bit-gamer.net

id: Rage being held back by Xbox 360

id: Rage being held back by Xbox 360

id's Rage will be coming out on the Xbox 360, PC and PlayStation 3 despite some of the design concerns.

id's Tim Willits has commented that the upcoming post-apocalyptic shooter Rage is being held back a little by the storage issues around the Xbox 360, which aren't such an issue on other platforms.

Rage, which will be the first game to use the new id Tech 5 engine, is set to launch on the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360 and PC all at the same time, but the game has had to be slightly tweaked and redesigned as a result of being available on the Xbox 360.

"The PC is limitless in the amount of data you can put on it. The PS3 has about 25GB. But the Xbox 360 roughly has 6 to 8 GB of data. We're hoping we can squeeze the game down to two discs for the 360 version," said Willits in an interview with 1-Up.

As a result some sections of the game have apparently been redesigned (not cut, as had originally been reported) on all platforms.

Willits points to the example of the major wasteland areas in the game that had originally been planned as four or five medium to small sized areas that the player could progress through. Now, in order to ensure that the game is suited to shipping on two discs for the Xbox 360, those areas have been condensed into two much larger wastelands. Whether that's a good or bad thing remains to be seen.

Rage is currently set to be published by Electronic Arts, but no release date has been announced for the title just yet. You can check out the original announcement trailer however back from when the game was announced at QuakeCon last year. It looks stunning.

Is the Xbox 360 getting left painfully behind as the PlayStation 3 and PC push forward? Let us know your thoughts in the forums.

Update: Below is a brief comment from Tim Willits to help clarify the matter:

"During my talk at Austin GDC I mentioned that we originally wanted to have around five or six smaller wasteland environments but later decided instead to have two larger wastelands - mostly because we were going to be shipping on two DVDs for the 360 and felt that it would play better with one large wasteland on each disc so there would be no loading between wastelands. Not loading levels while you drive around is a much better decision regardless of platform. There was NO CONTENT removed from RAGE because of the 360--NONE AT ALL. Moving from multiple wastelands into fewer but larger wastelands was a far better decision and is actually giving us more gameplay in the game. We feel the 360 is a great platform and will provide a fantastic Rage experience."

73 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
liratheal 17th September 2008, 13:54 Quote
Enter flame war, stage left!

Eh, so long as it doesn't become vapourware, then all should be good.
Star*Dagger 17th September 2008, 14:03 Quote
iD should have never started coding for inferior platforms, then they wouldnt have these problems.

Only the preternatural genius of Carmack and his desire for gaming excellence will save this game.

S*D
cjoyce1980 17th September 2008, 14:03 Quote
why don't id do then same as EA did with burnout paradise on the 360.... just make a hard disc mandortory in order to play the game

simple really and those that don't have a 360 HDD, most likely don't play alot of hard core games anyway
Neoki 17th September 2008, 14:08 Quote
FLAMING TIME
being an owner of both the 360 and ps3 why dont micro$oft just include something like HD-DVD as a gaming format. That would surely bring it back.
liratheal 17th September 2008, 14:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neoki
FLAMING TIME
being an owner of both the 360 and ps3 why dont micro$oft just include something like HD-DVD as a gaming format. That would surely bring it back.

Way too late for that now. They won't include a higher capacity disk drive at this point of the consoles life - It's not as simple to deal with as not including a hard drive, and would alienate every single 360 owner to date - Even MS are not that stupid.

I expect there will be something better for the next Xbox, could well be Blu-ray, given that it's pretty much the only viable high-capacity disk at the moment.
DXR_13KE 17th September 2008, 14:30 Quote
make hard drives mandatory, problem solved.

edit: and microsoft should release a DIY kit for any user to fit a custom hard drive.
Goty 17th September 2008, 14:42 Quote
Another solution to this problem would be to make the game more than two discs on the 360 and just charge the owners more for that version of the game. They paid less for the console, so they should be able to afford a bit more for each game to make up for the fact that Microsoft wasn't being particularly forward-thinking when designing the 360. Why punish others?
liratheal 17th September 2008, 14:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goty
Another solution to this problem would be to make the game more than two discs on the 360 and just charge the owners more for that version of the game. They paid less for the console, so they should be able to afford a bit more for each game to make up for the fact that Microsoft wasn't being particularly forward-thinking when designing the 360. Why punish others?

Charging more based on which console it's on is a super-stupid move. They'd earn more hate from the users than for just delaying it.

Not to mention that cheaper consoles are often bought by people with less money. Trying to screw them because Microsoft screwed up does NOT make good business sense, it's more likely to get you shot than Microsoft.
shigllgetcha 17th September 2008, 15:02 Quote
actuall production cost of games in so minimal anyway it wouldnt matter of the £40 you pay for a game at most like £3 most only go to making the actual disc and case you take home. with blu ray being so new it cant be the same price to produce a dvd. dvds have to be far cheaper to make i cant see it being fair to charge more

it was a huge slip by MS to still be using DVD's
smilinrat 17th September 2008, 15:18 Quote
I'd prefer that they only gimped the 360 version. Leave it as is for my beloved PC.
[USRF]Obiwan 17th September 2008, 15:56 Quote
Just strip down the x360 version and show all the glory on the pc version, that will teach console morons for leaving the PC as the ultimate game platform. Yes I really hate "PC wannabe" consoles, except the Atari's of the good old days...
paulwebber 17th September 2008, 16:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
Charging more based on which console it's on is a super-stupid move. They'd earn more hate from the users than for just delaying it.

Not to mention that cheaper consoles are often bought by people with less money. Trying to screw them because Microsoft screwed up does NOT make good business sense, it's more likely to get you shot than Microsoft.

to add to your point people buy the cheaper console because they cant afford the more expensive ones!! no they do not have more money left over for the games!! they dont have the same amount of money to start with!!!
mikeuk2004 17th September 2008, 17:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neoki
FLAMING TIME
being an owner of both the 360 and ps3 why dont micro$oft just include something like HD-DVD as a gaming format. That would surely bring it back.

