Says the Developer; "Consoles are holding us back"

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Slarg232**

Patrick Bach, from DICE, the developers of the Battlefield series, certainly knows the way to a PC gamer's heart: tell them that, for once, the PC version of a game won't be a crummy port, but will be the glorious, lead platform.

In an "interview" with Nvidia, Bach is asked - without any self interest at all, of course - by the graphics card manufacturer whether console games are holding PC games back. And Bach lets fly.

"Yes, absolutely", he says. "That's the biggest problem we have today. Most games are actually still based on the same core idea that the consoles are your focus, the superior platform or something. I don't know why. That was the truth 5 years ago, but the world has moved on."

"PCs are way more powerful than the consoles today and there are actually almost zero games out there that actually use the benefits of this. So for our target of what we want to hit, we are now using the more powerful platform to try and prove what we see gaming being in the future rather than using the lowest common denominator, instead of developing it for the consoles and then just adding higher resolution textures and anti-aliasing for the PC version."

"We're [doing] it the other way around, we start with the highest-end technology that we can come up with and then scale it back to the consoles."

That'll sound a little snooty to console owners, but then, for once they can take a back seat. PC owners have been getting the shaft for years now when it comes to ports of major console games, whether it be poor customisation options, a lack of DLC, delayed release dates or no release dates at all. And all that on a machine which can generally run rings around a PS3 or 360.

It's nice to see the shoe on the other foot for once, even if it is only one shoe on one person for one game.

From Facebook App.

That's kind of interesting, to tell the truth. I've heard from another source that Consoles/Computers are starting to become the New Arcades, and now I'm being told that consoles are holding us back. While I'm not saying I'm surprised, as I can think of several reasons as to why most games would be made for Consoles rather than the PC....

yeah.......

Your thoughts?

**Arctik_Firangi**

I've thought this since the Xbox/PS2 generation really began to effect games overall. As a fan of the Battlefield games, it's great to hear that DICE feel the same way I do.

Consoles, parallel to the PC gaming industry, have very noticeably affected the overall genre. It's obvious to me that the majority of games in recent years have been restricted by the limits (in terms of performance and/or input) of the contemporary consoles.

I know that consoles have a stronger and more accessible market value and that these values will naturally affect the resources available for game development...

But screw that! I've been saying it firmly for years - consoles are holding us back.

Amen, Pat Bach.

**halonachos**

That's good, I don't know why developers scale back games for the PC. You can upgrade a PC's graphic card and other fine things, but you can't really do that to a console.

I love my console and haven't played a game on my PC since Diablo 2, but it just makes sense to go all out on a platform that can be upgraded by the owner and then scale it down for the console owners who don't want to upgrade their systems for it.

DICE isn't doing anything new though, with Battlefield 2 they had jets and larger battles on the PC version and the console version had smaller battles, no commander mode, and no jets.

**asimo77**

At its core I would agree with this guy, but I wouldn't say it as "forcefully" as he did. Consoles are holding the PC back but they are not holding gaming back. Also I think PC vs. Console debate can depend on the genre of a game.

For example FPS's on consoles have become so refined that saying "mouse+keyboard is the best" is almost sounding ridiculous given how far the controls for shooters have come. Which is funny because back in the day the keyboard and mouse crowd were absolutely correct.

Then there are RPG's which fare better on the PC not so much because of having access to more buttons but becauses the kind of people who are PC gamers seemed more geared towards those kinds of games. Then there's no-brainers like fighting games being best on conolses and strategy games for PC.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Consoles are also as a good of a platform as PC for small developers, whether they be making small puzzle games, or trying to break into the larger AAA market.

**Melissia**

You still have to pay MS and Sony to publish on the consoles. You don't have to do that to publish on the PC market, making the PC market better for indy gamers. It's more expensive and time consuming to release games, to patch games, or to provide new content for games on consoles than PCs.

**asimo77**

When I said "as easy to make a game on PC as consoles" I meant from a coding, designing, etc view (well as far as I know it's roughly the same). But you bring up a good point with all those corprorate politics. Then again a lot of big publishers like working with consoles so you could alway try to sign up with one and get some nice funding.

But yeah PC is probably better for the small devs but only slightly so I would imagine.

**SilverMK2**

Consoles aren't holding things back, games developers are holding things back churning out the same tired games, regurgitated and re-skinned over and over again.

