The Last of Us PS3 vs. PS4 - "Like DVD vs. Blu-ray" Says Naughty Dog

[Rozalia1]

Lode Runner:
When they make it available I will buy it.
Did not even know what Lightning Returns is. Did check now so dont worry.
And where did I say brand new games are under (my own) moral legal to emulate?

By what you've said I doubt it.

2. No. Then I would say it is not right. If you have already been playing it emulated by then, well tough luck . If you havent, I would suggest to buy it for PS 5.

I did ask you the question:

Whatever happened to the idea of buying a copy of a game you liked after having "demoed" it? Why not as you are justifying doing illegal things based on the arguments of art and morality, not buy the game to give the developer something back? Its surely by your own viewpoints the correct and moral thing to do...or are you telling me that you place your money above the art you speak you preach about by not supporting it.

Don't think you ever answered it.

Also:

1. Yes. By my definition it is. Though this (my) definition also accepts that it will be much later then the game came out.

Your criteria on when a game is morally right to emulate is that it no longer has copies in production, which a niche game like that wouldn't straight away. Thus using your criteria it'd be day 1.

Onto TLOU:
That did not adress my scenario. Just speculation.
Anyways, to me it is not pirating as long as I have the game bought...

Except it is and we've been through it already. If you own the game and the console its for than its legal, otherwise its piracy. Your thoughts on rights, morality, or art do not change the law.

Onto STALKER:
Its obvious you do not know what the game is. Yes, it will NOT be STALKER, because those changes will actually change gameplay and atmosphere. Simple as that.
And actuall, we do know what the devs were going for. Really Well.

You have no authority to define what a game "is". How about this for an example, Metal Gear isn't Metal Gear without the green codec calls...justify that.

Onto modding:
Nope, its just one of the absolute major reasons why all multi plats I have are on PC .
Where did I say I pay for mods? They are usually free (though there are few exceptions, admitedly).
I am just stating this here contentc gets ignored by you. And porting it all is unfeasable, even if you are a mega corporation with several billion to waste, it simply is damn near impossible.

It was in the post you quoted:

Onto mods:
I brought mods, especiall mods like Black Mesa, R&D and Lost Alpha, simply because they are exclusive content, and one that is pretty damn important. Those I listed are like seperate games. How do you bring them over? And how do you make sure console players are not dependant on porting PC modders

Modders do a lot for free, I'm sure if the door was open for it they'd do it.

 

[Rozalia1]

4. Good. We agree on both (especuially first). Though, law or no law, that would probably not make me care .

Note that it is "own", not "owned".

6. Brought as in brought on the table to show you. Not Bought. And yes, if they got payment, they might be able to do such a large project. Still unfeasable though, what about old mods? (Castle of the Dead for Return to Castle Wolfenstein, 3 DLC-quality levels with own storyline, modder that made em is no longer here though)

You keep asking variations of the same question when the answer is the same to all of them. If mod support is suddenly enabled for consoles tomorrow, than it'd be up to modders (who else?) to "port" the mods over.
Would they bring all the mods over? No, but it's not impossible for them to actually bring stuff over and get it working.

 

[Strazdas]

Yet a popular occupation of PC gamers is whining about bad ports to the PC. The fact which you like to avoid is that it ultimately lays with the developer. Square Enix didn't have to take the restrictions off the PC version yet they did. Crytek, EA, Ubisoft, and the list goes on could have done all you wanted in their games to make it better.

If they don't put the effort than they are to blame, not consoles. As the big three doesn't put a gun to their heads and force them to cut down the PC version, the developers do that themselves with the justification of saving money, and you promote that behaviour by blaming the wrong people.

I dont know what people you talk to of course, but the PC gamers i talk to mostly blame developers, so your point?

So no multiplat has added features like dynamic weather if it couldn't be done on a different platform? Are you really making this large claim that can be annihilated with one example?

As i already pointed out, game engines get simplified due to console lack of power. For example dynamic lighting method that is better than what is currently used was developed for Unreal Engine 4, however it was scrapped for ALL platforms once they realized consoles couldnt run it, effectively Console power limit has limited PC games results as developers cannot use these features whether they want to or not as long as they use UE4.

So you're telling me STALKER is such an advanced game that it is literally impossible to have it on a console? So they can't downgrade anything now? Next you'll be telling me no PS3 game has ever appeared on the PS2.

yes, it is literally impossible to have STALKER on old consoles (possible on new ones but they were released after the games) due to low amount of RAM in old consoles. No, you cant "downgrade" AI. you can take it out and make everyone a standing bullet sponge but that wont be STLAKER anymore now would it.

The fact of the matter is no I can't hand you a survey with data on every PC gamers thoughts on matter X, Y, and Z. However that doesn't mean you can just whitewash it. There are people like that, I'm not wrong there.

Yes, there are people like that. There are people that eat glass too. does not make them majority or even significant portion though. and since as you say you cant provide proof, well, then maybe dont make broad generalizations?

Its relevant however because there is always talk of restrictions being left in the PC version because of consoles. SE didn't have to lift those restrictions, but they did. Why didn't all those companies that hide behind consoles not allow you to carry more than 2 weapons on PC? Its simple too yet they don't do it, explain to me how that is console's fault.

When talking about restriction caused by consoles we are not talking about changing 1 number in game settings because we have more power. we are talking about whole features being taken out when they find out consoles cant run it. for example Dust514 promised fighting on all planets in EVE, however later they retracted that statement to only 2 types of planets city PS3 lack of RAM to handle what they coded.
The restriction you speak about would take few minutes for anyone to mod anyway, its not like they did anything much there, so its a poor example for company making more.

Weapon carry limit is not a power limit. we used to be able to carry 20 weapons in the 90s. they moved to 2 weapon because "hur dur realism" and apperently it also helps people use up weapons they would usesually save up "just in case". weapon limit is not a consoles fault, i never claimed it was.

Hardware isn't a valid excuse, I'm pretty sure some companies have straight up made a different version of a game to get it on another platform (take the ports to gameboy for example that used to be done).