Because add-ons have failed int he past and i dont think ms could even make it work. For example the Mega CD, 32X and Jaguar CD.
esdubu 17th September 2008, 17:42 Quote
Last time i checked PC games don't come on bluray discs or supermegahyperdef discs, they come on dvd's. The exact same kind of dvd's that 360 games come on. So i don't get where the problem is with the 360. Sure storage of the game on a PC is easy no matter how big it is but you've still got to get it home from the shop, unless they've decided that now all id games will come preinstalled on a hard drive.
Narishma 17th September 2008, 17:45 Quote
Why not link to a more recent and less blurry trailer?

http://www.gametrailers.com/player/38582.html
Lepermessiah 17th September 2008, 18:13 Quote
This bothers me, why do Pc and PS3 suffer because of 360? This is why PC gamers despise console ports. Pc goes on Hard Drives, so space is never an issue for Pc to guy above.
Bauul 17th September 2008, 18:14 Quote
Hmm, I'm not sure what I make of this. Cutting down is a problem for any game, but it fills two DVDs? How huge is this game going to be? I'm worried I'm going to need a new hard drive just to install this thing! And that's with JC's legendary compression technologies. You never know, maybe a bit of trimming will improve game play.
Lepermessiah 17th September 2008, 18:16 Quote
I am anti console and proud of it, they represent the lowest common denominator, and they way they operate trying to force exclusives so a large portion of gamers do not get to enjoy games or DLC (GTA 4), and how it is all about marketing and hype. Consoles suck and i don't care who disagrees. They hold Pc gaming back as devs port games over with no improvements, when the Pc could easily have them.
p3n 17th September 2008, 18:32 Quote
woulda thought ID could force M$ to allow installation on the 360 .. if they dont then disc swapping shenanigans will force me to the ps3 or PC for these games.
Jojii 17th September 2008, 18:43 Quote
This is stupid, why would id even release this press release if nothing else then to piss people off. It’s their problem and they get paid to think up solutions to the problems with their products. They are just acting like gossiping school girls pointing blame for their own inability to make it work.
Lepermessiah 17th September 2008, 18:46 Quote
ID and EPIC really should STFU, everything they say in the press has the markings of a whiney kid complaining because there importance as a PC dev has fallen, and then they sue the Console excuse after the fact. Arrogant me thinks.
Veles 17th September 2008, 19:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goty
Another solution to this problem would be to make the game more than two discs on the 360 and just charge the owners more for that version of the game. They paid less for the console, so they should be able to afford a bit more for each game to make up for the fact that Microsoft wasn't being particularly forward-thinking when designing the 360. Why punish others?

Your comment falls down when take into the fact that disks are cheap as hell to produce, seriously, boxes and disks cost a fraction of the sale price of a game.

Plus the 360 hardware was pretty damn advanced when it came out, think about it, the graphics chip had features we only recently got on PCs with DX10, and high capacity drives weren't near release when the 360 was launched. Remember it was launched a year before the PS3 turned up in the US and Japan, there was quite an advance in technology in that year.
dyzophoria 17th September 2008, 19:52 Quote
on the other end its surprising no one is reacting that rage is more than 16gb in size (since they pointed out they wanted to squeeze the game in two xbox 360 drives), yeah we have alot of storage nowadays, but more than 16gb for a game?, even with a bluray drive I can just imagine how long it would take to install onto hard drive, and can't imagine still if the whole game is loaded from the hard drive,
Quote:
Just strip down the x360 version and show all the glory on the pc version, that will teach console morons for leaving the PC as the ultimate game platform. Yes I really hate "PC wannabe" consoles, except the Atari's of the good old days...

aww, how about people who have both?, I would still love Driving games on the Large HDTV than on the PC though, I may play on the console, but I aint a moron :D (maybe its because I didn't actually left the PC gaming scene).
Arkanrais 17th September 2008, 20:05 Quote
*ignoring all previous posts*
I thought the PS3 could access 50GB per disc (as in dual layered blu-ray)...
Jamie 17th September 2008, 20:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by dyzophoria
on the other end its surprising no one is reacting that rage is more than 16gb in size (since they pointed out they wanted to squeeze the game in two xbox 360 drives), yeah we have alot of storage nowadays, but more than 16gb for a game?

I was thinking the same thing. What could possibly be using all that storage space?
Lepermessiah 17th September 2008, 20:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goty
Another solution to this problem would be to make the game more than two discs on the 360 and just charge the owners more for that version of the game. They paid less for the console, so they should be able to afford a bit more for each game to make up for the fact that Microsoft wasn't being particularly forward-thinking when designing the 360. Why punish others?

Your comment falls down when take into the fact that disks are cheap as hell to produce, seriously, boxes and disks cost a fraction of the sale price of a game.

Plus the 360 hardware was pretty damn advanced when it came out, think about it, the graphics chip had features we only recently got on PCs with DX10, and high capacity drives weren't near release when the 360 was launched. Remember it was launched a year before the PS3 turned up in the US and Japan, there was quite an advance in technology in that year.


WOW, DX10 is PC ONLY, and DX10 cards have been on the market since 2006. Dude, educate much. It was not quite advanced at all, it was just on par with PC tech at the time, is miles behind now. 360 had NO DX10, only DX9c. MS brainwashed another one.
Veles 17th September 2008, 21:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
WOW, DX10 is PC ONLY, and DX10 cards have been on the market since 2006. Dude, educate much. It was not quite advanced at all, it was just on par with PC tech at the time, is miles behind now. 360 had NO DX10, only DX9c. MS brainwashed another one.

You missed my point entirely. The xbox was released nov 2005, DX10; nov 2006. Actual cards weren't released until 2007. Yes, I know the 360 doesn't use DX10, it doesn't use DX9c either, it doesn't use any DX because DX is for PCs. What I said was that the 360's GPU had features that weren't available on PC GPUs until the release of DX10 cards.

Back when it was released nearly 3 years ago it was very advanced, and it's still pretty advanced today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie
I was thinking the same thing. What could possibly be using all that storage space?

Lazy compression? I can't imagine a shooter that has to take up 16gb of space, even one that looks that good.
DougEdey 17th September 2008, 22:00 Quote
I thought tech 5 had some SUPERB new compression technique?
Cupboard 17th September 2008, 22:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
WOW, DX10 is PC ONLY, and DX10 cards have been on the market since 2006. Dude, educate much. It was not quite advanced at all, it was just on par with PC tech at the time, is miles behind now. 360 had NO DX10, only DX9c. MS brainwashed another one.

I am fairly sure that the graphics chip in the X360 does have some of the DX10 bits in it.
In fact, looking at it it is the forerunner to the HD2900
kempez 17th September 2008, 22:17 Quote
It's them mega textures again, they get everywhere

360 was pretty advanced when it came out and even more so in proof of concept stage I'd imagine, seeing as ATI based their next series of GPU's (2900's as above) on them. Only thing MS didn't do was advance their optical media and HDD size, mainly to keep down costs I would think. I have to say, HDD interchangeability and Blu Ray are certainly the reason the PS3 is my favourite out of the two nowadays
Mentai 17th September 2008, 23:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
WOW, DX10 is PC ONLY, and DX10 cards have been on the market since 2006. Dude, educate much. It was not quite advanced at all, it was just on par with PC tech at the time, is miles behind now. 360 had NO DX10, only DX9c. MS brainwashed another one.

You missed my point entirely. The xbox was released nov 2005, DX10; nov 2006. Actual cards weren't released until 2007. Yes, I know the 360 doesn't use DX10, it doesn't use DX9c either, it doesn't use any DX because DX is for PCs.

