Why is GTA5 not releasing on PC day 1?

PiracyHeirren

Embarrassed that the mod community basically had to fix GTA4 PC for them. Merex760

except they didn't.  Mods for GTA dont fix bugs, the first patches R* released after the game came out did.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] It matters because the extra power on pc won't change the gameplay mechanics.

Here;s an example:I can play fallout 3 at max settings,with all the sliders maxed out.Since the AI is custom tailored for console limitations,I can often see enemies,but they can't see me.Like,a super mutant is looking directly at me,but it doesn't start attacking,and the UI states that I am 'hidden'. If the game was designed for PC,this wouldn't have been a problem.

Crysis 1 is a game that is designed solely for gaming PCs.The enemy soldiers can see me just as well as I can see them.

call_of_duty_10

[QUOTE="Cranler"][QUOTE="Sushiglutton"] Those arguments doesn't sound that convincing to me tbh. You allready kind of dismissed the first one yourself (besides why don't more companies do that?).

Sushiglutton

I believe there is some sort of agreement between Sony and M$ and R* about a GTA5´s timed exclusivity. 

GTA 5 is a system seller, so the big companies use it to sell off as many last gen console units they have in stock as they can so as to support their next gen launches with some extra cash.

How R* will recover pc gamers' support ? Very simple. They will put GTA5 on steam Chrismass sale with 30-50% off as they did with Max Payne 3, and they will make the same money as with console version due to more ample profit limits in DD sales.

[QUOTE="Heirren"]PiracySushiglutton

Well, Rockstar isn't dumb and doesn't want to waste years of development time so you can go on Pirate Bay and download it for free. Rockstar is a business and GTA is their product. 

Well, Rockstar isn't dumb and doesn't want to waste years of development time so you can go on Pirate Bay and download it for free. Rockstar is a business and GTA is their product. 

kickingcarpet

pirated copies of GTA 4 made Niko permanently drunk and cars drove themselves.  They weren't pirated to hell on pc

Because they don't know how to program.

The engine is built for consoles. A pc playing a multiplat like fallout 3 ,is like a physicist doing high school level maths.Sure,he can solve the problems faster than a high-school student,but they are both solving simple math questions. Yeah,the physicist knows much more about the subject,but he is rarely given problems that test his capabilities.call_of_duty_10

this will be true  only if PC and console multiplats had the same graphics quality.

like that:

PC = "720p, low settings, 300fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

butfortunatelythings are like that:

PC = "2560x1440, max settings, 60fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] The engine is built for consoles. A pc playing a multiplat like fallout 3 ,is like a physicist doing high school level maths.Sure,he can solve the problems faster than a high-school student,but they are both solving simple math questions. Yeah,the physicist knows much more about the subject,but he is rarely given problems that test his capabilities.MK-Professor

this will be true  only if PC and console multiplats had the same graphics quality.

like that:

PC = "720p, low settings, 300fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

butfortunatelythings are like that:

PC = "2560x1440, max settings, 60fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

If resolution is so universally valued, then why is the PC press fawning over the Rift? The consumer version will be half-1080p per eye, spread over a far larger arc (remember, the resolving power of the eye is angular, not linear). 

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] The engine is built for consoles. A pc playing a multiplat like fallout 3 ,is like a physicist doing high school level maths.Sure,he can solve the problems faster than a high-school student,but they are both solving simple math questions. Yeah,the physicist knows much more about the subject,but he is rarely given problems that test his capabilities.lowe0

this will be true  only if PC and console multiplats had the same graphics quality.

like that:

PC = "720p, low settings, 300fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

butfortunatelythings are like that:

PC = "2560x1440, max settings, 60fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

If resolution is so universally valued, then why is the PC press fawning over the Rift? The consumer version will be half-1080p per eye, spread over a far larger arc (remember, the resolving power of the eye is angular, not linear). 

