Hardware Limitations Are Ruining the Gaming Industry

No matter how much developers talk about their abilities, they must admit that hardware is always holding them back.

• The 360 and PS3 were obsolete before they even came out. Evolution of the medium is slowed down to a crawl.
• [Most] PC games can't be optimized for the very best hardware because they want to sell their game to the masses.

Only the cloud can allow gaming to evolve at the pace of technology.

Developers can take full advantage of the best hardware.

Developers define the hardware instead of the hardware defining them.

Just think about this for a moment...

• If the PS3 and 360 can pull off amazing games by taking full advantage of their hardware, just imagine what games would be like if all developers could take advantage of the very best hardware we have today.
• Crysis is the perfect example of what would happen if a developer takes advantage of the best hardware on the PC platform. Most people are left out. Only a select few are able to play the game at its best.

Also, human bodies are ruining our evolution into celestial beings.

some games cost over 100 million to make . Better hardware will make everything so much more expensive . unless you want to pay 89.99 a game you better not push devs to much .

No matter how much developers talk about their abilities, they must admit that hardware is always holding them back.

• The 360 and PS3 were obsolete before they even came out. Evolution of the medium is slowed down to a crawl.
• Most PC games can't be optimized for the very best hardware because they want to sell their game to the masses.

Rikusaki

Why in the world does the pc has to have games that are design for the high end pc market?

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

No matter how much developers talk about their abilities, they must admit that hardware is always holding them back.

• The 360 and PS3 were obsolete before they even came out. Evolution of the medium is slowed down to a crawl.
• Most PC games can't be optimized for the very best hardware because they want to sell their game to the masses.

alexside1

Why in the world does the pc has to have games that are design for the high end pc market?

some games cost over 100 million to make . Better hardware will make everything so much more expensive . unless you want to pay 89.99 a game you better not push devs to much .

dontshackzmii

some games cost over 100 million to make . Better hardware will make everything so much more expensive . unless you want to pay 89.99 a game you better not push devs to much .

dontshackzmii

Most games are below 40 Mil and sometimes the advertisement budget eclipse the games budget.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

No matter how much developers talk about their abilities, they must admit that hardware is always holding them back.

• The 360 and PS3 were obsolete before they even came out. Evolution of the medium is slowed down to a crawl.
• Most PC games can't be optimized for the very best hardware because they want to sell their game to the masses.

Rikusaki

Why in the world does the pc has to have games that are design for the high end pc market?

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"][QUOTE="alexside1"]

Why in the world does the pc has to have games that are design for the high end pc market?

alexside1

Nice move... we all know he's trying to get there eventually.

Imagine.. that some of my favorite games could fit on a 1.44inch floppy drive and run on a cpu from 1995.... I don't think hardware limitations are holding back my enjoyment of gaming.. dotWithShoes

[QUOTE="dotWithShoes"]Imagine.. that some of my favorite games could fit on a 1.44inch floppy drive and run on a cpu from 1995.... I don't think hardware limitations are holding back my enjoyment of gaming.. Rikusaki

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

No matter how much developers talk about their abilities, they must admit that hardware is always holding them back.

• The 360 and PS3 were obsolete before they even came out. Evolution of the medium is slowed down to a crawl.
• Most PC games can't be optimized for the very best hardware because they want to sell their game to the masses.

Rikusaki

Why in the world does the pc has to have games that are design for the high end pc market?

"THE CLOUD" IS NOTHING MORETHAN A BUNCH OF PCs. ONLY PC CAN KEEP UP WITH TECHNOLOGY.

OnLive isn't the answer, no where close. It leaves people out who don't have T1 connections for the uber fast speeds OnLive requires for a lag-free experience. Not to mention it looks worse than consoles right now.

Yes they can be optmized for the masses. Pretty sure developers optimize for DirectX, and video cards are designed to speed that up.

OnLive is a good idea in theroy, TERRIBLE IDEA IN EXECUTION. What you are saying makes no sense either.

Crysis is a terrible example. It was DESIGNED FOR FUTURE HARDWARE. Seriously, "the cloud" isn't some sort of mystical computers that can solve cancer that you say it is, so stop acting like it (and advertising OnLive) because its quite annoying.

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

some games cost over 100 million to make . Better hardware will make everything so much more expensive . unless you want to pay 89.99 a game you better not push devs to much .

