State of Decay PC Version Features Exclusive Enhancements

State of Decay PC Version Features Exclusive Enhancements

image

State of Decay will be coming to the PC via Steam's Early Access program.

State of Decay, Undead Labs' zombie sandbox survival game, is coming to the PC via Steam's Early Access program. Via its official Twitter account, the developer has revealed a whole wealth of exclusive enhancements that PC users will have over their Xbox 360 brethren.

First up, being released on the Early Access program means that fans will be able to play the game literally as it is being developed, just like Arma 3 and Prison Architect. The PC version will also sport higher-resolution graphics, better textures, support for higher monitor resolutions and a boosted frame rate.

While Undead Labs said that it had "no objection" to fans making user-created mods for the game, it won't ship with official mod tools, so perspective modders will have to tinker with the game's nuts and bolts to get mods working.

No official release date for the PC version has been given, but the team hopes to that it "will be out before the end of the year."

State of Decay was a smash hit for the Xbox Live arcade, selling over 250,000 copies in just two days. It is currently singleplayer only, and while Undead Labs has claimed that multiplayer is simply not possible with the current version of the game, any potential sequels would have a co-op focus.

Let's see if some of PC gamings more ambitious modders can't try and refute that statement. They did, after all, manage to hack multiplayer into GTA III back in the day.

Source: Twitter via Polygon

Permalink

Steven Bogos:

Let's see if some of PC gamings more ambitious modders can't try and refute that statement. They did, after all, manage to hack multiplayer into GTA III back in the day.

I endorse this Idea

Also, Kinda funny seeing a port being developed like this, though I've really liked the Early Access program so far.

Well apart from early access it all sounds good, also the sort of exclusives that make sense and won't piss off your fan base.

And if mods are indeed doable then some sort of multiplayer will get made eventually.

Yay! Freakin' hurry up, undead labs. This is the one game I can't wait for patiently.

Type-O, US coming to the PC

Eh I can wait, with the steam sale on I am drowning in games.

State of Decay is weird. I liked it a lot it at first, then loved it, then liked it, started not to like it near the end, and now, after I've finished, I wouldn't say I liked it. Too many boring, disappointing, or nonsense story events, I think.

I dont understand...

Why early access ? 360 code is practically DX9 level PC code, should be a relative cinch to port over so why the huge development time ? Why the big deal over early access ?
Exclusive Enhancements my arse... Higher resolutions, yeah thats bloody hard to add screen_width = 1920 screen_height = 1080 right, better Textures yeah just take the original texture art and not compress it so much... Boosted frame rate, ahh so we wont cap it at 30 and if your rig can run it faster than 30 you get boosted frame rates.

It gets my goat when developers having finished milking the console fans will toss the PC lot a bone, and try make it as if they are really doing a lot to make up for not offering the title at the same time or very shortly after the console launch.

Its even worse because fans support it like a pack of hungry hounds, fighting over the leftover bone the console gamers have finished gnawing on.

... or am I missing something here ?

So as a console gamer that bought the game on day 2 and contributed to your record sales I'm getting the shaft? Why the hell should I buy their next game when it comes out if I'm going to get a subpar version? At least release a patch to standardize everything for those of us who actually made the game successful enough to port... I'm tired of devs using one system as the "lab rats" to release better versions to the other systems and not standardizing their shit for their loyal customers. I WAS set to buy SoD 2 day one, but now... Now I'm angry, and my wallet doesn't open when I'm angry.

I'd settle for a PC game simply having a decent f*****g UI and no unnecessary title screens, login requirements for single player play and quicksave.

Sarge034:
So as a console gamer that bought the game on day 2 and contributed to your record sales I'm getting the shaft? Why the hell should I buy their next game when it comes out if I'm going to get a subpar version? At least release a patch to standardize everything for those of us who actually made the game successful enough to port... I'm tired of devs using one system as the "lab rats" to release better versions to the other systems and not standardizing their shit for their loyal customers. I WAS set to buy SoD 2 day one, but now... Now I'm angry, and my wallet doesn't open when I'm angry.

You realize that the enhancements are there because a PC can handle it? The 360 has lower resolution and shittier textures because that's all it can manage. Modern PCs has many times more RAM than a 360, and enough crunch to render far higher frames per second. Also, the early access being only for PC is because there's simply no way in hell xbox live would ever allow that.

You're 'getting the shaft' because you're on a system that necessitates it.

Sarge034:
So as a console gamer that bought the game on day 2 and contributed to your record sales I'm getting the shaft? Why the hell should I buy their next game when it comes out if I'm going to get a subpar version? At least release a patch to standardize everything for those of us who actually made the game successful enough to port... I'm tired of devs using one system as the "lab rats" to release better versions to the other systems and not standardizing their shit for their loyal customers. I WAS set to buy SoD 2 day one, but now... Now I'm angry, and my wallet doesn't open when I'm angry.

Oh well get used to it, PC gamers had to deal with that crap for years.

And its part of the apology to PC gamers for shafting them, because they had troubles for PC and that's why it didn't launch before.

Even then, the consoles output to 720p anyway so resolution is a moot point. They wouldn't handle higher resolution textures nor would they notice the extra frame rate. Consoles normally go for 30 FPS and that's capped.

If you want something better, get a platform that can handle it. Its getting more and more common for PC to get texture packs to boot so its not like this is new.

All these bonus exist because its standard for PCs now. Higher textures, higher resolution, higher frame rate. Its basic porting.

Anything below 60 frames is considered bad. Consoles normally go 30.
Anything that doesn't offer a full range of resolution is considered awful. 1080P is common now.
Higher quality textures is optional, but nice.

Denamic:
You realize that the enhancements are there because a PC can handle it? The 360 has lower resolution and shittier textures because that's all it can manage. Modern PCs has many times more RAM than a 360, and enough crunch to render far higher frames per second. Also, the early access being only for PC is because there's simply no way in hell xbox live would ever allow that.

You're 'getting the shaft' because you're on a system that necessitates it.

Ultratwinkie:
Oh well get used to it, PC gamers had to deal with that crap for years.

And its part of the apology to PC gamers for shafting them, because they had troubles for PC and that's why it didn't launch before.

Even then, the consoles output to 720p anyway so resolution is a moot point. They wouldn't handle higher resolution textures nor would they notice the extra frame rate. Consoles normally go for 30 FPS and that's capped.

If you want something better, get a platform that can handle it. Its getting more and more common for PC to get texture packs to boot so its not like this is new.

All these bonus exist because its standard for PCs now. Higher textures, higher resolution, higher frame rate. Its basic porting.

Anything below 60 frames is considered bad. Consoles normally go 30.
Anything that doesn't offer a full range of resolution is considered awful. 1080P is common now.
Higher quality textures is optional, but nice.

So then how do you explain away the games that look better on consoles than on PC? How can CoD possibly run at 60 FPS on the dirty, dirty consoles? I never said anything about the early access. I couldn't care less actually. But if I am getting a substandard product I had better be paying less or getting a patch to standardize the product.

Now why you two feel the need to bring PC elitism into this I will never know. I was arguing for equality, why not just get behind that as gamers and leave the system prefaces at the door? I never had the nerve to say, "deal with it" when PC gamers were getting the shaft. I wonder how you will like it when the PC game selection becomes even smaller. The Xbone requires Kinect and the PS4 has a track pad in addition to its' controller. How many games will actually get ported I wonder? And the PC master race will cry out in anguish, "Save us!" and console gamers will whisper, "Deal with it."

Sarge034:

Denamic:
You realize that the enhancements are there because a PC can handle it? The 360 has lower resolution and shittier textures because that's all it can manage. Modern PCs has many times more RAM than a 360, and enough crunch to render far higher frames per second. Also, the early access being only for PC is because there's simply no way in hell xbox live would ever allow that.

You're 'getting the shaft' because you're on a system that necessitates it.

Ultratwinkie:
Oh well get used to it, PC gamers had to deal with that crap for years.

And its part of the apology to PC gamers for shafting them, because they had troubles for PC and that's why it didn't launch before.

Even then, the consoles output to 720p anyway so resolution is a moot point. They wouldn't handle higher resolution textures nor would they notice the extra frame rate. Consoles normally go for 30 FPS and that's capped.

If you want something better, get a platform that can handle it. Its getting more and more common for PC to get texture packs to boot so its not like this is new.

All these bonus exist because its standard for PCs now. Higher textures, higher resolution, higher frame rate. Its basic porting.

Anything below 60 frames is considered bad. Consoles normally go 30.
Anything that doesn't offer a full range of resolution is considered awful. 1080P is common now.
Higher quality textures is optional, but nice.

So then how do you explain away the games that look better on consoles than on PC? How can CoD possibly run at 60 FPS on the dirty, dirty consoles? I never said anything about the early access. I couldn't care less actually. But if I am getting a substandard product I had better be paying less or getting a patch to standardize the product.

Now why you two feel the need to bring PC elitism into this I will never know. I was arguing for equality, why not just get behind that as gamers and leave the system prefaces at the door? I never had the nerve to say, "deal with it" when PC gamers were getting the shaft. I wonder how you will like it when the PC game selection becomes even smaller. The Xbone requires Kinect and the PS4 has a track pad in addition to its' controller. How many games will actually get ported I wonder? And the PC master race will cry out in anguish, "Save us!" and console gamers will whisper, "Deal with it."

