PlayStation 4 Thread

[vektor]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

Unfortunately I think both movies and games are afflicted with a "good enough" standard, which is why it feels like advancement hasn't gone as quickly as in the late 90s and early 2000s. Then again, maybe now that we're 95% there, it's that final 5% that is the most difficult and expensive to achieve.

naw, it's because of companies like EA. The big companies push everything through cookie cutter molds to appeal to the largest audiences, even companies like Bioware have fallen. It's exactly what happened with music, an industry gets created then once the possibility for profit is discovered the final product becomes watered down garbage so the investors net their expected returns. Risks are bad, why do you think there is a Call of Duty game every year that is the exact same as the last... $

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by vektor

naw, it's because of companies like EA. The big companies push everything through cookie cutter molds to appeal to the largest audiences, even companies like Bioware have fallen. It's exactly what happened with music, an industry gets created then once the possibility for profit is discovered the final product becomes watered down garbage so the investors net their expected returns. Risks are bad, why do you think there is a Call of Duty game every year that is the exact same as the last... $

This is bull####.

CPU processing power surpassed the expectations of Moore's Law in 2011, and single-card GPU performance (in giga/teraflops) compounds by 30% every 18 months for 15 years running.

No ones holding a boot to the neck of hardware developers. It's more that the general public gets tired of paying for upgrades every 1.5 years and essentially falls behind the curve. Not to mention, truly enhanced (and bloody expensive) gaming occurs at WQXGA HD resolutions (2560x1600) or it's slightly cheaper cousin 2X (2560x1440), and you need a ####ton of computing power for that. If you have the video memory, raw GPU power and a monitor worthy of outputting double the pixels of 1080p (1920x1080), gaming is absolutely breathtaking at this point in time. Look at Crysis 3 for godsakes, it's incredible on a fully loaded PC.

EDIT: Like seriously, download the non-compressed CryTek 3 vid here. The YouTube compressed #### just doesn't do it justice. It's unnerving, and thats only in 1080p, not even 2X. The torrent is fastest.

[vektor]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

This is bull####.

CPU processing power surpassed the expectations of Moore's Law in 2011, and single-card GPU performance (in giga/teraflops) compounds by 30% every 18 months for 15 years running.

No ones holding a boot to the neck of hardware developers. It's more that the general public gets tired of paying for upgrades every 1.5 years and essentially falls behind the curve. Not to mention, truly enhanced (and bloody expensive) gaming occurs at WQXGA HD resolutions (2560x1600) or it's slightly cheaper cousin 2X (2560x1440), and you need a ####ton of computing power for that. If you have the video memory, raw GPU power and a monitor worthy of outputting double the pixels of 1080p (1920x1080), gaming is absolutely breathtaking at this point in time. Look at Crysis 3 for godsakes, it's incredible on a fully loaded PC.

EDIT: Like seriously, download the non-compressed CryTek 3 vid here. The YouTube compressed #### just doesn't do it justice. It's unnerving, and thats only in 1080p, not even 2X. The torrent is fastest.

actually it's not bull####, what you said had nothing to do with my argument. Yes technological boundaries are being pushed, that doesn't mean the trend of game development follows hardware development. The trend of videogames is DLC, f2p, microtransaction cash shops and dumbed down gameplay to appeal to mass audiences. If you can't see that you are blind, your post is ridiculous and has nothing to do with what I said. The trend is towards putting content on a disc that people have to pay for to unlock, Crysis isn't the top grossing fps game, Call of Duty is so how about you think before posting absolutely irrelevant hatred.

The reality is game developers are for the most part too afraid to spend big money on a gamble when they can cheap out and make guaranteed profit. Look at the star wars mmo, huge development costs and years of development with supposed cutting edge story telling and the game falls flat on its face and then goes the way of microtransactions. Developers are not going to be doing that much if at all any more, the risks are going to shrink while the exploitation of the consumer grows. Of course there will be exceptions, but the overall trend of the gaming industry is in the direction of cookie cutter/annual pass/micro transaction games that use templates from their predecessors. Crysis is not representative of the gaming industries' future, Call of Duty is. Last 5 games I played:

-path of exile
-planetside 2
-guardians of middle earth
-Mechwarrior online
-Call of Duty: Blackops 2

these games all share one thing, continuous exploitation of the customer. The "good enough" standard is the trend of games barely meeting industry standards and then the focus is spent on pushing through content that needs to be paid for. Hell, right now there is an abundance of games allowing people to spend money on a game while it's still in beta, people are spending money on unfinished games. The whole thing is going the way of a giant cash grab exactly like music did. The worst example is easily Dust 514, a game that is ridiculously underdeveloped while they push micro transactions from the moment the game is turned on. Just like the music industry, you will get exceptions that refuse to change, but the big companies recognize this trend and its effect becomes more visible week by week. I'd bet money on Crysis 3 having episodic content/DLC on the disc/micro transactions.

