Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Gaming' started by PRIME1, Aug 14, 2014.
This is a common practice in the gaming industry regardless of console brand.
I don't quite get why people are so surprised unfinished games that obviously require a computer to make are shown on the PC.
I do get showing off a game while having a 'fake' console in front of you while the PC is actually doing the work is iffy. However, one could argue it's just simply to show off what the end result will look like and console it will be on.
Agreed. This wasn't shocking to me when it first happened, and I don't know why such a big deal was made out of it in the first place.
The funniest thing is that some of those games are consoles exclusives and never released on the pc
Consoles are still a pc. CPU, motherboard, memory, gpu and hard drive in a small box.
I'm sure they used a low end gaming PC to simulate the slow console that would be running it.
I think someone said they where running Nvidia video cards too. They must have had issues with the AMD drivers also
Yep. Hell I remember hearing about this back in the PS1 era. No idea why people make such a big deal about it 20 years later.
They are developed on a PC
Exactly. The issue here is that PC hardware is variable i.e. it can be made to run as fast as its hardware (and yes, I'm sure they are demo-ing on an HD 7850 ) which is normally much faster than what you'll see on your lowly console.
As opposed to every other time they've shown games on more powerful computers for the last 20+ years?
That's the point many here are trying to make. These buttered up demos are not what consumers get at release. It ends up running slower and or less detail than the advertised demo. Just because some have been doing it for the last ~20 years, doesn't mean it's right.
Except that early demos tend to run worse than the final product. People act like developers are intentionally turning up settings or something for these demos. Demos running on PC has been fairly common knowledge for a very long time. Hell it's not like this is the first generation where we've seen target demos not match the final product for console launches either. They simply can't run these games on similar specced machines. Not only are the games not remotely optimized for the hardware, they are also running on emulated software. Something you need to take into account for cases like Watch_Dogs or some other games is that these games are developed on "best guess" hardware. It seems like a lot of studios expected the consoles to be more powerful machines then we ended up getting, which made the normal issues with launch even worse.
In other news - Archduke Franz Ferdinand has been assassinated!
I think it's less an issue of "turning up settings" and more an issue of "the game may not perform as well on the consoles as it does on the demo machines".
Not that big of a deal, and the media should understand to temper any expectations of performance until the final release, but it's also not clear that their intention is not to misrepresent what they're showing. It may exactly be the case that's what they're doing. They want to make the best possible impression on media, and part of that may mean that they're showing at higher frame rates than they ever intend to run in the final product. Who knows?
How does one get "caught" doing something that's been standard practice for 20 years?
Now if we could just get them to release for the PC all the games they designed and demo-ed ON PCs...
Yup that's the real joke right there...but only MS is laughing.
On the other hand the unfinished demo could be so poorly optimized that it ends up running better once it is finished....
Seriously. Get over it.
EVERYONE does it. Its obviously a dev build not ready for the Xbox One.
I get tired of seeing this as a "breaking" story year after year.
Just because everyone does it does not make it okay. And if the simplest explanation is that its a dev build, why not run off an xbone dev kit rather than using a dummy xbone to hide the fact that its running on a PC?
This type of practice really needs to be discouraged given the potential for bait and switch tactics. Think that xbone demo unit you played at X or Y gaming convention is capable of delivering 1080P razor sharp graphics, hi fidelity textures, unnoticeable load times and high fps with no noticeable lag or stutter? Nope, you were playing on a PC...you got Xboned!
Maybe because dev kits are bloody expensive and are needed at the studio to actually work on the game? Also it's not like most of these demos would even work that well on anything resembling the console in the first place. This is standard industry practice. You can make as big of an issue from it as you want but the simple fact is you have no proof to back up your claims and there is at least 20 years of history to back up claims of "dude, it's not a problem".
Now, I do think companies could be a bit more forthcoming about this. Having a notice saying "this demo is running on a PC emulating the console experience" or something but they don't need to change how the demos are shown. Either way it isn't some grand conspiracy to mislead customers.