Lol Lepermessiah, you manage to embarrass yourself in every thread you post. Perhaps be a little less arrogant in your throes of passion?
On topic, I think MS really shot themselves in the foot not making every 360 with a decent sized HDD, especially as xbox live marketplace moves forward. Also the fact that I could pay them $100 for a 80gb or get a 600gb PC HDD for the same price is very irksome. If their HDD's weren't such blatant rip offs then maybe ID would be able to just say it's compulsory to have one, but at this stage...
I do think it would be a business mistake not to develop a shooter like this for the 360 the way the market stands, and since they have the tech running on it already but are just stuck on storage isn't that big a deal imo.
Star*Dagger 18th September 2008, 00:17 Quote
Carmack for President!! He would recode the federal govt and save trillions!
docodine 18th September 2008, 00:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
I am anti console and proud of it, they represent the lowest common denominator, and they way they operate trying to force exclusives so a large portion of gamers do not get to enjoy games or DLC (GTA 4), and how it is all about marketing and hype. Consoles suck and i don't care who disagrees. They hold Pc gaming back as devs port games over with no improvements, when the Pc could easily have them.

Xbox 360 = ~$300
PS3 = ~$400
Wii = ~$250
Decent Gaming PC = $800+

GTA4 wasn't exactly exclusive, it launched for PS3 and Xbox, and will soon be out for PC, by the way.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't love a great PC, I'm actually saving monies for one now, and some of my favorite games ever are for the PC, but consoles are far easier to just sit down and play on. I don't have to deal with anything breaking, usually. There are few settings to fiddle with, I don't need to worry about having a good enough graphics card, or enough RAM, or anything. Everything just works.

So now on topic. Microsoft should have stopped production of the Xbox 360 Arcade a while ago. It's the whole problem! Who actually uses the Xbox's memory cards? It's pretty pointless. I think that id should just ignore the hard drive-less folks and stop BAWWWing to the press.
CowBlazed 18th September 2008, 01:07 Quote
360 Arcade is $199 actually, HD version $249. Full HDMI and HD $300.

Personally I don't see it as a problem, make the HD a requirment and if someone with the Arcade (or "core" as they used to be called) version buy an HD if they really want to play. They would see that as less of a market though which is why they conform to the lesser factor.

I've read somewhere there are some serious disadvantages to having more then 2 discs on a 360 game, penalty type fees for using 3 discs+, as well as the obvious extra cost on production.
docodine 18th September 2008, 01:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CowBlazed
360 Arcade is $199 actually, HD version $249. Full HDMI and HD $300.

I thought it was in $100 steps? 200 for the arcade, 300 for the next one, and 400 for the elite. Maybe I'm wrong.

Well, I just checked the internet, and they back up the $100 steps. :/
LordPyrinc 18th September 2008, 01:55 Quote
This game has a massive install footprint and for what? Are they using .bmp files for all of their graphics and textures? At that large of an install this game should 'A: look like I'm actually participating in a live action movie' or 'B: take me several hundred hours to complete'. I doubt it is either option A or B.
Narishma 18th September 2008, 02:49 Quote
I love how people complain about the size of the game without knowing anything about it...
Also FYI the PC version of GTA4 will require 18GB of disk space, Age of Conan requires more than 20GB, so it's not like this is the first game with such needs.
dyzophoria 18th September 2008, 03:57 Quote
Quote:
I love how people complain about the size of the game without knowing anything about it...
Also FYI the PC version of GTA4 will require 18GB of disk space, Age of Conan requires more than 20GB, so it's not like this is the first game with such needs.

yeah, but its iD, we all know textures are taking all that space, but never in a grand scale like this for an FPS, read in shacknews that iD didnt want to compress anything on the xbox 360, now thats a much better reason for why its that huge, it maybe normal nowadays for game this large, but it still makes you think, not just because there is new technology that allows more storage doesnt mean that developers will use that as an excuse for making games the size of HD movies, but knowing iD (which always sets the standard for great game engines) I was hoping to see procedurally generated textures to cut down on texture size, especially that they have been recently using mega textures.
Lepermessiah 18th September 2008, 04:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kempez
It's them mega textures again, they get everywhere

360 was pretty advanced when it came out and even more so in proof of concept stage I'd imagine, seeing as ATI based their next series of GPU's (2900's as above) on them. Only thing MS didn't do was advance their optical media and HDD size, mainly to keep down costs I would think. I have to say, HDD interchangeability and Blu Ray are certainly the reason the PS3 is my favourite out of the two nowadays

Sigh, what a bunch of idiots, I bought my 8800GTS in 2006 a Dx10 card, and the 360 GPU is based on the X1900, not 2900. You fail.
Lepermessiah 18th September 2008, 04:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
WOW, DX10 is PC ONLY, and DX10 cards have been on the market since 2006. Dude, educate much. It was not quite advanced at all, it was just on par with PC tech at the time, is miles behind now. 360 had NO DX10, only DX9c. MS brainwashed another one.

You missed my point entirely. The xbox was released nov 2005, DX10; nov 2006. Actual cards weren't released until 2007. Yes, I know the 360 doesn't use DX10, it doesn't use DX9c either, it doesn't use any DX because DX is for PCs.

Lol Lepermessiah, you manage to embarrass yourself in every thread you post. Perhaps be a little less arrogant in your throes of passion?
On topic, I think MS really shot themselves in the foot not making every 360 with a decent sized HDD, especially as xbox live marketplace moves forward. Also the fact that I could pay them $100 for a 80gb or get a 600gb PC HDD for the same price is very irksome. If their HDD's weren't such blatant rip offs then maybe ID would be able to just say it's compulsory to have one, but at this stage...
I do think it would be a business mistake not to develop a shooter like this for the 360 the way the market stands, and since they have the tech running on it already but are just stuck on storage isn't that big a deal imo.


Embarass myself by being right? OK, he was wrong on both fronts, for one, the GPU in the 360 is a slower X1900XT, and has no Dx10, Pc had DX10 Video cards in 2006 (Not 2007) as I purchased by 8800GTS in 2006, says so on my EVGA registration page right now. The PS2 was more advanced when it was released then the 360, at least it had blu-ray, and more features like built in wireless.
johnmustrule 18th September 2008, 06:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by esdubu
Last time i checked PC games don't come on bluray discs or supermegahyperdef discs, they come on dvd's. The exact same kind of dvd's that 360 games come on. So i don't get where the problem is with the 360. Sure storage of the game on a PC is easy no matter how big it is but you've still got to get it home from the shop, unless they've decided that now all id games will come preinstalled on a hard drive.

Putting five dvd's into a computer once is really quite different then swapping them out of a console(most likely located across a room) every time you wan't to play a game. And for the PS3 it's even easier, one disk and a hdd.
johnmustrule 18th September 2008, 06:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentai
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veles
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
WOW, DX10 is PC ONLY, and DX10 cards have been on the market since 2006. Dude, educate much. It was not quite advanced at all, it was just on par with PC tech at the time, is miles behind now. 360 had NO DX10, only DX9c. MS brainwashed another one.

You missed my point entirely. The xbox was released nov 2005, DX10; nov 2006. Actual cards weren't released until 2007. Yes, I know the 360 doesn't use DX10, it doesn't use DX9c either, it doesn't use any DX because DX is for PCs.