Well the developer not wanting to risk spending further money for little gain is what I've been saying the whole time is responsible.

hardware is valid excuse when it means you have to make a new game because of it. and just because some companies did unsucesful experiments with gameboy does not mean that it invalidates my opinion.

Thing is, nowadays no further money will be needed. well, except when porting from PCs to consoles you will have to pay console companies to be allwoed to release the game ( well thats stupid isnt it ). thats because architecture is identical. Xbox is basically runnign a gutted windows 8 and PS4 is running custom linux. You have engine compilers now where you code for all versions and then just have to mark which version you want to compile to when you do the compiling.

So what you're saying is if the limit is higher than they can release quick bloated pieces of mess. How does that help the weaker PCs?

If the limit is higher its cheaper to code because optimization stops being a factor, yes. there are no weaker PCs if the limit is higher. they are up with the limit. Asking for modern games to run on Athlon XP machines is like asking them to run on PS2 - ridiculous.

Load Runner was brought up as an old game that can not be bought nor found (at least not in my country, and am 100% it would be hard no matter where you live) anymore AND does not work on current OSes. Therefor, it is emulated.
No idea what you meand by load times?

Pick a better game. Load Runner is abandonware.
It is available in public domain in Internet archive https://archive.org/details/LodeRunnerTheLegendReturns_1020
It is also available for free from the person that made it: http://www.daggert.net/Folio/Programming/Presage/LodeRunner/Loderunner1.htm
Here is a two legal ways to play this game.

Frankly, your whole conversation with Rozalia looks like one huge miscommunication at this point.

 

[Roofstone]

"DVD versus Blu-ray"..

So.. Hardly noticeable and a waste of money? I have never once seen blu ray as being worth the few extra pixels. Hardly ever notice a difference at all actually.

But oh well, I shall reserve judgement until I see it for myself!

 

[Rozalia1]

I dont know what people you talk to of course, but the PC gamers i talk to mostly blame developers, so your point?

...Not convincing words when you yourself than go on to blame consoles for things developers are at fault for later in your post (and have done in previous posts).

As i already pointed out, game engines get simplified due to console lack of power. For example dynamic lighting method that is better than what is currently used was developed for Unreal Engine 4, however it was scrapped for ALL platforms once they realized consoles couldnt run it, effectively Console power limit has limited PC games results as developers cannot use these features whether they want to or not as long as they use UE4.

Don't be a mark now, so adding in that functionality would have bricked the whole usage of the engine for consoles? Sounds as legitimate as companies hiding behind consoles when the pump out crap PC ports, but if true than clearly they need to up their game.

yes, it is literally impossible to have STALKER on old consoles (possible on new ones but they were released after the games) due to low amount of RAM in old consoles. No, you cant "downgrade" AI. you can take it out and make everyone a standing bullet sponge but that wont be STLAKER anymore now would it.

No game is immune to being ported, and downgraded. They could put STALKER on the Atari Jaguar if they wanted to.
You don't get to decide what a game is, that opinion you have of what something is applies only to yourself.

If Square Enix ported FF13 to the PS1 it would in no way destroy the "soul" of the game like you claim happens when a game is downgraded in quality. FF13 would likely have been more enjoyed with the PS1's limitations actually now that I think about it.
As for STALKER, they'd have to change the dynamics of the game to get it to be a good experience, but unless you think so little of them that they can't make anything good unless they have massive resources at their disposal...than they should be fine.

Yes, there are people like that. There are people that eat glass too. does not make them majority or even significant portion though. and since as you say you cant provide proof, well, then maybe dont make broad generalizations?

Lets be honest here now, I could post you to links full of hundreds of people showing that attitude and you'd not care and lambaste me with the same lines.

When talking about restriction caused by consoles we are not talking about changing 1 number in game settings because we have more power. we are talking about whole features being taken out when they find out consoles cant run it. for example Dust514 promised fighting on all planets in EVE, however later they retracted that statement to only 2 types of planets city PS3 lack of RAM to handle what they coded.
The restriction you speak about would take few minutes for anyone to mod anyway, its not like they did anything much there, so its a poor example for company making more.

Weapon carry limit is not a power limit. we used to be able to carry 20 weapons in the 90s. they moved to 2 weapon because "hur dur realism" and apperently it also helps people use up weapons they would usesually save up "just in case". weapon limit is not a consoles fault, i never claimed it was.

Can't recall specific examples of the top of my head but I recall consoles of ages past having different versions of games where whole levels would be missing.
So if the developer needs to cut out content from the console version they can, while keeping it on the PC...nothing stops them doing this...so they do and you blame consoles when the developers make that choice.

Secondly Enix didn't need to do that did they? They know they can't damage their own reputation further, they could have just kept the 360 limit hardcoded and it'd have made no difference to them. It wouldn't have changed their sales, it wouldn't improve their reputation, you get the point I hope.

hardware is valid excuse when it means you have to make a new game because of it. and just because some companies did unsucesful experiments with gameboy does not mean that it invalidates my opinion.

Thing is, nowadays no further money will be needed. well, except when porting from PCs to consoles you will have to pay console companies to be allwoed to release the game ( well thats stupid isnt it ). thats because architecture is identical. Xbox is basically runnign a gutted windows 8 and PS4 is running custom linux. You have engine compilers now where you code for all versions and then just have to mark which version you want to compile to when you do the compiling.

If those companies saw no problem with having to knock up a new version of their game to get it on other platforms...than why do the lily-livered ones of today? You want it on as many devices as possible yet will make the ridiculous claim that hardware actually gets in the way of things when they could put anything on the Wii if they wanted to.

It all comes down to money in the end if something is worthwhile to invest in or not. If I have in my hands a hot new PC game that could make me some big bucks on the PS360 than I don't like a lemon sit on my arse and lament that there is no way they can handle my fancy art piece. I'd be working to knock something up that I can put on there to rake in the dough.
Inferiority really doesn't matter as much as you think it does, worse versions of games do in fact sell...many of them even better even.

