Do Developers Take Advantage Of PC Hardware Enough?

So Ive been through many gaming rigs and theres something thats been bugging me from the start that I didnt want to admit. I think what sucks about PC gaming is that PC developers dont take full advantage of PC hardware. Console versions are refined and optimized to get the most out of the closed platform. PC owners are expected to just throw their best hardware at the game and hope for the best.

My GPU alone costs more than a brand new PS3, yet the best I can do is bump my resolution to 1920x1200 and high textures with 2xAA on. The cost of my current computer is 5 times that of a brand new PS3 yet Im not feeling 5x the performance and eye candy increase. I just dont feel the price to performance ratio is right. Anyone agree?

Of course not,they never did and never will for obvious reasons.

Of course not,they never did and never will for obvious reasons.

Arach666

That's the correct answer.

Of course not,they never did and never will for obvious reasons.

Arach666

Any more questions?

This is gonna be a pretty clear cut poll. If they constantly got the most from PC's all the time we wouldn't have games like today. They would be far superior technically. There are a lot of things holding PC gaming back from full glory

[QUOTE="charizard1605"]No, they're too busy optimizing games for consoles, and then porting them to the PC. Some games, however, like Crysis and Metro 2033 are designed to exploit powerful PC hardware.Heil68

But these games are still held back by certain hardware limitations. Like the fact that PC gaming could have developed a lot more by now if not for consoles taking over within the last while. If people only focused on PC we would have better games nowadays. Also the price it costs to get all the latest and greatest hardware is another limitation that hinders dev's from really opening up the PC experience. They need to optimise constantly and take stuff out etc so that it runs smoothly

I agree with you with the price/performance thing. I say No to Devs taking advantage of PC hardware.

But there's something you need to understand. Consoles have the same hardware (as in every PS3 is the same, every Xbox360 is same and so on)... so EVERYONE has the same hardware, so they know exactly what they are working with.

For PC, you have so many combination of hardware that it's pretty much impossible to properly set a target. You dev with low graphics, people will complain that it's console like graphics, you dev it with high-end graphics, people will complain they get low fps cause their pc is horrible.

There are way more people that are clueless about PC hardware. People think they can game with Integrated graphics chips or the speed of just the CPU alone tells you if you can play or not.

No they dont which is kind of sad.:evil:

no, have games even taken full advantage of DX 9 or 10?

Doesn't matter. Companies wanna make money. Hermits think they should go out of their way to please them and it isn't gonna happen. Do they utilize it enough? Yes. They put games on it. That is enough. If hermits do not like the result they should not buy it. If they would quit complaining about it so often they might actually have time to enjoy the game. What a novel idea!

There are a good amount of games that push my rig to the max, that is enough for me. Although I do wish there were more, I don't really mind. And for those games that don't use a lot of PC power and are often console ports, you can Nvidia Surround, Eyenfinity. or 3D them up and have a unique experience.

Of course not,they never did and never will for obvious reasons.

Arach666

This.

Doesn't stop many games from looking a gen ahead, though. And doesn't change the fact that many awesome games simply can't be done on consoles (especially RTS games, which I happen to love).

Not since the market had hit a cost bottleneck. The market as a whole has been lowest common denominator specification limited for years now, and even in the rare case of PC utilizing games; there is still console involvement limiting the games potential. With PC's benefits being largely cosmetic.

A great deal of developers tend to just carbon copy the console version onto PC, which is cost efficient, although quite frankly lazy. They could easily enhance the PC version in some manner, even if it just meant using a less compressed/downscaled version of the raw art assets.

Of course not,they never did and never will for obvious reasons.

Arach666

But it used to be much better in 90s and early 2000s, PCs were truly pushed to their limits back then. I remember game with absolute blast graphics (i.e. Incoming) being obsolete severeal MONTHS later. Something like Crysis being regarded to as a graphics king 4 years after its release was unimaginable back than. Now high profile PC games just dont sell except a few truly great ones (Starcraft 2, The Witcher), thats why devs dont invest as much to PC games and rather port console games over to PC.

EDIT: BTW do you guys remember INCOMING? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STxx2dxBECk

That game was first to show us what Pentium 166 MHz with 3Dfx Voodoo can REALLY do. It was a beast graphically back then.

[QUOTE="Arach666"]

Of course not,they never did and never will for obvious reasons.

BlbecekBobecek

But it used to be much better in 90s and early 2000s, PCs were truly pushed to their limits back then. I remember game with absolute blast graphics (i.e. Incoming) being obsolete severeal MONTHS later. Something like Crysis being regarded to as a graphics king 4 years after its release was unimaginable back than. Now high profile PC games just dont sell except a few truly great ones (Starcraft 2, The Witcher), thats why devs dont invest as much to PC games and rather port console games over to PC.

No,it wasn´t much better,it was just diferent. And not many games "pushed the PC limits" back then,not more than they do now.

