Why is GTA5 not releasing on PC day 1?

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

of course i play it with mod's, but even with out mods, it is still 2.5x bigger rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps.(this is how i play it bat in 2008 + mods that further improve graphics and gameplay)

even in the screenshot that have the same rez intentionally, show the better lighting, larger view distance, better AA

MK-Professor

LOL what ever you say...

The fact is that in 2008 I played Fallout 3 with 2.5x bigger rez, 4 times bigger texture rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps, than you:cool:

Unless you are talking about MODDED version,that's BS.The difference between 360 and pc(maxed) vanilla versions for FO3 is negligible.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] They both look almost identical.The 360 runs the game at high settings,and the screenshot proves it. And increasing the resolution isn't going to improve the game's assets.It will just make the image bigger.As long as the pixel density is equal,the image quality will remain the same. As I stated earlier,720p at 17.5" = 1080p at 24".Both native,obviously.call_of_duty_10

LOL what ever you say...

The fact is that in 2008 I played Fallout 3 with 2.5x bigger rez, 4 times bigger texture rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps, than you:cool:

negligible:?:lol:

unmodded Fallout 3 2.5x bigger rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

LOL what ever you say...

The fact is that in 2008 I played Fallout 3 with 2.5x bigger rez, 4 times bigger texture rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps, than you:cool:

MK-Professor

negligible:?:lol:

unmodded Fallout 3 2.5x bigger rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps

And the other stuff barely looks better on PC.

Dunno why I am posting these,though.

You are just going to say that the PC has better shadows and lighting,even though the evidence above proves otherwise.The view distance won't change the gameplay.The AI is designed for the draw distance that consoles use.FOV is same.

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

more nonsense, and also you missed the point.

menes777

The idea of individual assessment of value is nonsense? It's the entire basis of commerce!

To make your point valid you are having to resort to using a different standard of measurement (ie basis commerce).  That's known as moving the goal posts.  Of course someone could tell you that they are unimpressed with everything but SNES like graphics.  It's a non-sequitor though, because you can say at anytime even comparing something as ridiculous as Atari vs Modern PC or Stop Motion Vs CGI.  "2560x1440, max settings, 60fps" trumps what consoles can produce, despite deflections used against it.  Of course we have been down this road before.  With the same exact players.  You may not think it's impressive, but you missed the point.  The world does not revolve around you.

PiracyHeirren

yarrr

[QUOTE="menes777"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"]

The idea of individual assessment of value is nonsense? It's the entire basis of commerce!

blackace

To make your point valid you are having to resort to using a different standard of measurement (ie basis commerce).  That's known as moving the goal posts.  Of course someone could tell you that they are unimpressed with everything but SNES like graphics.  It's a non-sequitor though, because you can say at anytime even comparing something as ridiculous as Atari vs Modern PC or Stop Motion Vs CGI.  "2560x1440, max settings, 60fps" trumps what consoles can produce, despite deflections used against it.  Of course we have been down this road before.  With the same exact players.  You may not think it's impressive, but you missed the point.  The world does not revolve around you.

I'm not the one passing off personal claims of preference as valid points of argument.

What you are saying is that gameplay trumps graphics, right?  Of course it does.  

Hermits aren't arguing (ok some are) that you need the best visuals to enjoy a game.  Only that the PC can do this and consoles cannot. If you enjoy what consoles can do as is more power to you.  Still the fact remains that technically the PC is superior to consoles.  In terms of gameplay they are very similiar.  One could argue that given the amount of gameplay choices PC has (MKB, controller, rigging Kinect to work, etc...) that makes a difference, but that's another topic for another day.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] They both look almost identical.The 360 runs the game at high settings,and the screenshot proves it. And increasing the resolution isn't going to improve the game's assets.It will just make the image bigger.As long as the pixel density is equal,the image quality will remain the same. As I stated earlier,720p at 17.5" = 1080p at 24".Both native,obviously.call_of_duty_10

LOL what ever you say...

The fact is that in 2008 I played Fallout 3 with 2.5x bigger rez, 4 times bigger texture rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps, than you:cool:

Unless you are talking about MODDED version,that's BS.The difference between 360 and pc(maxed) vanilla versions for FO3 is negligible.

