Hmm, well forgive me if I don't join you in keeping fingers crossed for that. Judging by how Sony treat modders of the PS3, I'm not sure we're ever going to see such a future.RhombusHatesYou said:
Does devs ignoring the PC for the last few years, look shortsighted in light of next gen hardware?
- Thread starter ph0b0s123
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I wish the people who make these threads would understand the difference between 'there are no games for the PC' and 'there are no games I like for the PC'.
I'm a console gamer, due largely to financial limitations and technical ineptitude, and I get really jealous when I see a lot of the stuff going on with Steam, GoG and stuff like that.
Just because you're not willing to look for the good stuff, don't take that to mean it isn't there.
I'm a console gamer, due largely to financial limitations and technical ineptitude, and I get really jealous when I see a lot of the stuff going on with Steam, GoG and stuff like that.
Just because you're not willing to look for the good stuff, don't take that to mean it isn't there.
I think there are a lot of PC owners running linux who would disagree with your definition. As said previously PC does not equal runs windows. IBM PC's can run multiple OS's.Griffolion said:
There maybe software and games that will only run with certain OS's but that is a whole different thing.
They will run on PC CPU's and graphics cards and be programed from the x86 compatible codebase. That means PC.zehydra said:
Facepalm. No they did not have PC CPU's. They had for current generation for example, Cell (PS3) or powerPC (Xbox) CPU's. Completely different architecture and code bases to program to. You are confusing saying they did not have PC CPU's with saying they did not have CPU's at all which is stupid and not what I said.BeerTent said:
The Wii U that you quoted is running a PowerPC CPU. The PowerPC architecture is not the same as or compatible with PC x86 architecture.
Your assertion that x86 died of with windows 7 and 8. I can only imagine you mean they are available to run in 64 bit mode. The x64 code base which enables this, is an extension to and fully backward compatible with x86 code. So when someone says x86 it encompass 64 bit extensions as will. That's why a current day PC can run code from all the way back to the original IBM PC released some 30 years ago, one code base, just with extensions to support the increased capabilities of recent x86 derives CPU's.
The PS4 will be a PC compatible device, i.e a PC, no mater what size of box it comes in.
This is not an argument anymore, the head of Ubisoft already confirmed in a news article on this site, that the PS4 will be easier to code for as at it will be build with PC architecture. Done
Please do a more research before making comments...
While it was hardly this way a couple of years ago, the utilization of the PC as a primary focus when developing multi-platform games has been going up recently, with consoles being the ones stuck with the inferior port (Battlefield 3, The Witcher 2, Crysis, Serious Sam 3). At the same time, more and more multi-platform games are starting to have upgraded visual and more advanced options when it comes to PC versions of the game (Saints Row the Third, Max Payne 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops 2). It was pretty short-sighted of developers to ignore the PC's capabilities a few years ago, but it's nice to see multi-platform developers like THQ (rest in peace), Rockstar Games and even Activision recognizing the viability of the PC as more than an obligation, and the new consoles' move to more PC-like hardware will only make this easier, and likely improve the timeliness of PC ports that need optimization for the upgraded visuals and options (Max Payne 3).
Yeah, right... so every Mac before they switched to x86 wasn't a PC? GOOD TO KNOW.ph0b0s123 said:
Consoles get a few exclusive franchises. PC gamers get exclusive genres (for the most part) like MMO and RTS.Lilani said:
RhombusHatesYou said:
The funny thing is they were the only PC's using IBM CPU's at that point.RhombusHatesYou said:
The difference is that consoles lack those genres because every attempt to do them for console to date has failed miserably. The touchpad/screen controls on the WiiU and the PS4 might make RTS more viable on consoles, not to mention the increased RAM and so on... and to be blunt about it, the genre could probably do with a kick up the arse because decent RTS games are getting a bit thin on the ground these days.Warped_Ghost said:
As for MMOs... a lot of the finger pointing on that should be aimed at the console manufacturers themselves and their mania about their closed garden networks.
IBM PC compatible, no. It was a PC as in Personal Computer. Unfortunately as you probably already know PC can mean different things. Obviously for this discussion about the PS4 etc running PC architecture, it means IBM PC compatible (x86). Anyone with two brain cells should have got the distinction.RhombusHatesYou said:
And yes the previous MAC's had CPU's from IBM which funnily enough were not IBM PC compatible even though they were named PowerPC...
The amount of ignorance in this forum is rather disappointing.
If you mean x86 architecture then say x86 architecture, no point having a sook about people not using the same definition of PC as you want them to.ph0b0s123 said:
It's short-sighted to address 90-ish% of the market and treat a much smaller, 10-ish% of the market as a secondary service.
But I'll ignore that and say what everyone's thinking. Game devs, you are stupid and not catering specifically to MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?
But I'll ignore that and say what everyone's thinking. Game devs, you are stupid and not catering specifically to MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE?
Of course that was logical while while PC architecture represented 10% of the market. The point is they were short sighted for not getting ahead of the game for when the same architecture becomes 3/4 of the market as it will be now... That's the point.Zachary Amaranth said:
Sorry, what was that? I can't hear over the sudden whine coming from the internet.ph0b0s123 said:
If you call it something else
But i dont think game devs are gonna fall out of the gate, especially since not releasing something with the newest most demanding technologies doesnt mean a developer isnt experimenting heavily with these new technologies (gta V and crysis would be good examples). The devs have the experience, they just havent been able to show anyone cause theyve been stuck selling things on current gen specs.
Arguing architecture is pointless, as the focus will still remain with the boxes with the most users. Relevant users. Focusing on the static specifications of the PS4 and XBox will still end up being the primary play, and PC gaming will likely still get "ignored" in the sense they're "ignored" now.ph0b0s123 said:
But of course, you asked if the last gen was short-sighted in the light of next gen specs, and that's ridiculous.
Are you seriously implying that PC gamers are only 10% of the market? Might want to let Valve, Blizzard, EA (Origin), Mojang, CD Projekt, Alienware, and ASUS know that. It isn't like any of them have made a fortune almost entirely off of this very market or in the case of Ubisoft and EA are trying to get a piece of the action with their own distribution service. *facepalm*Zachary Amaranth said:
Captcha: "pester power". How ironic.