[PsYcNeT]

Pushed a sore button did I?

Firstly, the discussion and post you were directly replying to was in regards to graphics, you were the only one rambling on about your broken expectations from the industry, so forgive me for not realizing you were one of the butt-hurt millions of consumers who can't afford games with micro-transactions. You're like Reddit without the pedophilia.

Secondly, you singled out EA, but then go on to bang drums against CoD, which is published by Activision. You need to focus your argument. EA was the company that made huge losses on SWTOR, which by the way failed not because of microtransactions, but because Bioware had 0 idea how to properly implement end-game content and PvP.

Thirdly, 3 of the 5 games you listed are F2P, a genre which literally bases it's entire business model around microtransactions. If you aren't willing or able to dump $30 on a F2P game, then you're obviously poor, cheap, or entitled. Mechbays in MW:O cost a dollar FFS. I've spent more on the mediocre lunch at the cafe around the corner from my office every month than I've spent on microtransactions.

[cDnStealth]

The only thing that bugs me is Free to Play =/= Pay to Win and I wish that myth would stop being perpetuated. If you can earn or unlock everything by simply playing the game then it's not pay to win. I have friends who have been playing League of Legends since 2009 and have not spent a cent. You're not at a disadvantage when you choose not to pay. Paying to win means you're paying real money for something that throws off in game balance.

In the two game brought up, MW:O and Planetside 2 neither of those games allows you exchange real money for better gear/weapons. All weapons and mechs can be obtained by playing Mechwarrior. Any weapon or upgrade bought in Planetside 2/Tribes Ascend is considered a side-grade.

DLC is no different than the expansion packs of old with the exception that DLC allows content to be added at a much faster rate. Nobody is holding a gun to your head forcing you to buy horse armor.

[PsYcNeT]

Not to mention out of literally everything you can buy in MW:O, mech bays and GXP conversion are the only useful things.

Possibly the Illest Marmoset, but it's only marginally better than the other heavies, and only if you use a UAC/5 script. That said, I've never bought a mech, hero or otherwise because that's just silly.

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Not to mention out of literally everything you can buy in MW:O, mech bays and GXP conversion are the only useful things.

Possibly the Illest Marmoset, but it's only marginally better than the other heavies, and only if you use a UAC/5 script. That said, I've never bought a mech, hero or otherwise because that's just silly.

I bought into the Founders program for MW:O because I love Battletech. I wanted this game to be made and I put my money where my mouth was. It is no different from any other kickstarter and I am happy to see developers break the old style publishing model to allow gamers a say. With that said, I haven't used any of my Founders money or Premium Time in MW:O. I earn XP and the in game currency at the exact same rate as someone who hasn't spent a dime. I have the same 4 mechbays as everyone else. At no point do I feel like I am disadvantaged.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Not to mention out of literally everything you can buy in MW:O, mech bays and GXP conversion are the only useful things.

Possibly the Illest Marmoset, but it's only marginally better than the other heavies, and only if you use a UAC/5 script. That said, I've never bought a mech, hero or otherwise because that's just silly.

I don't agree.

If I enjoy a F2P game, I have no problems dropping some cash to save me several hours of grind (exp/cash/whatever) if the game is good enough. The reason being is I have very little time to play games and I am willing to pay for an improved experience or a little savings in time. If I was able to drop 20 hours a week into gaming, my opinion might not be the same.

That said, I don't often do this. In fact, the last time I did was well over a year ago.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by cDnStealth

I bought into the Founders program for MW:O because I love Battletech. I wanted this game to be made and I put my money where my mouth was. It is no different from any other kickstarter and I am happy to see developers break the old style publishing model to allow gamers a say. With that said, I haven't used any of my Founders money or Premium Time in MW:O. I earn XP and the in game currency at the exact same rate as someone who hasn't spent a dime. I have the same 4 mechbays as everyone else. At no point do I feel like I am disadvantaged.

I bought a Founder's package as well, though I am on my last month of Premium currently and own 26 mechs and 28 mechbays, all bought with my founders MC. I have an overage of about 60 million C-Bills, and community warfare hasn't even started.

That said, I play in most of the tournaments and it's my most heavily invested game at the moment time-wise, likely going to continue as I finally got my wife into the game, so she's rolling with the WoL as we extract maximum pubbie-tears.