-RocBoys9489-

And cloud gaming is held back by the modern limitations of Internet speed and bandwidth. :Ptagyhag

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"][QUOTE="dotWithShoes"]Imagine.. that some of my favorite games could fit on a 1.44inch floppy drive and run on a cpu from 1995.... I don't think hardware limitations are holding back my enjoyment of gaming.. dotWithShoes

The NES hardware was outdated by arcade games and the Sega Master System, guess nobody wanted one.

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"]

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

some games cost over 100 million to make . Better hardware will make everything so much more expensive . unless you want to pay 89.99 a game you better not push devs to much .

heretrix

Shenmue cost 70 million to develop.

That was on the Dreamcast...DREAMCAST.

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"]

[QUOTE="dontshackzmii"]

some games cost over 100 million to make . Better hardware will make everything so much more expensive . unless you want to pay 89.99 a game you better not push devs to much .

heretrix

but anyways im wondering how much GT5 cost to make, anyone got some estimates?

edit:Never mind i dont know how i missed that in your post lol

. The image quality you get on a specific connection doesn't stop the developers from making cutting-edge games.Rikusaki

oh for gods sake.

design hasn't been limited since the ps2, just because technical compromises are made doesn't make the experience any less great.

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]And cloud gaming is held back by the modern limitations of Internet speed and bandwidth. :PRikusaki

"THE CLOUD" IS NOTHING MORETHAN A BUNCH OF PCs. ONLY PC CAN KEEP UP WITH TECHNOLOGY.

Yes they can be optmized for the masses. Pretty sure developers optimize for DirectX, and video cards are designed to speed that up.

OnLive is a good idea in theroy, TERRIBLE IDEA IN EXECUTION. What you are saying makes no sense either.

Crysis is a terrible example. It was DESIGNED FOR FUTURE HARDWARE. Seriously, "the cloud" isn't some sort of mystical computers that can solve cancer that you say it is, so stop acting like it (and advertising OnLive) because its quite annoying.

ChubbyGuy40

When everyone has access to the same hardware, developers can take full adantage of that hardware without leaving people out.

You know, like a console. ;)

On the PC, there's massive fragmentation. With Crysis, only a select few can run the game at it's best.

If OnLive had servers that could run Crysis at maximum, then everyone would have an equal expericence (assuming internet connections are perfect).

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

"THE CLOUD" IS NOTHING MORETHAN A BUNCH OF PCs. ONLY PC CAN KEEP UP WITH TECHNOLOGY.

Yes they can be optmized for the masses. Pretty sure developers optimize for DirectX, and video cards are designed to speed that up.

OnLive is a good idea in theroy, TERRIBLE IDEA IN EXECUTION. What you are saying makes no sense either.

Crysis is a terrible example. It was DESIGNED FOR FUTURE HARDWARE. Seriously, "the cloud" isn't some sort of mystical computers that can solve cancer that you say it is, so stop acting like it (and advertising OnLive) because its quite annoying.

Rikusaki

On the PC, there's massive fragmentation. With Crysis, only a select few can run the game at it's best.

Assuming that pc gamers can't change their settings.

The idea that every game needs to push boundaries is what's killing the industry.

Someone posted a thread about CliffyB saying that we need more middle-class games. Couldn't have agreed more. I'd buy some many more games if they were only $30 - $40.

Not every game needs to be a Crysis - throw me a Amnesia and I'd be just as happy (if not more)

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

[QUOTE="-RocBoys9489-"] Wait, what?!

Deadbeatcobra

but anyways im wondering how much GT5 cost to make, anyone got some estimates?

edit:Never mind i dont know how i missed that in your post lol

I have my issues whith the game but I gotta admit the updates keep it fresh. They add new races almost every two weeks..It's very high in my game rotation...

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

[QUOTE="ChubbyGuy40"]

"THE CLOUD" IS NOTHING MORETHAN A BUNCH OF PCs. ONLY PC CAN KEEP UP WITH TECHNOLOGY.

Yes they can be optmized for the masses. Pretty sure developers optimize for DirectX, and video cards are designed to speed that up.

OnLive is a good idea in theroy, TERRIBLE IDEA IN EXECUTION. What you are saying makes no sense either.

Crysis is a terrible example. It was DESIGNED FOR FUTURE HARDWARE. Seriously, "the cloud" isn't some sort of mystical computers that can solve cancer that you say it is, so stop acting like it (and advertising OnLive) because its quite annoying.

alexside1

On the PC, there's massive fragmentation. With Crysis, only a select few can run the game at its best.

Assuming that pc gamers can't change their settings.

Yes because we all want our videogames to be something akin to that awful Avatar movie :roll:

When everyone has access to the same hardware, developers can take full adantage of that hardware without leaving people out.

You know, like a console. ;)

On the PC, there's massive fragmentation. With Crysis, only a select few can run the game at it's best.

If OnLive had servers that could run Crysis at maximum, then everyone would have an equal expericence (assuming internet connections are perfect).

Rikusaki

When hardware is made to run the exact same API, the difference being how fast it can process it, then developers can take full advantage of it without having to create new programs to run off specialized hardware. Oh wait thats already what happens with PC.

Crysis was developed ahead of its time. Even a few month after release, it would've been painfully expensive to set up "servers" to run Crysis and would've bankrupted them. Same would go now for Metro 2033 and many other games. Good idea in theroy, fails horrible in execution.

Not all of us are willing to sacrifice all the pros PC gaming gives, like freedom and ownership.

(assuming internet connections are perfect).

Rikusaki

This is a pretty big problem. Most people don't have a perfect internet connection. Most people I know subscribe the either the first or second tier of broadband packages. I doubt most people are going to upgrade to a faster plan just to play games. I sure as hell wouldn't.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

On the PC, there's massive fragmentation. With Crysis, only a select few can run the game at its best.

Rikusaki

Assuming that pc gamers can't change their settings.

[QUOTE="alexside1"]

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

On the PC, there's massive fragmentation. With Crysis, only a select few can run the game at its best.

Rikusaki

Assuming that pc gamers can't change their settings.

Why does anyone need to max out the settings?

Most people aren't obssesed with having games that pushes hardware to its limits every time.

Hardware limitations isn't ruining the industry. There are a bunch of other problems that are though.

But I know you are just saying this crap to promote OnLive. Just face it Riku, OnLive isn't ready to become more mainstream.

[spoiler] It may never be! :o...maybe [/spoiler]

[QUOTE="Rikusaki"]

When everyone has access to the same hardware, developers can take full adantage of that hardware without leaving people out.

You know, like a console. ;)

On the PC, there's massive fragmentation. With Crysis, only a select few can run the game at it's best.

If OnLive had servers that could run Crysis at maximum, then everyone would have an equal expericence (assuming internet connections are perfect).

ChubbyGuy40

When hardware is made to run the exact same API, the difference being how fast it can process it, then developers can take full advantage of it without having to create new programs to run off specialized hardware. Oh wait thats already what happens with PC.

Crysis was developed ahead of its time. Even a few month after release, it would've been painfully expensive to set up "servers" to run Crysis and would've bankrupted them. Same would go now for Metro 2033 and many other games. Good idea in theroy, fails horrible in execution.

Not all of us are willing to sacrifice all the pros PC gaming gives, like freedom and ownership.

You're missing the point. :?

What if a developer decided to use ray-traced lighting in their game?

You would have to disable that feature for lower-end machines.

Or...

You could install custom silicon specifically designed for ray-tracing to reduce costs and bring an amazing experience to everyone.

I'm talking about developers defining hardware for their game.

Giving you power where it needs to be. Not possible on the PC. ;)

[QUOTE="tagyhag"]And cloud gaming is held back by the modern limitations of Internet speed and bandwidth. :PRikusaki

I rather play a graphically *not perfect* game than being forced to only play online. I'm sorry, but OnLive is far from being *the holy grail of gaming*, input lag and required internet connections are two major downsides. Don't get me wrong, it could work pretty well in some areas (like a MMOs), but you're really going over the top with your love for it TC :S IT isn't the second comming you know?

No.. Technology is not necessary for advancements in game... Blizzard and Valve prove this time and time again.. I think its becoming extremely unhealthy for the industry to be so stuck up on graphics instead of game mechanics, longevity and numerous other aspects.. I would be fine with these graphics for at least another 4 to 5 years.. Graphics are reaching the point of reducing returns.. In which graphical improvements look good they do not look as good as the leaps and bounds done in past years.

Rikusaki what part of "Not everyone has the internet speed to full advantage of onlive" are you not understanding? lawlessx

Yes, what's killing gaming is that it isn't more prohibitively expensive.

Hypocrisy, the same can't be said about social games in facebook or those free MMOs that flood the internet