What games look better? its the same damn game. The console look is the minimum.

And COD doesn't run on 60 FPS, because consoles use TV sets instead of monitors. Console games are capped at 30, and that is indisputable fact.

PC isn't getting smaller, its growing. In fact, its growing by leaps and bounds because it allows developers to start up. Consoles rely on AAA and publishers for the majority of their games, and they are not keen on new ideas, new games, and small developers in the regular space.

In fact, I will point out that both of the new consoles use the x86 architecture for easier porting from PC and in between consoles. Its been an issue because highly unique consoles are a pain in the ass to port and expensive. They took PC standard and applied it to consoles to cut costs. This generation doesn't have any of that.

Its not elitism if I point out that PC does things differently. It is EXPECTED to have a range of resolutions supported, its EXPECTED to have 60 frames per second. It may not be noticeable on TV, but it is on monitors. Higher resolution textures are original textures that aren't compressed.

Not supporting a range of resolutions is like saying "sorry, you own a sony TV, come back with another one."

Not removing the FPS cap on games turns games into chugging slideshows, and games like Overlord I fell into that trap. It was very noticeable and almost made the game unplayable by how much of a slideshow it became.

None of this is elitist. Its the bare minimum. I doubt you even know what you talk about when it comes to hardware. Hell you still think PC games are becoming rare when its all becoming digital, do you even know of steam and Green man gaming?

Sarge034:

Denamic:
You realize that the enhancements are there because a PC can handle it? The 360 has lower resolution and shittier textures because that's all it can manage. Modern PCs has many times more RAM than a 360, and enough crunch to render far higher frames per second. Also, the early access being only for PC is because there's simply no way in hell xbox live would ever allow that.

You're 'getting the shaft' because you're on a system that necessitates it.

Ultratwinkie:
Oh well get used to it, PC gamers had to deal with that crap for years.

And its part of the apology to PC gamers for shafting them, because they had troubles for PC and that's why it didn't launch before.

Even then, the consoles output to 720p anyway so resolution is a moot point. They wouldn't handle higher resolution textures nor would they notice the extra frame rate. Consoles normally go for 30 FPS and that's capped.

If you want something better, get a platform that can handle it. Its getting more and more common for PC to get texture packs to boot so its not like this is new.

All these bonus exist because its standard for PCs now. Higher textures, higher resolution, higher frame rate. Its basic porting.

Anything below 60 frames is considered bad. Consoles normally go 30.
Anything that doesn't offer a full range of resolution is considered awful. 1080P is common now.
Higher quality textures is optional, but nice.

So then how do you explain away the games that look better on consoles than on PC? How can CoD possibly run at 60 FPS on the dirty, dirty consoles? I never said anything about the early access. I couldn't care less actually. But if I am getting a substandard product I had better be paying less or getting a patch to standardize the product.

They run at 60 FPS because they have low resolution textures, low poly count terrain, and very little shading. The game uses visual distractions to call attention away from the ugly, such as head bobbing, low field of view, high res gun taking up 25% of the screen, motion blur, aggressive depth of field, among other things. But if you pay attention, you'll start noticing very low res textures and models with a polygon count lower than 50. They're really not graphically advanced games.

Now why you two feel the need to bring PC elitism into this I will never know. I was arguing for equality, why not just get behind that as gamers and leave the system prefaces at the door? I never had the nerve to say, "deal with it" when PC gamers were getting the shaft. I wonder how you will like it when the PC game selection becomes even smaller. The Xbone requires Kinect and the PS4 has a track pad in addition to its' controller. How many games will actually get ported I wonder? And the PC master race will cry out in anguish, "Save us!" and console gamers will whisper, "Deal with it."

This isn't about elitism. It's about facts. PCs have way more power than the 360, so they get higher resolution textures and higher framerates. You can't just patch it into the 360 version. They didn't chose to have worse graphics for the 360 out of spite. They made it according to the performance of the 360.

Shame because I was really interested in this game a while back, but it's kinda just pittered out the longer I waited for a PC version. *Shrugs* looks like I won't be picking this up until a ridiculous Steam sale.

Annoyingly, those 'enhancements' are needed on 360. The game looks and runs rather terribly.

Sarge034:

Denamic:
You realize that the enhancements are there because a PC can handle it? The 360 has lower resolution and shittier textures because that's all it can manage. Modern PCs has many times more RAM than a 360, and enough crunch to render far higher frames per second. Also, the early access being only for PC is because there's simply no way in hell xbox live would ever allow that.

You're 'getting the shaft' because you're on a system that necessitates it.

Ultratwinkie:
Oh well get used to it, PC gamers had to deal with that crap for years.

And its part of the apology to PC gamers for shafting them, because they had troubles for PC and that's why it didn't launch before.

Even then, the consoles output to 720p anyway so resolution is a moot point. They wouldn't handle higher resolution textures nor would they notice the extra frame rate. Consoles normally go for 30 FPS and that's capped.

If you want something better, get a platform that can handle it. Its getting more and more common for PC to get texture packs to boot so its not like this is new.

All these bonus exist because its standard for PCs now. Higher textures, higher resolution, higher frame rate. Its basic porting.

Anything below 60 frames is considered bad. Consoles normally go 30.
Anything that doesn't offer a full range of resolution is considered awful. 1080P is common now.
Higher quality textures is optional, but nice.

So then how do you explain away the games that look better on consoles than on PC? How can CoD possibly run at 60 FPS on the dirty, dirty consoles? I never said anything about the early access. I couldn't care less actually. But if I am getting a substandard product I had better be paying less or getting a patch to standardize the product.

Now why you two feel the need to bring PC elitism into this I will never know. I was arguing for equality, why not just get behind that as gamers and leave the system prefaces at the door? I never had the nerve to say, "deal with it" when PC gamers were getting the shaft. I wonder how you will like it when the PC game selection becomes even smaller. The Xbone requires Kinect and the PS4 has a track pad in addition to its' controller. How many games will actually get ported I wonder? And the PC master race will cry out in anguish, "Save us!" and console gamers will whisper, "Deal with it."

A lot of games that have come out for the PC within the last year would never have been PC ports a couple of year ago. Games like Deadpool, Dark Souls, and Deadly Premonition Director's Cut which is getting voted for on Greenlight. I assume that most developers will still port things to the PC even with the X-Box One requiring Kinect and the PS3 having a track pad. I agree that it sucks when a developer gives another platform exclusive stuff that other platforms don't get like L.A. Noire with the Consul's Car case or with Kratos only on the PS3 version of MK9. It would be nice if they brought the updates to the console and maybe they will.

On Topic: I have heard good things about State of Decay. I am looking forward to the PC version. I just hope it doesn't use GFWL and instead uses Steamworks.

Imma preface this with, "LOL, wut?"

Ultratwinkie:
What games look better? its the same damn game. The console look is the minimum.

The games that are console exclusive and the games that were made for the console and then haphazardly ported (ie Fallout 3 & FO:NV no mods).

And COD doesn't run on 60 FPS, because consoles use TV sets instead of monitors. Console games are capped at 30, and that is indisputable fact.

False. /credibility
http://reviews.cnet.com/consoles/microsoft-xbox-360-s/4507-10109_7-34118625.html
http://www.giantbomb.com/60-fps-on-consoles/3015-3223/games/

PC isn't getting smaller, its growing. In fact, its growing by leaps and bounds because it allows developers to start up. Consoles rely on AAA and publishers for the majority of their games, and they are not keen on new ideas, new games, and small developers in the regular space.

True, developers are mostly weary of new ideas. However, how will the pc cope with Kinect/Smart Glass/Sony cam/Sony track pad requirements? MS is pushing the Kinect and Smart Glass is the next thing to be shoved down our throats. And we all know how much MS likes to bend over backwards for the pc folks. Halo anyone?

Now I will concede that the pc is a great place for developers to start up, but it is NOT the only place. Hell, we are in a thread talking about an indi game that came out on the 360 first.

Its not elitism if I point out that PC does things differently. It is EXPECTED to have a range of resolutions supported, its EXPECTED to have 60 frames per second. It may not be noticeable on TV, but it is on monitors. Higher resolution textures are original textures that aren't compressed.

Not supporting a range of resolutions is like saying "sorry, you own a sony TV, come back with another one."

It is elitism to say that you deserve all the extra content because you have THE superior system and you are owed this due to your particular troubles or to directly quote you, "Oh well get used to it, PC gamers had to deal with that crap for years. And its part of the apology to PC gamers for shafting them, because they had troubles for PC and that's why it didn't launch before." Do I expect pc quality? No. But I do know that the game is not running at the system's full capabilities.

Not removing the FPS cap on games turns games into chugging slideshows, and games like Overlord I fell into that trap. It was very noticeable and almost made the game unplayable by how much of a slideshow it became.

CoD runs quite smoothly... at 60fps... on my 1920 x 1080 tv... using a HDMI cable... for my xbox 360...

None of this is elitist. Its the bare minimum. I doubt you even know what you talk about when it comes to hardware. Hell you still think PC games are becoming rare when its all becoming digital, do you even know of steam and Green man gaming?