Lol Lepermessiah, you manage to embarrass yourself in every thread you post. Perhaps be a little less arrogant in your throes of passion?
On topic, I think MS really shot themselves in the foot not making every 360 with a decent sized HDD, especially as xbox live marketplace moves forward. Also the fact that I could pay them $100 for a 80gb or get a 600gb PC HDD for the same price is very irksome. If their HDD's weren't such blatant rip offs then maybe ID would be able to just say it's compulsory to have one, but at this stage...
I do think it would be a business mistake not to develop a shooter like this for the 360 the way the market stands, and since they have the tech running on it already but are just stuck on storage isn't that big a deal imo.


Embarass myself by being right? OK, he was wrong on both fronts, for one, the GPU in the 360 is a slower X1900XT, and has no Dx10, Pc had DX10 Video cards in 2006 (Not 2007) as I purchased by 8800GTS in 2006, says so on my EVGA registration page right now. The PS2 was more advanced when it was released then the 360, at least it had blu-ray, and more features like built in wireless.

I get what your saying but your completely in the false. DX any version has never been made for a console, it's feature list is actually smaller than either the Xbox's or the PS3's, why? Because consoles don't have the compatability requirements that PC's do, most PC's are different from one another so the industry creates "standards" so that programs behave similarly on each PC although not necesarily at the same speed. The Xbox's gpu is based quite closely on the ATI technologies of the time but they aren't comparable, when a developers programing for the Xbox they know what the systems gonna have and they can hone it to those requirements and make their software effiecient for that specific machine, with a PC they have to meet about 3 different standards and provide options for all the possibilities in between. An 8800GTS is in many ways faster than the xbox's but it's not nessesarily better, the xbox's gpu has quite a few more features and is more exspandable. Need I remind you all that Twilight Princess for the Game Cube was nearly on par graphically with games for the PC at the time of it's release, and better in some cases. All this and the Game Cube's gpu had been designed no less than six+ years prior to it's release.
[USRF]Obiwan 18th September 2008, 10:22 Quote
I remember the days of seven floppy discs (remember installing office on 3.11 used to be 11 flops)
Or eight CD's for one game. And now people complain about two DVD's?

It probably is DVD9 also so maybe the game needs two DVD9 discs. So what?
Bauul 18th September 2008, 10:44 Quote
Actually giving it some thought I'm not surprised Rage is looking to be a pretty huge install: the big advance with idTech 5 is unique texturing, as in no more titling. This almost by definition is going to require huge amounts of space, so it somewhat doesn't suprise me of the size requirements.

I personally think it's more interesting that their solution to size problems is to make bigger levels. What kind of crazy perverse engine is this?
DougEdey 18th September 2008, 11:17 Quote
11 discs? You obviously don't remember Win95/98 installs
Lepermessiah 18th September 2008, 12:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmustrule
I get what your saying but your completely in the false. DX any version has never been made for a console, it's feature list is actually smaller than either the Xbox's or the PS3's, why? Because consoles don't have the compatability requirements that PC's do, most PC's are different from one another so the industry creates "standards" so that programs behave similarly on each PC although not necesarily at the same speed. The Xbox's gpu is based quite closely on the ATI technologies of the time but they aren't comparable, when a developers programing for the Xbox they know what the systems gonna have and they can hone it to those requirements and make their software effiecient for that specific machine, with a PC they have to meet about 3 different standards and provide options for all the possibilities in between. An 8800GTS is in many ways faster than the xbox's but it's not nessesarily better, the xbox's gpu has quite a few more features and is more exspandable. Need I remind you all that Twilight Princess for the Game Cube was nearly on par graphically with games for the PC at the time of it's release, and better in some cases. All this and the Game Cube's gpu had been designed no less than six+ years prior to it's release.

Dude, Consoles use openGL and Direct X 9, what planet you live on? Twilight Princess looked as good as PC games at the time? LOL, what did you play games on LOW? Consoles use the EXACR tech tat PC uses at the time, where else do you think the tech comes from, they invent it just for consoles and only use it for them? lol You have spread so much mis-information on this tread already. Yous aid 360 had dx10, WRONG, you said PC did not get Dx10 until 2007, WRONG, you said 360 does not use DX, DUH, it does, MS's whole strategy is to use XNA toosl to make cross development for PC/360 easier and uses DX9c, even states the GPU in the 360 is DX9, and you also said it is based on the 2900 chip, WRONG again. Learn some facts and come back please.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/24/xbox-360-cant-run-directx-10-confirms-ati/

Uses Dx 9, all article and specs prove that. If it didn't use Opengl or DX10 what else is there fool?

The feature list is smaller? Want to back that up? Post some proof or STFU, because you are full of crap. The feature list of DX10 is much bigger then what any console uses, get real. Stop spreading console BS propaganda. 360 only used what was already available for PC at the time, whereelse do you think it gets its tech/hardware from? You really ned to get your head out of the sand with regards to the consoles. The feature list is the same at launch, then false behind PC sortly after, same as every generation.
xaser04 18th September 2008, 13:04 Quote
[QUOTE=Lepermessiah]
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmustrule


Uses Dx 9, all article and specs prove that. If it didn't use Opengl or DX10 what else is there fool?

Source please.

As far as I can recall the 360 uses its own proprietry version of DX which doesn't match specifically any PC version of DX. (There was a write up from the lead designer or someone like that explaining how it works)
xaser04 18th September 2008, 13:16 Quote
Found one article which goes into a bit of depth:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beyond3d article

A name that has long since been mentioned in relation to the graphics behind Xenon (the development name for XBOX 360) is R500. Although this name has appeared from various sources, the actual development name ATI uses for Xenon's graphics is "C1", whilst the more "PR friendly" codename that has surfaced is "Xenos". ATI are probably fairly keen not to use the R500 name as this draws parallels with their upcoming series of PC graphics processors starting with R520, however R520 and Xenos are very distinct parts. R520's aim is obviously designed to meet the needs of the PC space and have Shader Model 3.0 capabilities as this is currently the highest DirectX API specification available on the PC, and as such these new parts still have their lineage derived from the R300 core, with discrete Vertex and Pixel Shaders; Xenos, on the other hand, is a custom design specifically built to address the needs and unique characteristics of the game console. ATI had a clean slate with which to design on and no specified API to target. These factors have led to the Unified Shader design, something which ATI have prototyped and tested prior to its eventual implementation ( with the rumoured R400 development ? ) , with capabilities that don't fall within any corresponding API specification. Whilst ostensibly Xenos has been hailed as a Shader Model 3.0 part, its capabilities don't fall directly inline with it and exceed it in some areas giving this more than a whiff of WGF2.0 (Windows Graphics Foundation 2.0 - the new name for DirectX Next / DirectX 10) about it.

source - http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/4/2
Bindibadgi 18th September 2008, 13:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Star*Dagger
iD should have never started coding for inferior platforms, then they wouldnt have these problems.

