Star Citizen Too Much Game for Consoles to "Handle"

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Star Citizen Too Much Game for Consoles to "Handle"

Star Citizen screen

Cloud Imperium's Eric Peterson has said that consoles "couldn't possibly handle" a game like Star Citizen.

Star Citizen has raised a butt ton of cash through crowdfunding. In fact, as of the last count, the game's fundraising efforts had accumulated more than $48 million or, if you want a more impressive sounding number, 4.8 trillion pennies. With all that money in mind, we might understand some gamers feeling a tad anxious about the end results. Will the game be good? Will it be worth the cash I invested in it when it was just an idea? Will I finally get the good multiplayer Wing Commander that I've always wanted? According to its developers, Star Citizen won't just be good, it'll be so damn good that a console version will be out of the question.

"Consoles couldn't possibly handle a game like Star Citizen," said Cloud Imperium's Eric Peterson. "Gaming PCs right now are formidable, with powerful CPUs and GPUs. Even next-generation consoles cannot be compared, their internal components are already older than what I could add to a gaming PC today." Star Citizen, will aim to exploit all the technical advantages that PCs have to offer. "We wanted to create a game that showed everyone the capabilities of PC, for those that have fun building configurations with double GPUs and liquid cooling, who no doubt were frustrated to not be able to fully use the potential of their machines."

Peterson's sentiments have been echoed in the past by Star Citizen's creator Chris Roberts who, at one point, said that the game "will NEVER be dumbed down for a lesser platform." In other words, between both Roberts and Peterson's statements, it's looking like PS4 and Xbox One fans can bid farewell to any hopes they may have been harboring for future ports. If it's any conciliation, the team behind Elite: Dangerous (aka: that other cool in-the-works space flight sim) has just recently said that it would have to be "stupid" to not bring its game to consoles. So while you may never know the joy of playing Star Citizen on PS4, there's still a chance you'll be setting off into the stars with your Dual Shock (or Xbox controller) in hand.

Source: PC Gamer

Permalink

How many times does it need repeating? All the petitions and whining wont bring it to consoles if they can't handle it.

As it is, someone found that next gen consoles are well below the power of a GTX 480. That is ancient. The minimum requirement that is rumored is a 460 to run it on absolute minimum.

If next gen is half the power of a 480, they'd have to cut out large swaths of the games so consoles can handle it. The recommended specs are well above what the consoles can give. Hell, it asks for 12GB of RAM.

Not GDDR5 VRAM. Regular ram. So lets put another 1-3GBs for Vram. That comes out to a max of 15GBs of RAM. Next gen consoles will at most use 5Gbs due to xbox one's RAM eating OS.

So whats the point of porting if it will be headaches for the dev and a worse game? Just because the 7th gen was cutting edge doesn't mean this one is too.

Seconded, and I do most of my gaming on my PS4.

I am looking forward to this game.

A good joke, but a falsity one way or another most likely. Either they do well enough that Sony (because I don't think Microsoft has a hope of conforming to demands) bends over backwards to get them on side...or they do bad enough that they than have to exploit every revenue stream possible.

So considering a business would be foolish to be such large marks themselves, I'm taking this as them cutting yet another heel promo to get marks to buy the story before they debut on console.
I suppose that makes them the Fandango...sorry I mean Fahhhnn-dahhhnnn-goooo of the gaming industry

Ultratwinkie:

If next gen is half the power of a 480, they'd have to cut out large swaths of the games so consoles can handle it. The recommended specs are well above what the consoles can give. Hell, it asks for 12GB of RAM.
.

ho-lee-shit....welp...thats me out

at worst this might be considered pandering (dumb down for a lesser platform..harr harr) but really what he's saying shouldn't exactly be a controversial statment

Rozalia1:
A good joke, but a falsity one way or another most likely. Either they do well enough that Sony (because I don't think Microsoft has a hope of conforming to demands) bends over backwards to get them on side...or they do bad enough that they than have to exploit every revenue stream possible.

so both sucess and failure will both seem them try and get on consoles? I don't know if its a false dychotomy but it doesn't sound right eather way

This was one of the main reasons I proudly backed this game's Kickstarter. A PC game with ZERO considerations to consoles, YES PLEASE. No bullshit controls and UI, compromised for joypads. No graphics compromises for inferior hardware. No constant loading screens because of tiny maps compromised for consoles poor memory. No compromises for consoles. I backed that shit so hard my wallet begged for mercy.