Actually when you speak of mods not being able to change how the game is designed.  There you are wrong.  There are mods that increase the distance at which VATS can be engaged as well as at what distance the AI can react.  Among about a million other things (now) that have been modded into FO3 (and NV).  There are mods that allow you to play it very much like the original FO 1 and 2 with it's turned based combat.  Play it as a tactical squad based game.  Play as a zombie apocalypse on top of the nuclear apocalypse.  Play it as a hybrid FPS and RTS.  Expand settelments.  Add a party system.  Expand individual buildings.  Change the way combat is done with VATS.  The list is pretty long on actual gaming change things that go beyond just graphics and resolution.  ;)

I have learned a lot...since I became a member of this boardSushiglutton

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] Funny,how you assume that I do not have a gaming PC. Unless you are talking about MODDED version,that's BS.The difference between 360 and pc(maxed) versions for FO3 is negligible.call_of_duty_10

negligible:?:lol:

unmodded Fallout 3 2.5x bigger rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps

And the other stuff barely looks better on PC.

Dunno why I am posting these,though.

You are just going to say that the PC has better shadows and lighting,even though the evidence above proves otherwise.The view distance won't change the gameplay.The AI is designed for the draw distance that consoles use.FOV is same.

resolution improve the graphics (if it didn't wouldn't play at 2560x1440 but at 853x480)

use screenshots that are not showing the wall(because unmodded have the same texture rez) and not at 1280x720 with medium settings like the console version

unmodded Fallout 3 2.5x-4x bigger rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps

and your initial point about pc doing the same amount of work like consoles is wrong. just to point out that going from 1280x720@30fps to 2560x1440@60fps GPU will do 8X times more work and that is without even change ANY other graphical settings(like AA, shadows, lighting, view distance, etc)

[QUOTE="Jankarcop"]

Because we dont want to alpha test like you guys are doing with the 15 fps sub low settings HD version.

StrongBlackVine

Sorta like Diablo 3 on PC?

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

In 2008-2010,consoles were playing at a mix of medium and high settings.

Fallout 3:

call_of_duty_10

These screenshot are BS. i played Fallout 3 with 2.5x bigger rez, 4 times bigger texture rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps.

:roll:

I gave you proof,and you say that its BS.Sounds like you imagined the better textures,shadows etc.

...Or are you talking about mods?I was talking about the effort that devs put into making the PC versions,not the efforts of the modding community.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

negligible:?:lol:

unmodded Fallout 3 2.5x bigger rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps

MK-Professor

And the other stuff barely looks better on PC.

Dunno why I am posting these,though.

You are just going to say that the PC has better shadows and lighting,even though the evidence above proves otherwise.The view distance won't change the gameplay.The AI is designed for the draw distance that consoles use.FOV is same.

resolution improve the graphics (if it didn't wouldn't play at 2560x1440 but at 853x480)

use screenshots that are not showing the wall(because unmodded have the same texture rez) and not at 1280x720 with medium settings like the console version

unmodded Fallout 3 2.5x-4x bigger rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps

and your initial point about pc doing the same amount of work like consoles is wrong. just to point out that going from 1280x720@30fps to 2560x1440@60fps GPU will do 8X times more work and that is without even change ANY other graphical settings(like AA, shadows, lighting, view distance, etc)

The screenshot with amata proves that vanilla pc and ps3 are almost identical.I provided screenshots to prove my point.Max settings on PC=PS3. You have been proven wrong by the evidence.Just saying that vanilla PC version is vastly better won't change the screenshots that I posted.

Did you start gaming on a PC in 2012?Because that's the year when EVERY game had a FAR superior PC version,with better lighting,shadows,textures and all that jazz.Almost all multiplats were ports from 2005-2010,having no advantage on PC other than res,aa,af and framerate.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

These screenshot are BS. i played Fallout 3 with 2.5x bigger rez, 4 times bigger texture rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps.

DragonfireXZ95

:roll:

I gave you proof,and you say that its BS.Sounds like you imagined the better textures,shadows etc.

...Or are you talking about mods?I was talking about the effort that devs put into making the PC versions,not the efforts of the modding community.