If the limit is higher its cheaper to code because optimization stops being a factor, yes. there are no weaker PCs if the limit is higher. they are up with the limit. Asking for modern games to run on Athlon XP machines is like asking them to run on PS2 - ridiculous.

You going to bring up the Raspberry Pi next to mock what I was saying?
Anyway so without the "cap" what is it that PC gaming becomes? Games prices won't go down just FYI, yet hardware upgrades will become more common...so where does it lead?

 

[Strazdas]

Don't be a mark now, so adding in that functionality would have bricked the whole usage of the engine for consoles? Sounds as legitimate as companies hiding behind consoles when the pump out crap PC ports, but if true than clearly they need to up their game.

I dont claim to know how the engine works, i trust the people that made the engine to know that it could not function on consoles.

No game is immune to being ported, and downgraded. They could put STALKER on the Atari Jaguar if they wanted to.
You don't get to decide what a game is, that opinion you have of what something is applies only to yourself.

your image means what? no, they could not put STALKER on atari jagual. IT WOULDNT BE THE SAME GAME. its seems you are unable to comprehend that certain aspects need certain requirements that some machines are incapable rof running no matter how many pacman pictures you post.

If Square Enix ported FF13 to the PS1 it would in no way destroy the "soul" of the game like you claim happens when a game is downgraded in quality. FF13 would likely have been more enjoyed with the PS1's limitations actually now that I think about it.

and this just knows that you know fuck all about game programming and shouldnt be speaking about in in the first place.

Lets be honest here now, I could post you to links full of hundreds of people showing that attitude and you'd not care and lambaste me with the same lines.

Of course. Amecdotical evidence is still anecdotical.

Can't recall specific examples of the top of my head but I recall consoles of ages past having different versions of games where whole levels would be missing.
So if the developer needs to cut out content from the console version they can, while keeping it on the PC...nothing stops them doing this...so they do and you blame consoles when the developers make that choice.

if levels are missing its not the same game.

Secondly Enix didn't need to do that did they? They know they can't damage their own reputation further, they could have just kept the 360 limit hardcoded and it'd have made no difference to them. It wouldn't have changed their sales, it wouldn't improve their reputation, you get the point I hope.

Was it square enix that did it? or was it just one of the programmers amking the port that saw it as a possibiltiy and changed one number? their reputation has nothing to do here.

If those companies saw no problem with having to knock up a new version of their game to get it on other platforms...than why do the lily-livered ones of today?

because not everyone wants to spend 400m on developement? because the audience no longer wants to buy 90 dollar laserdiscs? because we actually want the same game instead of different versions with different content? because the money is better spend developing things like AI?

You want it on as many devices as possible yet will make the ridiculous claim that hardware actually gets in the way of things when they could put anything on the Wii if they wanted to.

thats because hardware does get in the way. its a fact. and no, you cant put anything on the Wii. but i already adressed that ridiculous claim above.

It all comes down to money in the end if something is worthwhile to invest in or not. If I have in my hands a hot new PC game that could make me some big bucks on the PS360 than I don't like a lemon sit on my arse and lament that there is no way they can handle my fancy art piece. I'd be working to knock something up that I can put on there to rake in the dough.

because while im sure you love your capitalism, its not a good system.

Inferiority really doesn't matter as much as you think it does, worse versions of games do in fact sell...many of them even better even.

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha

Anyway so without the "cap" what is it that PC gaming becomes? Games prices won't go down just FYI, yet hardware upgrades will become more common...so where does it lead?

PC gaming becomes free. It becomes free to try new gameplay styles. It becomes free to try physics and AI interface the game finally. It becomes free to make the game they want to make instead of making one they must to fit into certain hardware. And its not about prices, it never was about prices and you bringing that in is sad attempt to appeal to emotions, but then your whole post reeks of it.
If there is no cap what hardware upgrades will there be? when there is no limit why do you need to raise it?

 

[Rozalia1]

I dont claim to know how the engine works, i trust the people that made the engine to know that it could not function on consoles.

So you're making an argument from authority?

I'm sure you trust those devs who said Titanfall wouldn't run on the PS4, or that the PS4 > PC, and you get the point.

your image means what? no, they could not put STALKER on atari jagual. IT WOULDNT BE THE SAME GAME. its seems you are unable to comprehend that certain aspects need certain requirements that some machines are incapable rof running no matter how many pacman pictures you post.

I take Crysis 2, build it on the PS1, make it first person, add in some primitive polygon models for the enemies, put some shapes as the buildings, add in some FMVs, and so on and bam we get Crysis 2.
Taking out dynamic lighting doesn't take away a games "soul" like you seem to think it does.

and this just knows that you know fuck all about game programming and shouldnt be speaking about in in the first place.

Me saying people would likely have enjoyed FF13 more on the PS1 shows I know nothing about game programming...pretty stupid place to lodge a comment like that in if you ask me.

Of course. Amecdotical evidence is still anecdotical.

So than you're asking for impossible evidence to sweep something quite common under the rug, got it.

if levels are missing its not the same game.

You're really going to be this pedantic now? Let me guess only PC versions of games are the "real" deal.
Name on the box is the same, and its intended to be the same experience condensed as best as possible on another platform.

Was it square enix that did it? or was it just one of the programmers amking the port that saw it as a possibiltiy and changed one number? their reputation has nothing to do here.

So these programmers just threw it in and didn't clear with anyone that they were going to change a certain aspect of the game for the better?

because not everyone wants to spend 400m on developement? because the audience no longer wants to buy 90 dollar laserdiscs? because we actually want the same game instead of different versions with different content? because the money is better spend developing things like AI?

So you value AI that would likely on be really utilise don your PC over getting it in the hands of more people?
Also putting something on another platform doesn't require such a large amount of cash as you think, if they don't shoot for the top and keep themselves humble they'll push it out easy enough. Weren't their games years back that were releasing on like 5-7 different platforms? Didn't hear them complaining about how expensive it was.

thats because hardware does get in the way. its a fact. and no, you cant put anything on the Wii. but i already adressed that ridiculous claim above.

Addressed this already myself, taking out dynamic lightning doesn't kill a games "soul".

because while im sure you love your capitalism, its not a good system.