Honest to Heavens high poly models, textures that don't look like smears, high LoD, UI and controls designed for PC, yes, yes, yes , yes and YES.

Console owners can go play more Gears of War or Uncharted or whatever the cool kids are playing these days. Consoles have Activision, EA, Ubisoft and Squeenix exclusively pumping stuff out for them before (often shoddily) porting them to PC. We get one title. Two if we count Pillars of Eternity. Which we do.

"So while you may never know the joy of playing Star Citizen on PS4, there's still a chance you'll be setting off into the stars with your Dual Shock (or Xbox controller) in hand."

About that....

http://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/wiki/controllerguide

But personally, I'll invest in my first ever own hotas setup for this game!

Move over Crysis theres a new melter of systems incoming. More power to the PC players, but y'know, console scrub, so that counts me out personally. This must be how Wii-U owners feel... all the time.

KingsGambit:
This was one of the main reasons I proudly backed this game's Kickstarter. A PC game with ZERO considerations to consoles, YES PLEASE. No bullshit controls and UI, compromised for joypads. No graphics compromises for inferior hardware. No constant loading screens because of tiny maps compromised for consoles poor memory. No compromises for consoles. I backed that shit so hard my wallet begged for mercy.

Honest to Heavens high poly models, textures that don't look like smears, high LoD, UI and controls designed for PC, yes, yes, yes , yes and YES.

Console owners can go play more Gears of War or Uncharted or whatever the cool kids are playing these days.

Oh, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me for being just a poor, downtrodden, miserable and filthy console peasant, m'lord. I'll go and crawl right back into my primitive, Prehistoric cave and continue playing Gears of War and Uncharted (only games that I own, of course) on my 200$ Xbox 360 while letting the glorious PC master race live in it's ultra-high polygoned futuristic utopia.

Al right, now that my snark is out of the way I'm going to say that I mostly agree with your post. Except for that last sentence. You can perfectly flaunt the superiority of the PC without being a dick towards console gamers.

Vault101:

Ultratwinkie:

If next gen is half the power of a 480, they'd have to cut out large swaths of the games so consoles can handle it. The recommended specs are well above what the consoles can give. Hell, it asks for 12GB of RAM.
.

ho-lee-shit....welp...thats me out

at worst this might be considered pandering (dumb down for a lesser platform..harr harr) but really what he's saying shouldn't exactly be a controversial statment

What spec is your system?

Vault101:

Rozalia1:
A good joke, but a falsity one way or another most likely. Either they do well enough that Sony (because I don't think Microsoft has a hope of conforming to demands) bends over backwards to get them on side...or they do bad enough that they than have to exploit every revenue stream possible.

so both sucess and failure will both seem them try and get on consoles? I don't know if its a false dychotomy but it doesn't sound right eather way

I agree, it doesn't make a great deal of sense. The game was entirely crowdfunded (my understanding that it's the most successful crowdfunded game to date) so all the development and infrastructure is already paid for by the backers. When the game comes to market, assuming every penny from crowdfunding went into development, on Day 1 RSI will have "broken even" I suppose (for lack of a better term). A single sale will therefore put it into profitability (excepting ongoing costs). When a publisher spends $20mill on development, that means a game has to make at least that much back before breaking even whereas as a backer I get the game, RSI owns the IP and on Day 1 have already broken even.

To port it to console, all the models and textures will have to be significantly downsized, new server farms for each "walled garden" (that is, XBL and PSN), the complexity brought down and most significantly, the back-end/engine will need to support the hardware and APIs of the different consoles (being X86 may help somewhat). On top of that, Sony/MS would want their cut of each sale (30%?).

MrHide-Patten:
Move over Crysis theres a new melter of systems incoming. More power to the PC players, but y'know, console scrub, so that counts me out personally. This must be how Wii-U owners feel... all the time.

Hey, what's wrong with you? You have grace, manners and kind words. You know this is an Internet gaming forum, right? Haven't even made an effort to start a flame war.

It's an interesting point tho about Crysis...that was really the last game that pushed boundaries and didn't make any compromises. Everything after that has been "lowest common denominator", made for the 360/PS3 then ported with the same low poly models, low res textures, small maps and bodies/decals that fade after a few seconds. I don't miss the "arms race" between Epic and Id but something was lost after Crytek said "No more PC exclusives". It's nice that at least one title is pushing development to its limits; I think there should always be at least one game on the horizon that showcases the best of what can be done.

