![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Probably just need to branch away from the design-by-committee standard-formula AAA games.
Just avoid the white original models (easy to identify because they have no built in WIFI). They fixed the problem with their newer models.
Because it's time to make a new game machine that's incompatible with all the previous ones, so you have to buy your games all over again. Planned obsolescence has always been a microsoft policy, even to the point of crippling their own older products that still work fine in order to get you to purchase a new version of basically the same thing. It's the prime reason they suck.
Yeah it's just not cost effective in many cases looking at sales on pc vs console
This is a bit obtuse. The only reason developers don't do it is because they're aiming for consoles as the lead skew. AAA games are often developed with higher quality textures and model assets than what we normally see, but that gets chopped down to whatever consoles at the time can handle and they just keep it universal across all the platforms for simplicity. What pisses me off is when they framelock it at 30fps.
HD-DVD? What's that? LOL
I had a 360 with the HD-DVD add-on but traded it to a friend for his PS3. Win-win for me.
I was talking more of the Xbox 360 era where it was much more obvious the PC was being held back, sometimes in a big way. Nowadays I think most games look great.
I bought maybe 20 or so, only got them when they were on sale after Bluray won. I did do one of the Red To Blue promos and got Planet Earth on Bluray for $20, just sent in the cover art for the HD-DVD,so I still have the HD-DVD hard copy.
I literally just explained why that's an obtuse interpretation a few posts up. I get sick of the "consoles never held PC gaming back" argument, when you have games like Alan Wake or Heavy Rain which were originally PC exclusives, then bought off by Microsoft / Sony to keep them OFF the PC. Alan Wake only came out on PC two years later because the exclusiveness with MS expired and the devs really wanted to bring it to PC the entire time. PC still doesn't have heavy rain and probably won't. A game company paying money to keep games OFF another platform is like the textbook definition of it hurting another platform.
My HD-DVD player add-on died
Microsoft has stated in the past that some games offer a better experience in the living room, sitting on a couch and played on a console with a controller.
Alan Wake was one of the games they cited but as PC gamers we know this is BS. I find myself more immersed in a game by playing at a desk because I'm sitting close to a large PC monitor, playing on a high end PC using a KB/M. Nothing beats it.
I don't think that is true considering Xbox One is adding more games to its backwards compatibility list pretty much every day, and you don't have to pay for them like you do with the PS4.
No argument with any of that, but he was talking like consoles have NOTHING to do with this, and it's 100% dev decisions existing in a vacuum separate of what the specs of the xbox are.
Who's he? You called *my* argument obtuse, consoles have nothing to do with holding back pc. These consoles could be way more powerful and pc ports could still suck
I was thinking of ManofGod, but you're right, I did say that, I got confused. As for your argument, that is possible and has happened (Saints Row 2, GTA 4, etc.), however the argument was that consoles weren't holding back PC graphics. If you had more powerful consoles, we would have had higher textures or models or additional details on these games. Instead, the industry standard was to just mirror whatever limitations the consoles had (even though the assets were already developed at higher fidelity), so I was arguing, yes, consoles really were holding back PC graphics during that time, with devs being just a conduit for that. The consoles dictated what the vast majority of devs would do, it was the rare exception that tried to aim any higher than that.
)
Wow, an inanimate object dictated to the devs what they could or could not do, LOL. Ok, sure thing. Dude, people need to stop blaming inanimate objects and ideas and place the blame where it actually belongs, on a person or people. However, I guess it is easier to blame something instead of someone. (I sure am glad I do not have a console as a boss.
Its a mixture of both, the low HW specs of the consoles and the devs that made games catered to consoles because more people own consoles than gaming pc's. Sot they design the game for the lowest common denominator being consoles so they have the largest ROI and then just port it over to PC for more profit. If the consoles were spec'ed higher then they could designing the games to have higher fidelity which would in turn have the opportunity to look even better on pc. A dev could do the same thing but backwards, make the game for pc with high quality visuals and then port it over to consoles and have the console version run lower than 30 fps. But they wouldn't do that because they would just be shooting themselves in the foot and have a terrible ROIWow, an inanimate object dictated to the devs what they could or could not do, LOL. Ok, sure thing. Dude, people need to stop blaming inanimate objects and ideas and place the blame where it actually belongs, on a person or people. However, I guess it is easier to blame something instead of someone. (I sure am glad I do not have a console as a boss.