Well, whatever the exact number it is still a hefty proportion. Anyway, i'm a PC user myself...I was just playing devil's advocate

Crysis had parallax occlusion mapping. No tessellation. It's the second best thing there is.

That's a lovely conspiracy theory but it doesn't hold water. The fact is we are getting a trade off. In exchange for dedicated development to the PC version we are getting an engine specifically designed around the modularity required to make the game moddable on such an extreme level. It's win, win for us PCs really because along with that extreme moddabilty comes the ability to add better meshes, textures, shaders, animations, etc... Everything can be upgraded.

Would you be willing trade our modding community for a PC version that makes use of all the latest tech? I for one would not.

When do the next gen consoles come out?
I would think console players would like them soon, so they too can experience improvements in their games.

I voted no because I'm a pc player and I think as long as everyone is free to play on the platform of choice, there should be no holding back on purpose. Each platform should be used at its maximum.

:(

It isnt fair, it upsets PC gamers sure, but when the devs have the mindset that 90%* of SR sales will be for console, you should expect them to not give a damn about PC gamers. But, they do somewhat because we're lucky to get a CK and dx11 for performance with the direction things are heading.

* completely unsupported and not backed up statistic, just cause someone at Beth said it doesnt make it true.

Then I don't get the point, unless it is, as someone glibly mentioned earlier, just to avoid hurting the feelings of the console players. .............or........... ah hah.............. development costs. Not only does it consume resources to build the game to take the most advantage of the PC, but it then consumes that much more to port it to consoles. A closer match between the two not only lowers the bar for the PC, thus lowering the resources spent on development, but makes it easier to port.

Mmm... yeah. That makes sense.....

God, this 90% number is never going to go away no matter how unlikely it is actually even close to being correct.

That said, to get on topic here the reason is probably just time/resources they don't want to spend.

Like worm said, would you rather give up the Creation Engine for full dx11 support from Beth?

No, because I still use XP.

Its a lot easier to only program one version of the game. They don't have to hit a moving target (hardware-wise) with the consoles, so they shoot for that, and then because optimising on a separate format is more work for not a significant marketshare difference (i.e the number of pc players who wont buy it because it doesn't have good enough graphics), they stick with that performance level.

but Skyrim will not be one of those ....


TOOOOOOOOOOO LAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE... BRAINZ
(Born: Oblivion, Death: noone knows)

That line of reasoning doesn't even make any sense, "if you want release the CK you have to make the game look worse"? :confused:

:facepalm:

You said it best. Any PC gamers whining about consoles need to be made aware that Skyrim wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the consoles.

In their respective positions, I'm sure they are both very acute to the consumer market in their industry (dare I say, much more informed that you). If the exact number is 90% or whatever else... who really cares? The fact is, console sales vastly outnumber PC sales in units and dollars. It just doesn't seem like good business to sink vast resources into development for a vast minority of profit share. Agreed, that stinks for PC users. But it seems like the reality.

Can you mod Crysis/Battlefield 3?

LMAO!

sad to say but developers are limited in what they can do because of the static nature of current gen consoles. that in a nutshell is it. all games are developed on a pc. period. you can't write code on a console. it's done on a pc and ported to console. so, all games 'could' be developed to take full advantage of even mediocre pc technology and it would be far better than anything developed for current consoles. sadly, whether it's 90% or 55%, the % is large enough to justify developing it for the console market as well. hence, they have to nerf the pc version.

MODDERS FTW!!!! :celebration:

Yes you can mod Crysis. They give you a sandbox editor too. There isn't enough information out on Battlefield 3 to know yet.

As a PC player, I'd love to Bethesda to take use of more DX 11 features. But honestly, I'd be fine with them just improving the graphics for all platforms before 11/11/11. The lighting and shaders already look outdated, compared to newer games.

We don't know exact numbers of how many people play on consoles for TES games. But we do know it's a lot of people. Here are Matt Grandstaff's words from this interview (http://planetelderscrolls.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Articles.Detail&id=89): "The number of people playing Oblivion on consoles definitely trumps what you d ever see on the PC."
It doesn't really matter exactly how many.

Here's my assumption of what I would do if I were Bethesda:
If I were Bethesda I would want my game to look as good as possible on all platforms. It would also benefit marketing a lot to show the best-looking game for trailers and such. But at the same time I would have to think what's reasonable for my company. I want maximum profit and great showoff and as little disappointment as possible from those who play. I would probably make the game look a bit better for all platforms before the release, especially lighting and shaders. Focus a bit extra on that before the release. I have no idea how hard it is to actually implement DX 11 features for developers today, but if it was moderately easy and wouldn't cost too much money or energy, I would let the PC version have something extra graphically. Nothing that would take too much money or energy to implement though, as said before. If it gave fairly good results, I would then show off the PC version in marketing.

I agree. There is another problem I'd like to mention, however. I'm not sure how many PC players really give a damn, but on the console side of things, the PS3 seems to commonly get the short end of the multiplatform gaming stick (inferior ports from the 360 version; low framerates or weaker graphics... despite the PS3 technically being a BIT more capable). So, it isn't plainly consoles being catered for in many cases, but rather oftentimes the 360. The PS3 is FAR closer than a top-of-the-line gaming PC to the 360's hardware capabilities, of course, but a different architecture on the PS3 and a lack of proper fine-tuning for that architecture (and lack of actual utilization of the PS3's Blu-Ray format and the PS3's hard drive for larger games) in its ports result in PS3 versions weaker than they should, or rather could, be. At the very least, I would expect the PS3 version to be, in most cases, equal to the 360 version. Instead, it's oftentimes slightly inferior (low framerates spring to mind as particular nuisances).

This.

Oh you PC elitists and your self appointed superiority!