Fallout 4 On Consoles Will Run At A 'Steady' 30fps

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,512
I get the PC is better. Yes, it is. The PC has always been better than consoles. It moves faster. Consoles have a longer R&D period, a longer shelf life, and does very well. But, it's not a PC. That's fine, and it's the truth. No doubts about it. But, the PC Master Race BS is like the smug hipster shit. It makes people look like an ass. Too busy being smug.

I like games. The platform doesn't really matter. Does it look better on a PC? Sure. But - I. Don't. Care. I'm here to chew bubble gum and play games. :D

I am not sure I could do both at the same time anymore. :D
 

Nytegard

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
3,559
Welp, that is not the consoles fault, now is it. You want the games on the PC to not be locked at 30fps, do not buy the game and speak with your money. Consoles play how they play because of the purpose behind them, which is not a high end gaming PC. They never have been, either, despite what some claim here by showing what came inside of them.

Sorry but, this does not seem to be a "30fps hatred" but a console hatred, I am PC Master Race, HERE ME ROAR! :D Lol. Besides, why would Sony or Microsoft produce a High End gaming PC level console, sell it at a severe lose and gut the PC hardware market as a consequence.

The fact of the matter is, AAA PC games require the console. I don't think you'll get any serious debate about that. The problem here is that there are far too many terrible game designers. If you want to lock the frame rate on a console, fine. But locking it on an ever shifting platform such as the PC is just terrible programming, even if said lock is 60 fps. 15 years ago I was taught never to base physics off the frame rate. Base physics on elapsed time, because capping your fps is lazy programming. Sure, 30 years ago, back when hardware wasn't powerful, it made sense to skip these types of checks and make hardware dependent programming, but a lot of these programmers today for companies weren't even alive for that era.
 

Rauelius

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 2, 2008
Messages
2,242
I'd chalk it up more to Bethesda's incompetence at programming and a creaky old engine more than a lack of power. Fallout 4 is still basically using the 15-year old Morrowind Engine (NetImmerse/GameBryo/Creation or whatever they want to call it now).

The PS4 is at BEST equal to a Phenom 2 X6 @ 1.6Ghz with a Radeon 7850..even then it's probably a tad weaker on the CPU side, considering the 8-Core Jaguar likely has a lower IPC than the old Phenom 2. I think Bethesda is squeezing everything it can out of the PS4.
 

Daroller

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 11, 2011
Messages
127
Pre-order cancelled as of 2 minutes ago. I need to know this bullshit isn't carrying over to the PC version before they get my money.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,099
Pre-order cancelled as of 2 minutes ago. I need to know this bullshit isn't carrying over to the PC version before they get my money.

Meaning what, 30FPS carrying over to PC version?

Bethesda isn't suicidal.
 

haste.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,651
Is it just me or is this console gen only got at most 2 years left in it?

All I keep hearing out of devs is "Its not HD" and "Its not 60FPS"

In an age of 4K televisions, its a no brainer current gen consoles won't last much longer.

6-7 more years. The cost of R&D combined with the hit they are taking at the selling price forces the life cycle. MS could throw a curve ball and admit defeat on the Xbox One and go into production earlier like they did for the 360 after the original xbox could never overtake the PS2, but that seems unlikely.

They'll squeak bits and pieces of performance out of them over time and who knows, maybe Morpheus will work and be the VR solution for all :D
 

c3141hf

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
2,708
The PS4 is at BEST equal to a Phenom 2 X6 @ 1.6Ghz with a Radeon 7850..even then it's probably a tad weaker on the CPU side, considering the 8-Core Jaguar likely has a lower IPC than the old Phenom 2. I think Bethesda is squeezing everything it can out of the PS4.

It is not a Radeon 7850, it is a custom design.

Simply looking at the number of shaders and saying it is the same as a Radeon 7850 is like saying all engines with four cylinders have the same horsepower.

