Nonsense. Staying silent because you lied to your player-base is the worst thing you can do. The only time you should legitimately stay silent is when you have announced you are going to do so. If you talk to your player base in the right way instead of making pathetic excuses, you wouldn't need to stay silent in these scenarios. Also, it is perfectly acceptable from a consumer's point of view, to receive an apology, as it can restore a degree of reputation potentially lost from doing, quite literally, nothing!
As a game dev myself, this is the most laughable thing i've heard all day. This is an unsurprising suggestion coming from a con-man who can barely tie together a promised game.
I got hyped for this but now that is gone. Why? Well let's see.
When they announced the lack of Health Regen, I got excited. Then they announced the class system similar to the battlefield system. I got even more excited because I had this idea that they were changing quite a lot of the mechanics to something fresh. Larger maps, more tactical gameplay - that kinda stuff.
But then I kinda realised after watching gameplay that this really isn't demonstrated very well and everything looks the same. I realised that Health regen was only for campaign (my fault for reading it wrong). The class system sounded interesting but after watching gameplay, it just didn't play any role at all. Then when you figure there is STILL a lack of dedicated servers on their end, it becomes clear that they still aren't trying. They've returned to their roots but it just doesn't feel fresh at all.
You need a solution that involves encryption which is stronger than currently present in denuvo otherwise the use of encryption is entirely a waste of time. It either works or it doesn't. 64-bit encryption is great when implemented properly. Clearly, it wasn't developed thoroughly.
@louixiii: "Yet your dumb ass is on a the site that allowed the article to published" What is your point here? I don't care :]
I never owned a 360? Wrong, Again! Probably far more Games than you ever will. Over 300 :]
Is that because you have nothing to counter the argument. The point here is that the PC GPU and CPU are not stronger because they don't have half of the deep level features and "to the metal" programming tools and common practices. If this wasn't the case, the proof I gave you concerning BF4 specs wouldn't be there would it?
@louixiii: Thanks for again, comparing specs between a console and PC. You're just as dumb as those who made the article. You can read many points on the internet about how you can't compare a PC to a console of the same specs, because for 1:
Everything in a console is custom. Infact, you probably don't understand half of the custom entities on their GPU. PC parts simply don't describe with as much importance the exact details, on the shelf, because they simply aren't needed for the average consumer.
Just to show you how wrong you are, here are the requirements for BF4s minimum spec vs the X360:
Windows Xbox 360
OS: Vista 32-bit (around 10 Years old ) || Windows 2000 (Now 17 Years Old)
Xbox 360 supports only a "Super set" of DX9 components and ShaderModel 3.0+. 3870 supports full DX9 10.1 and SM 4.1!
GPU Analysis:
From the GPU, benchmarks for the X1800 XL couldn't be found but a comparison between the X1800 GTO and X1800 XL could be found, along with benchmarks for the X1800 GTO. We can see the GTO supersedes the XL by quite a lot (SPUs and Mem Bandwidth). So from this, we can know the PassMark score for the X1800 GTO found here is probably 60% more powerful than the 1800XL. We would then cut the score to the represented percentage to around 56.4. The HD 3870 can be found here (729). You can see the silly difference which isn't even comparable. The Xenos only has 240 GLOPS where the 3870 has 497.3 for Single Precision FP format.
So, I think at this point, it would be safe to come to the conclusion that this X360 wouldn't run BF4 at all right? You directly compared the numbers and after number-crunching everything, we can see that the minimum spec of the PC version blows the X360 version out of the water right? But what's this? X360 did run BF4? How you ask? Simple:
You cannot compare a PC to a console. A console of the same spec (or even half the spec in this case) blows it out of the water! Who knew!
"...but it will not be able to run games in ultra high or even high settings without taking a hit in comparison to a high end PCs version of a game"
Already proved you wrong in my previous point with the settings. The version IS the PC PORT. Here is the link. Here is the quote: "In fact, the team can push ForzaTech to the equivalent of PC's ultra-level settings and we're still sitting at 88 per cent GPU utilisation".
Instead of babbling numbers, actually learn what they mean along with hardware features and the rest of it. Posting it is the easy part. Understanding it is the more challenging part, but not rocket science.
@louixiii: You must be really pleased with yourself. Maybe you should ring up Guinness World Records :]
I didn't point out anything other than what was related to the comment I quoted.
If you're looking for a grand achievement when comparing 6.1 and 6.0, you're looking in the wrong place. You're also looking in the wrong place if you are trying to compare a console to a PC. I'm sure I could elect the whole PC gaming scene to teach you on how you can't simply compare different technologies and/or features, but you would not listen :]
You're simply implying that Scorpio would not be able to run games at 4K without taking a hit to graphics because the PC contender could not also stating that "RX580 trumps the GX card in Scorpio". You have to be extremely simple minded to think this will be the case. Also, because people seem to throw TFLOPs around a lot does not mean you can compare that to a console either. It's still apples and oranges. Quite laughable but an enjoyable read.
So, what we can learn from the analysis by Digital Foundry is this:
> Forza 6 runs on Scorpio at 4K@60fps with 4K assets with only 60-70% GPU utilisation. We're talking about a Port here, not from scratch, so it's not fully utilising the platform. The difference between 1080p assets and 4K assets was a mere 1% performance difference. I'm sure the 580 couldn't achieve that.
> On Forza 6 Ultra settings, they achieve 88% GPU utilisation from the same Port. The port took 2 days which is a clear indicator by any ports from console to console, that it was done for speed and not performance. They note plenty of overhead from the port of the engine.
> The RX580 does not have its own "Power Profile" when it rolls of the manufacturing line. Every Scorpio does. The RX 580 does not have DX12 baked onto the GPU either. What we're talking here is "to the metal" programming and efficiency. RX 580 has none of it :D
I'd like to see RX580 hit that. Oh wait, it can't, but apparently it still trumps the Scorpio AHAHAHA.
@louixiii: You must have spent a while writing that out, which I think is nice but I haven't read it :)
I came to prove your previous comment, specifically this one, wrong. Which I did with ease:
"Because they know it's bull****. They already ran test on a pc that had the same specs and with most games they had to take a big hit on the graphics to run in 4K."
I managed to achieve this quite easily before you switched the subject to a lack of games in the comment following the one I quoted here :)
I think it's quite amusing how you compared the graphical fidelity, never mind the actual hardware. Just goes to show why you changed the subject. You clearly had no idea what I was talking about :)
Now I expect a MS-hating-esque reply hahaha. Go ahead :)
GTXPlayer's comments