It is a rare game indeed that is actually interesting and different. If they have to stick to a PC to be able to do that (and lets face it, the only reason it will be considered "interesting and different" is because it has even shiny-er graphics than any other game, rather than because, oh, I don't know, the game is actually interesting and different), then so be it.

However I would think that the constraints imposed upon game design by consoles is fairly minimal (there is a graphics and general performance limit, as well as a certain amount of memory limit as to what can fit on a disk (though I would be more than happy playing a game on multiple disks if that is what it took)) are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.

If only games developers realise that graphics and "how many shards and flames we can fit on screen from each explosion" is actually not all that draws people to a game, but they come (and stay) for the story, how the game plays, the multiplayer support and experience, etc...

**ShumaGorath**

Melissia wrote:You still have to pay MS and Sony to publish on the consoles. You don't have to do that to publish on the PC market, making the PC market better for indy gamers. It's more expensive and time consuming to release games, to patch games, or to provide new content for games on consoles than PCs.

Development costs for multiplatform (PC development is inherently multiplatform) and advertising negate the savings presented by developing for the PC. Theres a reason most indy developers are going mobile, the market isn't as large as it used to be on the PC and it's too competitive on consoles.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

If only games developers realise that graphics and "how many shards and flames we can fit on screen from each explosion" is actually not all that draws people to a game, but they come (and stay) for the story, how the game plays, the multiplayer support and experience, etc...

If people came and stayed for the story and gameplay call of duty black ops wouldn't be the best selling game in history. People come for graphics and they stay for gameplay. The story is irrelevant. Console hardware is a severe and significant limiter on both graphics and gameplay, especially with modern focus on large-scale multiplayer gaming.

But yeah PC is probably better for the small devs but only slightly so I would imagine.

It's significantly worse unless you can petition valve for a steam special or something weird. Indy games on the PC just disappear a week after launching unless they can become a media darling. At least console marketplaces are focussed enough to show your titles box picture on a menu somewhere a month after it's released.

**asimo77**

When I was talking about being easier to make a game I meant actually making the game, not counting marketing and all that.

**ShumaGorath**

Why is it easier to code on pc? You have to code for an immense number of platforms. It's even more difficult if you have an online component or online store as the tools aren't plug and play like they are on consoles. One of the best part about working on consoles is that they're actually quite easy to develop for because you know the exact hardware and software environment you're shipping too and half the work has been done for you. It's what makes indy mobile development for the IOS platform king at the moment.

**Fafnir**

The current generation of consoles were using technology that was old in 2006. It's 2011 now and that still hasn't changed. Of course consoles are holding back gaming. You can't develop better graphics, larger environments, or smarter AI with the ancient technology that consoles use.

**ShumaGorath**

The current generation of consoles were using technology that was old in 2006.

The cell processor, blue ray, tri core AMDs and both respective graphics cards were not old in 2006. I mean, I guess they were using plastic and copper. Those are pretty old.

It's 2011 now and that still hasn't changed.

Both have undergone processor nanometer reductions and in general their hardware has become much more cost efficient, energy efficient, and heat efficient. It's changed.

You can't develop better graphics, larger environments, or smarter AI with the ancient technology that consoles use.

The article stated that the consoles were holding back PC development. Not their own.

**Kanluwen**

It's almost like Nvidea had some kind of purpose in asking a well-known PC advocate if he thought consoles were holding back development of PC games...

Nah, can't be!

ShumaGorath wrote:If people came and stayed for the story and gameplay call of duty black ops wouldn't be the best selling game in history. People come for graphics and they stay for gameplay.

The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

The story is irrelevant. Console hardware is a severe and significant limiter on both graphics and gameplay, especially with modern focus on large-scale multiplayer gaming.

And here's the crux of the matter.

People don't care about the story because you don't get to trashtalk your buddies with "Dude, I totally sniped that guy better than you when we saved the world!".
You do however get to trashtalk with your buddies in 'competitive' multiplayer.

**ShumaGorath**

The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

Twitchy is a value judgement, bugs aren't inherent to gameplay, and no one plays the single player of these games but you.

**Kanluwen**

ShumaGorath wrote:
The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

Twitchy is a value judgement, bugs aren't inherent to gameplay, and no one plays the single player of these games but you.