There are numerous things the PS4 has that a gaming PC does not have :

1.GDDR5 system memory.
2.Hetrogenous unified memory architecture; the GPU and the CPU share the same memory and address space reducing synchronization overhead. Sharing data between the CPU and GPU is easier since all they have to pass is pointers to locations in memory.
3.Garlic and onion buses. The garlic bus allows the GPU direct access to system memory at a rate several times faster than even the unreleased PCI Express 4.0.
4.Eight asynchronous compute engines (compared to two on the 7850) allowing for much finer granularity and much less unused resources on shader jobs (it can schedule from 8x8 command streams per clock cycle instead of 2x8).
5.GNM API which is closer to metal and more efficient than DirectX 11.
6.No Windows with all of the bloat running in the background.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
Welp, that is not the consoles fault, now is it.
Explain to me how it's NOT? I mean if the devs weren't trying to push the graphics as hard as they could for a platform that can't handle 60fps, we wouldn't have this stupid lockdown in the first place. So yes, you can say it's just bad devs, but there was a leak from Ubisoft not long ago saying that had received pressure from the console makers before to limit the framerate before. The reasoning is consoles sell better if the PC can't outpace it TOO much. So in the end, we get locked framerates on more games than we should.

You want the games on the PC to not be locked at 30fps, do not buy the game and speak with your money.
Yeah I don't, and it keeps happening regardless. What was your point with that?

Consoles play how they play because of the purpose behind them, which is not a high end gaming PC. They never have been, either, despite what some claim here by showing what came inside of them.
I think you'll find many console games of the 90s (and earlier!) ran at 60fps just fine.

Sorry but, this does not seem to be a "30fps hatred" but a console hatred, I am PC Master Race, HERE ME ROAR! :D Lol.
Sorry, but this does not seem like a legitimate argument, but just trolling.

Besides, why would Sony or Microsoft produce a High End gaming PC level console, sell it at a severe lose and gut the PC hardware market as a consequence.
Who said anything about that? Again, it's really this simple: If PC games weren't getting capped at 30fps, then PC users wouldn't care what speed the consoles were running.
 

ManofGod

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
12,512
Explain to me how it's NOT? I mean if the devs weren't trying to push the graphics as hard as they could for a platform that can't handle 60fps, we wouldn't have this stupid lockdown in the first place. So yes, you can say it's just bad devs, but there was a leak from Ubisoft not long ago saying that had received pressure from the console makers before to limit the framerate before. The reasoning is consoles sell better if the PC can't outpace it TOO much. So in the end, we get locked framerates on more games than we should.

Yeah I don't, and it keeps happening regardless. What was your point with that?

I think you'll find many console games of the 90s (and earlier!) ran at 60fps just fine.

Sorry, but this does not seem like a legitimate argument, but just trolling.

Who said anything about that? Again, it's really this simple: If PC games weren't getting capped at 30fps, then PC users wouldn't care what speed the consoles were running.

It is not consoles that are causing the PC game to get capped at 30fps, it is the devs themselves. Oh, and I can see old consoles running at 60fps, 320 x 200, 8 bit color. :D Set blame where it belongs otherwise, you will get no where.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
It is not consoles that are causing the PC game to get capped at 30fps, it is the devs themselves.
It's not one or the other is the point, it's a feedback loop:

http://wccftech.com/microsoft-sony-pressurizing-ubisoft-30fps-pc/

The devs want to aim for higher than 30fps, but they can't, because the hardware can't handle it, so they settle on 30. Then the console makers when applicable, pressure the devs to cap it at 30 because they're concerned it will hurt sales if the PC copy looks TOO much better:

http://whatifgaming.com/the-division-developer-insider-we-already-downgraded-a-few-things

But hey, if that's too conspiracy-theory for you, let's assume for a minute that it's not the console makers influencing this at all, and it's JUST the devs. Where do you think they're getting the bright idea to lock a game at 30fps? Hint: it's not from PC games.

Oh, and I can see old consoles running at 60fps, 320 x 200, 8 bit color. :D Set blame where it belongs otherwise, you will get no where.
I probably wasn't clear there, I was referring to your "never have been" comment. Point is, 60fps isn't something that that's being led by high-end gaming PC's, it has a long history. Games are being dragged BACK to 30 by modern consoles AND game devs.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,924
It is extremely annoying and borderline pathetic. Fanboyism is just as prevalent on the PC as it is with consoles. It's all just gaming, people need to get over themselves.
PC gamers hold an angry grudge over console peasants cause they're responsible for over a decades worth of shitty ports. On top of that during the 360/PS3 period we were constantly reminded how PC was dying, both from developers and console gamers. Now a PC is superior in price and performance and freedom.