Back then,the speed of wich graphics cars advanced was not very good for the consumer and it was in those days that the notion of having to upgrade some parts of your PC around at least once per year was a lot more prevalent and not as nonsensical as when you hear it these days,now a good system lasts you 3/4 years(at least) and still runs most games at near top quality and performances. "Back in the day",that was unthinkable. So in many ways,it´s a good thing.

And with the exception of Half Life,Starcraft and Myst when did high profile PC games sell more than Starcraft 2(6M or so)in the 90´s,eh? Some people seem to think that PC games sold millions and millions in the past and now sell like crap when in most cases they actually in general sell more these days.

no they dont one thing i don't like about the pc is all the wasted potential

[QUOTE="BlbecekBobecek"]

[QUOTE="Arach666"]

Of course not,they never did and never will for obvious reasons.

Arach666

But it used to be much better in 90s and early 2000s, PCs were truly pushed to their limits back then. I remember game with absolute blast graphics (i.e. Incoming) being obsolete severeal MONTHS later. Something like Crysis being regarded to as a graphics king 4 years after its release was unimaginable back than. Now high profile PC games just dont sell except a few truly great ones (Starcraft 2, The Witcher), thats why devs dont invest as much to PC games and rather port console games over to PC.

No,it wasn´t much better,it was just diferent. And not many games "pushed the PC limits" back then,not more than they do now.

Back then,the speed of wich graphics cars advanced was not very good for the consumer and it was in those days that the notion of having to upgrade some parts of your PC around at least once per year was a lot more prevalent and not as nonsensical as when you hear it these days,now a good system lasts you 3/4 years(at least) and still runs most games at near top quality and performances. "Back in the day",that was unthinkable. So in many ways,it´s a good thing.

And with the exception of Half Life,Starcraft and Myst when did high profile PC games sell more than Starcraft 2(6M or so)in the 90´s,eh? Some people seem to think that PC games sold millions and millions in the past and now sell like crap when in most cases they actually in general sell more these days.

I dont think it was bad for consumers. Everybody was so excited about gaming (as far as I remember) that they gladly spent their extra cash for new piece of hardware - because there was a reason to do so. The leap between Voodo2 (1998 ) and GeForce 256 (1999) was HUGE (and there were many steps between - Riva TNT, ATI RAGE 128 ). Now a guy with 2011 cutting edge rig looks at the same graphics he looked when he had 2008 cutting edge rig (probably maxed out Crysis :) ).

Hopefully now it starts to break with next gen consoles around the corner.

[QUOTE="Arach666"]

Of course not,they never did and never will for obvious reasons.

BlbecekBobecek

But it used to be much better in 90s and early 2000s, PCs were truly pushed to their limits back then. I remember game with absolute blast graphics (i.e. Incoming) being obsolete severeal MONTHS later. Something like Crysis being regarded to as a graphics king 4 years after its release was unimaginable back than. Now high profile PC games just dont sell except a few truly great ones (Starcraft 2, The Witcher), thats why devs dont invest as much to PC games and rather port console games over to PC.

EDIT: BTW do you guys remember INCOMING? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STxx2dxBECk

That game was first to show us what Pentium 166 MHz with 3Dfx Voodoo can REALLY do. It was a beast graphically back then.

Not really. Just Crysis and maybe the pc version of Battlefield 3 but that's it.

They dont, but they dont have to to be much much more powerful than any other system...

Nope, the computer gaming market (read: yourselves) hasn't showed itself to be profitable enough for them to develop 100% for as opposed to simultaneous console development. A few uber devs like Blizzard can because...well, they're Blizzard. As soon as you guys start purchasing enough copies to more than make up for potential console sales, Developers will start focusing on your group again. It won't happen anytime soon so don't hold your breath...

I blame lack of talent/time/money.

Nope, the computer gaming market (read: yourselves) hasn't showed itself to be profitable enough for them to develop 100% for as opposed to simultaneous console development. A few uber devs like Blizzard can because...well, they're Blizzard. As soon as you guys start purchasing enough copies to more than make up for potential console sales, Developers will start focusing on your group again. It won't happen anytime soon so don't hold your breath...

Bruin1986

And PC game sales do warrant the extra effort in many cases, even ones you wouldn't expect. Take Codemasters and their F1 series for example, they made F1 2010 as a multiplat on all versions and made the PC version better but not as much as they could. Then they were taken by surprise at how large a chunk of sales PC held, and now they more or less have a team dedicated to making the PC version of F1 2011 better.

And for exclusives it really isn't that bad either. Witcher 2 is a graphical powerhouse that so far has only been released for PC only, it made profitable in 1 week and CD have said they are in an extremely good position financially. Meanwhile Bulletstorm from Epic and People Can Fly, a multiplat from developers with more overall prestige then CD project wasn't profitable, despite being out for even longer.

And Creative Assembly, another dev developing PC only games, and creating games that push graphics is a studio that is doing amazing, and expanding rapidly, compared to many of other Sega devs who are struggling.