I seem to know more than you.

Also, pc ports will dwindle when the peripherals required can no longer be emulated by the pc (ie Kinect). I'm talking about the future.

Denamic:
They run at 60 FPS because they have low resolution textures, low poly count terrain, and very little shading. The game uses visual distractions to call attention away from the ugly, such as head bobbing, low field of view, high res gun taking up 25% of the screen, motion blur, aggressive depth of field, among other things. But if you pay attention, you'll start noticing very low res textures and models with a polygon count lower than 50. They're really not graphically advanced games.

This is true, but I know that this game is not running at full system specs. I'm not asking for pc quality graphics, I just want to have the current graphics fleshed out a little. I despise how the shrubs and trees will go 1D if you look at them the right (wrong?) way. A little polish would be nice. I'm more upset about the free extra content you all are getting.

This isn't about elitism. It's about facts. PCs have way more power than the 360, so they get higher resolution textures and higher framerates. You can't just patch it into the 360 version. They didn't chose to have worse graphics for the 360 out of spite. They made it according to the performance of the 360.

To be fair I kindda lumped you in with the other guy. However, it is still a little elitist to assume that the 360 version is as good as it could possibly be and if I want better I need to switch platforms.

Sarge034:
Imma preface this with, "LOL, wut?"

Ultratwinkie:
What games look better? its the same damn game. The console look is the minimum.

The games that are console exclusive and the games that were made for the console and then haphazardly ported (ie Fallout 3 & FO:NV no mods).

And COD doesn't run on 60 FPS, because consoles use TV sets instead of monitors. Console games are capped at 30, and that is indisputable fact.

False. /credibility
http://reviews.cnet.com/consoles/microsoft-xbox-360-s/4507-10109_7-34118625.html
http://www.giantbomb.com/60-fps-on-consoles/3015-3223/games/

PC isn't getting smaller, its growing. In fact, its growing by leaps and bounds because it allows developers to start up. Consoles rely on AAA and publishers for the majority of their games, and they are not keen on new ideas, new games, and small developers in the regular space.

True, developers are mostly weary of new ideas. However, how will the pc cope with Kinect/Smart Glass/Sony cam/Sony track pad requirements? MS is pushing the Kinect and Smart Glass is the next thing to be shoved down our throats. And we all know how much MS likes to bend over backwards for the pc folks. Halo anyone?

Now I will concede that the pc is a great place for developers to start up, but it is NOT the only place. Hell, we are in a thread talking about an indi game that came out on the 360 first.

Its not elitism if I point out that PC does things differently. It is EXPECTED to have a range of resolutions supported, its EXPECTED to have 60 frames per second. It may not be noticeable on TV, but it is on monitors. Higher resolution textures are original textures that aren't compressed.

Not supporting a range of resolutions is like saying "sorry, you own a sony TV, come back with another one."

It is elitism to say that you deserve all the extra content because you have THE superior system and you are owed this due to your particular troubles or to directly quote you, "Oh well get used to it, PC gamers had to deal with that crap for years. And its part of the apology to PC gamers for shafting them, because they had troubles for PC and that's why it didn't launch before." Do I expect pc quality? No. But I do know that the game is not running at the system's full capabilities.

Not removing the FPS cap on games turns games into chugging slideshows, and games like Overlord I fell into that trap. It was very noticeable and almost made the game unplayable by how much of a slideshow it became.

CoD runs quite smoothly... at 60fps... on my 1920 x 1080 tv... using a HDMI cable... for my xbox 360...

None of this is elitist. Its the bare minimum. I doubt you even know what you talk about when it comes to hardware. Hell you still think PC games are becoming rare when its all becoming digital, do you even know of steam and Green man gaming?

I seem to know more than you.

Also, pc ports will dwindle when the peripherals required can no longer be emulated by the pc (ie Kinect). I'm talking about the future.

Denamic:
They run at 60 FPS because they have low resolution textures, low poly count terrain, and very little shading. The game uses visual distractions to call attention away from the ugly, such as head bobbing, low field of view, high res gun taking up 25% of the screen, motion blur, aggressive depth of field, among other things. But if you pay attention, you'll start noticing very low res textures and models with a polygon count lower than 50. They're really not graphically advanced games.

This is true, but I know that this game is not running at full system specs. I'm not asking for pc quality graphics, I just want to have the current graphics fleshed out a little. I despise how the shrubs and trees will go 1D if you look at them the right (wrong?) way. A little polish would be nice. I'm more upset about the free extra content you all are getting.

This isn't about elitism. It's about facts. PCs have way more power than the 360, so they get higher resolution textures and higher framerates. You can't just patch it into the 360 version. They didn't chose to have worse graphics for the 360 out of spite. They made it according to the performance of the 360.

To be fair I kindda lumped you in with the other guy. However, it is still a little elitist to assume that the 360 version is as good as it could possibly be and if I want better I need to switch platforms.

The evidence you have is a CONCEPT of consoles being 60 fps (not true ability), and the second only says MAX resolution. The reason consoles use 30 is because of the age off when they were made in, where old TVs still were around.

Developers are known to upscale 720p into a pseudo 1080p. That isn't true 1080p, and most developers can't even be bothered to make true 1080p.

Like it or not, this generation of consoles is absolutely ancient. We have to do more and more invasive optimizations and sweeping limitations under the rug. This is called an indie game, it doesn't have the resources or money AAA games can push out to pay for the optimizations and better graphics that it allows. PC hardware is so powerful you don't need to worry much about anything. You don't need to compress the textures, and everything else as much to fit.

And the microsoft games that use smart glass, kinect, and the other gimmicks are xbox exclusives like dead rising. Microsoft even wants kinect on PC, but we all know the kinect is a gimmick technology that won't be adopted. The Ps4 isn't pushing the eye because it makes them lose the price point they have over the xbox one. The touch pad is to give the controller more buttons to use for more complex games. The PC has loads of buttons and a mouse, it doesn't need a track pad in the first place.

Even if they do go for motion controls, the PC has motion controls too.

Ultratwinkie:
The evidence you have is a CONCEPT of consoles being 60 fps (not true ability), and the second only says MAX resolution. The reason consoles use 30 is because of the age off when they were made in, where old TVs still were around.

A concept? Ok how about these? They implicitly state that the "Call of Duty engine" runs at 60FPS on consoles. Google it.
http://www.charlieintel.com/2012/10/10/treyarch-defends-their-60fps-call-of-duty-engine/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-black-ops-2-60fps-challenge

/credibility

Developers are known to upscale 720p into a pseudo 1080p. That isn't true 1080p, and most developers can't even be bothered to make true 1080p.

Most, not all. You have defeated your own point. /credibility

Like it or not, this generation of consoles is absolutely ancient. We have to do more and more invasive optimizations and sweeping limitations under the rug. This is called an indie game, it doesn't have the resources or money AAA games can push out to pay for the optimizations and better graphics that it allows. PC hardware is so powerful you don't need to worry much about anything. You don't need to compress the textures, and everything else as much to fit.

They had the money and resources to provide a patch to the pc version. Also there is no standard for pc hardware. This makes coding more difficult. You might end up with the same situation Crysis did back in the day. Very few could run the game at full specs, most had to run it on the bare minimum, and some could not play it at all. The console is a standard and stable coding platform.

And the microsoft games that use smart glass, kinect, and the other gimmicks are xbox exclusives like dead rising. Microsoft even wants kinect on PC, but we all know the kinect is a gimmick technology that won't be adopted. The Ps4 isn't pushing the eye because it makes them lose the price point they have over the xbox one. The touch pad is to give the controller more buttons to use for more complex games. The PC has loads of buttons and a mouse, it doesn't need a track pad in the first place.

Even if they do go for motion controls, the PC has motion controls too.

Wait. So first things first. "...but we all know the Kinect is a gimmick technology that won't be adopted." The Kinect is REQUIRED to play the Xbone. How can you say the technology has not already been adopted?

So anyway, you're saying that no matter what, the pc will be able to port console games? All I can say is that you are quite the optimist. I'll leave you alone now so you can play Halo 4 on the pc.

Sarge034:

Ultratwinkie:
The evidence you have is a CONCEPT of consoles being 60 fps (not true ability), and the second only says MAX resolution. The reason consoles use 30 is because of the age off when they were made in, where old TVs still were around.

A concept? Ok how about these? They implicitly state that the "Call of Duty engine" runs at 60FPS on consoles. Google it.
http://www.charlieintel.com/2012/10/10/treyarch-defends-their-60fps-call-of-duty-engine/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-black-ops-2-60fps-challenge

/credibility

Developers are known to upscale 720p into a pseudo 1080p. That isn't true 1080p, and most developers can't even be bothered to make true 1080p.

Most, not all. You have defeated your own point. /credibility

Like it or not, this generation of consoles is absolutely ancient. We have to do more and more invasive optimizations and sweeping limitations under the rug. This is called an indie game, it doesn't have the resources or money AAA games can push out to pay for the optimizations and better graphics that it allows. PC hardware is so powerful you don't need to worry much about anything. You don't need to compress the textures, and everything else as much to fit.