Only the preternatural genius of Carmack and his desire for gaming excellence will save this game.

S*D

Gaming master race snobbery ++++
mmorgue 18th September 2008, 13:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
they [consoles] represent the lowest common denominator

Whoa, bit harsh i think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
[the] way they operate trying to force exclusives so a large portion of gamers do not get to enjoy games or DLC (GTA 4), and how it is all about marketing and hype.

That's just common business practices and standard marketing techniques, nothing more drastic than say, iPhones being eclusive to AT&T or 02. Look at the video card industry -- I do recall, some years back (and prolly still now) how many developers were either pro-Nvidia and anti-ATi or vice versa. In order to get the best out of the game meant you needed one of the speciality cards. To play an Nvidia-biased (not a typo) game means to have an Nvidia card, which some of the newest gen ones are significantly more expensive than any console.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Consoles suck and i don't care who disagrees. They hold Pc gaming back as devs port games over with no improvements, when the Pc could easily have them.

Of course that's your opinion. But I wouldn't say "suck" and I *certainly* wouldnt' agree they hold back PC development.

What you have to remember is, regardless of who or what system can do it best, it's about who can get the most *exposure* to the highest number of gamers and therefore highest sales. And nowadays, on a mass market, sadly, it isn't PC gamers. No, I'm not anti-PC as I started off as a PC gamer and will always be one, but consoles represent a very easy way to hit a high number of consumers because the platforms are universal and consistant, unlike how every PC is virtually unique.
DougEdey 18th September 2008, 14:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Gaming master race snobbery ++++

Yup, definitely, and people wonder why us console gamers get pissed off by PC gamers.

Religion anyone?
Bauul 18th September 2008, 15:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougEdey
Yup, definitely, and people wonder why us console gamers get pissed off by PC gamers.

Religion anyone?

Hail to the king baby.
Tim S 18th September 2008, 18:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
Found one article which goes into a bit of depth:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beyond3d article

A name that has long since been mentioned in relation to the graphics behind Xenon (the development name for XBOX 360) is R500. Although this name has appeared from various sources, the actual development name ATI uses for Xenon's graphics is "C1", whilst the more "PR friendly" codename that has surfaced is "Xenos". ATI are probably fairly keen not to use the R500 name as this draws parallels with their upcoming series of PC graphics processors starting with R520, however R520 and Xenos are very distinct parts. R520's aim is obviously designed to meet the needs of the PC space and have Shader Model 3.0 capabilities as this is currently the highest DirectX API specification available on the PC, and as such these new parts still have their lineage derived from the R300 core, with discrete Vertex and Pixel Shaders; Xenos, on the other hand, is a custom design specifically built to address the needs and unique characteristics of the game console. ATI had a clean slate with which to design on and no specified API to target. These factors have led to the Unified Shader design, something which ATI have prototyped and tested prior to its eventual implementation ( with the rumoured R400 development ? ) , with capabilities that don't fall within any corresponding API specification. Whilst ostensibly Xenos has been hailed as a Shader Model 3.0 part, its capabilities don't fall directly inline with it and exceed it in some areas giving this more than a whiff of WGF2.0 (Windows Graphics Foundation 2.0 - the new name for DirectX Next / DirectX 10) about it.

source - http://www.beyond3d.com/content/articles/4/2

Yep, Xenos is not D3D9c or D3D10. In some respects it supersedes even D3D10 specifications.
Lepermessiah 18th September 2008, 19:46 Quote
[QUOTE=xaser04]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmustrule


Uses Dx 9, all article and specs prove that. If it didn't use Opengl or DX10 what else is there fool?

Source please.

As far as I can recall the 360 uses its own proprietry version of DX which doesn't match specifically any PC version of DX. (There was a write up from the lead designer or someone like that explaining how it works)


it uses Dx9, and a couple features of DX10, so it still uses the EXACT same Direct X Pc has, just a different GPU. They do not make a Direct X just for the Xbox, use your noggin. Having those couple features of Dx10 relaly didn't do anything as games even at launch never looked any better omn 360 then Dx9 PC's. It does not supersede anything, it sues the same DX that the Pc world has, where do u think it got it from? The only thing unique was the GPU, not Direct X. even then the shaders and vertek processing power was slower then the equivalent X1900Xt of the PC world.
Lepermessiah 18th September 2008, 19:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougEdey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Gaming master race snobbery ++++

Yup, definitely, and people wonder why us console gamers get pissed off by PC gamers.

Religion anyone?

They get pissed off because the truth hurts, and they know it.
roshan 19th September 2008, 03:17 Quote
Design a new console for xbox .Dont cut the Game.
johnmustrule 19th September 2008, 06:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Dude, Consoles use openGL and Direct X 9, what planet you live on? Twilight Princess looked as good as PC games at the time? LOL, what did you play games on LOW? Consoles use the EXACR tech tat PC uses at the time, where else do you think the tech comes from, they invent it just for consoles and only use it for them? lol You have spread so much mis-information on this tread already. Yous aid 360 had dx10, WRONG, you said PC did not get Dx10 until 2007, WRONG, you said 360 does not use DX, DUH, it does, MS's whole strategy is to use XNA toosl to make cross development for PC/360 easier and uses DX9c, even states the GPU in the 360 is DX9, and you also said it is based on the 2900 chip, WRONG again. Learn some facts and come back please.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/08/24/xbox-360-cant-run-directx-10-confirms-ati/

Uses Dx 9, all article and specs prove that. If it didn't use Opengl or DX10 what else is there fool?

The feature list is smaller? Want to back that up? Post some proof or STFU, because you are full of crap. The feature list of DX10 is much bigger then what any console uses, get real. Stop spreading console BS propaganda. 360 only used what was already available for PC at the time, whereelse do you think it gets its tech/hardware from? You really ned to get your head out of the sand with regards to the consoles. The feature list is the same at launch, then false behind PC sortly after, same as every generation.

I see now why people say you embarrass yourself on every forum. Lets start with some facts:

-The Xbox as was previously stated does in fact use a proprietary version of DX, I worded my sentence in correctly so let me restate. The XBOX360 does not use a PC compatable version of DX, key words being "PC compatable" which goes to support the specialization I point out in the rest of my post. Why not just stick a normal gpu from a computer in there? because with a console you have the unique ability to make a proprietary and easy to develop for API and hardware. This allows flexibility for programmers to add features not locked into a PC gpu, adding infinite specialization and an infinatly larger feature list this way consoles will not be made obsolete by a few api updates. They're flexible a PC is not!

Here's the damn scource! It's the fuking wiki page about DX, maybe you should "get some facts and come back please" and fyi: the xbox uses a version of DX similar to 8.1 not 9 but the games still look great! why??? specialization.... duhz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX

"Yous aid 360 had dx10, WRONG, you said PC did not get Dx10 until 2007, WRONG, you said 360 does not use DX, DUH, it does, MS's whole strategy is to use XNA toosl to make cross development for PC/360 easier and uses DX9c, even states the GPU in the 360 is DX9, and you also said it is based on the 2900 chip, WRONG again."