Its about not being a fool. Why did those developers of indie games put their games on consoles? According to you without the extensive mod capabilities being possible it'd not be the same game and they shouldn't have put it on those platforms.

This all strikes me as you wanting everything on your platform, yet wanting a lot to not be on others because they "can't handle it", as apparently a game can only come in one state, in one version.
You can claim you want everyone to be able to play the game, but your arguments all contradict that.

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha

... You know I'm really not sure if you're serious at this point. I tell you that inferior versions of games can in fact sell better than the superior one...and your response is to laugh like I'm talking absolute nonsense.
Lets go with a simple example:

[quote = Skyrim wiki page]In June 2013, Bethesda announced that over 20 million copies of the game had been sold; of those sales, 59% were for the Xbox 360, 27% for the PS3, and 14% for the PC.[/quote]

So the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions are all better than the PC one now?

PC gaming becomes free. It becomes free to try new gameplay styles. It becomes free to try physics and AI interface the game finally. It becomes free to make the game they want to make instead of making one they must to fit into certain hardware. And its not about prices, it never was about prices and you bringing that in is sad attempt to appeal to emotions, but then your whole post reeks of it.
If there is no cap what hardware upgrades will there be? when there is no limit why do you need to raise it?

I assume you mean free as in unchained.
Not been using arguments from emotion, you're the one who've been talking about the "soul" of a game, and how the big three are such oppressive monsters forcing devs to push out crap pc ports, and all that.

If there is no limit than what is the need to raise it? So you are for a cap than? What you just said there makes zero sense.

 

[Strazdas]

So you're making an argument from authority?

I'm sure you trust those devs who said Titanfall wouldn't run on the PS4, or that the PS4 > PC, and you get the point.

I believe that the people who created a game engine know how said engine works better than you or me, so yes, i guess i am.

I take Crysis 2, build it on the PS1, make it first person, add in some primitive polygon models for the enemies, put some shapes as the buildings, add in some FMVs, and so on and bam we get Crysis 2.
Taking out dynamic lighting doesn't take away a games "soul" like you seem to think it does.

Like i said, making enemies bullet sponges and turning it into ascii game does not mean its the same game. and no, we dont get crysis 2 in your example, we got a new game.

Me saying people would likely have enjoyed FF13 more on the PS1 shows I know nothing about game programming...pretty stupid place to lodge a comment like that in if you ask me.

You saying that FF13 could work on PS1 shows that you know nothing about game programming.

So than you're asking for impossible evidence to sweep something quite common under the rug, got it.

Impossible evidence or impossible claims?

You're really going to be this pedantic now? Let me guess only PC versions of games are the "real" deal.
Name on the box is the same, and its intended to be the same experience condensed as best as possible on another platform.

Pedantic? half the game missing resulting in difference experience is pedantic? im at a loss for words here.

So these programmers just threw it in and didn't clear with anyone that they were going to change a certain aspect of the game for the better?

When you are making a game port you dont have to clear every minor change with some administrative staff that likely would not even know what your talking about.

So you value AI that would likely on be really utilise don your PC over getting it in the hands of more people?
Also putting something on another platform doesn't require such a large amount of cash as you think, if they don't shoot for the top and keep themselves humble they'll push it out easy enough. Weren't their games years back that were releasing on like 5-7 different platforms? Didn't hear them complaining about how expensive it was.

Sorry, i think you mistyped something in here and i cant understand what your asking.
Do you ask me if i value AI so much that i would rather see good AI that it be available to more people?
Yes, i do. I think niche games is a good thing.

Putting something on another platform NOW does not require such large amount of money. which is good, we can do it now. it used to back in times of examples you used (virtual boy for example). Top 10 largest game budgets are dominated by 90s games.

Why shouldnt they shoot for the top? why should they hold themselves back just because part of the userbase use outdated technology?

I dont know of any game that released on 7 platforms, but we now have games that release on 5 - Windows, Linux, Xbox, Playstation and Wii. That is good. It would be better of the consoles were stronger so we could have better games on all 5.

You "didnt hear them complain" because back then internet worked differently. Thats like saying crimes didnt happen in soviet union because you never heard about them.

Addressed this already myself, taking out dynamic lightning doesn't kill a games "soul".

Taking out AI or weather based immersion does though.

Its about not being a fool. Why did those developers of indie games put their games on consoles? According to you without the extensive mod capabilities being possible it'd not be the same game and they shouldn't have put it on those platforms.

I wasnt the one talking about mods. Charchalo was. While mods do certainly add to experience. Vanilla (modless) game does not mean less of a game. I dont know why those developers put thier games on console, probably profits.

This all strikes me as you wanting everything on your platform, yet wanting a lot to not be on others because they "can't handle it", as apparently a game can only come in one state, in one version.
You can claim you want everyone to be able to play the game, but your arguments all contradict that.

I want everything on every platform but i realize that there are platforms that cant handle everything.

So the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions are all better than the PC one now?

They were not inferior. they were the same game, well PS3 one was really buggy so i guess that could be somewhat inferior, but thats the fault of PS3 cell architecture more than anything (game engine really had problems with that).
Granted, this meant that Skyrim on PC looked like utter arse because it was same as on consoles and mods had to fix console-centric UI. The only thing that made Skyrim PC better was mods, and thats additional content, not the game itself.

So yes, i continue to laugh.

I assume you mean free as in unchained.
Not been using arguments from emotion, you're the one who've been talking about the "soul" of a game, and how the big three are such oppressive monsters forcing devs to push out crap pc ports, and all that.

Can you point out to where i was talking about games soul? closest thing to that i can remember is immersion. but thats not soul. i wouldnt even know hoq to quantify games soul.
By free i mean that there is no arbitrary limitations to what developers can do. This means that if they can come up with it creatively, they can make it work like that isntead of having to hit the hardware ceiling. Such as realistic water simulation that effects gameplay, something even new PCs are still incapable of sadly.

BIg three are all monsters for different reasons, but we do know that some games are forced into licensing to be exclusives against developers will.

