PlayStation 4 “Is like a Five-Year-Old PC”

[Darunion]

better hardware does not equal better games

developers could make things look more pretty when the games run on the PC (as so many titles are for 3 platforms) instead of releasing crappy ports
and yet crappy porting is still more regular

Minimum Viable Product.

Read up on it, it is a big trend in the consumer world, great for businesses, but sucks for us in many cases.

Really is just about what is the least you can do to sell your item at the desired price and then adding on later. Which if done right, means you get a product that people actually want in the end, but if you stop partway through it can turn to garbage.

 

[tetris42]

Except you are flat out wrong.

And your analogy is ridiculous, it's not even close to accurate, in fact it makes no sense.

What the literal f are you talking about?

You're making it clear you don't get it, so I'll try and make it simpler. Here are the main points:

1. Microsoft was releasing more games for PC prior to the Xbox. After the Xbox, they barely released any, but released many, many games for the Xbox and Xbox 360. This left a bad impression on PC gamers, because the company that made their OS was spending millions to make games NOT on their platform. It's a little schizophrenic. You can't make the argument that they were doing everything they could for PC gaming when they're literally spending more money to compete AGAINST it. This is the conflict of interest I'm talking about. It's only just recently they're releasing major titles on PC again. If Microsoft had spent money to release every Xbox game ALSO on PC for the past 15 years, then it would be been far less of an insult. As it stands, they were effectively spending money to keep new games OFF the OS they also sell.

2. Microsoft's attitude for PC gamers since the Xbox has been largely passive-aggressive. They released DirectX 9 for all their OSs and adoption was very rapid, with AAA games requiring it in about a year. They release DirectX 10, but required Vista at a time it was not popular, It took about 6 years before AAA games required anything higher than DX9. That's not something you do if you want maximum adoption from gamers. That's the whole point, they've taken moves that are NOT in the interest of fostering PC gaming. They did the same thing with DirectX and Windows 12. AMD was pushing Mantle for a while because MS was taking so long to address shortcomings of DX11. We got Games For Windows Live, which had so many problems it arguably set PC Gaming back more than helping anything. They later dropped it with no support for games still using it. They discourage existing DirectX joystick standards and push Xinput, which only works on Xbox controllers. For a while, the Windows game store literally took you to Xbox.com.

I'm not saying they did nothing to help the PC, I'm saying their efforts for the decade and a half have sent the message that PC gamers are second class citizens to them, go buy an Xbox. Their messaging has made it absolutely clear PC gaming is a lower priority than Xbox. Gee, what a great company to be in charge of most of PC gaming. If you don't understand what I mean by that last sentence, read below.

3. PC gaming, for all practicality, is still Windows. If you are running a desktop or laptop and gaming, 96% of all game sales are for Windows. Linux simply doesn't have the same compatibility or speed, mobile is largely a different market. PC gamers aren't drastically more independent of Microsoft than they were 2 decades ago.

So what do you call having the flagship company that runs the vast majority PC games put most of its gaming resources into a direct competitor to PC gaming for a period about 15 years? Schizophrenic, passive-aggressive, a middle finger to PC gamers, take your pick.

 

[Huacanacha]

More resolution is badly needed for VR if just to get rid of the screendoor effect, but it hasn't been the consoles holding that back.

Screen door effect isn't caused by resolution but space between pixels & subpixel pattern. Low res with large square pixels will look blocky like a chessboard but without any screendoor.

"You want the honest truth? This machine is not so strong as you think," Fares said. "This is like a five-year-old PC. If consoles were as powerful as PCs are today, you would see all different games."

Two points:

• I think he is referring to the type of games experiences that can be created, which aren't being held back by GPU power but CPU power. Graphics can be scaled down, AI and other complexities of games can't in many cases without changing the core experience.
• PC's themselves for the most part aren't "as powerful as PCs are today"... as someone else touched on the average PC is likely dual core with integrated graphics. As such it's not consoles holding PC gaming back but the (relatively) low number of high end gaming PC's.

I would hope next gen consoles have a huge bump in CPU power and possibly some co-processors to enable higher levels of simulation logic complexity (AI, physics, inverse kinematics etc).

 

[NoOther]

You're making it clear you don't get it, so I'll try and make it as simple as possible. Here are the main points:

1. Microsoft was releasing more games for PC prior to the Xbox. After the Xbox, they barely released any, but released many, many games for the Xbox and Xbox 360. This left a bad impression on PC gamers, because the company that made their OS was spending millions to make games NOT on their platform. It's a little schizophrenic. You can't make the argument that they were doing everything they could for PC gaming when they're literally spending more money to compete AGAINST it. This is the conflict of interest I'm talking about. It's only just recently they're releasing major titles on PC again. If Microsoft had spent money to release every Xbox game ALSO on PC for the past 15 years, then your argument would have weight.