I like the F2P model, because in games that I only play in a passive sense (PS2, Age Of Wushu, Tribes:Ascend) I only end up spending 5-15 bucks on the whole thing, which is pocket change. If I get really into it, or I believe in it (like a kickstarter), throwing $60 bucks at something I've got nearly 200 hours of playtime in already is just ducky.

Originally Posted by Rathji

I don't agree.

If I enjoy a F2P game, I have no problems dropping some cash to save me several hours of grind (exp/cash/whatever) if the game is good enough. The reason being is I have very little time to play games and I am willing to pay for an improved experience or a little savings in time. If I was able to drop 20 hours a week into gaming, my opinion might not be the same.

That said, I don't often do this. In fact, the last time I did was well over a year ago.

My comment was more in regards to the fact that I can grind all the CBills needed to kit, upgrade and roll out any mech I want in 3-4 days of casual play, not that buying things is silly. I just blew about 10$ of my MC on paint this week (wooo purple/gold Atlas).

[cDnStealth]

Originally Posted by Rathji

I don't agree.

If I enjoy a F2P game, I have no problems dropping some cash to save me several hours of grind (exp/cash/whatever) if the game is good enough. The reason being is I have very little time to play games and I am willing to pay for an improved experience or a little savings in time.

That said, I don't often do this. In fact, the last time I did was well over a year ago.

When it comes to a F2P game I have no problem spending money but it has to be on something that I can't earn by playing the game. I've spent $60 on skins for League of Legends for instance. I've gotten hundreds of hours out of that game so I don't mind rewarding the devs. If you look at a game like Tribes Ascend, you can grab the Steam Starter pack for $5 during a sale and it gives you a lifetime 50% XP boost along with some class unlocks.

[Hemi-Cuda]

going back to the PC graphics vs. console debate (big image)

http://i.imgur.com/Jn8ERft.jpg

[TurnedTheCorner]

That console game looks more fun and accessible.

[PsYcNeT]

They're both GTAIV. The PC one however is modded.

[Russic]

While PC mods are amazing, that pic is misleading. I'll happily eat my words if that's real, but this is about the best I could find from youtube.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Russic

While PC mods are amazing, that pic is misleading. I'll happily eat my words if that's real, but this is about the best I could find from youtube.

They are real, but nearly impossible to run at a playable FPS without at least 3-4 GB of VRAM for the impossibly huge textures they require.

Most of those mods have options that are labelled "good for screenshots, not for playing", and the texture packs in total size are larger than the original game (I believe I once modded GTAIV with ~14 GB of textures) so take those with a grain of salt.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

They are real, but nearly impossible to run at a playable FPS without at least 3-4 GB of VRAM for the impossibly huge textures they require.

Most of those mods have options that are labelled "good for screenshots, not for playing", and the texture packs in total size are larger than the original game (I believe I once modded GTAIV with ~14 GB of textures) so take those with a grain of salt.

that's what I thought, for a second I was almost convinced that was a real photo with a hint of weird processing on it. so if that's the next goal in detail level, how long before GPU power gives us the ability to play that? I'd say we're at least 2 GeForce generations short, which means maybe by 2017 we're playing near photo-realistic GTA?

[KOgear]

Valve making a consle called Steam Box

http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/6/395...-cake#comments

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Inglewood Jack

that's what I thought, for a second I was almost convinced that was a real photo with a hint of weird processing on it. so if that's the next goal in detail level, how long before GPU power gives us the ability to play that? I'd say we're at least 2 GeForce generations short, which means maybe by 2017 we're playing near photo-realistic GTA?

Well, SLI setups run those GTAIV mods well, so probably another generation and we should be set. The next GeForce and ATI series are rumored to be shipping with 4-6 GB of VRAM, and should be about 25-30% more powerful than the current top end cards, so a $500 card this November should be capable.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Well, SLI setups run those GTAIV mods well, so probably another generation and we should be set. The next GeForce and ATI series are rumored to be shipping with 4-6 GB of VRAM, and should be about 25-30% more powerful than the current top end cards, so a $500 card this November should be capable.

when I was younger I didn't think $500 PC components were that bad, but these days I dunno, it just doesn't feel right anymore. So if you're correct, maybe in 2015 those graphics become accessible to a budget rig, then then another couple after that, you're playing it on your flexible screen tablet while sitting on the porcelain throne. now that's progress.

[3 Justin 3]

The picture Hemi-Cuda posted isn't real. Even PC snobs can't be that daft.



Like Russic said, if you can prove it is legit then I'll eat my words, but I've seen the best PC's can do with a heavily modded GTA IV and they're not that good.