KingsGambit:
[...] compromised for joypads.[...]

Well, it's gonna be input agnostic so there might be some tweaking, nerfing and buffing here and there that one particular control scheme won't be overpowered or unviable. See Warthunder as a cautionary tale.

SanguiniusMagnificum:

KingsGambit:
This was one of the main reasons I proudly backed this game's Kickstarter. A PC game with ZERO considerations to consoles, YES PLEASE. No bullshit controls and UI, compromised for joypads. No graphics compromises for inferior hardware. No constant loading screens because of tiny maps compromised for consoles poor memory. No compromises for consoles. I backed that shit so hard my wallet begged for mercy.

Honest to Heavens high poly models, textures that don't look like smears, high LoD, UI and controls designed for PC, yes, yes, yes , yes and YES.

Console owners can go play more Gears of War or Uncharted or whatever the cool kids are playing these days.

Oh, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me for being just a poor, downtrodden, miserable and filthy console peasant, m'lord. I'll go and crawl right back into my primitive, Prehistoric cave and continue playing Gears of War and Uncharted (only games that I own, of course) on my 200$ Xbox 360 while letting the glorious PC master race live in it's ultra-high polygoned futuristic utopia.

Al right, now that my snark is out of the way I'm going to say that I mostly agree with your post. Except for that last sentence. You can perfectly flaunt the superiority of the PC without being a dick towards console gamers.

I already added before you quoted me. Online messages lack the inflection of voice and mannerisms that let us discern mood and meaning. I'm not trying to be offensive. I was comedically highlighting console exclusives to which I don't have access. The whole surprising thing about this game is that it's doing something no other AAA developer is doing and ignoring consoles, pushing their game to the limit instead of compromising (Watch Dogs is a prime example). Considering how commonplace console exclusives are I find it amusing that such is the attitude, such surprise that an article is written "Game not coming to consoles! Read all about it!".

As a predominantly PC gamer, the only games I've had for years are the scraps developers can be bothered to port over from the console table. A hound who once had filet mignon by the fireplace now scavenging for leftovers, an afterthought after 360 and PS3 have eaten their fill. This is an almost singular occurrence in today's industry, that the PC gamer is catered to with the choice cut. And you bet I will enjoy it. Now return to your cave! ;-)

A PC game with a proper UI, high poly models, high res textures, no QTEs or frequent loading screens, I can't explain how wonderful that is. With the biggest publishers in the world catering to console owners, you can't give us this one little, teeny title? :-) (By little and teeny I of course mean huge and ginormous).

too bad the gameplay demo they have now looks quite bad. and i wasnt one of those that expected this to be something great. i like how the ship damage is done though.

Ultratwinkie:

As it is, someone found that next gen consoles are well below the power of a GTX 480. That is ancient. The minimum requirement that is rumored is a 460 to run it on absolute minimum.

It was Slick from LinusTechTips who compared and found that he cant underclock 480 enough to match console performance. I dont watch Linus and i know this, i expected you of all people to know him :P

Rozalia1:
A good joke, but a falsity one way or another most likely. Either they do well enough that Sony (because I don't think Microsoft has a hope of conforming to demands) bends over backwards to get them on side...or they do bad enough that they than have to exploit every revenue stream possible.

So considering a business would be foolish to be such large marks themselves, I'm taking this as them cutting yet another heel promo to get marks to buy the story before they debut on console.
I suppose that makes them the Fandango...sorry I mean Fahhhnn-dahhhnnn-goooo of the gaming industry

so whatever happens they must get on consoles and anyone that does not use consoles are "marks". and then you proclaim being "neutral". yeah, you may end up being the first escapist ever to get to my ignore list.

Honestly, are console gamers missing out on anything? As far as I've seen, it doesn't even look that fun.

Elite: Dangerous, on the other hand...

RoonMian:

KingsGambit:
[...] compromised for joypads.[...]

Well, it's gonna be input agnostic so there might be some tweaking, nerfing and buffing here and there that one particular control scheme won't be overpowered or unviable. See Warthunder as a cautionary tale.

Yeah I know, the joypad wasn't what I meant specifically. Heck, for the X games I do the piloting/combat with one. Twin thumpads are great for the yaw, roll and pitch (f**k strafing, I can't do it right) and the buttons are usually *just about* right for the requisite combat options (eg. different weapons, missles, targeting, throttle).