Prior to the release of the Xbox they actually had already started making less PC games. Their PC gaming studio was having problems. Microsoft had no need to compete against the PC industry, that is absurd. The fact that you even believe what you just said is truly astounding. Microsoft has only to gain more by investing in both. That is what Microsoft was trying to capture is the entire gaming market. It makes no sense for them to fight against the platform they already had a stranglehold on.

2. Microsoft's attitude for PC gamers since the Xbox has been largely passive-aggressive. They released DirectX 9 for all their OSs and adoption was very rapid, with AAA games requiring it in about a year. They release DirectX 10, but required Vista at a time it was not popular, It took about 6 years before AAA games required anything higher than DX9. That's not something you do if you want maximum adoption from gamers. That's the whole point, they've taken moves that are NOT in the interest of fostering PC gaming.

DirectX included features that were built into Vista, that were not easily ported to 98. You could also play DX9 games on Vista. It's taken game companies years to require the newer versions of any DirectX, that is nothing new. Some DirectX releases contain a lot more than previous ones, like from DX9 to DX10, that is also not new. And again, DX10 came with the release of Vista, not a console.

They did the same thing with DirectX and Windows 12. AMD was pushing Mantle for a while because MS was taking so long to address shortcomings of DX11. We got Games For Windows Live, which had so many problems it arguably set PC Gaming back more than helping anything. They later dropped it with no support for games still using it. They discourage existing DirectX joystick standards and push Xinput, which only works on Xbox controllers. For a while, the Windows game store literally took you to Xbox.com.

Windows 12? Is this some new thing I have not seen yet? Or did you mean DX12? You are missing all the intermediate steps they addressed in DX10 and DX11, they all had improvements as time went on. Bigger improvements generally take more time. If it was so easy, other companies would be doing it. Even Mantle wasn't a full solution, just an answer to a particular problem. Not sure the point on joysticks, my joysticks have always worked fairly well. Joystick integration is largely a function of the gaming company. I was not aware any companies were forced to use Xinput for PC. Pushing something because it can work on all their platforms seems fairly smart to me though. But by no means is forcing people. Honestly even before the Xbox came out, a lot of game companies were no longer really using joysticks and were primarily just relying on keyboard+mouse.

I'm not saying they did nothing to help the PC, I'm saying their efforts for the decade and a half have sent the message that PC gamers are second class citizens to them, go buy an Xbox. Their messaging has made it absolutely clear PC gaming is a lower priority than Xbox. Gee, what a great company to be in charge of most of PC gaming. If you don't understand what I mean by that last sentence, read below.

Sorry, I don't buy that at all. I think it's more a factor of them trying to market the Xbox more because it is struggling vs the PS4, which generally gets more exclusives. Microsoft has no real competitor in the PC gaming platform market. In fact, Microsoft put an emphasis on games coming out for the Xbox, not be exclusive to the Xbox, but also be released for PC. I would say they have a far greater concern for the PC gamer than Sony. Xbox is also trying to pave the way for cross platform gaming. I hardly see that as working against the PC market. Might that influence more developers to develop games based solely on the capabilities of consoles? Sure. But it is also a way to make games inclusive of all groups regardless of platform.

3. PC gaming, for all practicality, is still Windows. If you are running a desktop or laptop and gaming, 96% of all game sales are for Windows. Linux simply doesn't have the same compatibility or speed, mobile is largely a different market. PC gamers aren't drastically more independent of Microsoft than they were 2 decades ago.

This is exactly why saying Microsoft working against PC gaming is ridiculous. It is still their bread and butter. It is what they have always had and kept going to fall back on in case Xbox failed.

 

[tetris42]

Prior to the release of the Xbox they actually had already started making less PC games. Their PC gaming studio was having problems.

I would need to see a source on that. There were a lot of games coming out prior to then. We had Midtown Madness Series, Motocross Madness series, Asheron's Call, Age of Empires 2, Dungeon Siege shortly after, Crimson Skies, Starlancer, Allegiance, Mechwarrior 4, it's a healthy list.

Microsoft had no need to compete against the PC industry, that is absurd. The fact that you even believe what you just said is truly astounding. Microsoft has only to gain more by investing in both.

This is the core of our disagreement. You say they only had more to gain by investing in both. So where the hell are all the games on PC during the time they were investing in dozens of games millions on the Xbox? They largely STOPPED investing in games on the PC during that time. You're right, they had a stranglehold on PC gaming, thus they neglected it more than they would have if they hadn't been pumping so many resources into the Xbox. The PC got neglected in many areas. And you're right, they didn't need to compete against the PC. That doesn't make them any less a competitor to their own product if you were a PC gamer. Look at it this way. Say you're on PC and play Gears of War, Halo 2, and Fable on Windows, by Microsoft. You like them and want to play the sequels, except you can't. They're all on Xbox, by Microsoft. How is that not competition to PC gaming? You don't get how insane that looks from a PC gaming perspective? So who has your back as a PC gamer? Clearly not Microsoft if they're spending a lot of money to NOT have it on their own OS!