Nahuh! There was another guy!

But anyways, the gameplay on Black Ops' multiplayer was really no different than any other Call of Duty game. The real reason people bought it was because it was simply that: shiny and new.

**Fafnir**

ShumaGorath wrote:
The current generation of consoles were using technology that was old in 2006.

The cell processor, blue ray, tri core AMDs and both respective graphics cards were not old in 2006. I mean, I guess they were using plastic and copper. Those are pretty old.

It's 2011 now and that still hasn't changed.

Both have undergone processor nanometer reductions and in general their hardware has become much more cost efficient, energy efficient, and heat efficient. It's changed.

You can't develop better graphics, larger environments, or smarter AI with the ancient technology that consoles use.

The article stated that the consoles were holding back PC development. Not their own.

You know exactly what I mean. The Cell processor and the core that the 360 used, while not themselves old technology, weren't particularly impressive when compared to the PC hardware equivalents.

Also, even though the consoles may have had some slight changes in hardware to make them more efficient in terms of cost, power, and heat, they still operate under the same limitations as the versions from 2006. That is, they're pretty weak.

Likewise, it's because everyone develops for consoles these days that PC games are held back.

**Kanluwen**

Fafnir wrote:

You know exactly what I mean. The Cell processor and the core that the 360 used, while not themselves old technology, weren't particularly impressive when compared to the PC hardware equivalents.

Also, even though the consoles may have had some slight changes in hardware to make them more efficient in terms of cost, power, and heat, they still operate under the same limitations as the versions from 2006. That is, they're pretty weak.

Likewise, it's because everyone develops for consoles these days that PC games are held back.

Yeah...it's not even that.
They really do not develop for the 'cutting edge' folk who constantly tweak out their PC. To do that would be impractical and silly, doing nothing for most of your previous customer base.

**ShumaGorath**

You know exactly what I mean. The Cell processor and the core that the 360 used, while not themselves old technology, weren't particularly impressive when compared to the PC hardware equivalents.

Yes. They were. The cell put gen one dual cores to shame, as does the AMD affair. They aren't super impressive now, but when launched the cell was producing floating points that rivaled 1,200-1,400 dollar chipsets.

Also, even though the consoles may have had some slight changes in hardware to make them more efficient in terms of cost, power, and heat, they still operate under the same limitations as the versions from 2006. That is, they're pretty weak.

Yes, and they are much smaller and more energy efficient. Technology "newness" and processing horsepower are not equivalent. There is give and take. An iphone4 is quite powerful in its form factor. It's also weaker then a wii.

Likewise, it's because everyone develops for consoles these days that PC games are held back.

I think you might want to read this thread.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/362234.page#2694671

It's about that.

**Fafnir**

Well, not even that. Not every game has to be Crysis (although I'd appreciate it if the sequel wasn't watered down to pander to the hardware limitations of consoles...) or Metro 2033, but at the very least, the games should try to take some advantage of the hardware that the PC platform offers. It's especially painful in series that got started on the PC, and then on the move over to consoles, end up cutting out significant depth or quality in making the game more marketable.

PC versions of console games can be amazing, I mean, look at Devil May Cry 4 (Capcom, 2008) or The Last Remnant (Square Enix, 2009), both titles had absolutely amazing PC versions (it's worth noting that DMC4 isn't actually a port. It was originally developed on the PC and then ported over to consoles) that made great use of the hardware available (in the case of The Last Remnant, the PC version was a massive improvement in the quality of the game, and really showed the disparity between console and PC in terms of horsepower and developing potential).

**ShumaGorath**

Well, not even that. Not every game has to be Crysis (although I'd appreciate it if the sequel wasn't watered down to pander to the hardware limitations of consoles...) or Metro 2033, but at the very least, the games should try to take some advantage of the hardware that the PC platform offers.

I'm not sure crysis, a game renowned for its awful performance and bad engine coding (warhead ran much better) or metro 2033 are the games you want to use in this comparison. Both are pretty good cases for why pushing PC hardware is a bad business idea.

It's especially painful in series that got started on the PC, and then on the move over to consoles, end up cutting out significant depth or quality in making the game more marketable.

Thats certainly true, and again. It's what this entire thread is about. You clearly never read the article. Thats exactly what it says. No one is arguing against that.