-What the **** are you talking about!? I've posted twice and you cant find any of that in either post are you ****ing insane? DX for the xbox is so rudimentary it's hardly DX it's basically the foundation upon which all the features (in this case specializations) are added and if you have that foundation it's sort-a easy to recode the effects for the PC, I might have worded "a" scentence badly but where the **** did you get that shit from?

-Finally specialization is even better for the PS3 which is almost a blank canvas as far as API goes which means it is going to coninue to be brilliant for quite some time. I'm a average level 3D artist, and I can tell you right now that resolution is not the only deciding factor in rendering, it's possibly the least important part. Effects take up a lot of the proccesing time, and the specialized cpu of the PS3 and the GPU's of any console allow them to compete for several years with PC's especially this generation where the chips in consoles can (and in the PS3's case still does) out preform a PC's from launch day. Albeit only at gaming specific tasks which is what this conversation is about, no?

-Lets take my twilight princess example into perspective. This is a game deviloped on inferior but streachable and specialized technology for it's time and six years after that technologies conception this game was released into a world where graphical standards where reaching new hights.

Zelda-

clicky

clicky

clicky

clicky

clicky

Battle Field 1942-

clicky

clicky

And the pinnacle, Oblivion:

clicky I think that pretty much sums that up.

Can Twilight princess compete with Oblivion in sheer graphical fidelity? No, but it's fair to say that oblivion (which I own on console and PC) even on max is not 5 times better than TW not even three. Battle field 2142's character models where depressing, you can slap an HD texture on anything and call it good but does it convince me? No, TW's models are belivable and not distractinly unreal they may even be on par with Oblivions, I know that when I sit down to play any of these games which where all AAA titles that Zelda's going to be more immersive than either of the others because the animations are well done the textures are smooth and the exspressions are realistic, somthing that tottaly out does oblivions angry glances and wierd wrinkles, and BF2142's HD goodness. No, TW isn't graphically on par with these games but for tech that's six years old at the time it's pretty impressive and stands it's ground under these goliaths. Mind you this is listing the crem of the crop, not all the shit that actually looked worse than TW.

shits and gold nuggets

I love my PC, it takes up 90% of my gaming time. But when I don't want to mess around with updates and drivers and random crashes, OS problems and trying to get things running in HD. I switch on my consoles, because I know it is quite a bit less likely to bite me, and in many ways my consoles still out preform my $1200 PC that was purchased after the PS3 was released, and trust me this bitch was a steal.
Da_Rude_Baboon 19th September 2008, 11:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
They get pissed off because the truth hurts, and they know it.

You should buy a console as you sound like all the little pissy, moaning kids that shout and swear like a clanger with tourettes down the microphone while i'm playing COD4. You would fit right in with your well thought and reasoned arguments.
xaser04 19th September 2008, 11:39 Quote
[QUOTE=Lepermessiah]
Quote:
Originally Posted by xaser04
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmustrule


Uses Dx 9, all article and specs prove that. If it didn't use Opengl or DX10 what else is there fool?

Source please.

As far as I can recall the 360 uses its own proprietry version of DX which doesn't match specifically any PC version of DX. (There was a write up from the lead designer or someone like that explaining how it works)


it uses Dx9, and a couple features of DX10, so it still uses the EXACT same Direct X Pc has, just a different GPU. They do not make a Direct X just for the Xbox, use your noggin. Having those couple features of Dx10 relaly didn't do anything as games even at launch never looked any better omn 360 then Dx9 PC's. It does not supersede anything, it sues the same DX that the Pc world has, where do u think it got it from? The only thing unique was the GPU, not Direct X. even then the shaders and vertek processing power was slower then the equivalent X1900Xt of the PC world.


Did you even bother to read the link I posted? Or the snippet from beyond3d?!

Judging by your post I guess not.




Tim: Didn't bit-tech do a interview with a ATI developer (or someone from ATI) that went in depth on the xenos gpu? I can remember reading something about it and I am sure it was on here.
[USRF]Obiwan 19th September 2008, 11:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da_Rude_Baboon
You should buy a console as you sound like all the little pissy, moaning kids that shout and swear like a clanger with tourettes down the microphone while i'm playing COD4. You would fit right in with your well thought and reasoned arguments.

Most of the time the console users are the kids that shout and swear like a clanger with tourettes down the microphone. Because you cant play a FPS game (invented for the mouse and keyboard on a pc) on a console with game pad and 'think' you can win from a PC gamer who's trained for 10 years on CS and TFC. Using mouse and keyboard as a second nature.

Eat that :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by DougEdey
11 discs? You obviously don't remember Win95/98 installs
Afcourse I remember. But I allready had a 1x speed cd-rom then ;)
Lepermessiah 19th September 2008, 12:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Da_Rude_Baboon
You should buy a console as you sound like all the little pissy, moaning kids that shout and swear like a clanger with tourettes down the microphone while i'm playing COD4. You would fit right in with your well thought and reasoned arguments.

I own a PS3 moron.
Lepermessiah 19th September 2008, 13:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmustrule
I see now why people say you embarrass yourself on every forum. Lets start with some facts:

-The Xbox as was previously stated does in fact use a proprietary version of DX, I worded my sentence in correctly so let me restate. The XBOX360 does not use a PC compatable version of DX, key words being "PC compatable" which goes to support the specialization I point out in the rest of my post. Why not just stick a normal gpu from a computer in there? because with a console you have the unique ability to make a proprietary and easy to develop for API and hardware. This allows flexibility for programmers to add features not locked into a PC gpu, adding infinite specialization and an infinatly larger feature list this way consoles will not be made obsolete by a few api updates. They're flexible a PC is not!

Here's the damn scource! It's the fuking wiki page about DX, maybe you should "get some facts and come back please" and fyi: the xbox uses a version of DX similar to 8.1 not 9 but the games still look great! why??? specialization.... duhz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX

"Yous aid 360 had dx10, WRONG, you said PC did not get Dx10 until 2007, WRONG, you said 360 does not use DX, DUH, it does, MS's whole strategy is to use XNA toosl to make cross development for PC/360 easier and uses DX9c, even states the GPU in the 360 is DX9, and you also said it is based on the 2900 chip, WRONG again."

-What the **** are you talking about!? I've posted twice and you cant find any of that in either post are you ****ing insane? DX for the xbox is so rudimentary it's hardly DX it's basically the foundation upon which all the features (in this case specializations) are added and if you have that foundation it's sort-a easy to recode the effects for the PC, I might have worded "a" scentence badly but where the **** did you get that shit from?

-Finally specialization is even better for the PS3 which is almost a blank canvas as far as API goes which means it is going to coninue to be brilliant for quite some time. I'm a average level 3D artist, and I can tell you right now that resolution is not the only deciding factor in rendering, it's possibly the least important part. Effects take up a lot of the proccesing time, and the specialized cpu of the PS3 and the GPU's of any console allow them to compete for several years with PC's especially this generation where the chips in consoles can (and in the PS3's case still does) out preform a PC's from launch day. Albeit only at gaming specific tasks which is what this conversation is about, no?