They had the money and resources to provide a patch to the pc version. Also there is no standard for pc hardware. This makes coding more difficult. You might end up with the same situation Crysis did back in the day. Very few could run the game at full specs, most had to run it on the bare minimum, and some could not play it at all. The console is a standard and stable coding platform.

And the microsoft games that use smart glass, kinect, and the other gimmicks are xbox exclusives like dead rising. Microsoft even wants kinect on PC, but we all know the kinect is a gimmick technology that won't be adopted. The Ps4 isn't pushing the eye because it makes them lose the price point they have over the xbox one. The touch pad is to give the controller more buttons to use for more complex games. The PC has loads of buttons and a mouse, it doesn't need a track pad in the first place.

Even if they do go for motion controls, the PC has motion controls too.

Wait. So first things first. "...but we all know the Kinect is a gimmick technology that won't be adopted." The Kinect is REQUIRED to play the Xbone. How can you say the technology has not already been adopted?

So anyway, you're saying that no matter what, the pc will be able to port console games? All I can say is that you are quite the optimist. I'll leave you alone now so you can play Halo 4 on the pc.

Coding isn't difficult for PC, hardware variety has little to do with it. The fact you even suggest that coding is harder because of every single little hardware choice shows you have no idea what the fuck you talk about. If that was true, the PS3 would be easier to code than the PC, its not.

You go on about credibility but the fact is you don't even know anything about programming. If you had to code for every single card then how the fuck do old games work on newer cards they aren't coded for? Oh that's right you didn't even put that much thought into your argument.

And not only that, but state of decay isn't crysis. Crysis is a game by a company who's sole purpose is to push graphical and technological limits to the point it was a game to show how powerful your PC was to run it at max. Hell, before Crytek went console their games were basically paid benchmarks all the way back to Far Cry 1 at their times of release. Crysis was meant to be a benchmark of power for PC games at the time. State of decay is not an expensive benchmark by a big company, its an indie game. The fact you think crysis coding was why people couldn't run crysis is laughable, and yet you have the audacity to claim credibility.

Do you even know the first thing about hardware and PCs? The majority of people couldn't run crysis was because their PCs weren't up to the standards of running it. Crytek was exclusionary in who could run their games at the time, and that ate into their profits because they sold a glorified 50$ graphics benchmark that was preoccupied with pushing graphics technology than actually being a game that can make its money back.

Just because a handful of developers actually bother to do true 1080p doesn't automatically "win" anything. Its something barely anyone does right beyond cheap and lazy upscaling.

Secondly, the xbox doesn't dictate shit or where the market is going to go. In fact, since the PS4 has no required eye the kinect is just a useless paperweight. Since using the kinect means they can't sell the game to a majority of the PS4's playerbase, and the PS4 is very popular right now, the kinect is a stupid thing to require. Not only that, but the kinect won't be accepted by PC gamers. The world doesn't revolve around microsoft.

If the PS4 doesn't do it as well as the xbox, no developer will make anything for the kinect that isn't an xbox exclusive. Microsoft is trying to shove the kinect down everyone's throats, and until Sony shoves the eye down people's throats too, the kinect is worthless.

If no one else has required motion controls, no developer would make a non exclusive game require it. Games are multiplatform to justify the costs they put into it now. If the game can't be put on all the other platforms because of what ONE PlATFORM HAS, it wont be made unless microsoft foots the bill for all of the game's development. This generation alone has exclusive be a failure after failure. Its multiplatform business now, games are too expensive to justify losing market share.

And even then, the motion controls would easily be converted to work with a mouse if they do go for motion control. Hell, PC has motion controls as well which you conveniently ignore. The reason all this stuff on consoles even exist is to give consoles more range in their controls that can easily be done with a mouse and keyboard.

And then you try to bring up Halo 4 as if that franchise even matters anymore to anyone. Come back to me when Halo actually brings back the numbers Call of Duty stole and people care about it again. Hell, PC doesn't even need to wait for Halo or COD anymore for online experiences.

It has red orchestra 1 & 2 & rising storm, League of Legends, Super Monday Night combat, TF2, Natural Selection 2, Killing floor, Planetside 2, Counter Strike source & GO, DOTA, Gary's Mod, Day of Defeat, Tribes: ascend, Chivalry, War of the Roses, APB: reloaded, Ace of Spades, and many more. Online games are a dime a dozen, there is no reason to "rush" for the same 3 "big" online shooters. PC gaming doesn't have a "lack" of games of play, especially if they are online so any attempt to hang halo over one's head is worthless.

In fact, on Steam your precious Black Ops II has a measly 13,000 PC gamers playing at the time of posting in all of Steam's 60 million users worldwide. TF2 alone has 52,000 people online right now at the time of posting from steam stats with a peak today of 66,000. Hell, even DOTA 2 has 411,000 players on right now. So how do you even think Halo is on on the map for PC gamers if the game that stole its thunder doesn't even get that attention? You have to try better than that to try to claim superiority by mentioning a old franchise PC gamers don't even care about and by extension no one else do either.

And by the way, patches are free on PC. They cost virtually nothing to make.

Anyone who knows anything about PC gaming would know all this. In fact all you are trying to do is mention excuses as to why xbox is better than PC, and failing at it I might add. Now all you're trying to do is convince yourself PC gaming will "die" because you can't handle the fact the xbox is at its limit and the PC got its standardized features that every PC game has.

PC will get its ports, and no motion controls from microsoft will ever stop that unless sony wants to demand the eye be required and lose their lead over the xbox.

Sarge034:

Wide range of hardware? It excluded most cards on a POWER BASIS. Are you honestly going to tell me you can run Crysis on a fucking Gefore 256 with some "coding?" In fact very few could say they can max settings at the time of release. It was a benchmark used for YEARS after. Crysis required you to have a card that didn't even exist at the time to run it at max comfortably. Its high specs and complex graphics took priority over who could actually run it. The fact he keep saying "coding" was the reason people couldn't run crysis is laughable.

So how the hell can you say "they didn't code for hardware" when crytek somehow "coded" for a card that didn't even exist yet? And you just have to love how you keep going on about how "hard" and "expensive" it is to code for PC hardware when its much cheaper and easier to code for it in reality. You can't even bring up hardware because hardware is standardized by manufacturer and kept compatible with card drivers. Anything different and not in the same boat as everything else is singled out and not used, the PS3's cell processor proved that. Its in the best interest to keep the cards standard and working with ease now, which modern card drivers do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_driver

And yes patches are free on PC, because you get charged a huge fee to publish a patch. Everyone from phil fish to team meat mentioned it as a huge turn off. Even from a wage standpoint its still free because patches come out while a game is released and still supported. Full production on a new game hasn't happened in this time so the only thing they can do is patch the game.

And 8 million? Really? That's cute. Come back when gets its numbers back from Call of Duty.

http://www.webcitation.org/6HAjEcT0k
4 million in a month.
http://www.vg247.com/2012/12/07/black-ops-moved-7-5-million-copies-in-11-days-according-to-november-npd-data/
7.5 million in just 11 days.
http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=black+ops+II
Even by your own charts, Black Ops II numbers in the 20+ million range including all platforms. Even the PS3 sales by itself beat Halo's sales.

Black Ops II sold the majority of Halo 4's lifetime sales in just 11 days. Its clear more people care about COD than Halo at this point. A game which every platform has. So how can you hold it over people's head anymore when consumers made it very clear they prefer COD now?

So how do you think saying "at least you don't have halo" is a good comeback when PC gamers by large don't even care about its successor? Even then, PC has a halo-like game in development called Project Contingency. So that niche is filled, and making halo redundant.

And no titles exclusive to other systems? You don't have PS3 exclusives yet I don't see you jumping ship to PS3. PC has exclusives too. Natural Selection 2 is a PC exclusive, so is War Of the Roses, the revamped TF2, DOTA 2, etc. Most of the games on there are PC exclusives that happen to be online. Hell, DOTA 2 brings in almost half a million every day with no sign of stopping. You don't have games that are exclusive to PC, PS3, or Nintendo yet I don't see you all depressed.

You try to bring up Nintendo but nintendo is in its own little market because of how reclusive it is. A position they built over decades. They have a stocked stable of well known franchises spanning decades and a reputation dating back to the video game crash. No one can even hope to be nintendo. Yet even now Nintendo hit a brick wall with the Wii U so their business practices are being called into question. Unless you are post crash to Wii/DS era nintendo, exclusives aren't good business. Its a multiplatform reality now. Its all about market penetration, because exclusives don't bring in the money publishers want unless you are the old timer special case like nintendo. The more people see the game, the more people buy. You can't avoid the other markets anymore. As it is the profit margins aren't what they want for multiplatform, how can you expect an exclusive to top that? Even then, exclusives are made by a manufacturer giving a lump sum of money to a publisher or developer to publish or make an exclusive.

And I said "your precious" because you brought up Black Ops in the first place. If you weren't trying to say which platform is better, why did you fantasize about PC gaming dying then? Why did you try to bring up halo when it was replaced by Call of Duty? why the hell did you bring up the kinect and fantasizing how it would kill PC and by extension the PS4 because it has no eye requirement? You sure as hell didn't show any empathy or even understanding then, especially when current consoles have reached their limit.