If there is no limit than what is the need to raise it? So you are for a cap than? What you just said there makes zero sense.

If there is no limit what is a cap? infinity? Cap becomes pointess concept if there is no limit in processing power.

 

[Rozalia1]

I believe that the people who created a game engine know how said engine works better than you or me, so yes, i guess i am.

So the PS4 is more powerful than PC because a dev said it once upon a time got it. Your "well they are devs so they must be telling the absolute truth" is a fallacy.

Like i said, making enemies bullet sponges and turning it into ascii game does not mean its the same game. and no, we dont get crysis 2 in your example, we got a new game.

You get Crysis 2 put on a platform in the best state possible considering the limitations.

You saying that FF13 could work on PS1 shows that you know nothing about game programming.

Its tiresum to be called out as knowing nothing of something when you're repeatably misunderstood what I'm saying, or are deliberately doing it because you find it stupid. Would a PS1 version have the graphics the PS3 version does? No of course not. Would it have the same battle system? No, it'd likely be a standard turn based system. However could you get across the areas, enemies, characters, setting, and so on using the PS1? Yes, yes you can.

Let me put it this way. You take the modern graphics away from FF13 and it'll still be FF13. Its when you take everything else out that it starts being a different game.

Impossible evidence or impossible claims?

Impossible claim? That would imply there isn't any out there, which you know is incorrect.

Pedantic? half the game missing resulting in difference experience is pedantic? im at a loss for words here.

Missing levels were a NES, Megadrive, and so on sort of thing. If we're using the PS1 it wouldn't have that problem.
It'd be a different experience due to the limitations but it'd be the same title.

When you are making a game port you dont have to clear every minor change with some administrative staff that likely would not even know what your talking about.

So these teams aren't lead by anyone? They all work independently with no clear leader?

Sorry, i think you mistyped something in here and i cant understand what your asking.
Do you ask me if i value AI so much that i would rather see good AI that it be available to more people?
Yes, i do. I think niche games is a good thing.

Putting something on another platform NOW does not require such large amount of money. which is good, we can do it now. it used to back in times of examples you used (virtual boy for example). Top 10 largest game budgets are dominated by 90s games.

Why shouldnt they shoot for the top? why should they hold themselves back just because part of the userbase use outdated technology?

I dont know of any game that released on 7 platforms, but we now have games that release on 5 - Windows, Linux, Xbox, Playstation and Wii. That is good. It would be better of the consoles were stronger so we could have better games on all 5.

You "didnt hear them complain" because back then internet worked differently. Thats like saying crimes didnt happen in soviet union because you never heard about them.

Here is the thing with your line of thinking there... they can do that right now even with the "cap". How does this cap hold them back like you say? If they want to ignore every other avenue of profit to push their "top" game than they can, the cap ain't stopping them, the big three ain't stopping them.

You have to remember that it wasn't that long ago you'd have games on PS2, Xbox, Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, DS, PSP. Was the internet less than today? Perhaps, but we're not talking the stone ages here. I'll even give you an example:

FIFA Football 2005
Main article: FIFA Football 2005
Tagline: "A great player needs a great first touch"
Cover Athlete: Patrick Vieira, Fernando Morientes, and Andriy Shevchenko (In North America Oswaldo Sanchez replaced Patrick Vieira)
Released for: Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 2, Xbox, GameCube, PlayStation, PlayStation Portable (America only), Game Boy Advance, Nokia N-Gage, Gizmondo, Mobile phone
Release date: 11 October 2004
FIFA Football 2005 was released much earlier than the usual late October date to obtain a head start over Pro Evolution Soccer 4 and avoid clashing with EA Sports' own FIFA Street. The game features the return of the create-a-player mode, as well as an improved Career mode. The biggest difference compared to previous titles in the series is the inclusion of first-touch gameplay which provides gamers with the ability to perform "real-life" tricks and passes. It is also the first version to feature the full Mexican League. The game has no opening video, but its soundtrack is headlined by British DJ Paul Oakenfold, who composed the FIFA Theme especially for the game, using some sounds from the game such as crowd noises and commentary. This was the last title released for the original PlayStation in the US. The game also features authentic crowd chants edited by producer Dan Motut.

Not that it ever stopped happening of course:

FIFA 14
Main article: FIFA 14
Tagline: "We are FIFA 14"
Cover athlete: Lionel Messi [20] (UK), Javier Hernández Balcázar (North America),[21] Stephan El Shaarawy (Italy), Arturo Vidal and Radamel Falcao (Argentina, Chile, Panama, Venezuela), Gareth Bale (United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland), Michal Kadlec (Czech Republic), Robert Lewandowski (Poland), Balázs Dzsudzsák (Hungary), Xherdan Shaqiri (Switzerland), David Alaba (Austria), Tim Cahill (Australia), Maya Yoshida and Makoto Hasebe (Japan), Mustafa Al-Bassas (Middle East);
Released for: Microsoft Windows, PlayStation 4, Xbox One, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, Wii, PlayStation 2, PlayStation Vita, Nintendo 3DS, PlayStation Portable, iOS, Android.
Release date: 24 September 2013 (USA), 26 September 2013 (Europe)
For the newest generation of video games, the game showcases a new engine, Ignite, which allows not only for graphical enhancements, like shifting weather conditions and dynamic stadium environment, but also for changes in gameplay, with features like Human Intelligence (which brings the AI closer to real player behavior) and True Player Motion (which gives the players more realistic animations). Also, all versions have an all-new Co-op Seasons online mode, in which two players can play a season for the same team. As for the team selection, the game features, for the first time, the top leagues from Argentina, Chile and Colombia, the first time South American leagues other than the Brazilian one are featured in a FIFA game.
The PC version does not feature the Ignite engine (which will be exclusive to the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One releases); rather than that, they will feature the Impact engine, same as used in the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions (which the PC versions have been using since 11), with minor improvements. This is reportedly due to Electronic Arts' claims that most PC players do not own a machine powerful enough for the Ignite engine, therefore it would only be featured in the next edition.

I want everything on every platform but i realize that there are platforms that cant handle everything.