The shoe is on the other foot so I say bend over and take it.
got_rekt_that_s_nothing_newell_by_canadian_lunatic-d91f7vn.gif

To think I would have somehow enjoyed it so much more if it was at 60fps is a bit ridiculous. Would I prefer it? Absolutely..... But it is what it is.... And the game looked phenomenal too on PS. It definitely could have used some more AA but aside from that it was gorgeous.

Seems like you went through all the steps.

Step #1 Denial
No the PC vs console thing is stupid.

Step #2 Anger
Stupid PC gamers can't be a big difference between 30fps vs 60fps.

Step #3 Bargaining
I spent less on my console than you did on that ultra mega PC. Even though I bought all 3 and have a monthly subscription, along with a ultra mega PC.

Step #4 Depression
OMG stop with the PC Master Race stupidity. Enough already I can't hear any more of this!

Step #5 Acceptance
Sold both my PS4 and Xbox One and now exclusively game on PC. Uh hey guys what's the best GFX card or CPU for a build that can play Fallout 4?

The answer is all of them. ALL THE CPU's AND GPU'S CAN PLAY FALLOUT 4 AT 1080P 60FPS. Even a AMD 860K with a Geforce GTX 950 can play Fallout 4 at 60 fps 1080p. But you know what can't? A PS4.
 

cinnamonandgravy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
268
Truth is, why do you guys even care.

it matters to anyone who understands game development a bit. essentially, multi-platform games are built around the lowest performing hardware.

multi-platform games dont have core features that the slowest hardware cant support. if the PC and ps4 can do something fancy that affects gameplay, but the xbox 1 cant... odds are that feature wont be in any of the versions.

console hardware affects texture resolution, object complexity, world object density, physics calculations, AI, etc. some of those things scale easily, so if you have a beefy PC, you just crank up the setting. others can have profound effects. for example, maybe the PC version can have 10x the world object density, but perhaps now youll have to redo your AI since it was originally written for the low density console version. you want to give the PC version much higher resolution textures... is it financially viable to have your team redo the textures at a much higher standard than the originals for just one platform? if you cap your console game at 30fps and base game calculations off that, what then for the PC version? redo your code for one platform ($$$), or just keep the cap and sell it?

im happy to be getting the games in the first place on PC, but it sucks when you think about how they had to made concessions just to hit 30fps at those settings. until the PC market dwarfs consoles (or kills em), we'll be chained to console hardware due to how it affects game dev decisions.
 

Krenum

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 29, 2005
Messages
18,629
Is this game going to be like Skyrim where anything over 100 or so FPS causes physics anomalies? Things like arrows not firing, far away animals shooting up in the sky and falling to their deaths, etc.

Since the game runs on Gamebryo, probably.
 
D

Deleted member 278999

Guest
I am a fast, strong, powerful distance runner but that does not make me better than someone else. (And I have to work hard for that.) If that is the case, then being able to simply buy something does not make you better either, enjoy. :eek:

Yes it does. You're better at running.
 

Babbster

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
1,434
There are a ton of games in which 30 fps works just fine, and the Fallout series is a good example. Fallout 4 isn't a true FPS (gotta love duplicate abbreviations). If I'm not in VATS, I'm not in combat and at that point the fps rate becomes all but irrelevant.

As an aside, since they've been mentioned, mods will be made available for the Xbone version of FO4...while it won't be every mod (at the very least, mods concerned with PC technical issues/changes won't be made available), I'm sure we'll see the most popular gameplay mods.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Truth is, why do you guys even care. You will not buy a console and, therefore, will not play it on a console. However, although I am a gamer on a PC, I also game on a console and think the PC Master Race stuff is just plain...... :rolleyes: After all, how hard is it to spend more money and get a better experience. However, that does not make you a better person. ;)

That said, I will not be buying FO4 because I have not played any of the other ones. Someone tell me, what would be a good reason to get FO4, serious question.

Well, for me, I like Bethesda's games. I like their approach to large open world, non-linear gameplay that allows some wandering and adventuring. I play team games competatively like World of Tanks and Mechwarrior Online but sometimes I just get burned out by the "human element" as anyone who plays with others will attest.