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] The engine is built for consoles. A pc playing a multiplat like fallout 3 ,is like a physicist doing high school level maths.Sure,he can solve the problems faster than a high-school student,but they are both solving simple math questions. Yeah,the physicist knows much more about the subject,but he is rarely given problems that test his capabilities.lowe0

this will be true  only if PC and console multiplats had the same graphics quality.

like that:

PC = "720p, low settings, 300fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

butfortunatelythings are like that:

PC = "2560x1440, max settings, 60fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

If resolution is so universally valued, then why is the PC press fawning over the Rift? The consumer version will be half-1080p per eye, spread over a far larger arc (remember, the resolving power of the eye is angular, not linear). 

the usual lowe0 nonsense...

It's how Rockstar makes their games. They focus on getting their console games right these days(because they make an absurd killing on those systems), and then they do a PC port. It is what it is. I doubt the game gets the RDR treatement, but I could see it coming out on the PC in like 2014. jg4xchamp

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

this will be true  only if PC and console multiplats had the same graphics quality.

like that:

PC = "720p, low settings, 300fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

butfortunatelythings are like that:

PC = "2560x1440, max settings, 60fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

MK-Professor

If resolution is so universally valued, then why is the PC press fawning over the Rift? The consumer version will be half-1080p per eye, spread over a far larger arc (remember, the resolving power of the eye is angular, not linear). 

the usual lowe0 nonsense...

Looks like someone doesn't have a good answer....

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] The engine is built for consoles. A pc playing a multiplat like fallout 3 ,is like a physicist doing high school level maths.Sure,he can solve the problems faster than a high-school student,but they are both solving simple math questions. Yeah,the physicist knows much more about the subject,but he is rarely given problems that test his capabilities.lowe0

this will be true  only if PC and console multiplats had the same graphics quality.

like that:

PC = "720p, low settings, 300fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

butfortunatelythings are like that:

PC = "2560x1440, max settings, 60fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

If resolution is so universally valued, then why is the PC press fawning over the Rift? The consumer version will be half-1080p per eye, spread over a far larger arc (remember, the resolving power of the eye is angular, not linear). 

The pixel density would be much higher on the smaller Rift screener versus stretching a 1280x720 resolution on a 42"+ screen (I am using this size based on what all the console gamers gloat over when they say they'd rather play games on their big screen TVs while sitting on a couch). That will heavily reduce the blurring that console games have.

This is also the first time in awhile VR has been attempted, and with the likes of John Carmack behind it, it's likely to be done properly. All impressions I've read on it have been positive, so of all the silly gimmick peripherals that have released in past years, this seems the most enticing.

A PC version will come out later. Rockstar knows they don't have to proritize the PC version because more people will get the console version anyways. I'll be buying it for PS3 and then PC later on. 

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

If resolution is so universally valued, then why is the PC press fawning over the Rift? The consumer version will be half-1080p per eye, spread over a far larger arc (remember, the resolving power of the eye is angular, not linear). 

lowe0

the usual lowe0 nonsense...

Looks like someone doesn't have a good answer....

no it is that what you said it is completely irrelevant with what i said.

call_of_duty_10 said that PC and console multiplats have same graphics quality and I proved him wrong, and you came in with your usual nonsense that have nothing to do with the above post.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

this will be true  only if PC and console multiplats had the same graphics quality.

like that:

PC = "720p, low settings, 300fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

butfortunatelythings are like that:

PC = "2560x1440, max settings, 60fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

BPoole96

If resolution is so universally valued, then why is the PC press fawning over the Rift? The consumer version will be half-1080p per eye, spread over a far larger arc (remember, the resolving power of the eye is angular, not linear). 

The pixel density would be much higher on the smaller Rift screener versus stretching a 1280x720 resolution on a 42"+ screen (I am using this size based on what all the console gamers gloat over when they say they'd rather play games on their big screen TVs while sitting on a couch). That will heavily reduce the blurring that console games have.