Piracy. Not worth the trouble, just so that a bunch of idiots can steal your product.001011000101101

[QUOTE="001011000101101"]Piracy. Not worth the trouble, just so that a bunch of idiots can steal your product.gameofthering

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][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.call_of_duty_10

They're better.

Hence why the other platform is better.

I know plenty of manticore like gamers who really don't care about what things get released on. They would buy it on PC by default since htey all own gaming rigs but will just as easily buy it on a console as well; the kicker is, is that they'll rebuy it on the PC as its the definitive version.

I figure if there's enough people like this a staggered release actually might be the smartest move. 

Of course it looks far better with mods.I never denied this. But bethesda didn't put any extra effort into the PC version.That started this argument.And the screenshots that I posted prove it.call_of_duty_10

But before the whole 'resolution argument' you said that every multiplat from 2005-2012 was like Fallout. Which is not true.

That more developers could put more effort in their PC multiplats is true though.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] Resolution doesn't improve the graphics ffs.The pixel density does.For a game like FO3,which has low-detail assets,even that doesn't matter.

And the other stuff barely looks better on PC.

 

 

Dunno why I am posting these,though.

You are just going to say that the PC has better shadows and lighting,even though the evidence above proves otherwise.The view distance won't change the gameplay.The AI is designed for the draw distance that consoles use.FOV is same.

call_of_duty_10

resolution improve the graphics (if it didn't wouldn't play at 2560x1440 but at 853x480)

use screenshots that are not showing the wall(because unmodded have the same texture rez) and not at 1280x720 with medium settings like the console version

unmodded Fallout 3 2.5x-4x bigger rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps

and your initial point about pc doing the same amount of work like consoles is wrong. just to point out that going from 1280x720@30fps to 2560x1440@60fps GPU will do 8X times more work and that is without even change ANY other graphical settings(like AA, shadows, lighting, view distance, etc)

The screenshot with amata proves that vanilla pc and ps3 are almost identical.I provided screenshots to prove my point.Max settings on PC=PS3. You have been proven wrong by the evidence.Just saying that vanilla PC version is vastly better won't change the screenshots that I posted.

Did you start gaming on a PC in 2012?Because that's the year when EVERY game had a FAR superior PC version,with better lighting,shadows,textures and all that jazz.Almost all multiplats were ports from 2005-2010,having no advantage on PC other than res,aa,af and framerate.

1280x720 look exactly like a native res on a 2560x1440 monitor because it is exactly 4 times smaller.(4 pixels behave like 1 big pixel)

If Fallout 3 with Max settings on PC=PS3 as you say, then why it plays on my pc like that without even using mods 2560x1440, 8xAA, 16xAF, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps? can ps3 do 1/10 of all of these? don't think so:lol:

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

resolution improve the graphics (if it didn't wouldn't play at 2560x1440 but at 853x480)

use screenshots that are not showing the wall(because unmodded have the same texture rez) and not at 1280x720 with medium settings like the console version

unmodded Fallout 3 2.5x-4x bigger rez, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps

and your initial point about pc doing the same amount of work like consoles is wrong. just to point out that going from 1280x720@30fps to 2560x1440@60fps GPU will do 8X times more work and that is without even change ANY other graphical settings(like AA, shadows, lighting, view distance, etc)

MK-Professor

The screenshot with amata proves that vanilla pc and ps3 are almost identical.I provided screenshots to prove my point.Max settings on PC=PS3. You have been proven wrong by the evidence.Just saying that vanilla PC version is vastly better won't change the screenshots that I posted.

Did you start gaming on a PC in 2012?Because that's the year when EVERY game had a FAR superior PC version,with better lighting,shadows,textures and all that jazz.Almost all multiplats were ports from 2005-2010,having no advantage on PC other than res,aa,af and framerate.

1280x720 look exactly like a native res on a 2560x1440 monitor because it is exactly 4 times smaller.(4 pixels behave like 1 big pixel)

If Fallout 3 with Max settings on PC=PS3 as you say, then why it plays on my pc like that without even using mods 2560x1440, 8xAA, 16xAF, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps? can ps3 do 1/10 of all of these? don't think so:lol:

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]Of course it looks far better with mods.I never denied this. But bethesda didn't put any extra effort into the PC version.That started this argument.And the screenshots that I posted prove it.R4gn4r0k

But before the whole 'resolution argument' you said that every multiplat from 2005-2012 was like Fallout. Which is not true.

That more developers could put more effort in their PC multiplats is true though.

I said almost all of them were like fallout 3,not literally all of them.

In 2011,there were a few games,like crysis 2(after dx11 patch),BF3,Sleeping dogs,in which every graphics setting at max was far beyond that used in consoles. But there were ports too.

I really don't remember many games with "upgraded" PC versions in 2010 or before that.Metro comes to mind for 2010,but that's it.

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"][QUOTE="skrat_01"] Again, why does this matter? At the end of the day the PC is outputting at a far higher fidelity of a game on multiple platforms. This goes without saying. And that's a ****ing terrible analogy.skrat_01

They're better.

Hence why the other platform is better.

The guy who gives them questions to solve usually designes the problems for the high schooler,not the physicist.

That's what this analogy is about.The differences between console and PC versions are highly exaggerated by the PC gaming community.For a game like BF3,what pc gamers claim is entirely true,but when someone claims that the graphics in fallout 3(vanilla) are a cut above those in console versions,that's BS.

[QUOTE="MK-Professor"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"] You don;t play at 853x480 because its not your monitor's native res and the pixel density will be too low for that size. Wait,let me guess.You are one of those people who think that 720p on YOUR monitor looks as good as 1280x720 on a 17.5" monitor with native res of 720p.

The screenshot with amata proves that vanilla pc and ps3 are almost identical.I provided screenshots to prove my point.Max settings on PC=PS3. You have been proven wrong by the evidence.Just saying that vanilla PC version is vastly better won't change the screenshots that I posted.

Did you start gaming on a PC in 2012?Because that's the year when EVERY game had a FAR superior PC version,with better lighting,shadows,textures and all that jazz.Almost all multiplats were ports from 2005-2010,having no advantage on PC other than res,aa,af and framerate.

call_of_duty_10

1280x720 look exactly like a native res on a 2560x1440 monitor because it is exactly 4 times smaller.(4 pixels behave like 1 big pixel)

If Fallout 3 with Max settings on PC=PS3 as you say, then why it plays on my pc like that without even using mods 2560x1440, 8xAA, 16xAF, better shadows, better lighting, larger view distance, larger fov, and double the fps? can ps3 do 1/10 of all of these? don't think so:lol:

call_of_duty_10

I said almost all of them were like fallout 3,not literally all of them.

In 2011,there were a few games,like crysis 2(after dx11 patch),BF3,Sleeping dogs,in which every graphics setting at max was far beyond that used in consoles. But there were ports too.

I really don't remember many games with "upgraded" PC versions in 2010 or before that.Metro comes to mind for 2010,but that's it. 

call_of_duty_10

You told me I couldn't list 15 multiplats between 2005-2012, and I did. I never inlcuded Fallout, never played it so I don't know if its a better port. You are telling me the majority of multiplats do not have any significant improvements on PC. Which is wrong

Only one better multiplat in 2010? Haha, how about you proof for once that is actually the case :roll:

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

I said almost all of them were like fallout 3,not literally all of them.

In 2011,there were a few games,like crysis 2(after dx11 patch),BF3,Sleeping dogs,in which every graphics setting at max was far beyond that used in consoles. But there were ports too.

I really don't remember many games with "upgraded" PC versions in 2010 or before that.Metro comes to mind for 2010,but that's it. 

R4gn4r0k

You told me I couldn't list 15 multiplats between 2005-2012, and I did. I never inlcuded Fallout, never played it so I don't know if its a better port. You are telling me the majority of multiplats do not have any significant improvements on PC. Which is wrong

Only one better multiplat in 2010? Haha, how about you proof for once that is actually the case :roll:

[QUOTE="R4gn4r0k"]

[QUOTE="call_of_duty_10"]

I said almost all of them were like fallout 3,not literally all of them.

In 2011,there were a few games,like crysis 2(after dx11 patch),BF3,Sleeping dogs,in which every graphics setting at max was far beyond that used in consoles. But there were ports too.