Or look at something like Alan Wake. It was announced for PC. Later, it became a planned Xbox / PC multiplatform release. Then Microsoft paid them with an exclusive contract so that it ONLY came out on Xbox for 2 years. It only came to PC later because the developers really wanted it on the platform in the first place and had to wait for the exclusivity contract to run out. So MS was literally paying money to keep an originally planned PC game OFF the PC. That's almost the textbook definition of working against the platform. Pay people NOT to release on your OS! How do you explain that one as being good for PC gaming?

It makes no sense for them to fight against the platform they already had a stranglehold on.

See that's where you're wrong. If they sell games on the PC, they only get profit off of games they publish. If ANYONE sells games on Xbox, they get royalty fees. There was a very active effort to push gamers towards Xbox as time went on. If you didn't see it, you weren't paying attention to what they were doing with PC gaming during that time.

Windows 12? Is this some new thing I have not seen yet? Or did you mean DX12?

You're going to harp on a typo when you're talking about DirectX 10 not easily ported to 98? I'll drop this point, it's a bit tangential, it's just one example of how pushing things forward for pc gamers as a whole wasn't the top priority. DX9 was arguably a bigger change than 10, and again, had backwards compatibility, mainstream adoption in under a year of release and was a requirement of mainstream games from 2003 onward. Put it another way: There are reasons no game has been made yet that REQUIRES DX12 besides Microsoft-published ones.

Sorry, I don't buy that at all. I think it's more a factor of them trying to market the Xbox more because it is struggling vs the PS4, which generally gets more exclusives. Microsoft has no real competitor in the PC gaming platform market. In fact, Microsoft put an emphasis on games coming out for the Xbox, not be exclusive to the Xbox, but also be released for PC. I would say they have a far greater concern for the PC gamer than Sony. Xbox is also trying to pave the way for cross platform gaming. I hardly see that as working against the PC market. Might that influence more developers to develop games based solely on the capabilities of consoles? Sure. But it is also a way to make games inclusive of all groups regardless of platform.

You're talking about different eras. I was talking about more from 2002 - 2015, give or take a bit. I agree completely on the Xbox One parity, that IS a good thing, I hope they keep it up. I see that as a big step in the right direction, one I wish they had done from the beginning. That's only been announced since 2016 though, that still leaves some 15 years to try and reverse course from. And of course Sony doesn't give a shit about PC gaming, they're a direct competitor.

This is exactly why saying Microsoft working against PC gaming is ridiculous. It is still their bread and butter. It is what they have always had and kept going to fall back on in case Xbox failed.

Isn't that exactly what I was saying when I said they were treating pc gamers like second-class citizens?

 

[tesfaye]

Didn't stop me from fully enjoying the shit out of Uncharted 4 which I completed last night. Oh man, that's a beautiful game. Looking forward to the next God of War.

 

[Silverlok]

'tetris42 said: ↑
In principle I agree with you, but in reality, it's their way or the highway. I mean Windows has something like 96% of the PC gaming market? That's as close to a monopoly as you get. Doesn't leave a world of options for PC gaming.
'
NoOther;
"No, it isn't. Game companies can and are focusing on other segments now. They have always had influence over hardware and software companies. You make a great game and you release it to a particular platform and people want to flock to it, that has an effect. The biggest gaming industry right now is mobile devices, its not even consoles or PC anymore. People gravitate to what is easy and readily available, and companies gravitate to where they can make the most money."

"They have always had influence over hardware and software companies."...hmm then what is w10? and why is it not a dominating factor in the environment that it needs to exist in?

"
NoOther;
"No, it isn't. Game companies can and are focusing on other segments now. "
that is obvious ...

the , over focus, on investor desire for return has turned the game (fun) generation into an (corporate ..profit first / fun optional ) environment and a real world game of farmville for dollars; exploiting you, at your every expense:
pre orders for crap ( because they already got your money : idiot)
Shit , unfun, games because they meet the lowest common denominator across 'platforms'
Put an experienced ( at lease ten missions) ranger up against a ten year old....can you make a game that is fun for both.

 

[86 5.0L]

Too much focus on hardware and graphics.

Make fun games and stop focusing on processing power

I dare you to play a ps1 game on 4K

Shit will make your eyes bleed until you rip them out

 

[Burticus]

I dare you to play a ps1 game on 4K

Shit will make your eyes bleed until you rip them out

So in that same concept, not too long ago I bought the Tie Fighter & X wing trilogy games in a bundle deal. Those games cemented my love of PC gaming and were awesome. Fast forward to modern times. VGA graphics (320x240) was top of the line in 1993. Now... oh man. You can't even look at it without laughing. I really tried to get into the gameplay but I couldn't do it. You wouldn't accept that level of graphics in a game ON YOUR PHONE today. So everyone that says graphics don't matter, gameplay is key... well... it matters more than you'd think.