-Lets take my twilight princess example into perspective. This is a game deviloped on inferior but streachable and specialized technology for it's time and six years after that technologies conception this game was released into a world where graphical standards where reaching new hights.

Zelda-

clicky

clicky

clicky

clicky

clicky

Battle Field 1942-

clicky

clicky

And the pinnacle, Oblivion:

clicky I think that pretty much sums that up.

Can Twilight princess compete with Oblivion in sheer graphical fidelity? No, but it's fair to say that oblivion (which I own on console and PC) even on max is not 5 times better than TW not even three. Battle field 2142's character models where depressing, you can slap an HD texture on anything and call it good but does it convince me? No, TW's models are belivable and not distractinly unreal they may even be on par with Oblivions, I know that when I sit down to play any of these games which where all AAA titles that Zelda's going to be more immersive than either of the others because the animations are well done the textures are smooth and the exspressions are realistic, somthing that tottaly out does oblivions angry glances and wierd wrinkles, and BF2142's HD goodness. No, TW isn't graphically on par with these games but for tech that's six years old at the time it's pretty impressive and stands it's ground under these goliaths. Mind you this is listing the crem of the crop, not all the shit that actually looked worse than TW.

shits and gold nuggets

I love my PC, it takes up 90% of my gaming time. But when I don't want to mess around with updates and drivers and random crashes, OS problems and trying to get things running in HD. I switch on my consoles, because I know it is quite a bit less likely to bite me, and in many ways my consoles still out preform my $1200 PC that was purchased after the PS3 was released, and trust me this bitch was a steal.


WOW, before going off on a stupid rant, make sure you even understand what is being debated. The guy said 360 DOES not use DX at all, I said it DOES, it uses TECH that is on PC (Pc gets both Dx9 and DX10, 360 has dx9 with a couple minor features of DX10) No one even was debating if the 360's dx was Pc compatible, learn to read before making an ass of yourself. It s not compatible, what does that mattert, PC gets the full feature set of DX 10 and 9, 360 gets basically Dx9 with a couple feature you cannot even notice of Dx10. If your console outperforms your $1200 PC, you have no clue about Hardware TBH, you can get quite a monster for $1200 now.

You are also wrong on other fronts, the PS3 CELL is terrible at real word performance, remember, theoritical performance versus real world. Cell and the 360 Power Pc processor were not as powerfull as even mainstream Dual Core CPUès at launch (In 2006) let alone now:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453

You and many have dillusions of how good the hardware is in actual gaming performance in the consoles, MS and SONY have done a good job or marketing and brainwashing John Q public, in reality, you get what you pay for, there is a reason consoles ae cheap, even factoring in they sell them at a lost and add that to the cost, they are still cheap. There is a reason for that, they have to cut corners somewhere.

The only real way consoles have been able to compete is because console games do not get upgraded when ported to PC, so graphics stay the same by default, Crysis shows what can happen when a dev makes a game for PC from the ground up and only PC. This is the only reason console graphics are able to stay close, and EPIC agrees:

http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/601172/consoles_holding_back_pc_graphics_says_epic_boss.html
DougEdey 19th September 2008, 13:52 Quote
And yet the Cells are being used in Roadrunner, which is the worlds fastest supercomputer. Go figure!
Lepermessiah 19th September 2008, 13:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougEdey
And yet the Cells are being used in Roadrunner, which is the worlds fastest supercomputer. Go figure!


Read the article, there is a difference between GAME 3d performance and theritical, number crunching. Geez, people are so ignorant. Cell is a great processor for things other then gaming, there is a reason the PS3 is not better graphically then the 360, Cell is not goood at 3d App performance, which is EXPLAINED in detail in te article I posted, which you eithr never read or understood. Once again, people fall for stupid marketing hype. We are talking 3d gaming perfromance here, not mainframe computing and number crunching and data processing, apples and oranges. Cell as a gaming Processor is no better then the 360's, and both are much slower then PC CPU's for gaming.
shigllgetcha 19th September 2008, 14:03 Quote
a console is used for one thing only its more stream lining than corner cutting really. they also are easier to mass produce, one board a dvd/br drive and a hdd. pc has alot of components that are made seperately and added later (which adds cost), and so many different combinations of components.

a console is a compramise though. you get the same (or atleast close) to the same preformance as PC at the time its releaced but over time PC's can be upgraded. some people just dnt want the hastle upgrading. i know i definately dont tbh
DougEdey 19th September 2008, 14:07 Quote
Oh I love playing with trolls. They're SOOOOOO FUN!
Lepermessiah 19th September 2008, 14:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DougEdey
Oh I love playing with trolls. They're SOOOOOO FUN!

Ironic, because you are the troll right now, great points you made there. When someone proves their point and you have no good comback or nothing valid to say, resort to calling them a troll in hopes to change the subject and bait them into a childish pissing contest.
Bauul 19th September 2008, 15:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Ironic, because you are the troll right now, great points you made there. When someone proves their point and you have no good comback or nothing valid to say, resort to calling them a troll in hopes to change the subject and bait them into a childish pissing contest.

I call 3 METERS!!

Sorry, couldn't help it.
liratheal 19th September 2008, 15:57 Quote
Erm.

I don't see what the CBEA has to do with the graphics. There's an Nvidia chip in there, I forget the model, and while it does have a direct link to the Cell (16mb IIRC), the cell does NOT take graphical load off the GPU. Talking about how it affects graphics performance? Absolutely pointless.

As for the Crysis shit? Yeah, great, we can have a pretty good looking game that runs like a slide show with no ****ing limbs (On the huge majority of REAL WORLD hardware (real world meaning shit that MOST enthusiasts have, not the quad SLI/X-Fire bullshit)), when the console gets a pretty decent looking game that runs at 30 or 60fps?

Console gaming is not holding PC gaming back because of inferior hardware, it's the cost and (To a newbie) complexity of PC hardware that's keeping the PC gaming in the nearest doghouse.

Anyone can buy, and plug in, a console. Not everyone can build a PC, and even fewer can buy a good off the shelf PC, because they don't know a damn thing about it (Which, in fairness, is understandable. We spend the majority of our week reading about new stuff - We know, they don't, because they're just not interested in working out the complexities). It's common knowledge that games console sales are through the roof, for both hardware and software.

As a company, would you release on a PC, where you can get some astounding looks and average sales, or a console where you can get acceptable looks and if the game is good, some pretty staggering sales?