With X games (certainly the two X3s) the joypad is great for the piloting and dogfighting while the mouse keyboard for ship/fleet management, trading, etc. By compromises, I mean in things such as Watch Dogs for example, or even Skyrim. Watch Dogs on console uses the D-Pad for weapons/gadgets. On PC we normally use number keys for such things. Did Ubisoft let us use hotkeys? No, we got the console weapon interface which is needlessly clunky. Why couldn't I use 1-4 or even 1-0? Because they designed the UI for consoles and ported it unchanged, just remapped. Skyrim only let me use 1-8. Why? Because that is the limit on consoles (8 things via DPad). No reason not to go all the way 1-0 (let alone *any other key on my keyboard*) except lazy porting.

The main issue with ported games is that joypads have 4 buttons, 4 thumb buttons, Start and Select. Keyboards have 36 alpha-numeric keys, a numpad, 12 function keys and a mouse with anywhere from 3-11 buttons (and a scroll wheel), on average. In PC games we've been able to use and map them how we like. On console ports, we get the Watch Dogs weapon wheel ported across. That's the compromise I meant, rather than the actual joypad interface.

I do have a 360 and in honesty prefer driving or Street Fighter style fighting games on console over PC every time *because of the joypad*. The joypad is also better for piloting planes and space ships (short of the full joystick kits some enthusiasts use). It's the "joypad limitations" for which UIs are designed copied wholesale across to a different interface that I loathe. I have a mouse that can click anywhere, why must I scroll through options!? I have number keys, why can't i use them as hotkeys instead of a weapon wheel!? Rarrgh gurgle growl rawr!

This is what I fear most about kickstarters, not that the game won't be made or won't be good, but that the specs will be too high to run.

Seriously, console specs might not be elite but they're still higher than the Steam survey average. He's either BSing or backers are going to be left out in the cold.

KingsGambit:
snip.

off the top of my head

GTX 680
8gb RAM
i7 processor which I think is only like 3.4 or something (forgot the numbers)

but yeah, I don't know what rules (if any) pretain to how the money is used but in this case its less risk so far as I can tell (unless they botch up the budget which is know to happen)

BrotherRool:
This is what I fear most about kickstarters, not that the game won't be made or won't be good, but that the specs will be too high to run.

Seriously, console specs might not be elite but they're still higher than the Steam survey average. He's either BSing or backers are going to be left out in the cold.

I'm pretty sure most that have backed Star Citizens know the demand the game will put on a PC. If they have not read what Star Citizen is about (pushing the graphics limit for Space Games)... well those will be disappointed but that's their own fault if they do not read up on what they throw their money at. However - on PC there is this cool graphic options so you could always turn down graphic settings to lowest and still have it playable.

And it's not that costly to build a budget/performance computer that will run the game on average details either.

What is lame though, is to try to compare two games between each other, when neither of them is released!

From what I can tell, both games look good and will find a good audience, I'll personally try out both!

Strazdas:

Ultratwinkie:

As it is, someone found that next gen consoles are well below the power of a GTX 480. That is ancient. The minimum requirement that is rumored is a 460 to run it on absolute minimum.

It was Slick from LinusTechTips who compared and found that he cant underclock 480 enough to match console performance. I dont watch Linus and i know this, i expected you of all people to know him :P

You mean this video?

It only went up the other day, its not the most technically accurate thing ever and they could have chosen a better game. Watchdogs is almost nailed together and a right mess, still kind of funny that it compares best to that old card.

So much for that "supercomputer" and that other "supercharged PC" eh?

KillerRabbit:

BrotherRool:
This is what I fear most about kickstarters, not that the game won't be made or won't be good, but that the specs will be too high to run.

Seriously, console specs might not be elite but they're still higher than the Steam survey average. He's either BSing or backers are going to be left out in the cold.

I'm pretty sure most that have backed Star Citizens know the demand the game will put on a PC. If they have not read what Star Citizen is about (pushing the graphics limit for Space Games)... well those will be disappointed but that's their own fault if they do not read up on what they throw their money at. However - on PC there is this cool graphic options so you could always turn down graphic settings to lowest and still have it playable.

And it's not that costly to build a budget/performance computer that will run the game on average details either.

What is lame though, is to try to compare two games between each other, when neither of them is released!

From what I can tell, both games look good and will find a good audience, I'll personally try out both!

If you can turn the graphics down to put on a lower end PC, you can release a console game with those graphic settings :P

BrotherRool:

KillerRabbit:

BrotherRool:
This is what I fear most about kickstarters, not that the game won't be made or won't be good, but that the specs will be too high to run.

Seriously, console specs might not be elite but they're still higher than the Steam survey average. He's either BSing or backers are going to be left out in the cold.

I'm pretty sure most that have backed Star Citizens know the demand the game will put on a PC. If they have not read what Star Citizen is about (pushing the graphics limit for Space Games)... well those will be disappointed but that's their own fault if they do not read up on what they throw their money at. However - on PC there is this cool graphic options so you could always turn down graphic settings to lowest and still have it playable.

And it's not that costly to build a budget/performance computer that will run the game on average details either.

What is lame though, is to try to compare two games between each other, when neither of them is released!

From what I can tell, both games look good and will find a good audience, I'll personally try out both!

If you can turn the graphics down to put on a lower end PC, you can release a console game with those graphic settings :P

I guess they could. But I am glad they put focus on a pure PC build first, and not the other way around for once. Grand Theft Auto got popular on PC, after that the new ones only was released on consoles first only to get a crappy PC port almost a year after.

I actually don't care if they release a version for consoles AFTER the main game is fleshed out, bug fixed etc.. But for once I want to play a Space Sim that is actually built towards high end PC's with highly detailed models etc - which they promised and people backed them for so..

I don't see why they could have a separate "kickstarting" unit to port over to the consoles at least the single player story aspect of the game, as long it would not affect the original teams progress, features & details for the *real* ;) PC build!

KillerRabbit:

I'm pretty sure most that have backed Star Citizens know the demand the game will put on a PC.

You know, other than being blinded by nostalgia and hype. So far, there has been little reason as to why it cannot be on consoles other than just because we're pandering towards a particular niche and thus creating more hype. No technical or demonstrative points have been made or explained.

I also don't like the fact it pretty much being said that "this is a tech demo". Games should be made testing boundaries but never over extending it's means resulting in a elitist attitude.

KillerRabbit:

I guess they could. But I am glad they put focus on a pure PC build first, and not the other way around for once. Grand Theft Auto got popular on PC, after that the new ones only was released on consoles first only to get a crappy PC port almost a year after.

I actually don't care if they release a version for consoles AFTER the main game is fleshed out, bug fixed etc.. But for once I want to play a Space Sim that is actually built towards high end PC's with highly detailed models etc - which they promised and people backed them for so..

I don't see why they could have a separate "kickstarting" unit to port over to the consoles at least the single player story aspect of the game, as long it would not affect the original teams progress, features & details for the *real* ;) PC build!

Oh don't get me wrong I'm not asking for a console version, I think that would be a terrible idea. Star Citizen already has the enormous challenge of completing the things it promised to do. There's no reason to even consider making a console version.

I was just basically pointing out that he was quote was just BSing to give his PC fans an ego boost and maybe even to grab him some headlines.

Unless Star Citizen genuinely can't run on anything with less than 16GB RAM. Which would mean the developers are doing a terrible job

KingsGambit:

MrHide-Patten:
Move over Crysis theres a new melter of systems incoming. More power to the PC players, but y'know, console scrub, so that counts me out personally. This must be how Wii-U owners feel... all the time.

Hey, what's wrong with you? You have grace, manners and kind words. You know this is an Internet gaming forum, right? Haven't even made an effort to start a flame war.

As a wise man once said; "I'm an agent of Chaos..."
But hey, it's an occasion where a developer is going; that things to shitty for our game, so we're not going to release on it. It's an act of sympathy.

KingsGambit:

I think there should always be at least one game on the horizon that showcases the best of what can be done.

I think there has been more then one occasion where people have said the 'graphical arms race' is the thing that's killing the industry with budgets bing blown on only the most swankiest of graphics. There are many ways to make a game great without 5 millon particle shaders on screen, but as my experince has shown, the masses love the particles.

But then people spend a lot of time and money on their rigs, gotta make that cost amount to something.