Want better graphics? Be prepared to throw money to optimize it to allow better graphics and pay the fee for the damn certification. Which is too expensive for an indie to handle, but not on PC where patches are free and there is no hardware limitation. It also acts as a gift to gamers who had to wait and slog through Steam's early access alpha to play their game. These updates are an apology gift for their wait and patience. PC gamers have to wait or play an alpha for months before they get their finished game.

Current consoles are over 7 year old systems, they are ancient. Objectively PC is a better platform, anything is better than current gen consoles now. Even mobile devices easily caught up to consoles. The consoles have reached the end of their rope, so don't expect "better graphics" when we have reached the damn apex of what we can do with this old technology.

And by the way, rigging a simple mouse function and even a controller function would be easier than having to code a motion sensor to recognize a range of body types, and moves. You think coding for drivers is "bad" yet trying to make sure your controls aren't slow, or buggy with a huge range of body types is suddenly easier than that? With no knowledge if the new kinect would be a cluster fuck that the old one was? You are betting and expecting way too much from motion controls.

Ultratwinkie:
Wide range of hardware? It excluded most cards on a POWER BASIS. Are you honestly going to tell me you can run Crysis on a fucking Gefore 256 with some "coding?"

You absolutely can. Hell, you could run Crysis on an 8-bit device if you coded it to. You don't seem to understand that the code is the game's "DNA". You code the graphics settings, the engine, the entire game. Now would it be the same version of Crysis that we know today? No, but that is the nature of changing the code to run on different hardware with different specs. You can only run what the hardware allows, so I guess a wide variety of hardware would be hard to find the common denominator for. Which was my point. And you conveniently forgot to address the StarCraft 1 issue I brought up.

In fact very few could say they can max settings at the time of release. It was a benchmark used for YEARS after. Crysis required you to have a card that didn't even exist at the time to run it at max comfortably. Its high specs and complex graphics took priority over who could actually run it. The fact he keep saying "coding" was the reason people couldn't run crysis is laughable.

So how the hell can you say "they didn't code for hardware" when crytek somehow "coded" for a card that didn't even exist yet? And you just have to love how you keep going on about how "hard" and "expensive" it is to code for PC hardware when its much cheaper and easier to code for it in reality. You can't even bring up hardware because hardware is standardized by manufacturer and kept compatible with card drivers. Anything different and not in the same boat as everything else is singled out and not used, the PS3's cell processor proved that. Its in the best interest to keep the cards standard and working with ease now, which modern card drivers do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_driver

The graphics settings and engine were coded to run on a specific level of hardware. A level that most pc gamers did not have. Consoles gives up the ability to constantly upgrade to new cutting edge hardware for the consistency that brings. That means pc developers need to try to find the lowest common denominator in the current pc hardware so the vast majority of people can get their rigs to run the game and you still need tons of patches, driver updates, and user fixes to fix unexpected compatibility issues. While the console developers need only worry about the unchanging specs of their intended platform. That was my only point on that matter. I never said one was better than the other. PC gets cutting edge hardware and the instability that brings while consoles have to have static hardware to enjoy the stable convenience that brings.

I mean you even said it yourself, "Anything different and not in the same boat as everything else is singled out and not used,..." So the people who do use those odd pieces of hardware are told, "tough shit, #DealWithIt".

And yes patches are free on PC, because you get charged a huge fee to publish a patch. Everyone from phil fish to team meat mentioned it as a huge turn off.

So first off to show you the flawed logic you are using. "Oranges are free because I have to pay for apples."

Second, there is no longer a fee to patch 360 games.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/125473-Microsoft-Drops-Fees-For-Patching-Xbox-360-Titles

Even from a wage standpoint its still free because patches come out while a game is released and still supported. Full production on a new game hasn't happened in this time so the only thing they can do is patch the game.

False, and this type of stuff is actually what I am certified to do. The workers in question (devs, QC, art designers, ect) can all be moved to the next project, but those supporting the game post-release are not. Now common sense says this work is free because the workers are on a salary. However, this notion is false. The technical name for it is an "opportunity cost". The short version is that it costs the company for the work on new projects those workers are not getting done. This can result in having to hire additional worker, pay overtime if unwilling to hire additional workers, or simply suffer a time delay on getting the next project out the door.

And now, with MS dropping the additional patch fee, pc and console devs have the same associated costs. So if you want to say pc devs can patch for free then you must also say that console devs can patch for free. Or if you understand there is actually a cost associated with the production of these both patches you must say both cost something.

And 8 million? Really? That's cute. Come back when gets its numbers back from Call of Duty.
http://www.webcitation.org/6HAjEcT0k
4 million in a month.
http://www.vg247.com/2012/12/07/black-ops-moved-7-5-million-copies-in-11-days-according-to-november-npd-data/
7.5 million in just 11 days.
http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=black+ops+II
Even by your own charts, Black Ops II numbers in the 20+ million range including all platforms. Even the PS3 sales by itself beat Halo's sales.

Lets see... 8 million * $60 USD = $480 million USD

That a nice chunk of change. Why is BO:2 the required measuring stick? How do 8 million copies indicate the franchise is dead or invalid?

If you remember you touted all these games earlier...

> red orchestra 1 & 2 =============== 0.10 million
> League of Legends =========== F2P = 0.0 million
> Super Monday Night combat === F2P = 0.0 million
> TF2 ========================= F2P = 0.0 million
> Natural Selection 2 =============== as of 2013 "well over 300,000" (0.3 million)
> Killing floor ===================== as of 2012 "over 1 million" (1.? million)
> Planetside 2 ================ F2P = 0.0 million
> Counter Strike ==================== as of 2008 5.7 million
> Counter-Strike: Condition Zero ==== as of 2008 2.9 million
> Counter-Strike: Source ============ as of 2008 2.1 million
> DOTA ======================== F2P = 0.0 million
> Gary's Mod ======================== as of 2012 1.4 million
> Day of Defeat ===================== unknown
> Tribes: ascend ============== F2P = 0.0 million
> Chivalry ========================== unknown
> War of the Roses ============ F2P = 0.0 million
> APB: reloaded =============== F2P = 0.0 million
> Ace of Spades =============== F2P = 0.0 million

Black Ops II sold the majority of Halo 4's lifetime sales in just 11 days. Its clear more people care about COD than Halo at this point. A game which every platform has. So how can you hold it over people's head anymore when consumers made it very clear they prefer COD now?

Going by BO2, or even Halo 4, sales no one cares about any of your awesome pc games either. Why don't we all just only play CoD because the sales numbers demand it?

So how do you think saying "at least you don't have halo" is a good comeback when PC gamers by large don't even care about its successor? Even then, PC has a halo-like game in development called Project Contingency. So that niche is filled, and making halo redundant.

I'M NOT!!! I'm saying that Halo switching to a console exclusive is a worrying sign of the future. MS makes pc hardware and software, so why didn't they port their flagship title to that gaming device as well? Halo 1 and Halo 2 were ported to the pc but Halo 3, Halo 4, and I believe all the side games were console exclusive.

And no titles exclusive to other systems? You don't have PS3 exclusives yet I don't see you jumping ship to PS3. PC has exclusives too. Natural Selection 2 is a PC exclusive, so is War Of the Roses, the revamped TF2, DOTA 2, etc. Most of the games on there are PC exclusives that happen to be online. Hell, DOTA 2 brings in almost half a million every day with no sign of stopping. You don't have games that are exclusive to PC, PS3, or Nintendo yet I don't see you all depressed.

Learn to English. I can barely make out what you are trying to say.

I was all types of depressed that The Last of Us was PS3 exclusive. I got into it with a Nintendo fangirl on these very forums for saying that Nintendo should take their games multiplatform.

And because you know everything about me you obviously know that I own a 360, PS3, and a pc.

You try to bring up Nintendo but nintendo is in its own little market because of how reclusive it is. A position they built over decades. They have a stocked stable of well known franchises spanning decades and a reputation dating back to the video game crash. No one can even hope to be nintendo. Yet even now Nintendo hit a brick wall with the Wii U so their business practices are being called into question. Unless you are post crash to Wii/DS era nintendo, exclusives aren't good business. Its a multiplatform reality now. Its all about market penetration, because exclusives don't bring in the money publishers want unless you are the old timer special case like nintendo. The more people see the game, the more people buy. You can't avoid the other markets anymore. As it is the profit margins aren't what they want for multiplatform, how can you expect an exclusive to top that? Even then, exclusives are made by a manufacturer giving a lump sum of money to a publisher or developer to publish or make an exclusive.

So... you are advocating for more multiplatform games? Cool, I'm right there with you. I only bring up Nintendo because you say that a company only making console exclusives will never happen, and I say it already has.

And I said "your precious" because you brought up Black Ops in the first place.

Imagine that! I bring up a game, among others, that disproves your argument. HOW DARE I!!!!!!

If you weren't trying to say which platform is better, why did you fantasize about PC gaming dying then? Why did you try to bring up halo when it was replaced by Call of Duty? why the hell did you bring up the kinect and fantasizing how it would kill PC and by extension the PS4 because it has no eye requirement? You sure as hell didn't show any empathy or even understanding then, especially when current consoles have reached their limit.

Quote where you see me "fantasizing" about the "death" of the pc. I'm serious. show me EXACTLY where I said I wanted pc gaming to die. I'll save you some time. You can't.