Uh, then don't demo your game if its not ready to be played on the target platform? I don't see anyone putting guns to these dev's heads.
You can squawk all you want about standard industry practice, it still doesn't make it anymore acceptable.
20 years of history? Now who is being hyperbolic, I don't see any evidence on your part demonstrating that the practice has carried on for two decades without anyone noticing until now.
So in other words you don't agree with the way MS and Sony have gone about camouflaging the demo hardware behind shell console units.
Whether there is a grand conspiracy, as you put it, is besides the point, but honestly given all the bullshit misleading antics devs and publishers have engaged in more recently, especially at gaming conventions *cough* Watch Dogs *cough* *hurl* Colonial Marines *hurl*, I honesty wouldn't put it past them to use PC hardware to show juiced up console demos.
Yes, actually they kind of do. Developers can either show the game with actual gameplay or they can show trailers. Showing trailers is a far worse situation because people will bitch and moan about there being "no gameplay".
And yet it has never been a problem, so how is it a bad thing?
Not remotely hyperbolic. People HAVE taken notice from time to time. Were you around when Sony was first showing off the PS3 at E3? Sony was "caught" using PCs to demo games. As I said earlier in the thread I first heard about it back in the PS1 era (in some gaming magazine most likely as I had no internet back then) so that is where the 20 year number comes from (the PS1 will be 20 years old in December). It very would could have been a practice long before that but I have no idea. The reason it is getting more notice now than before is simply due to more gamers getting a chance to see games in less controlled environments. There was a time when early demos of games were only shown to the press and demos like these were only shown at press/industry events to people that already knew about all of this. So it was never made out to be an issue, simply a fact of seeing games in earlier stages. As I understand it optimization is something only done towards the end of the development cycle on a game.
Being a little more forthcoming about it would help problems like this. MS and Sony don't seem to realize that a lot of people are not aware of how these early demos are shown. It's really only been a short time that studios have been allowing gamers to play these types of builds. Prior it things like PAX being really popular and the expansive growth in popularity of Gamescom gamers didn't get to see games in this stage very often, if ever. Of course the rise of the internet "hate bandwagon" makes stuff like this seem like much a much bigger issue than it is, but that's an entirely different debate.
Edit because I forgot about your last point: Ubisoft was actually fairly clear about stating that they were showing off a PC build of Watch_Dogs. I'm also willing to believe that the development team involved intended to get all of that working. Spending all that time and money working on features they never intended to use would have been a colossal waste of limited resources. As for Aliens: CM, that's a different issue entirely. While I would not be surprised if it happens, the fact that is hasn't speaks volumes. A lot of times games end up in better shape when they're finished versus these early demos. Now, if a game is releasing on PC it's safe to assume that in most cases studios are showing off the PC version to put the best face on their game, but that is a slightly different issue.
Console is a marketing buzz term. A completely fabricated idea. Consoles ARE PCs that in addition to what they are having additional measures implemented to try create a proprietary software/network communications market. They can all be circumvented and used like a normal PC provided you or whoever is reverse engineering has the time and resources to undo the counter-measures in place to protect the setup of the software.
indeed, hence the irony.
No they actually don't, because they can quite easily show trailers with actual gameplay, no one is forcing them to make playable demos available to attendees. In fact it is not at all unusual for trailers of gameplay to be shown, there were plenty at Gamescom.
What this debate seems to boil down to is you either trust AAA publishers/devs or you don't. And quite frankly everything I have seen over the years demonstrates that this tier of the industry has become infested with psychopathic parasitic snake oil salesmen who would not hesitate to burn down your house, sell your children into bondage and violate your grandmother if they thought they could make money and get away with it. You want to trust these people that lie with impunity then you are free to do so, I will continue to construe anything they say or do with a heavy dose of cynicism and skepticism.