When I do, I turn to games like Fallout3 and Skyrim for a change of pace. I don't know if all the changes in Fallout4 will work for me or turn me off but I am hoping for a good experience like so many others before were.

Those are my reasons, they are good enough for me, your millage may very. I wouldn't dream of trying to tell you my good reasons should be your good reasons. They are for you to decide all on your own :D
 

Staples

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 18, 2001
Messages
7,978
For those of you PC Master Race types, this really isn't bad news. You types keep complaining about graphics in modern games being limited by current console capabilities. If the game could run 60FPS on consoles, then the graphics would be worse than if the game could only achieve 30FPS on the same system.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
Is this game going to be like Skyrim where anything over 100 or so FPS causes physics anomalies? Things like arrows not firing, far away animals shooting up in the sky and falling to their deaths, etc.

Well if it did then I would recommend V-Sync Enable and lock your frame rate to your monitor's refresh rate which your systems sounds like it can easily manage.
 

lcpiper

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
10,611
For those of you PC Master Race types, this really isn't bad news. You types keep complaining about graphics in modern games being limited by current console capabilities. If the game could run 60FPS on consoles, then the graphics would be worse than if the game could only achieve 30FPS on the same system.

Umm, I see what you are trying to say, that if a consol is limited and in this case can only handle the graphics at 30 FPS then the better modern PCs should be getting a nice experience. But this is actually a bit simplistic, it's apples and oranges. The PCs are not running the same architectures and such as the older consoles. What people are complaining about is the titles being gimped in development because the consoles can't deal with it. For instance, let's say a PC with a good card can handle 256bit textures but older consoles top out at 64bit. Now the developer does all the graphics in 64bit and saves the development costs by not also doing the textures in 128 and 256bit. Do you see where this is going?

Anyway, don't look to me for understanding when it comes to concoles. I'm still pissed off at Microsoft for ruining Halo.
 

qbanb8582

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
2,063
I don't give a shit. I played Fallout 3 and New Vegas on the 360 and PC. I enjoyed them at 30fps and 60fps.
 
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
831
Is it just me or is this console gen only got at most 2 years left in it?
In an age of 4K televisions, its a no brainer current gen consoles won't last much longer.

Sounds like just another console hating comment without facts to back it up.

4K adoption rate is still very low so no, it's not a no brainer actually. Add to that not many people at all play video games in 4k, same for videos. There is huge untapped potential once devs start taking full advantage of all 8 cores in the 2 big consoles.

These things, they take time...
 

Wierdo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 2, 2011
Messages
1,817
I hope they don't cripple the PC version just to protect the sales of their console versions. Less "Watch Dogs" cripple-bs and more "GTA5" quality porting please.
 

Bamboo

Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Messages
901
Most people who console game could care less. I didn't care, much less understood the difference back then. They will buy it and hopefully have a blast.

As for me, it looks like I won't be buying a console. It already seems like they are on the way out when they are only hitting 30 FPS on new releases.
 

tetris42

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 29, 2014
Messages
4,518
Sounds like just another console hating comment without facts to back it up.

4K adoption rate is still very low so no, it's not a no brainer actually. Add to that not many people at all play video games in 4k, same for videos. There is huge untapped potential once devs start taking full advantage of all 8 cores in the 2 big consoles.

These things, they take time...
I agree, I don't see either manufacturer toting a new console anytime soon. Besides costs, one of the issues with making the machines more powerful was power consumption. I don't know if it will be as long as the last console cycle, but I expect this one to last a long time.

It actually works out well for both camps in a sense, if things are done right. Console graphics can be made to look pretty damn nice, but you're literally talking about 32x the performance to get the same game at 30fps at 1080 running at 4k at 60fps. That means if there isn't any frame capping, that leaves the PC plenty of room to grow graphically off exactly the same games. So as long as devs aren't restricting things artificially on the PC in the name of consoles, it's potentially a pretty good situation we're looking at.
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,924
There are a ton of games in which 30 fps works just fine, and the Fallout series is a good example. Fallout 4 isn't a true FPS (gotta love duplicate abbreviations). If I'm not in VATS, I'm not in combat and at that point the fps rate becomes all but irrelevant.
Truthfully I played most of Fallout 3 without even knowing about VATS. Wasn't until the last part of the game where I learned about VATS and even then I didn't continue using it. I just assumed it's a feature they put for console owners cause gamepads suck.
As an aside, since they've been mentioned, mods will be made available for the Xbone version of FO4...while it won't be every mod (at the very least, mods concerned with PC technical issues/changes won't be made available), I'm sure we'll see the most popular gameplay mods.