If anything I was worried FOR pc gaming. MS is pushing its' tech and Sony keeping all their IPs in a strange hold could potentially leave the PC with only those who dev for the pc. I believe this would be unbeneficial to the community as a whole. But you chose to get defensive and see me as a dirty console user that was trying to "kill" pc gaming. I play some games on the pc too bud.

Want better graphics? Be prepared to throw money to optimize it to allow better graphics and pay the fee for the damn certification. Which is too expensive for an indie to handle, but not on PC where patches are free and there is no hardware limitation.

False, see above.

It also acts as a gift to gamers who had to wait and slog through Steam's early access alpha to play their game. These updates are an apology gift for their wait and patience. PC gamers have to wait or play an alpha for months before they get their finished game.

Ok, so actually think about that for a second. They were going to release a version to pc gamers that was unpolished and did not take full advantage of the known hardware. They decided to polish the game a little more as an apology because their digital distribution service screwed up. What makes you think that they did not release an unpolished version that did not take full advantage of the 360's known hardware? I paid them money on day 2 to make the damn thing a success. Why the hell should I be happy with a substandard product if I know they can do better and I actively see them giving the pc version some polish?

Current consoles are over 7 year old systems, they are ancient. Objectively PC is a better platform, anything is better than current gen consoles now. Even mobile devices easily caught up to consoles. The consoles have reached the end of their rope, so don't expect "better graphics" when we have reached the damn apex of what we can do with this old technology.

False. Check your bias and look up the OUYA. Hell, I even know of old school edition apple '97s still in use. As for the "apex"... I can run 8-bit arcade games on my 360, does that mean the highest fidelity possible is 8-bit? No, of curse not. That has been my complaint all along is that I know this game could look better on the 360.

And by the way, rigging a simple mouse function and even a controller function would be easier than having to code a motion sensor to recognize a range of body types, and moves. You think coding for drivers is "bad" yet trying to make sure your controls aren't slow, or buggy with a huge range of body types is suddenly easier than that? With no knowledge if the new kinect would be a cluster fuck that the old one was? You are betting and expecting way too much from motion controls.

Where did I say coding for drivers was "bad"? You are being based and putting words in my mouth, again. I said having code that compensated for all of the different hardware on the pc was more difficult then coding for a standardized hardware setup.

I said AND I QUOTE, "To say the Kinect is worthless is a bit harsh I think. If the software is as good as MS claims they could do some really cool things with it."

Stop reading what you think I'm saying and just read what I say. I'm not even being ambiguous...

Sarge034:

Ultratwinkie:
Wide range of hardware? It excluded most cards on a POWER BASIS. Are you honestly going to tell me you can run Crysis on a fucking Gefore 256 with some "coding?"

You absolutely can. Hell, you could run Crysis on an 8-bit device if you coded it to. You don't seem to understand that the code is the game's "DNA". You code the graphics settings, the engine, the entire game. Now would it be the same version of Crysis that we know today? No, but that is the nature of changing the code to run on different hardware with different specs. You can only run what the hardware allows, so I guess a wide variety of hardware would be hard to find the common denominator for. Which was my point. And you conveniently forgot to address the StarCraft 1 issue I brought up.

In fact very few could say they can max settings at the time of release. It was a benchmark used for YEARS after. Crysis required you to have a card that didn't even exist at the time to run it at max comfortably. Its high specs and complex graphics took priority over who could actually run it. The fact he keep saying "coding" was the reason people couldn't run crysis is laughable.

So how the hell can you say "they didn't code for hardware" when crytek somehow "coded" for a card that didn't even exist yet? And you just have to love how you keep going on about how "hard" and "expensive" it is to code for PC hardware when its much cheaper and easier to code for it in reality. You can't even bring up hardware because hardware is standardized by manufacturer and kept compatible with card drivers. Anything different and not in the same boat as everything else is singled out and not used, the PS3's cell processor proved that. Its in the best interest to keep the cards standard and working with ease now, which modern card drivers do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_driver

The graphics settings and engine were coded to run on a specific level of hardware. A level that most pc gamers did not have. Consoles gives up the ability to constantly upgrade to new cutting edge hardware for the consistency that brings. That means pc developers need to try to find the lowest common denominator in the current pc hardware so the vast majority of people can get their rigs to run the game and you still need tons of patches, driver updates, and user fixes to fix unexpected compatibility issues. While the console developers need only worry about the unchanging specs of their intended platform. That was my only point on that matter. I never said one was better than the other. PC gets cutting edge hardware and the instability that brings while consoles have to have static hardware to enjoy the stable convenience that brings.

I mean you even said it yourself, "Anything different and not in the same boat as everything else is singled out and not used,..." So the people who do use those odd pieces of hardware are told, "tough shit, #DealWithIt".

And yes patches are free on PC, because you get charged a huge fee to publish a patch. Everyone from phil fish to team meat mentioned it as a huge turn off.

So first off to show you the flawed logic you are using. "Oranges are free because I have to pay for apples."

Second, there is no longer a fee to patch 360 games.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/125473-Microsoft-Drops-Fees-For-Patching-Xbox-360-Titles

Even from a wage standpoint its still free because patches come out while a game is released and still supported. Full production on a new game hasn't happened in this time so the only thing they can do is patch the game.

False, and this type of stuff is actually what I am certified to do. The workers in question (devs, QC, art designers, ect) can all be moved to the next project, but those supporting the game post-release are not. Now common sense says this work is free because the workers are on a salary. However, this notion is false. The technical name for it is an "opportunity cost". The short version is that it costs the company for the work on new projects those workers are not getting done. This can result in having to hire additional worker, pay overtime if unwilling to hire additional workers, or simply suffer a time delay on getting the next project out the door.

And now, with MS dropping the additional patch fee, pc and console devs have the same associated costs. So if you want to say pc devs can patch for free then you must also say that console devs can patch for free. Or if you understand there is actually a cost associated with the production of these both patches you must say both cost something.

And 8 million? Really? That's cute. Come back when gets its numbers back from Call of Duty.
http://www.webcitation.org/6HAjEcT0k
4 million in a month.
http://www.vg247.com/2012/12/07/black-ops-moved-7-5-million-copies-in-11-days-according-to-november-npd-data/
7.5 million in just 11 days.
http://www.vgchartz.com/gamedb/?name=black+ops+II
Even by your own charts, Black Ops II numbers in the 20+ million range including all platforms. Even the PS3 sales by itself beat Halo's sales.

Lets see... 8 million * $60 USD = $480 million USD

That a nice chunk of change. Why is BO:2 the required measuring stick? How do 8 million copies indicate the franchise is dead or invalid?

If you remember you touted all these games earlier...

> red orchestra 1 & 2 =============== 0.10 million
> League of Legends =========== F2P = 0.0 million
> Super Monday Night combat === F2P = 0.0 million
> TF2 ========================= F2P = 0.0 million
> Natural Selection 2 =============== as of 2013 "well over 300,000" (0.3 million)
> Killing floor ===================== as of 2012 "over 1 million" (1.? million)
> Planetside 2 ================ F2P = 0.0 million
> Counter Strike ==================== as of 2008 5.7 million
> Counter-Strike: Condition Zero ==== as of 2008 2.9 million
> Counter-Strike: Source ============ as of 2008 2.1 million
> DOTA ======================== F2P = 0.0 million
> Gary's Mod ======================== as of 2012 1.4 million
> Day of Defeat ===================== unknown
> Tribes: ascend ============== F2P = 0.0 million
> Chivalry ========================== unknown
> War of the Roses ============ F2P = 0.0 million
> APB: reloaded =============== F2P = 0.0 million
> Ace of Spades =============== F2P = 0.0 million

Black Ops II sold the majority of Halo 4's lifetime sales in just 11 days. Its clear more people care about COD than Halo at this point. A game which every platform has. So how can you hold it over people's head anymore when consumers made it very clear they prefer COD now?

Going by BO2, or even Halo 4, sales no one cares about any of your awesome pc games either. Why don't we all just only play CoD because the sales numbers demand it?

So how do you think saying "at least you don't have halo" is a good comeback when PC gamers by large don't even care about its successor? Even then, PC has a halo-like game in development called Project Contingency. So that niche is filled, and making halo redundant.

I'M NOT!!! I'm saying that Halo switching to a console exclusive is a worrying sign of the future. MS makes pc hardware and software, so why didn't they port their flagship title to that gaming device as well? Halo 1 and Halo 2 were ported to the pc but Halo 3, Halo 4, and I believe all the side games were console exclusive.

And no titles exclusive to other systems? You don't have PS3 exclusives yet I don't see you jumping ship to PS3. PC has exclusives too. Natural Selection 2 is a PC exclusive, so is War Of the Roses, the revamped TF2, DOTA 2, etc. Most of the games on there are PC exclusives that happen to be online. Hell, DOTA 2 brings in almost half a million every day with no sign of stopping. You don't have games that are exclusive to PC, PS3, or Nintendo yet I don't see you all depressed.

Learn to English. I can barely make out what you are trying to say.

I was all types of depressed that The Last of Us was PS3 exclusive. I got into it with a Nintendo fangirl on these very forums for saying that Nintendo should take their games multiplatform.