That is your way of thinking. Your talk of holding back, and the "cap" show your primary concern is your own experience on the PC. You can talk of wanting it on everything possible, but that doesn't make it true.

They were not inferior. they were the same game, well PS3 one was really buggy so i guess that could be somewhat inferior, but thats the fault of PS3 cell architecture more than anything (game engine really had problems with that).
Granted, this meant that Skyrim on PC looked like utter arse because it was same as on consoles and mods had to fix console-centric UI. The only thing that made Skyrim PC better was mods, and thats additional content, not the game itself.

So yes, i continue to laugh.

Something tells me if this was a different thread and I were to say they were the same game I'd be bracing myself for a hell of ribbing. They lack graphicly, in AI quality too I'm sure, loading speed, and so forth...so what is the difference between that and say a PS2 version? I'm sure I recall playing an Elder Scrolls game on the original Xbox I think (around a friends) that Skyrim wasn't exactly widely different to (well Skyrim's hit detection is a lot better).

Can you point out to where i was talking about games soul? closest thing to that i can remember is immersion. but thats not soul. i wouldnt even know hoq to quantify games soul.
By free i mean that there is no arbitrary limitations to what developers can do. This means that if they can come up with it creatively, they can make it work like that isntead of having to hit the hardware ceiling. Such as realistic water simulation that effects gameplay, something even new PCs are still incapable of sadly.

BIg three are all monsters for different reasons, but we do know that some games are forced into licensing to be exclusives against developers will.

Water? Last I recall hearing was that realistic top of the range water animating took a hell of a long time and money to get done...this was something I recall reading years back so don't jump on me for stating it as a fact or something.

Yeah I'm sure Sony owned studios are just all so oppressed and wishing they could put their games on the PC. Look the big three provide the dosh, and they decide where the game goes. How is that different than a dev setting out to make a game he knows will be exclusive to PC? Both had a choice in opening it up to different markets and didn't.
Big three's decision is made solely on business, dev who wants to make a game possible only on PC does it for pride, for arrogance, because they clearly do not do it for business.

 

[DarkBlood626]

And here I was waiting for more DLC, maybe play as Ish and delve a little into his story or something like that. But no by all means sink money into the game to look prettier on a whole other console. ?Rolls eyes?

 

[Strazdas]

So the PS4 is more powerful than PC because a dev said it once upon a time got it. Your "well they are devs so they must be telling the absolute truth" is a fallacy.

Except that no Dev said that. Also you are mixing up people who manufactured the game engine talking about what they manufactured with Sonys PR department. Also it is easy to check your example and prove it wrong, especially since its coming from a untrustworthy source. On the other hand we cant check the claim about UE4 ourselves and these people have no reason to lie about it, nor have been caught doing so before.

You get Crysis 2 put on a platform in the best state possible considering the limitations.

No, you get a new game thats milabeled Crysis 2.

Its tiresum to be called out as knowing nothing of something when you're repeatably misunderstood what I'm saying, or are deliberately doing it because you find it stupid. Would a PS1 version have the graphics the PS3 version does? No of course not. Would it have the same battle system? No, it'd likely be a standard turn based system. However could you get across the areas, enemies, characters, setting, and so on using the PS1? Yes, yes you can.

No you cant. because these enemy AI, settings and areas are too complex for PS1 processing power. and if you have to change everything in your game its not the same game. no matter how many times you repeat same false information it wont become truth, so of course im going to continue finding it stupid.

[quoet]Impossible claim? That would imply there isn't any out there, which you know is incorrect.[/quote]
you didnt claim that there are "any". you claimed that majority is that kind. which is impossible claim.

It'd be a different experience due to the limitations but it'd be the same title.

this sentence contradicts itself unless by title you mean literally the letters written on the box.

So these teams aren't lead by anyone? They all work independently with no clear leader?

They have their leaders, but Square Enix as a company is not a leader. its a contractor.

Here is the thing with your line of thinking there... they can do that right now even with the "cap".

No they cant. this is evident by cutting out parts to have processing power for the other parts. by lowering framerate and resolution just so your game can run. the cap is certainly limiting thier choices. i even gave you examples where even high end PCs cap developers, but you of course completely ignore anything that does not benefit your point.

That is your way of thinking. Your talk of holding back, and the "cap" show your primary concern is your own experience on the PC. You can talk of wanting it on everything possible, but that doesn't make it true.

I want everything on every platform. i dont want one slow platform diminishing the game for all though. I want all platforms to be fast enough to make the game they want to make for it.

You have to remember that it wasn't that long ago you'd have games on PS2, Xbox, Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, DS, PSP. Was the internet less than today? Perhaps, but we're not talking the stone ages here. I'll even give you an example:

I dont really follow sport games so i cant comment on those, but i havent heard any complaining there.

Something tells me if this was a different thread and I were to say they were the same game I'd be bracing myself for a hell of ribbing. They lack graphicly, in AI quality too I'm sure, loading speed, and so forth...so what is the difference between that and say a PS2 version? I'm sure I recall playing an Elder Scrolls game on the original Xbox I think (around a friends) that Skyrim wasn't exactly widely different to (well Skyrim's hit detection is a lot better).

Resolution and FPS is lower on consoles, but they are lower on slower PCs too. same for loading speed. its not really so much games difference as hardware difference. Im not aware of any AI difference in skyrim PC to consoles. The nonexistent PS2 version is that PS2 could not even run complex background calculations needed to run the game.
Morrowind was on the original Xbox, but its a wastly different game to Skyrim.

Water? Last I recall hearing was that realistic top of the range water animating took a hell of a long time and money to get done...this was something I recall reading years back so don't jump on me for stating it as a fact or something.

There are reasonably cheap water simulation now, it still takes quite some time but obviuosly less than before. If we had powerful hardware (say, quantum computing) it would be cheap and fast though.