Vault101:

KingsGambit:
snip.

off the top of my head

GTX 680
8gb RAM
i7 processor which I think is only like 3.4 or something (forgot the numbers)

but yeah, I don't know what rules (if any) pretain to how the money is used but in this case its less risk so far as I can tell (unless they botch up the budget which is know to happen)

That's a pretty great spec, certainly top end if maybe 1 year old *gasp*. The 680 is the top single-core card of its gen, the i7 is the unqualified top and 8GB is plenty. It will really come down to just how much they push performance in the pursuit of quality. I have similar spec but one gen newer parts and am already expecting that AA will be off/low and reflections & shadows will be on medium which I hope will be enough to max almost everything else @ 1080/60fps :-)

There's also all the tricks that PC cards support that I don't know if consoles do (I think the newer ones do), like ambient occlusion, tessellation, CUDA, etc. that could be used advantageously. But in a way it's cool that the game has a high potential ceiling; people who've invested even more in Crossfire/SLi or the Titan (or even [b]3 Titans in SLi![/b]) will have something to make use of their shiny toys.

I think this is a game a lot of people will upgrade for, which says a lot. Not much created by Activision, EA, Ubisoft, 2K or Squeenix for years has been enough to urge people to upgrade. "I need a new PC to run Dead Space 3!", said no one, ever.

---------------------------

About the money, no idea on the rules either. I'd expect that the money from backers should be earmarked for development/equipment/tools/server infrastructure for creating, launching and publishing the game. Like if they raised (quick Google search) $44 million (*Dr. Evil pinkie in mouth*) I don't think they can pocket $4 mill or give it out as bonuses. At the same time, it can't be possible to use every last penny; at some point the game will be done. I don't imagine they'll have one last programmer being stopwatched to run out the budget. Any leftover could fairly be used for ongoing support or development of new features. Or they could overspend and need to recoup some costs.

My guess is they'll spend the majority of the $44m on development with a little leftover which can fund ongoing patching, bug fixing, QA, customer support and also to keep some liquidity in case they have a lean month. But every penny they earn from sales will be profit since they won't need to recoup a thing. And the developer of the game will get every penny from its sales, not give up the lion's share to a publisher, console manufacturer or maybe even digital-distribution platform.

They could probably just downscale it, if im ever going to play it, its probably going to be on low graphics settings anyway (Will probably never get a laptop that could handle this on full). But im glad to hear that Elite Dangerous is heading for consoles, that might finally be a reason (aside from Bloodborne) to be interested in a ps4.

KingsGambit:
[snip.

thanks...in nay case even if I was going to get it (who knows) I wouldnt be sad if I couldn't max it out on Ultra given its a "system burner"

That's what they promised - a PC game, zero compromise. That's the promise they have to keep.
Otherwise there will be some angry backers out there.

KingsGambit:
I agree, it doesn't make a great deal of sense. The game was entirely crowdfunded (my understanding that it's the most successful crowdfunded game to date) so all the development and infrastructure is already paid for by the backers. When the game comes to market, assuming every penny from crowdfunding went into development, on Day 1 RSI will have "broken even" I suppose (for lack of a better term). A single sale will therefore put it into profitability (excepting ongoing costs). When a publisher spends $20mill on development, that means a game has to make at least that much back before breaking even whereas as a backer I get the game, RSI owns the IP and on Day 1 have already broken even.

To port it to console, all the models and textures will have to be significantly downsized, new server farms for each "walled garden" (that is, XBL and PSN), the complexity brought down and most significantly, the back-end/engine will need to support the hardware and APIs of the different consoles (being X86 may help somewhat). On top of that, Sony/MS would want their cut of each sale (30%?).

Its not a near impossibility they'll have difficulties, they aren't a certain success.

Hence why I used the phrase "bend over backwards", a lot can be waved through if they feel like it.

Strazdas:
so whatever happens they must get on consoles and anyone that does not use consoles are "marks". and then you proclaim being "neutral". yeah, you may end up being the first escapist ever to get to my ignore list.

Must? Never said that, I don't make absolute statements hence why I made sure that lovely word "likely" was right at the end of that line.

The short of it is you are incorrect in the conclusion you've drawn in relation to my usage of the word mark...to put it long.

Captcha = Well Heeled

I thought captcha was supposed to be the face to the spambots heel...but from the looks of that message the Captcha has turned heel on us...explains all those spambots I've been seeing recently. Oh and I'm not a Heel captcha, I'm a face obviously.

That's what they all say. They're usually lying or mistaken. Actually, this one's probably both.