 

[Delicieuxz]

Too much focus on hardware and graphics.

Make fun games and stop focusing on processing power

There actually hasn't been a major focus on hardware and graphics in gaming for a decade. I think there needs to be an increased focus on those things due to how stagnant visual styles have become - which has led to gameplay becoming more generic because processing limitations limit the complexity of what can be realized in a game with scenery, with AI, with complex situations made up of many variables, with natural and immersive physics, with themes like forests, dense brush, volumetric snow, player-reactive water, background atmospheric assets like NPCs and wildlife...

Graphics can create and add to gameplay and immersion, but the extent to which they can do so is being constrained by the hardware in current consoles.

 

[Kinsaras]

Both PS3 and Xbox 360 sold for over 10 years (according to wikipedia anyway). PS2 did 13 years. PS1 did 12 years.

Sure they are all past their prime 6 years in, but they still sell and games are still available.

Google "10 year console cycle". Those days are over though, new tech just keeps popping up on the horizion too fast now.

You're not wrong of course. Yet those last few years are sad. Once the shiny new next gen consoles came out it was copy and paste sport titles mostly. Other games were near unplayable like Shadows of Mordor, PS3 version is a mess. Shows everyone, even developers, already left last gen behind to focus the latest and greatest.

I guess what I'm saying is...did they last 10 years, sure. Was it really worth it, not really.

 

[cptnjarhead]

Too much focus on hardware and graphics.

Make fun games and stop focusing on processing power

I have always said, the 3D accelerator ruined PC games. Don't get me wrong, i love how games look today, but every since they started down the path of 3D, polygon pumping hardware has been the main focal point from then on. Eye candy only goes so far in a game imo.

 

[Darunion]

I have always said, the 3D accelerator ruined PC games. Don't get me wrong, i love how games look today, but every since they started down the path of 3D, polygon pumping hardware has been the main focal point from then on. Eye candy only goes so far in a game imo.

I agree to a point.

You see the same backlash when games do focus more on gameplay. Look at the minecraft hate for its graphics, or terraria, stardew valley etc etc. When a company does do such a thing they get called lazy or hipsters for making 'retro' games.

For me it depends on the game, I do like eye candy as it can really help with immersion. I do enjoy old arcades and consoles, but oddly when you try to play stuff like from nintendo64 etc the graphics are almost too bad to bear for me.

 

[Youn]

it's not odd, n64/ps1 3D graphics were ugly af, and if you didn't think so at the time then you simply didn't know any better, which is understandable

 

[cptnjarhead]

I agree to a point.

You see the same backlash when games do focus more on gameplay. Look at the minecraft hate for its graphics, or terraria, stardew valley etc etc. When a company does do such a thing they get called lazy or hipsters for making 'retro' games.

For me it depends on the game, I do like eye candy as it can really help with immersion. I do enjoy old arcades and consoles, but oddly when you try to play stuff like from nintendo64 etc the graphics are almost too bad to bear for me.

I for one never really thought about minecraft graphics... was having too much fun. It also gave the game a special appeal imo. I too find it hard to play some older games because the graphics are so bad, but i could play Zelda, super mario and so many other old games all day having a blast bad graphics and all. However, i admit that graphics do peak my interest when looking at upcoming game trailers, but as the old saying goes. "don't judge a book by its cover" - or maybe.. don't judge a game by its graphics

 

[cptnjarhead]

Also... weren't devs complaining about the lack of processing power when these systems were released?

 

[tetris42]

Also... weren't devs complaining about the lack of processing power when these systems were released?

Well, not EA:

Xbox One and PS4 are a generation ahead of the best PC, says EA CTO

 

[ZodaEX]

I for one never really thought about minecraft graphics... was having too much fun. It also gave the game a special appeal imo. I too find it hard to play some older games because the graphics are so bad, but i could play Zelda, super mario and so many other old games all day having a blast bad graphics and all. However, i admit that graphics do peak my interest when looking at upcoming game trailers, but as the old saying goes. "don't judge a book by its cover" - or maybe.. don't judge a game by its graphics

Zelda has great graphics to me. *Shrug*

 

[Burticus]

Well, not EA:

Xbox One and PS4 are a generation ahead of the best PC, says EA CTO

From 2013, back in the good old days, LOL. I think I was still rocking a 660TI at that point.

 

[ADRENALIN_2099]

Meh I've enjoyed playing horizon zero dawn on the ps4 pro and my 4k hdr TV.