This is also the first time in awhile VR has been attempted, and with the likes of John Carmack behind it, it's likely to be done properly. All impressions I've read on it have been positive, so of all the silly gimmick peripherals that have released in past years, this seems the most enticing.

Actually, it's the opposite. As I said, visual acuity is angular, not linear. The standard for HDTV viewing angle is 30 degrees; sitting that close is quite impractical unless you have a dedicated room, so you're likely packing those 1280 or 1920 pixels into less arc than that. The Rift, conversely, spreads 960 pixels over 135 degrees.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

the usual lowe0 nonsense...

MK-Professor

Looks like someone doesn't have a good answer....

no it is that what you said it is completely irrelevant with what i said.

call_of_duty_10 said that PC and console multiplats have same graphics quality and I proved him wrong, and you came in with your usual nonsense that have nothing to do with the above post.

Still sounds like someone doesn't have a good answer. And since you're discussing resolution as an item of absolute value, as you frequently do, then it's quite relevant.lowe0

maybe you need to read the post again... you pathetic little man

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] The engine is built for consoles. A pc playing a multiplat like fallout 3 ,is like a physicist doing high school level maths.Sure,he can solve the problems faster than a high-school student,but they are both solving simple math questions. Yeah,the physicist knows much more about the subject,but he is rarely given problems that test his capabilities.MK-Professor

this will be true  only if PC and console multiplats had the same graphics quality.

like that:

PC = "720p, low settings, 300fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

butfortunatelythings are like that:

PC = "2560x1440, max settings, 60fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

maybe you need to read the post again... you pathetic little man

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] The engine is built for consoles. A pc playing a multiplat like fallout 3 ,is like a physicist doing high school level maths.Sure,he can solve the problems faster than a high-school student,but they are both solving simple math questions. Yeah,the physicist knows much more about the subject,but he is rarely given problems that test his capabilities.MK-Professor

this will be true  only if PC and console multiplats had the same graphics quality.

like that:

PC = "720p, low settings, 300fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

butfortunatelythings are like that:

PC = "2560x1440, max settings, 60fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

Rockstar has mostly been known to capitalize on the sales on the consoles first. They may hope that people can't wait and buy it on a console, then release the PC version later on, hoping for a double dip into the purchase.

All last gen GTA's were timed exclusives on PS2. The games were so good that many gamers bought both the PS 2 version and then the pc version when it released 6 months or so later. Rockstar ends up getting more sales this way. Many pc gamers wont be able to resist the wait, they will cave in and buy a console version of GTA 5. Then they'll get the pc version later to play with better graphics and mods.

Cranler

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

The pixel density would be much higher on the smaller Rift screener versus stretching a 1280x720 resolution on a 42"+ screen (I am using this size based on what all the console gamers gloat over when they say they'd rather play games on their big screen TVs while sitting on a couch). That will heavily reduce the blurring that console games have.

This is also the first time in awhile VR has been attempted, and with the likes of John Carmack behind it, it's likely to be done properly. All impressions I've read on it have been positive, so of all the silly gimmick peripherals that have released in past years, this seems the most enticing.

lowe0

Actually, it's the opposite. As I said, visual acuity is angular, not linear. The standard for HDTV viewing angle is 30 degrees; sitting that close is quite impractical unless you have a dedicated room, so you're likely packing those 1280 or 1920 pixels into less arc than that. The Rift, conversely, spreads 960 pixels over 135 degrees.

Interesting, I was just reading some about it and the resolution has been noted as a major criticism

Unfortunately, the Hawken demo also highlighted what's currently the biggest problem with the Rift: resolution. The 1280×800 display sounds like it would be decent enough for a 7-inch screen. But when that display is sitting just a few inches from your faceand it's split down the middle into separate images for both eyesit doesn't quite cut it. The short viewing distance makes it pretty easy to make out individual pixels, including the thin black lines that surround each one. People used to retina displays and high-def PC monitors will probably find everything just a bit muddy. This is more than a purely cosmetic concern, too; when I looked down at my cockpit in Hawken, the ammunition readout looked like a blurry, unreadable blob. When I took off the headset briefly and looked at the source image on the monitor in front of me, however, it was crystal clear.