If you say PC, you're probably lying because you want to save face. But that's okay, I know what you'd actually do. It's what I'd do, too. Even though consoles can suck my dangly bits, I'd release on them to make money.
Lepermessiah 19th September 2008, 17:21 Quote
Save face? Nothing you said has anything to do with what anyone was talking about? Sales and being mainstream has nothing to do with how Consoles are holding PC back, mark rein even has said as much, you think you know more then him? People keep getting dumber. Consoles being easy, cheaper and dumbed down for the masses only furthers my argument, gaming will become like the music industry, driven way too much by CEOS who have too much control over the industry. That is just one area consoles are dragging gaming down.
liratheal 20th September 2008, 18:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
Save face? Nothing you said has anything to do with what anyone was talking about? Sales and being mainstream has nothing to do with how Consoles are holding PC back, mark rein even has said as much, you think you know more then him? People keep getting dumber. Consoles being easy, cheaper and dumbed down for the masses only furthers my argument, gaming will become like the music industry, driven way too much by CEOS who have too much control over the industry. That is just one area consoles are dragging gaming down.

You said people are developing for consoles before PC's, and that's ****ing all over the PC gameing scene, because all we get (Mostly anyway) is crappy ports.

Why are developers releasing on consoles more so than PC?

BECAUSE THERE IS MORE ****ING MONEY THERE. Devs release on consoles TO MAKE MONEY. Why are they doing this? BECAUSE THEY LIKE MONEY. It's not rocket science. I don't care what Mark Rein says. I just don't. He is, in my opinion, a ****scoff, and he can just go.. Anywhere I am not. Preferably space.

The fact that it's easier (well, not by ****ing much I'll bet, given the crap on the PS3) to code for consoles just solidifies the need for the developers to release on consoles!

I never said consoles were not holding PC gaming back, I am just saying that it's going to take a lot more than being able to make a prettier game to get PC gaming back to what it was - And even then, the devs have to account for masses of different hardware configurations, it's a ****load of work for very little pay off.

Would you do the best landscaping job in the world for a dollar?

That's what you're expecting of dev houses. It makes you a complete ****bend.
johnmustrule 22nd September 2008, 07:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lepermessiah
WOW, before going off on a stupid rant, make sure you even understand what is being debated. The guy said 360 DOES not use DX at all, I said it DOES, it uses TECH that is on PC (Pc gets both Dx9 and DX10, 360 has dx9 with a couple minor features of DX10) No one even was debating if the 360's dx was Pc compatible, learn to read before making an ass of yourself. It s not compatible, what does that mattert, PC gets the full feature set of DX 10 and 9, 360 gets basically Dx9 with a couple feature you cannot even notice of Dx10. If your console outperforms your $1200 PC, you have no clue about Hardware TBH, you can get quite a monster for $1200 now.

You are also wrong on other fronts, the PS3 CELL is terrible at real word performance, remember, theoritical performance versus real world. Cell and the 360 Power Pc processor were not as powerfull as even mainstream Dual Core CPUès at launch (In 2006) let alone now:

http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2453

You and many have dillusions of how good the hardware is in actual gaming performance in the consoles, MS and SONY have done a good job or marketing and brainwashing John Q public, in reality, you get what you pay for, there is a reason consoles ae cheap, even factoring in they sell them at a lost and add that to the cost, they are still cheap. There is a reason for that, they have to cut corners somewhere.

The only real way consoles have been able to compete is because console games do not get upgraded when ported to PC, so graphics stay the same by default, Crysis shows what can happen when a dev makes a game for PC from the ground up and only PC. This is the only reason console graphics are able to stay close, and EPIC agrees:

http://www.custompc.co.uk/news/601172/consoles_holding_back_pc_graphics_says_epic_boss.html

Ok since you haven't actually rebutted any of my points from the last two post, I guess you agree. So lets start with what your wrong about this time.

- The XBOX uses a minimalist version of DX 8, did you even read the link I posted? Not 9, not parts of 10, just DX 8 with lots of room for specialization which a PC doesn't have, the article you posted only proves my point. Dev's have alot of programing freedom with either console and subsequently there are more graphical features available to them than on a PC.

- I'll say again, especially because your link agrees with me. The Xbox's Power PC cpu and especially the CELL are far better for gaming than anything offered by AMD or Intel at the moment. Why, because specialization is the future of gaming and the CELL's spe's are considerably faster at specialized tasks than any gereral purpose CPU. It even says in the article that CELL's architecture is on par with what Intel will be releasing in 2015. No, it's not a good desktop replacement, it'd be awful, but for gaming either is quite better than a PC cpu, but only if a dev programs for it. This specialization can be seen in the real world with Nvidia's CUDA platform for the PC, specialized code for very parralell proccesing is alot faster on specialized parrallel hardware, ie: CELL.

- In the 1980's IMB was selling a computer for $5,000, the total cost of manufacturing and distributing that computer was $30, things haven't changed and it's no different for consol manufacturers. Why the hell your talking about production costs, I have no idea. MS and Sony can't charge thousands for a system because people would just stick with computers. They make money on each console but it's negated by the fact that they have to cover development cost, wich is in the billions. Neither company cares because they already have that kind of money and reserves to spend even more, for instance MS, it has well over $100 billion in the bank.

- I know alot about hardware TBH, the PC I baught was worth $1200 I paid $700 and that was along time ago. And rage looks alot better than anything I can play on my PC, hence my PS3 is better.

- I don't belive I said console graphics where better, or why they where on par with the PC. Stop changing the subject and putting words in my mouth you *****. If you wana argue your point, go through and negate every detail in my last two posts, with bullets and quotes. If you can't even manage that maybe you should try spell check, or reading the articles you post. The one from your last post said the PS3 doesn't ship with a HDD and the Xbox does, I belive it was even written before either was released and is based (in part) on old and innacurate information. You sound like a little misinformed console basher and so far you've done nothing to prove me wrong, go ahead I'm waiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
Erm.

I don't see what the CBEA has to do with the graphics. There's an Nvidia chip in there, I forget the model, and while it does have a direct link to the Cell (16mb IIRC), the cell does NOT take graphical load off the GPU. Talking about how it affects graphics performance? Absolutely pointless.

....ect....

Console gaming is not holding PC gaming back because of inferior hardware, it's the cost and (To a newbie) complexity of PC hardware that's keeping the PC gaming in the nearest doghouse.

OMG someone who actually knows what they're talking about, mostly, i just have to make a few corrections ;)

-firstly the Cell does effect graphical preformance, it can be used for vertex shading operations and recently it was demo'd preforming a realtime raytrace engine exclusivly calculated by the cell, basically it's quite the bugger. Leppermessiagh - Lets see a nahalem proccesor do that!

- Your right about the hardware thing and not holding back, as you said it's a cost thing and that's all it'll ever be. That and I would also say that coding for somthing like the PS3 and the PC at the same time is just completly different.

"something someone said about the cell being used in the fastest supercomputer"

-Exactly, it's called specialization and parrallel proccesing and the cell is great at it, that's why they used it in the PS3 and a super computer, because if you code for it, it'll knock your socks off. A general purpose CPU like intels will fiddle about slowly until you hand it a lazy programmer and a low budget, two things we have in abundance sadly.
johnmustrule 22nd September 2008, 07:55 Quote
ops, double post!
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums