companies then have an incentive to be more transparent.
This is suing. Setting a legal precedent. Companies then stop doing things altogether, because the financial reward becomes a financial penalty.
This isn't anything new though. Back in the day of gaming mags and even of current web news sites, we see screenshots that are in no way representitive of the final product. They're rendered at insanely high resolution with all bells and whistles turned on and they look *fantastic*.
Redmask wrote on Sep 6, 2014, 15:06:
They have no problem showing off unpolished alphas, they just mock them up specifically for the show and run them on PC hardware with settings the console versions will never see. We've seen it all before, don't tell me it doesn't happen. Games don't change post cert without a patch either. We're not even talking about minor changes or optimization.
Don't talk to me about expectations and blame it on the consumer either, they were the ones who built the expectations and continually try to up the ante by selling people on graphics alone. What I want out a 'gameplay' demo is something remotely representative of the finished product. People are calling out companies for making drastic shifts in what they are shown and what is delivered, I don't see how that's a bad thing. Companies have been getting away with too much there for awhile now.
Redmask wrote on Sep 6, 2014, 15:06:
They have no problem showing off unpolished alphas, they just mock them up specifically for the show and run them on PC hardware with settings the console versions will never see. We've seen it all before, don't tell me it doesn't happen. Games don't change post cert without a patch either. We're not even talking about minor changes or optimization.
Don't talk to me about expectations and blame it on the consumer either, they were the ones who built the expectations and continually try to up the ante by selling people on graphics alone. What I want out a 'gameplay' demo is something remotely representative of the finished product. People are calling out companies for making drastic shifts in what they are shown and what is delivered, I don't see how that's a bad thing. Companies have been getting away with too much there for awhile now.
Redmask wrote on Sep 6, 2014, 10:53:
The E3 video is effectively advertising. I don't see how rigging up $3000.00 PC kits could ever be construed as an innocent attempt to showcase your game when the actual running conditions are vastly different. They didn't even run it on AMD APUs like the consoles. Nefarious is a strong word to use, lets adjust that to something more appropriate like simple greed or pressure from above. I don't think there was a master villain gleefully rubbing his hands together behind the scenes but I do think that companies make these sorts of decisions knowing full well that they are deceiving consumers. It's more mundane and less dramatic but the effect is the same.
Redmask wrote on Sep 5, 2014, 19:12:jdreyer wrote on Sep 5, 2014, 17:31:Beamer wrote on Sep 5, 2014, 15:15:
I dunno, I've never met a dev that want to intentionally mislead.
I've also never met Randy Pitchford.
Yeah, like I said there could be a fairly innocent explanation of them just wanting to show off the engine to its full potential.
That's not innocent when its not representative of what people will actually get when they buy the product. Before someone mentions that products in development are always changing, yes absolutely they are but remember that we're posting in the Aliens: Colonial Marines topic where there was blatantly misleading advertising material used.
jdreyer wrote on Sep 5, 2014, 17:31:Beamer wrote on Sep 5, 2014, 15:15:
I dunno, I've never met a dev that want to intentionally mislead.
I've also never met Randy Pitchford.
Yeah, like I said there could be a fairly innocent explanation of them just wanting to show off the engine to its full potential.
Beamer wrote on Sep 5, 2014, 15:15:
I dunno, I've never met a dev that want to intentionally mislead.
I've also never met Randy Pitchford.
jdreyer wrote on Sep 5, 2014, 14:57:Beamer wrote on Sep 4, 2014, 21:31:
Eh, when you get down to it, these decisions are usually not made by some "marketing drone," they're made by some combination of the dev team and the producer, none of whom I think are sophisticated enough to try to pull the wool over consumer's eyes, and by the studio PR manager, who usually is more concerned with having to deal with fallout to want to mislead.
First, the top devs in the industry are extremely smart people. I wouldn't make assumptions.
Second, it might not be a nasty tricksy thing, but it could just be pride, or wanting to put your best foot forward, or whatever: "Let's turn on all the bells and whistles for PAX! Get five machines each with an 8 core proc OC'd at 5GHz, 32 GB of RAM, 1 TB raid 0 SSDs, and Quad SLI! Then we'll turn on ambient occlussion, use TXAA, max out tessellation and PhysX all on a 4K screen. It'll look AWESOME!"
Beamer wrote on Sep 4, 2014, 21:31:
Eh, when you get down to it, these decisions are usually not made by some "marketing drone," they're made by some combination of the dev team and the producer, none of whom I think are sophisticated enough to try to pull the wool over consumer's eyes, and by the studio PR manager, who usually is more concerned with having to deal with fallout to want to mislead.
Creston wrote on Sep 4, 2014, 16:04:
Dude, please. The game runs straight up on the PC's ludicrously more powerful hardware. If you seriously believe they have it running in a fucking emulated Xbone environment, I have an emulated copy of the Golden Gate bridge to sell you.
All the Xbone games shown at the very first E3 were ALL straight up running on high-end PCs, not on the shitty Xbone hardware.
jdreyer wrote on Sep 4, 2014, 19:30:Beamer wrote on Sep 4, 2014, 16:07:
But I still don't think that's done to make a game look better. It's done because it's just much more feasible.
You could be right. And the government is only using the tenets of the Patriot Act to go after terrorists. They'd never take advantage of any ancillary benefits the law provided.
Oh, wait...
Beamer wrote on Sep 4, 2014, 16:07:
But I still don't think that's done to make a game look better. It's done because it's just much more feasible.
Creston wrote on Sep 4, 2014, 16:04:
Dude, please. The game runs straight up on the PC's ludicrously more powerful hardware. If you seriously believe they have it running in a fucking emulated Xbone environment, I have an emulated copy of the Golden Gate bridge to sell you.
All the Xbone games shown at the very first E3 were ALL straight up running on high-end PCs, not on the shitty Xbone hardware.
Creston wrote on Sep 4, 2014, 15:46:Beamer wrote on Sep 4, 2014, 13:37:
The games are often running in an Xbox environment on the PC.
Yeah, and my dick is 12 inches too.
Verno wrote on Sep 4, 2014, 15:06:Fantaz wrote on Sep 4, 2014, 14:15:
i'm pretty sure they never do this at the official Microsoft booths, if ever only from the independent developer booths at expos.
I'm pretty sure its happened several times before but I don't care enough to go hunt down links about it.