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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bhruic wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 07:19: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.
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.
Bhruic wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 07:19: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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rigs wrote on Feb 20, 2013, 21:10: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.
Bungie said 'Destiny' would be released for PS3 and PS4, but why?
mag wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 00:00: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.
Come on. Did you really expect them to stick a $500 video card in a $400 console?
jacobvandy wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 02:42: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.
I know we're all used to calling PC versions ports... But with identical hardware, it's not really a port, is it?
Bhruic wrote on Feb 21, 2013, 05:35: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.
If you think that developers will immediately switch to 64 bit simply they are making it for PS4/XboxWhatever, you're delusional.