Yeah I'm sure Sony owned studios are just all so oppressed and wishing they could put their games on the PC. Look the big three provide the dosh, and they decide where the game goes. How is that different than a dev setting out to make a game he knows will be exclusive to PC? Both had a choice in opening it up to different markets and didn't.
Big three's decision is made solely on business, dev who wants to make a game possible only on PC does it for pride, for arrogance, because they clearly do not do it for business.

So i guess all those contracts Sony and MS is pushing to force developers into exclusivity is all for naught because the studios want to be exclusive? Oh, wait, but escapist actually reported on developers ocmplaining about that. your incorrectly assume that developers had a choice. the choice was not to develop for different platforms. the choice was Xbox exclusive or were going to make you bancrupt.
How is PC only game not for business. PC has largest install base of gamers, it also has wide variety of users which allows niche markets to thrive. You also dont need to sign contracts or pay exorbant prices to release it like you need to on consoles (though admittedly they have been trying to lower that blow lately). if you know your game is niche market and has a PC audience whereas on consoles you would be investing millions in acess fees just to put it in there with untested audience and one that may not evne like your niche its very much a business decision. Not that i support that decision, like i said, i want games availabe on all paltforms. but to claim that one is doing it for business and another for arrogance is silly. if anything, its the PC releases that are for business, as they have much wider audience.

 

[balladbird]

And here I was waiting for more DLC, maybe play as Ish and delve a little into his story or something like that. But no by all means sink money into the game to look prettier on a whole other console. ?Rolls eyes?

You hadn't heard? "Left behind" was slated to be the "final" story-based DLC. I put that final in quotation marks because I don't see why they couldn't just use the word "only".... except that the other word is better for marketing. XD

So yeah, I was never more glad to have not wasted my money on a season pass than I was back in february.

 

[Rozalia1]

Bloody thread swallowed my post, eerh I'll try and recount what I put down.

Except that no Dev said that. Also you are mixing up people who manufactured the game engine talking about what they manufactured with Sonys PR department. Also it is easy to check your example and prove it wrong, especially since its coming from a untrustworthy source. On the other hand we cant check the claim about UE4 ourselves and these people have no reason to lie about it, nor have been caught doing so before.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/titanfall-developers-spell-out-benefits-of-xbox-one-cloud/
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/408812/ps4-and-xbox-one-a-generation-ahead-of-high-end-pcs-ea-cto/

While your insistence that a company would totally not lie is all very heartwarming...its based based on fantasy, not reality. Perhaps they couldn't get it running well enough, perhaps it'd take them longer than they'd like, perhaps it'd push costs up, perhaps it'd earn them money (if we go by the conspiracy theories that usually crop up of people being paid off), perhaps its something they want to save for their next engine/update, who knows beyond their top level guys.

Don't be a mark for these guys, they aren't any different than any others out there.

No, you get a new game thats milabeled Crysis 2.

Say that game got ported up to a fantasy PS6 with better graphics, framerate, sound, AI, and so on. It'd still be Crysis 2, likewise if it went down.

I'll say it again, dynamic lighting doesn't make a game. The story, characters, settings, the gameplay to a lesser extent, and so on do.

No you cant. because these enemy AI, settings and areas are too complex for PS1 processing power. and if you have to change everything in your game its not the same game. no matter how many times you repeat same false information it wont become truth, so of course im going to continue finding it stupid.

Resolution and FPS is lower on consoles, but they are lower on slower PCs too. same for loading speed. its not really so much games difference as hardware difference. Im not aware of any AI difference in skyrim PC to consoles. The nonexistent PS2 version is that PS2 could not even run complex background calculations needed to run the game.
Morrowind was on the original Xbox, but its a wastly different game to Skyrim.

Except you could just put loading screens between the areas that when you hit would stop the game. Other games have done such things before.

So you couldn't get Skyrim on an Xbox now? Alright what is this vast difference between the two games? And how can't those "vast" differences be remedied/removed.

this sentence contradicts itself unless by title you mean literally the letters written on the box.

You've never heard a game referred to as a title?

No they cant. this is evident by cutting out parts to have processing power for the other parts. by lowering framerate and resolution just so your game can run. the cap is certainly limiting thier choices. i even gave you examples where even high end PCs cap developers, but you of course completely ignore anything that does not benefit your point.

StarCitizen.

I dont really follow sport games so i cant comment on those, but i havent heard any complaining there.

So you agree that in essence it'd not be too great a deal to port things over to say the PS2? In fact you should be all for it yourself if the opinion you have on the matter is genuine. Certain places in the world today the PS2 still enjoys regular use as people don't have access (be it the situation in their country, or their finances) to anything else. Why wouldn't you want those people to have the opportunity to play games on the PS2?

So i guess all those contracts Sony and MS is pushing to force developers into exclusivity is all for naught because the studios want to be exclusive? Oh, wait, but escapist actually reported on developers ocmplaining about that. your incorrectly assume that developers had a choice. the choice was not to develop for different platforms. the choice was Xbox exclusive or were going to make you bancrupt.
How is PC only game not for business. PC has largest install base of gamers, it also has wide variety of users which allows niche markets to thrive. You also dont need to sign contracts or pay exorbant prices to release it like you need to on consoles (though admittedly they have been trying to lower that blow lately). if you know your game is niche market and has a PC audience whereas on consoles you would be investing millions in acess fees just to put it in there with untested audience and one that may not evne like your niche its very much a business decision. Not that i support that decision, like i said, i want games availabe on all paltforms. but to claim that one is doing it for business and another for arrogance is silly. if anything, its the PC releases that are for business, as they have much wider audience.

No one put the gun to their heads. They could remain on just the PC, or perhaps they could try slapping it on phones. To be successful you sometimes have to kneel to such things until you get to the point that you become successful enough to be above them. They make the choice, the is no forcing them.

Now in regards to owned studios of the big three, yeah they don't have a choice...because newsflash they are owned by the big three, and are thus part of them in essence.