And because you know everything about me you obviously know that I own a 360, PS3, and a pc.

You try to bring up Nintendo but nintendo is in its own little market because of how reclusive it is. A position they built over decades. They have a stocked stable of well known franchises spanning decades and a reputation dating back to the video game crash. No one can even hope to be nintendo. Yet even now Nintendo hit a brick wall with the Wii U so their business practices are being called into question. Unless you are post crash to Wii/DS era nintendo, exclusives aren't good business. Its a multiplatform reality now. Its all about market penetration, because exclusives don't bring in the money publishers want unless you are the old timer special case like nintendo. The more people see the game, the more people buy. You can't avoid the other markets anymore. As it is the profit margins aren't what they want for multiplatform, how can you expect an exclusive to top that? Even then, exclusives are made by a manufacturer giving a lump sum of money to a publisher or developer to publish or make an exclusive.

So... you are advocating for more multiplatform games? Cool, I'm right there with you. I only bring up Nintendo because you say that a company only making console exclusives will never happen, and I say it already has.

And I said "your precious" because you brought up Black Ops in the first place.

Imagine that! I bring up a game, among others, that disproves your argument. HOW DARE I!!!!!!

If you weren't trying to say which platform is better, why did you fantasize about PC gaming dying then? Why did you try to bring up halo when it was replaced by Call of Duty? why the hell did you bring up the kinect and fantasizing how it would kill PC and by extension the PS4 because it has no eye requirement? You sure as hell didn't show any empathy or even understanding then, especially when current consoles have reached their limit.

Quote where you see me "fantasizing" about the "death" of the pc. I'm serious. show me EXACTLY where I said I wanted pc gaming to die. I'll save you some time. You can't.

If anything I was worried FOR pc gaming. MS is pushing its' tech and Sony keeping all their IPs in a strange hold could potentially leave the PC with only those who dev for the pc. I believe this would be unbeneficial to the community as a whole. But you chose to get defensive and see me as a dirty console user that was trying to "kill" pc gaming. I play some games on the pc too bud.

Want better graphics? Be prepared to throw money to optimize it to allow better graphics and pay the fee for the damn certification. Which is too expensive for an indie to handle, but not on PC where patches are free and there is no hardware limitation.

False, see above.

It also acts as a gift to gamers who had to wait and slog through Steam's early access alpha to play their game. These updates are an apology gift for their wait and patience. PC gamers have to wait or play an alpha for months before they get their finished game.

Ok, so actually think about that for a second. They were going to release a version to pc gamers that was unpolished and did not take full advantage of the known hardware. They decided to polish the game a little more as an apology because their digital distribution service screwed up. What makes you think that they did not release an unpolished version that did not take full advantage of the 360's known hardware? I paid them money on day 2 to make the damn thing a success. Why the hell should I be happy with a substandard product if I know they can do better and I actively see them giving the pc version some polish?

Current consoles are over 7 year old systems, they are ancient. Objectively PC is a better platform, anything is better than current gen consoles now. Even mobile devices easily caught up to consoles. The consoles have reached the end of their rope, so don't expect "better graphics" when we have reached the damn apex of what we can do with this old technology.

False. Check your bias and look up the OUYA. Hell, I even know of old school edition apple '97s still in use. As for the "apex"... I can run 8-bit arcade games on my 360, does that mean the highest fidelity possible is 8-bit? No, of curse not. That has been my complaint all along is that I know this game could look better on the 360.

And by the way, rigging a simple mouse function and even a controller function would be easier than having to code a motion sensor to recognize a range of body types, and moves. You think coding for drivers is "bad" yet trying to make sure your controls aren't slow, or buggy with a huge range of body types is suddenly easier than that? With no knowledge if the new kinect would be a cluster fuck that the old one was? You are betting and expecting way too much from motion controls.

Where did I say coding for drivers was "bad"? You are being based and putting words in my mouth, again. I said having code that compensated for all of the different hardware on the pc was more difficult then coding for a standardized hardware setup.

I said AND I QUOTE, "To say the Kinect is worthless is a bit harsh I think. If the software is as good as MS claims they could do some really cool things with it."

Stop reading what you think I'm saying and just read what I say. I'm not even being ambiguous...

> says you can run crysis on old outdated technolgy.
>> turns back around and says its not crysis anymore.
>>> expects that to be a damn rebuttal.

Architecture is kept the same, hardware is kept under the same umbrella. PS3's cell processor was so different and a special case that no one wanted to code for it in the beginning. Drivers allow programmers to code independently of what hardware you have. You don't need to code something drivers already do. User fixes and patches? For hardware when drivers do all the heavy lifting? Drivers? The fucking manufacturers do that shit for you. odd hardware is only dropped when its been completely replaced by new hardware, and even then its not that hard to fix old games. In fact, the majority of problems with old games come from things like .dll files,

And you use VGcharts for PC gaming sales? Steam and digital sales don't post their numbers to VGcharts. The only thing you can possibly do is look up the stats on steam and see who is playing at a certain time, and even then its changes throughout the day. PC gaming's majority of sales are digital, and that isn't posted.

You keep going on about how Halo was so "cool" and how "you don't have it yuk yuk, fuck you" when in comparison no one cares about halo. COD stole all the thunder halo had as the "it" online game, and PC gamers don't even care for COD and went for a variety of online games. At no point did I say they beat COD, I said PC gamers care more about those games than they do for Halo. The most popular is DOTA 2 with half a million online at once every day. So why would PC gamers care about a franchise that hasn't had any pull since COD stole everything? PC gamers don't care for COD, so why would they care for halo? The only reason microsoft doesn't port Halo to PC is because they want something to sell the xbox with. Microsoft doesn't understand PC gaming, every attempt Microsoft made to try to "get" PC gamers was cutting and pasting xbox live onto PC gaming and expecting the name to somehow give them total control and allowing them to charge outrageous prices for what PC gaming gets for free.

You then went on about how PC gaming "doesn't have titles exclusives to other platforms" but the xbox doesn't have PS3 exclusives so you can't use "you don't have this, nyah" when the xbox doesn't have any exclusives of the other platforms either. To use the "PC doesn't have this exclusive" is a bad argument that you tried to push.

And a quote fantasizing about the death of PC gaming? Yes you did:

I wonder how you will like it when the PC game selection becomes even smaller. The Xbone requires Kinect and the PS4 has a track pad in addition to its' controller. How many games will actually get ported I wonder? And the PC master race will cry out in anguish, "Save us!" and console gamers will whisper, "Deal with it." - You, post #12.

So anyway, you're saying that no matter what, the pc will be able to port console games? All I can say is that you are quite the optimist. I'll leave you alone now so you can play Halo 4 on the pc. - You, post #20

Where is the "worry" there? All I see is showboating and you didn't actually show "worry" until right now. I said consoles were at the end of their rope and need a update, you said "fuck you PC gaming is dying, I want my shiny graphics because AAA developers can make shiny graphics." Want better graphics? Pay the indie for them so they can optimize better graphics. You don't need to compress the game for PC so that's cheaper and less work intensive. You don't have to find clever ways to shove an elephant through a glory hole on PC. You can argue "oh there are limitations" but compared to how limited the current gens consoles are now the PC has way more leg room.

In fact for whats a normal PC, lets take Steam stats, who have 60 (70 if Dexter's data is correct) million PC gamers registered.

GPU:
52% use nvidia.
Most popular non-integrated GPU is a Geforce 560 Ti.
Geforce 660 has highest adoption rate of non integrated cards.
Majority of all cards is Directx 11 capable, 63%. Not exactly "low."
Most popular integrated card is Intel HD 3000. The 4000 is starting to replace it.

CPUs:
Intel dominates. 73%.
Majority is in 2.3-3.0+ ghz range. 2.3-30 is 20%. the 3.0+ combined range dominates with 25%.
Physically, 2 CPUs most popular.
4 CPUs have highest adoption rate.

Windows 7 most popular OS on steam. 52%.
Average ram is 8GB. 24%. 4GB is 21%.
8GB is most popular and highest adoption rate.
Most popular is 1920x1080 resolution.

That "lowest common denominator" doesn't look so "low." You wouldn't have to compress a game from the xbox for this machine, you have the luxury of being less focused on efficiency and decompress it.

And no, they didn't have a "sub par version" for PC that they just didn't release to polish. The state of Decay devs specifically stated that PC gamers did not get their version because a lot relied on third parties. Too much relied on other people to get the PC version out anytime soon. It was a knowledge of PC and logistics issue, not because they wanted console gamers to suffer.

In fact, the quote from undead labs was:

"Will the PC version have enhanced graphics? Higher res? Improved framerate? Yes. A high end PC can do all those things, so we're modifying the game to support those things. The PC version will not have different content or features, however."

"What the PC version also won't have are modding tools (for time/testing reasons), but we have no objection to mods or modders, and we look forward to seeing what our PC players come up with."

No compression, so better graphics. Higher textures can really save the look.
Higher resolution, because its standard to support the resolutions of PC and the PC can handle it Not supporting resolutions is like not allowing sony TVs to show your game.
higher framerate? You are talking about a game made for 2005 technology running on a 2013 PC.