Keep thinking that. There's two kinds of mods for Skyrim. PC Master Race graphics and stupid crap that you just want to see. Well 3 if we count the sexy mods but we're not suppose to talk about that website dammit!

I really doubt a lot of modders are doing to focus to make sure it works on the PS4/XBone. That's a pipe dream.
 

DPI

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,099
I really doubt a lot of modders are doing to focus to make sure it works on the PS4/XBone. That's a pipe dream.

If anything, I could see modders consciously trying to make the PC mods *not* work with the consoles, like 4K textures etc.
 

AceGoober

Live! Laug[H]! Overclock!
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
23,674
If Fallout 4 will not allow me to run at least 2560 x 1440 @ 60fps then I will be disappointed. I don't expect it to run 3840 x 2160 smoothly especially after mods are installed.
 

KazeoHin

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
8,398
If Fallout 4 will not allow me to run at least 2560 x 1440 @ 60fps then I will be disappointed. I don't expect it to run 3840 x 2160 smoothly especially after mods are installed.

PC101: If you can't get the FPS you want at full settings, turn down the settings, or upgrade your PC. Don't blame the developer.

Is it Crytek's fault the Crysis destroyed PCs at 'ultra' settings when it released? Yet when you turned settings down to 'medium, it ran fine, and looked better than ANYTHING out at the time. Was it bad? No! Did it hurt your EPeen because you couldn't say "I run all games at Ultra!"? thats up to you. Now that we have had PCs that can run that game on Ultra for a while, it STILL LOOKS GOOD, because the developers invested in the future of graphics technology.

If a game runs absolutely terribly with a visual quality that other game engines pull off easily on the same system, then you may have an issue. But lets face it: Saying "I want this game to run at Ultra at 60FPS on my system!" is a pretty childish statement when 1: we have no idea what ultra looks like or what features it will be using and 2: we have no idea what the other settings look like. I doubt this will happen: but what if "medium" settings made this game look better than if Crysis 3, TW3, FC4, and StarWars Battlefront got together and made a beautiful software baby? Even if medium settings makes Crysis 3 look like Doom by comparison, will you still be pissed that you can't run 'Ultra', and will you blame the developers?


FNwhM6uC.jpeg
 

Nytegard

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
3,559
PC101: If you can't get the FPS you want at full settings, turn down the settings, or upgrade your PC. Don't blame the developer.

Is it Crytek's fault the Crysis destroyed PCs at 'ultra' settings when it released? Yet when you turned settings down to 'medium, it ran fine, and looked better than ANYTHING out at the time. Was it bad? No! Did it hurt your EPeen because you couldn't say "I run all games at Ultra!"? thats up to you. Now that we have had PCs that can run that game on Ultra for a while, it STILL LOOKS GOOD, because the developers invested in the future of graphics technology.

If a game runs absolutely terribly with a visual quality that other game engines pull off easily on the same system, then you may have an issue. But lets face it: Saying "I want this game to run at Ultra at 60FPS on my system!" is a pretty childish statement when 1: we have no idea what ultra looks like or what features it will be using and 2: we have no idea what the other settings look like. I doubt this will happen: but what if "medium" settings made this game look better than if Crysis 3, TW3, FC4, and StarWars Battlefront got together and made a beautiful software baby? Even if medium settings makes Crysis 3 look like Doom by comparison, will you still be pissed that you can't run 'Ultra', and will you blame the developers?


FNwhM6uC.jpeg

The problem is, people did complain when Crysis came out about not being able to run at Ultra. The same thing with a lot of other spectacularly graphically awesome games. "But I can run Portal 2 at Ultra, why can't I run Crysis 3 at Ultra?" It's also why we don't get Low, Medium, High settings anymore, but instead High, Ultra, Computer Melting Awesome settings. People don't seem to want to admit that, hey, just because I bought my computer 2 years ago, doesn't mean it's a slow piece of trash because all the components were mid tier when they came out in 2003.