 

[Strazdas]

Bloody thread swallowed my post, eerh I'll try and recount what I put down.

happens sometimes, sucks ):

While your insistence that a company would totally not lie is all very heartwarming...its based based on fantasy, not reality. Perhaps they couldn't get it running well enough, perhaps it'd take them longer than they'd like, perhaps it'd push costs up, perhaps it'd earn them money (if we go by the conspiracy theories that usually crop up of people being paid off), perhaps its something they want to save for their next engine/update, who knows beyond their top level guys.

first one is talking about cloud computing and not a single console, the second one is not a developer so automatically disqualified in this case.
unlike people selling the console, EU4 developers have no reason to lie here, especially when otherwise telling the truth would loose them absolutely nothing. Is it possible that these people lied? sure. is it probably? Nope. The light technology wasnt new invention. there are game engines already using it. i sincerely doubt that people who were competent enough to make UE4 weren competent enough to add that part which isnt new technology. And you dont save anything for next engine update, because its never clear if next engine will ever even exist.

Say that game got ported up to a fantasy PS6 with better graphics, framerate, sound, AI, and so on. It'd still be Crysis 2, likewise if it went down.

I'll say it again, dynamic lighting doesn't make a game. The story, characters, settings, the gameplay to a lesser extent, and so on do.

better graphics and framerate does not really change the game obviuosly, the rest do so no it wouldnt be crysis 2 on PS6.
i never said dynamic lighting makes the game, your the one hanging onto that fallacy. however since you agree that gameplay, settings, ect change the game then you agree that porting crysis 2 to PS2 would change it then? because PS2 is simply physically incapable to produce same gameplay. Just like you wouldnt bep hysically capable to reproduce gameplay of Wii Sports with a keyboard.

Except you could just put loading screens between the areas that when you hit would stop the game. Other games have done such things before.

So you couldn't get Skyrim on an Xbox now? Alright what is this vast difference between the two games? And how can't those "vast" differences be remedied/removed.

Loading screen on AI? Yeah, you mety an enemy lets freeze your game every few seconds so Ai would process its actions. no, you just shot at the AI, ai needs to change its course of action, lets freeze your game every shot.

yeah, i dont see an outrage at all.

You couldnt get Skyrim on the original Xbox. It lacks processing power for things like background economy, Ai movement offscreen, ect. which is why we only got those things with 360 generation. but Ultrawinkie already listed plenty of things skyrim does that would be removed, you just ignore what does not support your point like always.

You've never heard a game referred to as a title?

Sigh. Just like i said: if by title you mean the game then the sentence contradicts itself, if by title you mean few letters then it does not.

StarCitizen.

And? do tell me how it breaks the cap? but remmeber in the process that 1 exception does not make the rule. Not that Star Citizen is an exception in the first place.

So you agree that in essence it'd not be too great a deal to port things over to say the PS2? In fact you should be all for it yourself if the opinion you have on the matter is genuine. Certain places in the world today the PS2 still enjoys regular use as people don't have access (be it the situation in their country, or their finances) to anything else. Why wouldn't you want those people to have the opportunity to play games on the PS2?

Like i said, depends on a game and if it can b e run on PS2. These games obviuosly could of were changed somehow to make it work. not every game can work on PS2. That being said, i am all for porting games to all platforms, just like i said, but not at the price of making game worse for everyone involved.

 

[Rozalia1]

first one is talking about cloud computing and not a single console, the second one is not a developer so automatically disqualified in this case.
unlike people selling the console, EU4 developers have no reason to lie here, especially when otherwise telling the truth would loose them absolutely nothing. Is it possible that these people lied? sure. is it probably? Nope. The light technology wasnt new invention. there are game engines already using it. i sincerely doubt that people who were competent enough to make UE4 weren competent enough to add that part which isnt new technology. And you dont save anything for next engine update, because its never clear if next engine will ever even exist.

You are telling me that it is impossible for them to have that tech in, if consoles cannot have it. So if the game doesn't utlise this advanced tech than what, the game won't work?

better graphics and framerate does not really change the game obviuosly, the rest do so no it wouldnt be crysis 2 on PS6.
i never said dynamic lighting makes the game, your the one hanging onto that fallacy. however since you agree that gameplay, settings, ect change the game then you agree that porting crysis 2 to PS2 would change it then? because PS2 is simply physically incapable to produce same gameplay. Just like you wouldnt bep hysically capable to reproduce gameplay of Wii Sports with a keyboard.

I said gameplay to a lesser extent because there are games out there who put the gameplay on top of the mountain on defining what the game is. A game like Crysis 2 (a shooter of all things) is not such a game.
Well I'm sorry that I mention 1 instead of everything you're referring to, its simply faster for me.

Loading screen on AI? Yeah, you mety an enemy lets freeze your game every few seconds so Ai would process its actions. no, you just shot at the AI, ai needs to change its course of action, lets freeze your game every shot.

yeah, i dont see an outrage at all.

You couldnt get Skyrim on the original Xbox. It lacks processing power for things like background economy, Ai movement offscreen, ect. which is why we only got those things with 360 generation. but Ultrawinkie already listed plenty of things skyrim does that would be removed, you just ignore what does not support your point like always.

Didn't say loading screens on AI and no idea where you got that. I was talking about sticking loading screens on the world map if the platform has a problem with it. Background economy does not make Skyrim, AI movement if we're talking about meeting characters randomly on the world map can safely be removed, and have them be at specific points.

Everything you mention never has any importance to them so I'll always give it the same response. Better framerate does not make a game, graphics doesn't make a game, better AI doesn't make a game, bloody dynamic X, Y, or Z doesn't make a game. Take/downgrade those things out and it'll still be Skyrim/Crysis 2/whatever no matter the platform.

And? do tell me how it breaks the cap? but remmeber in the process that 1 exception does not make the rule. Not that Star Citizen is an exception in the first place.

You telling me he is dumbing down his game instead of it making full use of what the PC can do? But devs don't lie as you said previously?

Like i said, depends on a game and if it can b e run on PS2. These games obviuosly could of were changed somehow to make it work. not every game can work on PS2. That being said, i am all for porting games to all platforms, just like i said, but not at the price of making game worse for everyone involved.

There we're done with that line than. You think the AI of the PS4 version of Fifa 14 is constrained by the limitations of the PS2? The graphics? The framerate? The content? And so on.