So there is no "conspiracy." Its the xbox being at its limit for what money they had. There is a reason SOD looks like that and not like Skyrim or the Witcher 2. Developers don't want a bad and bad looking game. If they can have legendary graphics, superior gameplay, and ending up being the best selling game of all time, they would do that.

But they can't, because there are limits. Its the reason the PS4 and Xbox One are on their way. The limitations for the consoles are too low and need an update.

Ultratwinkie:
> says you can run crysis on old outdated technology.

You can. As you keep saying, the tech was outdated when Crysis came out.

>> turns back around and says its not crysis anymore.

Correction. Says it's not exactly the same game anymore.

>>> expects that to be a damn rebuttal.

Yep.

Architecture is kept the same, hardware is kept under the same umbrella. PS3's cell processor was so different and a special case that no one wanted to code for it in the beginning. Drivers allow programmers to code independently of what hardware you have. You don't need to code something drivers already do. User fixes and patches? For hardware when drivers do all the heavy lifting? Drivers? The fucking manufacturers do that shit for you. odd hardware is only dropped when its been completely replaced by new hardware, and even then its not that hard to fix old games. In fact, the majority of problems with old games come from things like .dll files,

Do you even play on PC? There are user made compatibility packs for almost every PC game out there.

And you use VGcharts for PC gaming sales? Steam and digital sales don't post their numbers to VGcharts. The only thing you can possibly do is look up the stats on steam and see who is playing at a certain time, and even then its changes throughout the day. PC gaming's majority of sales are digital, and that isn't posted.

If they don't feel the need to state sales numbers like everyone else then I don't feel the need to count them. Somehow digital content is recorded and posted on other mediums.

You keep going on about how Halo was so "cool"

Never said it was "cool".

and how "you don't have it yuk yuk, fuck you"

Never said "yuk yuk" or "fuck you".

when in comparison no one cares about halo.

8 million sales would seem to disagree.

COD stole all the thunder halo had as the "it" online game, and PC gamers don't even care for COD and went for a variety of online games. At no point did I say they beat COD, I said PC gamers care more about those games than they do for Halo. The most popular is DOTA 2 with half a million online at once every day. So why would PC gamers care about a franchise that hasn't had any pull since COD stole everything? PC gamers don't care for COD, so why would they care for halo?

You are quite presumptuous, aren't you? You feel you have the ability to speak for every single PC gamer? You loose all credibility when you make overreaching claims and logical fallacies like this.

The only reason microsoft doesn't port Halo to PC is because they want something to sell the xbox with.

OH, MY GOD!!! YOU ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING THIS WHOLE TIME. So what happens when companies try to retain most of the IPs for their system to sell units? That's right! NO ONE ELSE GETS THEM.

You then went on about how PC gaming "doesn't have titles exclusives to other platforms" but the xbox doesn't have PS3 exclusives so you can't use "you don't have this, nyah" when the xbox doesn't have any exclusives of the other platforms either. To use the "PC doesn't have this exclusive" is a bad argument that you tried to push.

It was an example. A single example. PC and 360 gamers don't get "The Last of Us", PS3 and PC gamers don't get Halo. PS3 and 360 gamers don't get LoL.

The point was in the fact MS has a foot in the PC market and chose to not port their flagship money maker. It was to highlight a possible trend in mindset. IE, an example.

And a quote fantasizing about the death of PC gaming? Yes you did:

I wonder how you will like it when the PC game selection becomes even smaller. The Xbone requires Kinect and the PS4 has a track pad in addition to its' controller. How many games will actually get ported I wonder? And the PC master race will cry out in anguish, "Save us!" and console gamers will whisper, "Deal with it." - You, post #12.

So anyway, you're saying that no matter what, the pc will be able to port console games? All I can say is that you are quite the optimist. I'll leave you alone now so you can play Halo 4 on the pc. - You, post #20

Where is the "worry" there? All I see is showboating and you didn't actually show "worry" until right now.

That's cute. You can strip away all the context. Let's look at those quotes in their entirety. Shall we?

Now why you two feel the need to bring PC elitism into this I will never know. I was arguing for equality, why not just get behind that as gamers and leave the system prefaces at the door? I never had the nerve to say, "deal with it" when PC gamers were getting the shaft. I wonder how you will like it when the PC game selection becomes even smaller. The Xbone requires Kinect and the PS4 has a track pad in addition to its' controller. How many games will actually get ported I wonder? And the PC master race will cry out in anguish, "Save us!" and console gamers will whisper, "Deal with it." #12

HOLY SHIT!!! Is that concern and empathy right there? I THINK IT IS!!! What you quoted was the anecdotal jab at your hostility.

The second quote is quite innocent and shows just how desperate you were. I was surprised they you believed the PC could emulate any and all of the things, gimmicky or not, that the consoles would do and that the PC would definitively get those games as ports.

I said consoles were at the end of their rope and need a update, you said "fuck you PC gaming is dying, I want my shiny graphics because AAA developers can make shiny graphics."

Stop paraphrasing me. I'm serious. Fucking quote me or leave this biased bullshit out. I NEVER SAID THAT.

Here are the applicable quotes.

"Ok, so actually think about that for a second. They were going to release a version to pc gamers that was unpolished and did not take full advantage of the known hardware. They decided to polish the game a little more as an apology because their digital distribution service screwed up. What makes you think that they did not release an unpolished version that did not take full advantage of the 360's known hardware? I paid them money on day 2 to make the damn thing a success. Why the hell should I be happy with a substandard product if I know they can do better and I actively see them giving the pc version some polish?"

"False. Check your bias and look up the OUYA. Hell, I even know of old school edition apple '97s still in use. As for the "apex"... I can run 8-bit arcade games on my 360, does that mean the highest fidelity possible is 8-bit? No, of curse not. That has been my complaint all along is that I know this game could look better on the 360."

Want better graphics? Pay the indie for them so they can optimize better graphics. You don't need to compress the game for PC so that's cheaper and less work intensive. You don't have to find clever ways to shove an elephant through a glory hole on PC. You can argue "oh there are limitations" but compared to how limited the current gens consoles are now the PC has way more leg room.

I didn't pirate the game, so didn't I by definition "pay for them"?

The rest is irrelevant to my point. I said the game is capable of looking better on the 360. How do I know this? Because other arcade titles look better on the 360.

In fact for whats a normal PC, lets take Steam stats, who have 60 (70 if Dexter's data is correct) million PC gamers registered.

GPU:
52% use nvidia.
Most popular non-integrated GPU is a Geforce 560 Ti.
Geforce 660 has highest adoption rate of non integrated cards.
Majority of all cards is Directx 11 capable, 63%. Not exactly "low."
Most popular integrated card is Intel HD 3000. The 4000 is starting to replace it.

CPUs:
Intel dominates. 73%.
Majority is in 2.3-3.0+ ghz range. 2.3-30 is 20%. the 3.0+ combined range dominates with 25%.
Physically, 2 CPUs most popular.
4 CPUs have highest adoption rate.

Windows 7 most popular OS on steam. 52%.
Average ram is 8GB. 24%. 4GB is 21%.
8GB is most popular and highest adoption rate.
Most popular is 1920x1080 resolution.

That "lowest common denominator" doesn't look so "low." You wouldn't have to compress a game from the xbox for this machine, you have the luxury of being less focused on efficiency and decompress it.

Fallout seems to run better vanilla on the 360 then it does on PC and I bet the "low" when Crysis came out didn't look "low" either. So all these numbers... They don't mean shit. Discuss the issue at hand instead of hiding behind pointless specs.

And no, they didn't have a "sub par version" for PC that they just didn't release to polish. The state of Decay devs specifically stated that PC gamers did not get their version because a lot relied on third parties. Too much relied on other people to get the PC version out anytime soon. It was a knowledge of PC and logistics issue, not because they wanted console gamers to suffer.

I never said they held the game back to make PC gamers suffer or to specifically polish the game. I'm saying the PC version did not have these updated graphics planed for the launch. If the 360 version had gotten delayed would I get better graphics?

In fact, the quote from undead labs was:

"Will the PC version have enhanced graphics? Higher res? Improved framerate? Yes. A high end PC can do all those things, so we're modifying the game to support those things. The PC version will not have different content or features, however."

"What the PC version also won't have are modding tools (for time/testing reasons), but we have no objection to mods or modders, and we look forward to seeing what our PC players come up with."

I need a source because you can't even quote me in good faith. Perhaps there are some things in that statement you "forgot" to mention.

No compression, so better graphics. Higher textures can really save the look.
Higher resolution, because its standard to support the resolutions of PC and the PC can handle it Not supporting resolutions is like not allowing sony TVs to show your game.
higher framerate? You are talking about a game made for 2005 technology running on a 2013 PC.

So there is no "conspiracy." Its the xbox being at its limit for what money they had. There is a reason SOD looks like that and not like Skyrim or the Witcher 2. Developers don't want a bad and bad looking game. If they can have legendary graphics, superior gameplay, and ending up being the best selling game of all time, they would do that.

But they can't, because there are limits. Its the reason the PS4 and Xbox One are on their way. The limitations for the consoles are too low and need an update.

Never said there was a "conspiracy". I said I bought, and received, a sub-par version of the game. If they spend time and money to better one version they had better support ALL the versions or risk looking as biased as you are.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here