What you end up getting is a lot of people complaining that the game must be unoptimized. Obviously, as a back seat programmer, joining in with a lot of other children who wouldn't know how to program a Hello World program, makes you incredibly knowledgeable about what's possible with today's tech, especially when you have no other games that are better visually.
 

Converge

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
1,254
PC gamers hold an angry grudge over console peasants cause they're responsible for over a decades worth of shitty ports. On top of that during the 360/PS3 period we were constantly reminded how PC was dying, both from developers and console gamers. Now a PC is superior in price and performance and freedom.

The shoe is on the other foot so I say bend over and take it.
got_rekt_that_s_nothing_newell_by_canadian_lunatic-d91f7vn.gif



Seems like you went through all the steps.

Step #1 Denial
No the PC vs console thing is stupid.

Step #2 Anger
Stupid PC gamers can't be a big difference between 30fps vs 60fps.

Step #3 Bargaining
I spent less on my console than you did on that ultra mega PC. Even though I bought all 3 and have a monthly subscription, along with a ultra mega PC.

Step #4 Depression
OMG stop with the PC Master Race stupidity. Enough already I can't hear any more of this!

Step #5 Acceptance
Sold both my PS4 and Xbox One and now exclusively game on PC. Uh hey guys what's the best GFX card or CPU for a build that can play Fallout 4?

The answer is all of them. ALL THE CPU's AND GPU'S CAN PLAY FALLOUT 4 AT 1080P 60FPS. Even a AMD 860K with a Geforce GTX 950 can play Fallout 4 at 60 fps 1080p. But you know what can't? A PS4.


Dude.... I don't even know where to start with you. Clearly I'm operating at levels much higher then you're capable of.

80% of my entire gaming experience since day one has been PC. Out of all the HOURS and DAYS I've spent gaming, the most enjoyable has been on PC playing PC exclusive games and mods.

I absolutely recognize that consoles led to shitty PC ports.

The question though, is... would you have gotten that game AT ALL on PC if it wasn't for conses? I don't know, maybe some yes maybe some no.

I've matured to a higher level then you clearly have over the past two decades. I don't need to use colored font to explain this to you however. I enjoy most aspects of what gaming has become now, and I find my money spent on a current gen console completely fine.... As it doesn't just net me some good gaming experience, but also all the multi media shit that I don't have to explain since I didn't waste money on a smart TV.

Get over it or start making your own games. Or find a way to convince the game industry not to cater to the console audience and focus solely on PC gamers. Good luck. I've come to appreciate both.
 

Converge

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
1,254
Jesus Christ.... I can't even explain how big of a loser I feel like right now debating PC vs Console gaming. FML.
 

AceGoober

Live! Laug[H]! Overclock!
Joined
Jun 25, 2003
Messages
23,674
It is entirely possible that you have signatures turned-off or have inadvertently missed that my system specs are in my signature. I forgive you.

Just for FWI, I'm a near 30 year computer technician and gamer. If you you have used and worked on either Compaq Portables or TRS-80 then I respect your comments. Or, even more so if you have ever had to cut a resistor to upgrade a Mac Plus to 4MB of RAM then I can respect your comments. If not, I forgive you for that as well.

PC101: If you can't get the FPS you want at full settings, turn down the settings, or upgrade your PC. Don't blame the developer.

PC101: Preaching to the experienced choir. This is common sense to those in the know. Gotta keep in-mind that there are many people who are just getting into gaming and have no technical experience.

Is it Crytek's fault the Crysis destroyed PCs at 'ultra' settings when it released? Yet when you turned settings down to 'medium, it ran fine, and looked better than ANYTHING out at the time. Was it bad? No! Did it hurt your EPeen because you couldn't say "I run all games at Ultra!"? thats up to you. Now that we have had PCs that can run that game on Ultra for a while, it STILL LOOKS GOOD, because the developers invested in the future of graphics technology.

I, and a multitude of others, ran Crysis - and its predecessors - at modified settings to match our hardware without complaining. I understand your point but, again, you are preaching to the experienced choir.

If a game runs absolutely terribly with a visual quality that other game engines pull off easily on the same system, then you may have an issue. But lets face it: Saying "I want this game to run at Ultra at 60FPS on my system!" is a pretty childish statement when 1: we have no idea what ultra looks like or what features it will be using and 2: we have no idea what the other settings look like. I doubt this will happen: but what if "medium" settings made this game look better than if Crysis 3, TW3, FC4, and StarWars Battlefront got together and made a beautiful software baby? Even if medium settings makes Crysis 3 look like Doom by comparison, will you still be pissed that you can't run 'Ultra', and will you blame the developers?

Taking into account that Skyrim - which is based upon the predecessor to Fallout 4's Creation Engine - runs smooth as silk at 4K UHD (3840 x 2160 with every game option maxxed) on my current system with only stability mods in-place. Since I have 99 plugins coupled with 114 graphics mods and ENB installed then playing at 4K UHD is not an option as it was a lag fest. I had to turn the resolution down to get decent performance. Did it bother me? No. Did I complain wildly on forums? No.

Based on the aforementioned, I can only imagine that the enhancements Todd Howard discussed in the new revision of the Creation Engine wouldn't have that much affect on performance when compared to Skyrim at - almost - bone stock. Given that Fallout 4 is 64 bit, I'd expect it, too, would perform well at 2560 x 1440.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. :D
 

DukenukemX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 30, 2005
Messages
5,924
Dude.... I don't even know where to start with you. Clearly I'm operating at levels much higher then you're capable of.
That's a bad way to start making a point. Just saying.
80% of my entire gaming experience since day one has been PC. Out of all the HOURS and DAYS I've spent gaming, the most enjoyable has been on PC playing PC exclusive games and mods.
And 80% of my early days of gaming were console. What's your point?

The question though, is... would you have gotten that game AT ALL on PC if it wasn't for conses? I don't know, maybe some yes maybe some no.
Mostly no. Before the 360/PS3 a lot of companies worked exclusively on PC. Companies like ID Software. But reality is the PS3/360 gained in sales and developers would be stupid to stick to PC only. Until recently, the PC was (and probably still is) considered second class. Despite a nearly 100% in sales compared to 2014.
I've matured to a higher level then you clearly have over the past two decades. I don't need to use colored font to explain this to you however.
Oh boy, here we go.
I enjoy most aspects of what gaming has become now, and I find my money spent on a current gen console completely fine....
This is the Bargaining phase I mentioned.
As it doesn't just net me some good gaming experience, but also all the multi media shit that I don't have to explain since I didn't waste money on a smart TV.
What's a smart TV? I have a HTPC hooked up to my TV that streams Live TV and movies. Though it is running Windows 10 and plan to switch it over to Linux and using TVheadend and Plex instead of MediaPortal.

The only difference between what I do and you do is that you think you're smart for hooking up a game console to a TV saves you money to avoid buying a "Smart TV". Seriously who buys a Smart TV? I got this for my dad and set it up for him. I'm not even sure if using Netflix or Plex on consoles requires payment, let alone the monthly fees?
Get over it or start making your own games. Or find a way to convince the game industry not to cater to the console audience and focus solely on PC gamers. Good luck. I've come to appreciate both.

Dude, I think you need an update on the current situation. With the PS4 at $350 it won't be long before the Xbox One dies a slow death, leaving PS4 vs PC. And while PS4 will likely beat PC in game sales for a while, it won't be forever. Look at the Witcher 3 sales on PC. That's 30% of sales on the PC, though likely the PS4 has something like 50% of sales. I'm going by the sales on the crushing amount on the PS4 vs the pathetic Xbox One sales.

See this chart? If the Xbox One can't maintain decent competition against the PS4 it will destroy the console market. The Wii U can't compete against the PS4. And while I predict the Xbox One will drop to $300 soon, it won't save it. PS4 owners, you need to realize that competition is good. But PC users don't need competition cause we have Steam vs Origin vs GoG vs more and more and more. I just got Red Alert 2 for free off Origin, which is a game I used to own before I lost the discs.

This is very bad for console gamers. Good for PC gaming.
worldwide_totals.png
 
Top