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.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Melissia wrote:Whcih goes to show how much prices have dropped for PCs.

My first PC was 700 dollars. This laptop was 2200. These things are all relative, a good gaming rig is still 3 grand. You have consoles to thank for the fact that high end graphics on PC games are as "affordable" as they are currently. Isn't that a conundrum?

I sell gaming rigs for 1500. And I laugh all the way to the bank when I do it.

ShumaGorath wrote:a good gaming rig is still 3 grand.

Try less than one.

I got my pc not long ago for just over £500 the hardware can stand up to pretty much any game I've thrown at it.

Damn windows XP breaks down and cries any time I try to use DX 10 or 11 (which my graphics card supports).

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:a good gaming rig is still 3 grand.

Try less than one.

Thats why I used the qualifier good. Not "outdated in sixth months".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:I got my pc not long ago for just over £500 the hardware can stand up to pretty much any game I've thrown at it.

Damn windows XP breaks down and cries any time I try to use DX 10 or 11 (which my graphics card supports).

Get 7.

I am.

ShumaGorath wrote:Thats why I used the qualifier good. Not "outdated in sixth months".

Mine's lasted for something on five years now, and prices are even lower than when I purchased this.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Thats why I used the qualifier good. Not "outdated in sixth months".

Mine's lasted for something on five years now, and prices are even lower than when I purchased this.

The best possible hardware five years ago isn't good enough to run the average game from today at anything approaching high settings. You describe an impossibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

corpsesarefun wrote:I am.

Then why does xp break down on dx 10 or 11?

A brand new top of the line system can't play a new game with max settings either.

Requia wrote:A brand new top of the line system can't play a new game with max settings either.

Thats not really true.

Hmm, I pulled up some recent benchmarks, and it appears you're right, if you spend 700$ on a graphics card you can actually get playability in all the games tested (this does not extend to 200$ cards).

Times have changed.

Requia wrote:Hmm, I pulled up some recent benchmarks, and it appears you're right, if you spend 700$ on a graphics card you can actually get playability in all the games tested (this does not extend to 200$ cards).

Times have changed.

What benchmarks? Link?

ShumaGorath wrote:The best possible hardware five years ago isn't good enough to run the average game from today at anything approaching high settings. You describe an impossibility.

Orly? Then why can mine?

I propose the answer to this peculiar conundrum is that you don't actually know as much about what you're talking about as you think you do.

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:The best possible hardware five years ago isn't good enough to run the average game from today at anything approaching high settings. You describe an impossibility.

Orly? Then why can mine?

I propose the answer to this peculiar conundrum is that you don't actually know as much about what you're talking about as you think you do.

Or you make things up occasionally to prove your point, that or you consider dawn of war two to be a new game, either one really. What hardware are you running exactly and what games are you talking about?

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:The best possible hardware five years ago isn't good enough to run the average game from today at anything approaching high settings. You describe an impossibility.

Orly? Then why can mine?

I propose the answer to this peculiar conundrum is that you don't actually know as much about what you're talking about as you think you do.

With max settings on native resolution? You couldn't run a 5 year old game that way on 5 year old hardware. You can run brand new games sure, but you won't get all the insane eye candy that drives the FPS market.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:He's right though, barely any of us (myself included) are on topic.

Then perhaps he could benefit us all by sharing his immense wisdom on the subjects at hand. Indeed, he did not reply to my last post regards optimising software to suit the hardware you are using and that being only a benefit when you then improve the hardware.

In fact I remember some time ago reading an article about how game development could not keep pace with technology, with sometimes several years going past before games were fully able to take advantage of all the new processing technology, all the extra RAM, etc. Indeed, I would suggest that most people are still chasing the graphics dragon rather than concentrating on actually making a good game.

In regards to your previous post you were discussing personal experience with optimizing code across multiple platforms with widely varying specs and software suites. The process of writing short code for complex tasks is a pretty basic and fundamental part of optimizing for hardware, it's something companies now have coming on six years of experience with in the 360 (and without the hassle of massively varying hardware suites forcing them to write tasks in software like you likely had to do). Both Electronic arts and bungie have publicly been on record stating that the 360 hardware is fundamentally maxed out, and indeed it's difficult to argue that current titles are noticeably better then the crop from last year or the year before. Epic, a company that makes its money on the graphics dragon hasn't released a noticeably better looking game since gears2. Gears 3 is almost identical from a technical standpoint in the number of textures and polygons it can display to its predecessor and crysis 2 is honestly not particularly stunning on the consoles. Given that most of its advances on the PC come from the ssao or dynamic raytrace lighting working in concert with hdr lighting suites and audio (none of which are in the 360 version) thats not surprising. There is still "maxing" left to do on the Ps3 but that primarily involves writing every possible bit of code on a platform to support threading, even then you're going to bump into Amdahls law pretty quickly with the micro cores in the cell and it's weaker gpu is going to limit such advances to physics or AI routines. Something thats not fundamentally noticeable (or entirely worth development time).

