PC gamers does it bother you that your games are not even being optimized?

Look at consoles, developers are squeezing every little bit form obsolete hardware, sure your games look slightly better but is it worth the hundreds of extra $$$?

Now most games are just going multiplatform all around and you wont even see gfx improvements other than higher resolutions. Why are you letting gpu manufacturers milk you for all your worth when they contribute nothing to pc gaming at all? Why dont you just get a console and know that your hardware is being utilized to its maximum ability, instead of games running on your 580GTX 500$ card looking the same as a console. Sure BF3 will look better and more features on PC, but thats the only game I can think of, every other games console is the lead platform. Sure hermits will cry indie games, but those look worse than xbox 1 games and dont require your "killer hardware".

It does for me. This performance laptop I'm on is vastly more powerful then the ps3 or 360 however games like bulletstorm and their piss poor optimization make the game run worse then the console versions.

You can run the console ports, for the most part on '05-'06 era hardware... we get new stuff to make it look better and to run better. The whole thing is, you don't have to optimize as much when there's so much brute force, and devs can't optimize perfectly anyway 'cause of there being so many hardware configurations. (doesn't excuse shoddy dev work leading to inferior performance, most games are fine)

My pc also isn't used just for gaming, it uses it's hardware to the max in other applications, it's not just a 1000$ web browser with game support.

Also, our games are always cheaper at launch, yay d2d sales! And it's a luxury, for that cost we get resolution, AF/AA, and other lovely things, vsync.

You are wrong . First you have to realise the differences between pc gaming and console gaming

console - 1280x720, 0xAA-2xAA, 0xAF, 25-30fps, low-medium settings, small fov, etc

PC - 1920x1200, 4xAA, 16xAF, 100fps+, high settings, large fov, etc

So double the fps and double the resolution you need 4 times more processing power. Add to that higher fov , AA, AF and higher settings and you see you need 6 times more processing power to enjoy the high standards that pc gamers have. As you see in the end multiplats are pretty optimised.

blame people still on Windows XP and consoles

but yes, its annoying

You are wrong . First you have to realise the differences between pc gaming and console gaming

console - 1280x720, 0xAA-2xAA, 0xAF, 25-30fps, low-medium settings, small fov, etc

PC - 1920x1200, 4xAA, 16xAF, 100fps+, high settings, large fov, etc

So double the fps and double the resolution you need 4 times more processing power. Add to that higher fov , AA, AF and higher settings and you see you need 6 times more processing power to enjoy the high standards that pc gamers have. As you see in the end multiplats are pretty optimised.

MK-Professor

more like 64x AA and 2560x1600

You can run the console ports, for the most part on '05-'06 era hardware... we get new stuff to make it look better and to run better. The whole thing is, you don't have to optimize as much when there's so much brute force, and devs can't optimize perfectly anyway 'cause of there being so many hardware configurations. (doesn't excuse shoddy dev work leading to inferior performance, most games are fine)

My pc also isn't used just for gaming, it uses it's hardware to the max in other applications, it's not just a 1000$ web browser with game support.

Also, our games are always cheaper at launch, yay d2d sales! and it's a luxury.

Inconsistancy

So you save 10$ every purchase? omg ! You would need to buy buy 50 games at launch just to break even.

You are wrong . First you have to realise the differences between pc gaming and console gaming

console - 1280x720, 0xAA-2xAA, 0xAF, 25-30fps, low-medium settings, small fov, etc

PC - 1920x1200, 4xAA, 16xAF, 100fps+, high settings, large fov, etc

So double the fps and double the resolution you need 4 times more processing power. Add to that higher fov , AA, AF and higher settings and you see you need 6 times more processing power to enjoy the high standards that pc gamers have. As you see in the end multiplats are pretty optimised.

MK-Professor

Look at consoles, developers are squeezing every little bit form obsolete hardware, sure your games look slightly better but is it worth the hundreds of extra $$$?

Now most games are just going multiplatform all around and you wont even see gfx improvements other than higher resolutions. Why are you letting gpu manufacturers milk you for all your worth when they contribute nothing to pc gaming at all? Why dont you just get a console and know that your hardware is being utilized to its maximum ability, instead of games running on your 580GTX 500$ card looking the same as a console. Sure BF3 will look better and more features on PC, but thats the only game I can think of, every other games console is the lead platform. Sure hermits will cry indie games, but those look worse than xbox 1 games and dont require your "killer hardware".

KeithFerns

Is it worth spending an extra $300+ for better graphics? I damn well believe so, because it isn't just better graphics. And hey, it takes a lot of horsepower to add 1080p, AA, AF, high-res textures, and more. So its not all completely going to waste.

Hey, its GPU manufacturers pushing ahead with better tech. Its the developers who aren't keeping up. We've had GPUs that are more powerful than an entire console for a few years now.

Some of us don't like buying cheap hardware just because its being maxed out, especially when it can't catch up to Crysis.

The Witcher 2, Battlefield 3, Metro 2033, Metro Last Light, STALKER 2, New Vegas (Graphically no, but it was much better on PC,) Doom 4, RAGE 2...I could list more but I doubt you'd care.

And no, even indie games like Amnesia look better than 99% of console games. MechWarrior: Living Legends. Free game if you own Crysis. Looks better than any console game.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

You are wrong . First you have to realise the differences between pc gaming and console gaming

console - 1280x720, 0xAA-2xAA, 0xAF, 25-30fps, low-medium settings, small fov, etc

PC - 1920x1200, 4xAA, 16xAF, 100fps+, high settings, large fov, etc

So double the fps and double the resolution you need 4 times more processing power. Add to that higher fov , AA, AF and higher settings and you see you need 6 times more processing power to enjoy the high standards that pc gamers have. As you see in the end multiplats are pretty optimised.

HaloinventedFPS

more like 64x AA and 2560x1600

Not at all...

Does it bother developers that I wait until their unoptimised game is on sale for 5$ on steam?

[QUOTE="Inconsistancy"]

You can run the console ports, for the most part on '05-'06 era hardware... we get new stuff to make it look better and to run better. The whole thing is, you don't have to optimize as much when there's so much brute force, and devs can't optimize perfectly anyway 'cause of there being so many hardware configurations. (doesn't excuse shoddy dev work leading to inferior performance, most games are fine)

My pc also isn't used just for gaming, it uses it's hardware to the max in other applications, it's not just a 1000$ web browser with game support.

Also, our games are always cheaper at launch, yay d2d sales! and it's a luxury.

KeithFerns

So you save 10$ every purchase? omg ! You would need to buy buy 50 games at launch just to break even.

Depends where you live. PC versions of games are often available for $30-$50 cheaper than the console version thanks to DD where I live. Even with the high entry price I've easily saved more money with PC gaming.

[QUOTE="KeithFerns"]

Look at consoles, developers are squeezing every little bit form obsolete hardware, sure your games look slightly better but is it worth the hundreds of extra $$$?

Now most games are just going multiplatform all around and you wont even see gfx improvements other than higher resolutions. Why are you letting gpu manufacturers milk you for all your worth when they contribute nothing to pc gaming at all? Why dont you just get a console and know that your hardware is being utilized to its maximum ability, instead of games running on your 580GTX 500$ card looking the same as a console. Sure BF3 will look better and more features on PC, but thats the only game I can think of, every other games console is the lead platform. Sure hermits will cry indie games, but those look worse than xbox 1 games and dont require your "killer hardware".

ChubbyGuy40

Is it worth spending an extra $300+ for better graphics? I damn well believe so, because it isn't just better graphics. And hey, it takes a lot of horsepower to add 1080p, AA, AF, high-res textures, and more. So its not all completely going to waste.

Hey, its GPU manufacturers pushing ahead with better tech. Its the developers who aren't keeping up. We've had GPUs that are more powerful than an entire console for a few years now.

Some of us don't like buying cheap hardware just because its being maxed out, especially when it can't catch up to Crysis.

The Witcher 2, Battlefield 3, Metro 2033, Metro Last Light, STALKER 2, New Vegas (Graphically no, but it was much better on PC,) Doom 4, RAGE 2...I could list more but I doubt you'd care.

And no, even indie games like Amnesia look better than 99% of console games. MechWarrior: Living Legends. Free game if you own Crysis. Looks better than any console game.

Wings of Prey. Beautiful game.

(yes I just got it the other day.)

Not at all...

Does it bother developers that I wait until their unoptimised game is on sale for 5$ on steam?

topgunmv

Not really cause they have console sales and dont care about PC

Not at all...

Does it bother developers that I wait until their unoptimised game is on sale for 5$ on steam?

topgunmv

Not really, there's plenty of games that look better on PC... just look for a list of DX10-DX11 games.

The only way console can keep up is by optimizing games.

But then again, who said I need to play on max settings?

If devs worried about optimizing pc games as hard as they do console games I guarantee pc gaming visuals could double without a single hardware change.

one thing i love a about consoles is i know i am getting every pennys worth of power out of it by the end of the gereration. Most devs on pc just games games on a sliding scale of settings.

Yes, but I still prefer multiplats on PC.

its not because of consoles, its all up to the dev, games like dirt 3 are still optimized for PC...DX11 FTW

. Sure BF3 will look better and more features on PC, but thats the only game I can think of, every other games console is the lead platform.

KeithFerns

Games like Shogun 2, Settlers VII, ArmA II, ARMA III, Anno 2070, MS Flight, Take on Helicopters or X Rebirth look almost generation ahead. THere's no way any console could in any shape or form even dream of running those. So I'm not complaining.

I do get pretty dissapointed that plenty of multiplats aren't optimized enough, but my pc is now many times more powerful than any console, so extra power takes care of everything.

I may not be using my Porsche as its maximum power, but it still beats you flooring your little station wagon.

Look at consoles, developers are squeezing every little bit form obsolete hardware, sure your games look slightly better but is it worth the hundreds of extra $$$?

Now most games are just going multiplatform all around and you wont even see gfx improvements other than higher resolutions. Why are you letting gpu manufacturers milk you for all your worth when they contribute nothing to pc gaming at all? Why dont you just get a console and know that your hardware is being utilized to its maximum ability, instead of games running on your 580GTX 500$ card looking the same as a console. Sure BF3 will look better and more features on PC, but thats the only game I can think of, every other games console is the lead platform. Sure hermits will cry indie games, but those look worse than xbox 1 games and dont require your "killer hardware".

KeithFerns

The only games that I found were unoptimised came out of Eastern Europe and were PC exclusive. Most, if not all console multiplats, though don't take advantage of the PC bells and whistles, run great at over 60fps in full HD with AA/AF, which is more than what any current gen console can dream of doing. What you're saying doesn't make sense.

one thing i love a about consoles is i know i am getting every pennys worth of power out of it by the end of the gereration. Most devs on pc just games games on a sliding scale of settings.

dontshackzmii

Really... so every single game?

What bothers me the most as a PC gamer is stuff like the EPIC MK9 not being released for PC, and criterion teasing us inside the game with autolog DLC announcements, and when we try to get them they say "NOT RESOURCES ENOUGH FOR PC RELEASE OF DLC", and so on... we're being totally cut of the cool stuff, and yes, its frustrating.

Bothers me when my GPU alone has 3 times the ram of the 360 and still struggles to play Witcher 2 low settings 720p more then 25 fps.

Bothers me when my GPU alone has 3 times the ram of the 360 and still struggles to play Witcher 2 low settings 720p more then 25 fps.

Pray_to_me

Ram alone won't run games... maybe take down some settings and run it like a console...

Bothers me when my GPU alone has 3 times the ram of the 360 and still struggles to play Witcher 2 low settings 720p more then 25 fps.

Pray_to_me

Video memory is far from the most important element of a graphics card, and I'm guessing yours is quite old now.

[QUOTE="Pray_to_me"]

Bothers me when my GPU alone has 3 times the ram of the 360 and still struggles to play Witcher 2 low settings 720p more then 25 fps.

Bebi_vegeta

Ram alone won't run games... maybe take down some settings and run it like a console...

I'd like to know what gpu this is.

Bothers me when my GPU alone has 3 times the ram of the 360 and still struggles to play Witcher 2 low settings 720p more then 25 fps.

Pray_to_me

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

[QUOTE="Pray_to_me"]

Bothers me when my GPU alone has 3 times the ram of the 360 and still struggles to play Witcher 2 low settings 720p more then 25 fps.

topgunmv

Ram alone won't run games... maybe take down some settings and run it like a console...

I'd like to know what gpu this is.

Probably a 9600. :P

Wow, people keep forgetting one huge thing that's worth the $$$. MOOOOODDDDDSSSS. And of course, better graphics.

EDIT: Robust online, tons of more dedicated servers.

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

Ram alone won't run games... maybe take down some settings and run it like a console...

agpickle

I'd like to know what gpu this is.

Probably a 9600. :P

A 9600 with 1.5 gigs of ram isn't sufficient enough to run da Witcher 2 on low 720p? I mean first the hermits are like "oh you don't have to upgrade every year" then they're gigging on me for not having a new enough card. :roll:

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

I'd like to know what gpu this is.

Pray_to_me

Probably a 9600. :P

A 9600 with 1.5 gigs of ram isn't sufficient enough to run da Witcher 2 on low 720p? I mean first the hermits are like "oh you don't have to upgrade every year" then they're gigging on me for not having a new enough card. :roll:

The 9600 would be a mid range card 3 years ago.

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

I'd like to know what gpu this is.

Pray_to_me

Probably a 9600. :P

A 9600 with 1.5 gigs of ram isn't sufficient enough to run da Witcher 2 on low 720p? I mean first the hermits are like "oh you don't have to upgrade every year" then they're gigging on me for not having a new enough card. :roll:

Isn't that card like 8 years old? ATI OR NVIDA?

Either card are old and weak... probably weaker then console.

And then you blame PC for not being optimized... comon!

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

I'd like to know what gpu this is.

Pray_to_me

Probably a 9600. :P

A 9600 with 1.5 gigs of ram isn't sufficient enough to run da Witcher 2 on low 720p? I mean first the hermits are like "oh you don't have to upgrade every year" then they're gigging on me for not having a new enough card. :roll:

I was planning to get a 9600 to max out this game years ago...

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

Probably a 9600. :P

Pray_to_me

A 9600 with 1.5 gigs of ram isn't sufficient enough to run da Witcher 2 on low 720p? I mean first the hermits are like "oh you don't have to upgrade every year" then they're gigging on me for not having a new enough card. :roll:

A 9800gt is over 3 years old, and again ram doesn't mean anything. I have a 768mb gtx460 and it destroys a 9600. You should also know that the minimum requirement of The Witcher 2 is a 9800gt, so your performance is excepted.

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

[QUOTE="topgunmv"]

I'd like to know what gpu this is.

Pray_to_me

Probably a 9600. :P

A 9600 with 1.5 gigs of ram isn't sufficient enough to run da Witcher 2 on low 720p? I mean first the hermits are like "oh you don't have to upgrade every year" then they're gigging on me for not having a new enough card. :roll:

[QUOTE="Pray_to_me"]

[QUOTE="agpickle"]

Probably a 9600. :P

ferret-gamer

A 9600 with 1.5 gigs of ram isn't sufficient enough to run da Witcher 2 on low 720p? I mean first the hermits are like "oh you don't have to upgrade every year" then they're gigging on me for not having a new enough card. :roll:

This is the card a GSO not GT:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150430