PC versions of console games can be amazing, I mean, look at Devil May Cry 4 (Capcom, 2008) or The Last Remnant (Square Enix, 2009), both titles had absolutely amazing PC versions (it's worth noting that DMC4 isn't actually a port. It was originally developed on the PC and then ported over to consoles) that made great use of the hardware available (in the case of The Last Remnant, the PC version was a massive improvement in the quality of the game, and really showed the disparity between console and PC in terms of horsepower and developing potential).

Neither of those games are known for either their visuals or use of the attributes of the PC. You're not doing great with these comparisons here.

**Fafnir**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Neither of those games are known for either their visuals or use of the attributes of the PC. You're not doing great with these comparisons here.

I was just saying that they're PC versions of games that are done very well. DMC4 looks better on the PC, and the Last Remnant is actually playable and offers many more features that were limited due to the 360's hardware limitations.

**ShumaGorath**

Fafnir wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Neither of those games are known for either their visuals or use of the attributes of the PC. You're not doing great with these comparisons here.

I was just saying that they're PC versions of games that are done very well. DMC4 looks better on the PC, and the Last Remnant is actually playable and offers many more features that were limited due to the 360's hardware limitations.

Every game looks better on the PC at top settings. Modern capable PCs have better hardware then their console equivalents. Once again. NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THEY DON'T. Also, the last remnant seems to be pretty poorly rated in both its console and PC versions implying that the game is bad regardless of platform. It takes a lot to get below a 7 on IGN.

**Slarg232**

Fafnir wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
Neither of those games are known for either their visuals or use of the attributes of the PC. You're not doing great with these comparisons here.

I was just saying that they're PC versions of games that are done very well. DMC4 looks better on the PC, and the Last Remnant is actually playable and offers many more features that were limited due to the 360's hardware limitations.

You can play Devil May Cry 4 on the PC?

How the heck do you even control that?

**Fafnir**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Every game looks better on the PC at top settings. Modern capable PCs have better hardware then their console equivalents. Once again. NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT THEY DON'T. Also, the last remnant seems to be pretty poorly rated in both its console and PC versions implying that the game is bad regardless of platform. It takes a lot to get below a 7 on IGN.

It's not a matter of looking better on PC at top settings, it's optimization. Plenty of PC ports are incredibly poorly done.

And I found The Last Remnant to be a fun game on the PC. The battle system was quite innovative and fun.The story sucked and a fair bit of grinding was involved, but the core mechanics themselves were solid.

Slarg232 wrote:
You can play Devil May Cry 4 on the PC?

How the heck do you even control that?

...you plug in a controller. How else would you play it?

**ShumaGorath**

It's not a matter of looking better on PC at top settings, it's optimization. Plenty of PC ports are incredibly poorly done.

Yep. Thats in the article. You're arguing against no one. I'm not disagreeing.

And I found The Last Remnant to be a fun game on the PC. The battle system was quite innovative and fun.The story sucked and a fair bit of grinding was involved, but the core mechanics themselves were solid.

Ahh.

**Slarg232**

Fafnir wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:
You can play Devil May Cry 4 on the PC?

How the heck do you even control that?

...you plug in a controller. How else would you play it?

A keyboard. I was hoping to be able to map buttons to make Charging Nero's Blue Rose up to full while in the middle of a Kombo with the Red Queen/Devil Bringer.

**Fafnir**

I just plug in one of my PS3 controllers. Or my 360 controller. I'd never try playing that game on a keyboard. That just sounds like a horrible idea.

**Slarg232**

Fafnir wrote:I just plug in one of my PS3 controllers. Or my 360 controller. I'd never try playing that game on a keyboard. That just sounds like a horrible idea.

So horribly, it just might work.....

**Platuan4th**

Kanluwen wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

Twitchy is a value judgement, bugs aren't inherent to gameplay, and no one plays the single player of these games but you.

Nahuh! There was another guy!

Yo.

**Kanluwen**

Platuan4th wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
The gameplay on Black Ops was terrible though. It was twitchy, full of bugs, and an incredibly short/easy game even on Veteran.

Twitchy is a value judgement, bugs aren't inherent to gameplay, and no one plays the single player of these games but you.

Nahuh! There was another guy!

Yo.

See Shuma? Not the only guy who plays single player on these games that include single player, sell themselves as 'story driven games', and then become MP grindfests.