Firstly, their behavior might be forgivable as an oversight if they hadn't done it before, but history has shown that Ubi has a habit of putting up bullshit trailers that aren't representative of the final game.
Secondly, whether or not it was the PC build which was demonstrated is actually irrelevant considering that the retail PC version failed miserably to live up to the visual fidelity of the E3 trailer. You can make all the excuses you want, I don't believe for an instant that Ubi genuinely believed that the E3 trailer was representative of what they expected the final version to look like.
Finally, Ubi lied its fucking arse off all the way up to release about the downgrade and even had the gall to tell even more bullshit lies that the PC version would be superior to the E3 trailer. So yeah, make all the excuses you want, Ubi's behavior is not demonstrable of a business acting honestly or genuinely.
I have no idea what you are going on about, but it is actually the same issue in so far as it represents a very stark example of a dev caught blatantly lying and misrepresenting their game.
Nice of Microsoft to make games for the PC, but only release them on the Xbox. Since Microsoft has abandoned PC gamers, PC gamers should abandon Microsoft.
I think we're going to end up running around in circles with this for a long time and I can't quite explain my thoughts well enough to get my feelings across clearly. So I'll just try to sum up most of my thoughts.
You have a lot more faith in the gamer hive mind than I do if you believe studios all of a sudden refusing to demo games to the public and going back to only showing them off to press or retail partners wouldn't cause issues.
I don't trust any company. I trust the current information and proof. I don't apply personal bias to the situation, I simply look at what can currently be proven. If the facts change I'll reevaluate my stance. I have no emotional investment in the matter so I quite simply couldn't care less where the information points. I'm open to all possibilities but I refuse to jump to any conclusion without irrefutable and overwhelming evidence to support it. At the moment two decades of information points towards this specific issue not currently being a problem. I'm willing to believe that it could easily change, but I have zero interest in going along with the current crusade if I don't agree with it.
As for Watch Dogs and Aliens: CM. I'll try to reorganize my thoughts and get back to you on trying to explain what's in my head. Though I will say there is a compelling argument for me being utterly and completely wrong in my assessment of the situation and I'm willing to explore those two as examples of how this could become a problem.
I don't think thats really good for the image. But it proove that even on their end, they look pc.
And this is a good news at least.
Don't think this thread went the way the OP wanted it to.
So, if they just show a trailer of the game with actual gameplay, it will probably be gameplay recorded from a PC running the game. What's the difference in having a live demo running on PC hardware vs a trailer using PC driven gameplay?
Oh, this is nothing compared to when they got caught running XBox 360 demos... on Macs:
There's no difference, because I don't trust gameplay trailers either....especially from Ubi. But if what you after is a trailer showing gameplay as opposed to pre-rendered or scripted sequences then there are always plenty of those on offer.
Because Microsoft. And for the OP, because AMD.
Funny how everyone is trying to gang up on microsoft now. Sony has done this also, the most salient example being the uncharted 3 e3 demo vs the retail game.
If you predorder games you are a sucker regardless of the publishers duplicity.
IIRC Sony was doing this with PS4s at E3 this year. In fact I remember seeing it first hand on the show floor. I'm not sure why anyone is surprised by this in 2014.
Threads based on nonsense tend to go that way.
Everyone console manufacturer has done this. Since forever.. its common practice and its really not news worthy at all.
I don't get why it continues to gain traction. Forcing devs to only show it on working Xbox One's means less previews to show off at games conferences and that means less attention paid to their game and that's not a good thing. Would people have preferred Sony didn't show Bloodborn or No Man's Sky since they didn't have it going on consumer PS4's? Pretty sure that would have hurt Sony's conference a shit ton. Sony needed those games because nothing else came close to spiking interest at E3 like they did.
This is a non-issue plain and simple. And I agree , if you preorder in this day and age you are a total sucker. You need to accept that you are or stop doing it and supporting this horrible preorder culture crap. Games NEVER sell out to the point where you can't find a copy locally. That's a thing of the past.