[QUOTE="Bruin1986"]

Nope, the computer gaming market (read: yourselves) hasn't showed itself to be profitable enough for them to develop 100% for as opposed to simultaneous console development. A few uber devs like Blizzard can because...well, they're Blizzard. As soon as you guys start purchasing enough copies to more than make up for potential console sales, Developers will start focusing on your group again. It won't happen anytime soon so don't hold your breath...

ferret-gamer

And PC game sales do warrant the extra effort in many cases, even ones you wouldn't expect. Take Codemasters and their F1 series for example, they made F1 2010 as a multiplat on all versions and made the PC version better but not as much as they could. Then they were taken by surprise at how large a chunk of sales PC held, and now they more or less have a team dedicated to making the PC version of F1 2011 better.

And for exclusives it really isn't that bad either. Witcher 2 is a graphical powerhouse that so far has only been released for PC only, it made profitable in 1 week and CD have said they are in an extremely good position financially even enough to weather lawsuits. Meanwhile Bulletstorm from Epic and People Can Fly, a multiplat from developers with more overall prestige then CD project wasn't profitable, despite being out for even longer.

And Creative Assembly, another dev developing PC only games, and creating games that push graphics is a studio that is doing amazing, and expanding rapidly, compared to many of other Sega devs who are struggling.

Would taking advantage of PC hardware to the fullest earn them more money? I don't think it would and apparently neither do they.

Well I see like this there are games that take advantage of PC hardware just like games that take advantage of PS3 hardware but when it comes to multiplats both are usually held back by the X360 since they are given straight ports except PC version can still look and perform better. I noticed that PCs are starting to be lead and developers are starting to acknowledge their potential,Crysis 2 DX11, Battlefield 3, Far Cry 3, Deus Ex HR, Metro Last Light, Doom 4, ArmA 3, The Witcher 2, that space shooter FutureMark is making, and etc. For games that don't if they have mod tools we'll wait for someone to make em.

Another problem is the whiny people who refuse to upgrade and expect magic to happen.

"Waaaah I'm not upgrading from GT 6800 to play Crysis 2 in DX11 because DX8/9 is perfectly fine and I know that."

"DX11 is a rip off screw you DX11 cards I'm sticking with my 7800 GT!" These idiots fail to realize even if DX11 isn't being used the cards will still perform a lot better.

PC has the technology to have more advance games. People say developers can't do it cause of development and PC alone can't support the budget. It's false. Development cost are rising for consoles because they have really weak hardware that requires invest a lot of money in order to get graphics like Uncharted 3 or GeOW3. Graphics like that can and has been easily put onto PC's since they don't require as much optimization since they have the raw power. If The Witcher 2 was done on a budget of no more then 8 million and destroys any console games graphics imagine if we had a big budget like Crysis in modern times!

Another problem is Intel, AMD, and Nvidia trying to kill each other over who buys their high-end software. Intel was going the right way when they were paying a dev to make Project Offset sadly they were using the game to flagship Larrabee their failure APU/Cell wanna be which failed to a success so they cancelled the game. I see a lot of talent of Graphics from Nvidia and AMD so it confuses me why don't they make games it would encourage more people to get high-end hardware and PC Gaming. They made the hardware so they'll know how to optimize games for it like putting a plug in a outlet. But instead Nvidia waste their money for things like making games and benchmarks perform crappier on AMD GPUs so people will buy there's instead, or AMD and Nvidia rebranding models.

Benchmark makers should also consider making games I know FutureMark tried but it didn't take off well with Shattered Horizon since it had a learning people weren't use to in shooters. I see they are going to try again but making a space shooter based on that 3d vantage benchmark although it would be nice if they used 3D marks potential.

I mean C'mon if PC's could do this in 2006 and is comparable to the best looking console games right now then why can't we be more

Would taking advantage of PC hardware to the fullest earn them more money? I don't think it would and apparently neither do they.

ShyGuy0504

Same could be said about console hardware, I mean uncharted2 sure as **** does not look like crysis2.

Would taking advantage of PC hardware to the fullest earn them more money? I don't think it would and apparently neither do they.

ShyGuy0504

Yes it would look at witcher 2, Total War, and Metro 2033 these are some examples they are very profitable for the companies, CD PRojekt got all their development money back in only a week and stilling selling a lot of copies, Metro 2033 on PC outsould Xbox 360 which allowed 4A to be able to make Metro Last Light and have the budget to hire PS3 specialist. Creative Asssembly is the most profitable company out of all of Sega and the rest of them make multiplats.

PC Community shows that if you actually give us a game respectfully made for our platform and not some lazily made console port put in only for extra profit we will give you the money that we'd normally only fork over to Blizzard and Valve.

Who the heck voted Yes? You don't deserve a PC :PJohnF111

I voted yes :?

but only because there are some games that do or will take advantage of our hardware.

I remember my friend dropped like 4k on a new gaming rig when Black Ops came out, and it just looked like the console version with a bit higher of resolution and better anti aliasing. It was pretty funny.