Improving the resolution is one of the top priorities as Oculus continues to tweak the hardware from its current development kit to an eventual consumer version, Oculus VP of Product Nate Mitchell told Ars. "Resolution is at the top of my humble list, only because the Rift is all about a visually immersive experience," he said. "We're trying to trick your brain purely with visuals that you're in the game. The higher the resolution of the panel, the higher fidelity the visuals, the better everything's going to look."

Mitchell compared the effect he was looking for to going from an original iPhone to one with a retina display that packs more pixels in the same space. "I'm not saying that's the jump we're going to make, but that level of quality. It's hard to go back. We're not quite there, and we think that's really key to making an awesome consumer experience."Arstechnica

Looks like it may get better in time. There are some rumors that it may end up getting a 1080p screen.

It's frustrating. I don't want to be forced into buying it day one on PS3 when I know current-gen consoles are at the end of their lifecycle and the new batch of previews confirm that the game looks held back on current-gen consoles. I'm hoping Rockstar announces a PC version to be released after the console versions sooner or later, but it is a very lame tactic. I thought Max Payne 3 was pretty successful on PC and was hoping Rockstar learned from that. princeofshapeir

MS and Sony paid them to keep a timed exclusivity so as to sell the remnants of old gen console units before the next gen.

Why do PC gamers feel as if they are entitled to every console game the second it comes out?Sali217

Please explain what makes GTA V a console game, when every primary installment of the franchise is availible on the PC...

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]It's frustrating. I don't want to be forced into buying it day one on PS3 when I know current-gen consoles are at the end of their lifecycle and the new batch of previews confirm that the game looks held back on current-gen consoles. I'm hoping Rockstar announces a PC version to be released after the console versions sooner or later, but it is a very lame tactic. I thought Max Payne 3 was pretty successful on PC and was hoping Rockstar learned from that. jhonMalcovich

MS and Sony paid them to keep a timed exclusivity so as to sell the remnants of old gen console units before the next gen.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

maybe you need to read the post again... you pathetic little man

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

this will be true  only if PC and console multiplats had the same graphics quality.

like that:

PC = "720p, low settings, 300fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

butfortunatelythings are like that:

PC = "2560x1440, max settings, 60fps" VS console = "720p, low settings, 30fps"

lowe0

Ok you agree with call_of_duty_10 that PC and console multiplats have the same graphics quality...

nothing unusual, since you are a very well known console peasant.

Because there is more money to make on consoles in regards to GTA. Why spend time on a less profitable userbase?

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

Actually, it's the opposite. As I said, visual acuity is angular, not linear. The standard for HDTV viewing angle is 30 degrees; sitting that close is quite impractical unless you have a dedicated room, so you're likely packing those 1280 or 1920 pixels into less arc than that. The Rift, conversely, spreads 960 pixels over 135 degrees.

BPoole96

Interesting, I was just reading some about it and the resolution has been noted as a major criticism

Unfortunately, the Hawken demo also highlighted what's currently the biggest problem with the Rift: resolution. The 1280×800 display sounds like it would be decent enough for a 7-inch screen. But when that display is sitting just a few inches from your faceand it's split down the middle into separate images for both eyesit doesn't quite cut it. The short viewing distance makes it pretty easy to make out individual pixels, including the thin black lines that surround each one. People used to retina displays and high-def PC monitors will probably find everything just a bit muddy. This is more than a purely cosmetic concern, too; when I looked down at my cockpit in Hawken, the ammunition readout looked like a blurry, unreadable blob. When I took off the headset briefly and looked at the source image on the monitor in front of me, however, it was crystal clear.