I really don't remember many games with "upgraded" PC versions in 2010 or before that.Metro comes to mind for 2010,but that's it. 

call_of_duty_10

You told me I couldn't list 15 multiplats between 2005-2012, and I did. I never inlcuded Fallout, never played it so I don't know if its a better port. You are telling me the majority of multiplats do not have any significant improvements on PC. Which is wrong

Only one better multiplat in 2010? Haha, how about you proof for once that is actually the case :roll:

PC games are probably much harder to be made

Console games is more important, it is there all the money is, hermits just pirate:|

Console games is more important, it is there all the money is, hermits just pirate:|

aroxx_ab

[QUOTE="aroxx_ab"]

Console games is more important, it is there all the money is, hermits just pirate:|

faizan_faizan

PC gaming is far worse dude...thats why the market is like it is :|

#dealwithit

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="aroxx_ab"]

Console games is more important, it is there all the money is, hermits just pirate:|

aroxx_ab

PC gaming is far worse dude...thats why the market is like it is :|

#dealwithit

*yawn*

More creativity, please...

[QUOTE="aroxx_ab"]

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"] lol yez Yep, f*ck dem piratzes, n dhank God there is no pirate on consoles.........OH WAIT.
http://www.xbox360achievements.org/news/ne...cords-Loss.html
"In other areas of the videogame industry - like PC, smartphones and social network games - Square Enix is faring better, generating an acceptable profit"."

Yep, and PCz haz all the parates........OH WAIT (Again)
http://www.shacknews.com/article/78421/rep...billion-in-2012

Rocker6

PC gaming is far worse dude...thats why the market is like it is :|

#dealwithit

*yawn*

More creativity, please...

yep

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="aroxx_ab"]

Console games is more important, it is there all the money is, hermits just pirate:|

aroxx_ab

PC gaming is far worse dude...thats why the market is like it is :|

#dealwithit

Not does console games get pirated, they also buy used games.

Console games is more important, it is there all the money is, hermits just pirate:|

aroxx_ab

must be why gta 4 was pirated to hell....oh wait, it wasn't...thanks to R* making niko permanently drunk if you cracked the game in any way

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

[QUOTE="aroxx_ab"]

PC gaming is far worse dude...thats why the market is like it is :|

#dealwithit

04dcarraher

*yawn*

More creativity, please...

yep

PC get lots of indie games, would be interesting to see average for each title($50 price games) how many % is pirates playing. PC gamers only buy those $5 games on steam sales, that is all they can afford after all hardware upgrades:P

[QUOTE="faizan_faizan"]

[QUOTE="aroxx_ab"]

Console games is more important, it is there all the money is, hermits just pirate:|

aroxx_ab

PC gaming is far worse dude...thats why the market is like it is :|

#dealwithit

The market where PC is consistently growing?

[QUOTE="04dcarraher"]

[QUOTE="Rocker6"]

*yawn*

More creativity, please...

aroxx_ab

yep

PC get lots of indie games, would be interesting to see average for each title($50 price games) how many % is pirates playing. PC gamers only buy those $5 games on steam sales, that is all they can afford after all hardware upgrades:P

dumb

[QUOTE="aroxx_ab"]

Console games is more important, it is there all the money is, hermits just pirate:|

wis3boi

must be why gta 4 was pirated to hell....oh wait, it wasn't...thanks to R* making niko permanently drunk if you cracked the game in any way

haha, that's pretty funny

[QUOTE="aroxx_ab"]

Console games is more important, it is there all the money is, hermits just pirate:|

Motokid6

It is more trouble pirate console games, most times you must installa chip in the console and with system upgrades you can brick your console. Oh and you need burn the game on a dvd etc.

PC games is just download, unrar & install, change exe file with cracked one, then play. PC is more easy.

Just look at the most downloaded torrents on any common torrent site. Pc torrents are downloaded FAR more than all the consoles combined. There is no arguement here.

Just look at the most downloaded torrents on any common torrent site. Pc torrents are downloaded FAR more than all the consoles combined. There is no arguement here.

dom2000

argument would probably be used games

Just look at the most downloaded torrents on any common torrent site. Pc torrents are downloaded FAR more than all the consoles combined. There is no arguement here.

dom2000