I find it odd that he's focusing on specs... I mean, sure, a 2Ghz 8-core CPU would get bogged down pretty quickly with a complex open-space physics flight game (though people get far too hung up on video processing here... I'm sure it could run on one of those bastardized APUs with low texture quality... 1k on down. It would just tank its framerate whenever battles, large numbers of ships or collisions are nearby thanks to its weak CPU cores)... but the real problem with playing such a game on any console is the controls.

...you couldn't fit half of that on a thumbstick controller, and Star Citizen is going to make that look simple. Hell, Freespace made that look simple.

MrHide-Patten:

KingsGambit:

I think there should always be at least one game on the horizon that showcases the best of what can be done.

I think there has been more then one occasion where people have said the 'graphical arms race' is the thing that's killing the industry with budgets bing blown on only the most swankiest of graphics. There are many ways to make a game great without 5 millon particle shaders on screen, but as my experince has shown, the masses love the particles.

But then people spend a lot of time and money on their rigs, gotta make that cost amount to something.

Both good points. As I said above, while it may mean that even my rig can't max the game @ 1080/60fps, it is a nice thing for those with super setups with SLi and Titans, multiple monitors, 4k, etc to be able to have something that justifies and shows it off.

As for the graphical arms race, I'm not convinced it's entirely to blame for ludicrously inflated budgets. It takes no more time to make a high res texture than a low res one. A higher poly model might take a fraction more time, but the same model can be exported with lower poly counts (which can't be done the other way around). In fact, I'm almost certain that modellers do make highest poly models in the first instance before downsampling it. I used watch dogs as an example in poorly ported UIs above, but it also did something else, quite famously. The "bullshots scandal" with which it was inexorably associated showed that they had a version of the game with better models, textures and shaders. They then expended developer time and resources to make it worse in all regards. They spent money on downgrading the game.

I think the biggest causes of budget inflation come from other sources. Tomb Raider (reboot) cost a comfortable 9 figures to create (hence even 5-7million sales wasn't a good performance). Squeenix, for example, have spent *millions* on a new mocap studio. That's why they'll cram in mocap into everything hereafter. Tomb Raider, Thief (which didn't need or benefit from it in the slightest and that no franchise fans wanted or asked for) and others will be using mocap since that's what they think we want. Then there's the voice acting, especially in games where the protag is fully VAd as well (ME and DA2 chief among them).

Also consider online stuffs. An offline game is developed and sold, end of story. An always-online one has to have a server infrastructure that is much more costly to build and maintain and a Net connection able to meet bandwidth demands.

I don't believe having better models, textures, shaders or post-processing (features handled by the engine and either there or not there) adds significant amounts to development costs. Those are proportional to the amount of content, how thoroughly the content is tested/polished and, more relevant to modern games, how many extra technologies are licensed for the game. Using other studios to outsource parts of the game or licensing technologies such as Havok, Scaleform, Nixxes, Bink, Dolby Digital, Steamworks, etc. as well as a non-inhouse engine all costs money. Plus for consoles, the cost of devkits (admittedly one offs and also nothing new), getting certified and the fees Sony/MS/Steam take from sales adds up. Throw in masses of voice acting, loads of cutscenes, mocap and crazy marketing it's more expensive than it used to be.

Building a PC, a totally rewarding gameplay experience, definitely not something they literally pay people to do. Also; your console CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

There is a huge difference between making a PC-Game that demands a certain level of current-gen hardware and between making a poorly optimized PC-Game.

Reading the statement in the OP I feel like they are trying to use their badassery as an escapegoat for the eventual problem that PCs have lots of possible hardware configerations, many of which demand extra effort on the side of the devs in order to get the most out of them.

What I am trying to say is that a game being demanding on the hardware isn't in itself a virtue. It also has to look the part and should not be more demanding than neccesary for the way it looks.

For a positive example see the latest Thief-Game. Despite being a modest step forwards in graphics it runs well on older machines and the lower graphics settings don't look like a mess.

Contrary to that, Total War Shogun 2 still makes my PC roar and has obscene loading times, despite the fact that it's graphics aren't all that awesome unless you zoom in close enough to see your soldier's chopsticks.

Even as old as their poor choice of graphics engine is, it'll still run horribly.

They're still barely past the concept stages and it's already coming up on 2 years in development.

I'm an hour-one backer, but I'm really starting to worry about this project more as time goes on.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

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