Improving the resolution is one of the top priorities as Oculus continues to tweak the hardware from its current development kit to an eventual consumer version, Oculus VP of Product Nate Mitchell told Ars. "Resolution is at the top of my humble list, only because the Rift is all about a visually immersive experience," he said. "We're trying to trick your brain purely with visuals that you're in the game. The higher the resolution of the panel, the higher fidelity the visuals, the better everything's going to look."

Mitchell compared the effect he was looking for to going from an original iPhone to one with a retina display that packs more pixels in the same space. "I'm not saying that's the jump we're going to make, but that level of quality. It's hard to go back. We're not quite there, and we think that's really key to making an awesome consumer experience."Arstechnica

Looks like it may get better in time. There are some rumors that it may end up getting a 1080p screen.

The math in my post already assumes they upgrade the panel.

[QUOTE="princeofshapeir"]It's frustrating. I don't want to be forced into buying it day one on PS3 when I know current-gen consoles are at the end of their lifecycle and the new batch of previews confirm that the game looks held back on current-gen consoles. I'm hoping Rockstar announces a PC version to be released after the console versions sooner or later, but it is a very lame tactic. I thought Max Payne 3 was pretty successful on PC and was hoping Rockstar learned from that. jhonMalcovich

MS and Sony paid them to keep a timed exclusivity so as to sell the remnants of old gen console units before the next gen.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

MK-Professor

Ok you agree with call_of_duty_10 that PC and console multiplats have the same graphics quality...

nothing unusual, since you are a very well known console peasant.

The math in my post already assumes they upgrade the panel.

lowe0

So if it does get a 1080p screen would you be at all interested in it?

It will be sad if this does not come to PC because it will look terrible on the ps3 and 360. I want to be blown away in every way by gtav but visually that will not happen if it is only on consoles. Then again it could be a crappy port and not be very impressive even on PC

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] And out come the personal attacks. You really don't have a good answer, it seems.

lowe0

Ok you agree with call_of_duty_10 that PC and console multiplats have the same graphics quality...

nothing unusual, since you are a very well known console peasant.

i see you didn't deny that you agree(or have the same ideals) with call_of_duty_10

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

The math in my post already assumes they upgrade the panel.

BPoole96

So if it does get a 1080p screen would you be at all interested in it?

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

Ok you agree with call_of_duty_10 that PC and console multiplats have the same graphics quality...

nothing unusual, since you are a very well known console peasant.

MK-Professor

i see you didn't deny that you agree(or have the same ideals) with call_of_duty_10

Nice fallacy. What's next, are you going to ask me when I stopped beating my wife? Take a damn logic class, chump.

[QUOTE="Sali217"]Why do PC gamers feel as if they are entitled to every console game the second it comes out?Rocker6

Please explain what makes GTA V a console game, when every primary installment of the franchise is availible on the PC...

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="Sali217"]Why do PC gamers feel as if they are entitled to every console game the second it comes out?Sali217

Please explain what makes GTA V a console game, when every primary installment of the franchise is availible on the PC...

[QUOTE="BPoole96"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

The math in my post already assumes they upgrade the panel.

lowe0

So if it does get a 1080p screen would you be at all interested in it?

I'll probably buy one too, but I will wait for the screen to be at least 1080p. I don't want to buy a lesser version and have it outdone within a year.

[QUOTE="Sali217"][QUOTE="Rocker6"]

Please explain what makes GTA V a console game, when every primary installment of the franchise is availible on the PC...

clyde46

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"] Like another poster earlier in this thread, you're mistaking disagreeing with your argument for having any opinion whatsoever on his.

lowe0

i see you didn't deny that you agree(or have the same ideals) with call_of_duty_10

Nice fallacy. What's next, are you going to ask me when I stopped beating my wife? Take a damn logic class, chump.

All your post point to one thing, that you agree with "call_of_duty_10".