The graphics dragon died two years ago on the 360 and it's prohibitively expensive to chase on the ps3. Current games are chasing the multiplayer dragon and massively ramping up marketing campaigns because WoM and the wow factor of new games on new hardware is long gone.

I'd rather game devs work on making better experiences/gameplay rather than chasing new bells and whistles.

Arguably, as they become more familiar with the technology, they are able to put more resources towards the gameplay rather than technical issues.

Next consoles are supposedly targetted at 2014 at the moment, but who knows. I'm pretty happy with my xbox, gaming isn't really just graphics to me, I am much more critical of artistic style.

I wouldn't be surprised if it takes longer. The Xbox and Xbox 360 were huge financial disasters for MS (between the two of them they were 7 billion in the hole when they started using creative accounting to hide the losses), and Sony was running its entire games department at a loss for years after the Ps3 was released.

I suspect both of them will want to wait until they can produce better tech without relying on the razorblade business model, or maybe just try to hang on until the projects pull an overall profit.

Requia wrote:I wouldn't be surprised if it takes longer. The Xbox and Xbox 360 were huge financial disasters for MS (between the two of them they were 7 billion in the hole when they started using creative accounting to hide the losses), and Sony was running its entire games department at a loss for years after the Ps3 was released.

I suspect both of them will want to wait until they can produce better tech without relying on the razorblade business model, or maybe just try to hang on until the projects pull an overall profit.

The 360 division of the entertainment and devices division of microsoft became profitable in 2008. If your seven billion number is real it's likely taken from the entertainment and devices division itself which encompasses current loss leaders like WP7. The PS3 is questionably profitable on a hardware sale basis now and they've been profiting off of game and blue ray sales since the console launched.

Pure hardware sales isn't what drives profits in the game console industries. Game and accessory revenues/royalties do that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

daedalus-templarius wrote:I'd rather game devs work on making better experiences/gameplay rather than chasing new bells and whistles.

Arguably, as they become more familiar with the technology, they are able to put more resources towards the gameplay rather than technical issues.

Next consoles are supposedly targetted at 2014 at the moment, but who knows. I'm pretty happy with my xbox, gaming isn't really just graphics to me, I am much more critical of artistic style.

The WiiHD has a 2012 target.

ShumaGorath wrote:Pure hardware sales isn't what drives profits in the game console industries. Game and accessory revenues/royalties do that.

Indeed. I believe I saw an article back in 2006 that said the XBox had brought Microsoft a loss of $2 billion? Don't quote me on that.

5 years ago? What?

PC games have been more powerful than consoles since the late 90's. Welcome to, um, 15 years ago?

I am a console gamer at heart, but I enjoy my PC games very much as well. I love both sides of the fence.

LordofHats wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Pure hardware sales isn't what drives profits in the game console industries. Game and accessory revenues/royalties do that.

Indeed. I believe I saw an article back in 2006 that said the XBox had brought Microsoft a loss of $2 billion? Don't quote me on that.

Yeah, the original xbox was a huge loss leader, but thats what happens when you break into a strongly established market with a lot of buyer loyalty. The 360 managed to totally reverse microsofts fortunes in the arena. If it hadn't it's quite likely microsoft would have pulled the plug on the gaming devices devision entirely.

ShumaGorath wrote:

The 360 division of the entertainment and devices division of Microsoft became profitable in 2008. If your seven billion number is real it's likely taken from the entertainment and devices division itself which encompasses current loss leaders like WP7. The PS3 is questionably profitable on a hardware sale basis now and they've been profiting off of game and blue ray sales since the console launched.

Pure hardware sales isn't what drives profits in the game console industries. Game and accessory revenues/royalties do that.

No, 2008 is when they rolled the MBU (a highly profitable part of MS, all they do is port Microsoft applications to OSX), and the Xbox project into the same reporting division. That would be the losses hidden behind creative accounting.

Simply because they make money off game sales doesn't mean they don't lose money overall. People have to buy enough games in order to make up the loss lead. Or in the Xbox's case, buy enough xbox live subscriptions. The first Xbox failed utterly at this, totaling 4 billion in losses. The 360 might have turned out better (no way to be sure with the MBU rolled in), as its got better game sales this generation, but with the RROD issue estimated to run 3 billion in warranty claims over the life of the product, I very much doubt that.

No, 2008 is when they rolled the MBU (a highly profitable part of MS, all they do is port Microsoft applications to OSX), and the Xbox project into the same reporting division. That would be the losses hidden behind creative accounting.

That and the console manufacturing process had streamlined to the degree where individual sales were at a profit level that accounted for non manufacturing costs, leaving the primary loss generators to the red ring warranty program and advertising (which is inherently outside of production/sale considerations). With the stealthbox, kinect, and twoish years of subscriptions and sales ahead of the 360 it's unlikely that the project won't turn a profit overall. The hugebox dug a huge hole, but the 360 has been an incredible success by comparison and their business model has streamlined heavily.

Simply because they make money off game sales doesn't mean they don't lose money overall. People have to buy enough games in order to make up the loss lead. Or in the Xbox's case, buy enough xbox live subscriptions. The first Xbox failed utterly at this, totaling 4 billion in losses. The 360 might have turned out better (no way to be sure with the MBU rolled in), as its got better game sales this generation, but with the RROD issue estimated to run 3 billion in warranty claims over the life of the product, I very much doubt that.

Bloomberg estimates that Xbox Live probably made over US$1 billion in revenue in the 2010 fiscal year, which ended on June 30, 2010.[63

I don't. I think you massively underestimate how profitable their business has been for years. The original xbox wasn't profitable at all, fluxing numbers to make the entertainment and devices division (of which the xbox is the standout revenue earner) look better doesn't make every wing under that heading unprofitable. Those number exist to cloak the Zunes failure and the massive cost hit of Windows Phone seven and the Kin. Hell, the kinect alone has likely made them something along the realm of seven hundred million dollars so far considering that they retail for 150, cost about 60 to make, and have sold ten million units.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The WiiHD has a 2012 target.

Oh yippy. Shovelware in HD!
There are a few good games on wii, but mostly all 1st party, and that's pretty much all I own.

daedalus-templarius wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:
The WiiHD has a 2012 target.

Oh yippy. Shovelware in HD!
There are a few good games on wii, but mostly all 1st party, and that's pretty much all I own.

One of the major reasons for that is the relative weakness of the console. Multi platform titles couldn't be launched on the Wii without essentially being entirely different games, that and it's essentially an offline platform. Nintendo is also legendarily annoying and difficult to work with as a third party developer. These are all things the company itself has cited as things it's attempting to fix with the new hardware which should logically be more powerful then either the 360 or PS3, though I doubt by much.

I heard about the WiiHD, I also heard the rumors of it being more powerful than the 360 and the PS3... The whole electronics department of my store kind of laughed at that.

I honestly doubt it will be more powerful, maybe the same but we'll just have to see now won't we?

But why do we need a Wii in HD to begin with? Besides Legend of Zelda and Metroid they don't have too many franchises that need HD in my own opinion. Mario and Pokemon are just fine with the graphics they have as long as they don't let Team Ninja touch the Legend of Zelda series and turn Link from a silent protagonist to a whiny elf who won't use the Master sword unless Navi says he can.

I heard about the WiiHD, I also heard the rumors of it being more powerful than the 360 and the PS3... The whole electronics department of my store kind of laughed at that.

I honestly doubt it will be more powerful, maybe the same but we'll just have to see now won't we?

Why wouldn't it be? Both of those consoles are five years old and standard off the shelf GPU and CPUs are more powerful then what they sport. Hell, my ipod has more memory then either.

But why do we need a Wii in HD to begin with? Besides Legend of Zelda and Metroid they don't have too many franchises that need HD in my own opinion. Mario and Pokemon are just fine with the graphics they have as long as they don't let Team Ninja touch the Legend of Zelda series and turn Link from a silent protagonist to a whiny elf who won't use the Master sword unless Navi says he can.

The wii isn't powerful enough for large scale online games or actual open world games. It's also starting to sell poorly. One of the big reasons for that is the lack of third party development which the Wiis lack of horsepower isn't helping with.

ShumaGorath wrote:In regards to your previous post you were discussing personal experience with optimizing code across multiple platforms with widely varying specs and software suites. The process of writing short code for complex tasks is a pretty basic and fundamental part of optimizing for hardware, it's something companies now have coming on six years of experience with in the 360 (and without the hassle of massively varying hardware suites forcing them to write tasks in software like you likely had to do). Both Electronic arts and bungie have publicly been on record stating that the 360 hardware is fundamentally maxed out, and indeed it's difficult to argue that current titles are noticeably better then the crop from last year or the year before. Epic, a company that makes its money on the graphics dragon hasn't released a noticeably better looking game since gears2. Gears 3 is almost identical from a technical standpoint in the number of textures and polygons it can display to its predecessor and crysis 2 is honestly not particularly stunning on the consoles. Given that most of its advances on the PC come from the ssao or dynamic raytrace lighting working in concert with hdr lighting suites and audio (none of which are in the 360 version) thats not surprising. There is still "maxing" left to do on the Ps3 but that primarily involves writing every possible bit of code on a platform to support threading, even then you're going to bump into Amdahls law pretty quickly with the micro cores in the cell and it's weaker gpu is going to limit such advances to physics or AI routines. Something thats not fundamentally noticeable (or entirely worth development time).

The graphics dragon died two years ago on the 360 and it's prohibitively expensive to chase on the ps3. Current games are chasing the multiplayer dragon and massively ramping up marketing campaigns because WoM and the wow factor of new games on new hardware is long gone.

Thanks for getting back to me

Yes, I see what you are saying, but there are always more tricks that can be created to deliver better performance, though there will be a performance ceiling (which I admit that I did not know developers thought they had reached). However, as I mentioned, graphics is not the only feature (or indeed the most important according to most people) that can be developed further and indeed a stagnant graphics level is of benefit to all the other development areas which often tend to receive less attention than the graphics (which developers still try and use to hide inadequacies in other aspects of the game - poor AI, rubbish story, poor multiplayer, etc).

SilverMK2 wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:In regards to your previous post you were discussing personal experience with optimizing code across multiple platforms with widely varying specs and software suites. The process of writing short code for complex tasks is a pretty basic and fundamental part of optimizing for hardware, it's something companies now have coming on six years of experience with in the 360 (and without the hassle of massively varying hardware suites forcing them to write tasks in software like you likely had to do). Both Electronic arts and bungie have publicly been on record stating that the 360 hardware is fundamentally maxed out, and indeed it's difficult to argue that current titles are noticeably better then the crop from last year or the year before. Epic, a company that makes its money on the graphics dragon hasn't released a noticeably better looking game since gears2. Gears 3 is almost identical from a technical standpoint in the number of textures and polygons it can display to its predecessor and crysis 2 is honestly not particularly stunning on the consoles. Given that most of its advances on the PC come from the ssao or dynamic raytrace lighting working in concert with hdr lighting suites and audio (none of which are in the 360 version) thats not surprising. There is still "maxing" left to do on the Ps3 but that primarily involves writing every possible bit of code on a platform to support threading, even then you're going to bump into Amdahls law pretty quickly with the micro cores in the cell and it's weaker gpu is going to limit such advances to physics or AI routines. Something thats not fundamentally noticeable (or entirely worth development time).

The graphics dragon died two years ago on the 360 and it's prohibitively expensive to chase on the ps3. Current games are chasing the multiplayer dragon and massively ramping up marketing campaigns because WoM and the wow factor of new games on new hardware is long gone.

Thanks for getting back to me

Yes, I see what you are saying, but there are always more tricks that can be created to deliver better performance, though there will be a performance ceiling (which I admit that I did not know developers thought they had reached). However, as I mentioned, graphics is not the only feature (or indeed the most important according to most people) that can be developed further and indeed a stagnant graphics level is of benefit to all the other development areas which often tend to receive less attention than the graphics (which developers still try and use to hide inadequacies in other aspects of the game - poor AI, rubbish story, poor multiplayer, etc).

Ai and multiplayer are both directly effected by the capability of the hardware. Ai especially. Theres a reason there aren't many quality FPS titles on the Wii and it's not because of the chucks. Complex and numerous AI routines are often a far more limiting factor for design then the hardwares ability to render high numbers of polygons. Dynasty warriors can fit one hundred character models on a screen but if they all had Halos ai routines your console would melt. Story is an entirely different argument and one that goes into the inherent weaknesses of interactive mediums and the inherent childishness and lack of real ability to interface with a nuanced story that gamers tend to exibit. Ether way it doesn't appear that stories are getting better. Interactive genre fiction will probably always be lame. If designers were just going to "make better games" because they hit a hardware ceiling they would do that. Realistically it appears they were making "good" games before and they hit a hardware ceiling so they just all look kinda the same.

Then they should make it a pc exclusive and quit cryin.