"If you’re running DirectX 11, you’ll get some performance gains, but their desire for “parity of performance” across all platforms prevents them from using any of its unique features." -- PC Gamer

From what I've read about Bethesda's "parity of performance" it seems like they will go out of their way to make sure the game looks the same on every platform, even if one of the platforms has several times the computing power of the other two. Why? Is it to "be fair" to owners of technologically inferior platforms? Battlefield 3 isn't going to be fair to them.The Witcher 2 isn't going to be fair (if it does get ported). CoD4 (MW1 ... not 2) wasn't fair. Battlefield: BC2 wasn't fair. Your own games are horribly unfair in this regard due to construction sets. Why try to be fair when it comes to visuals / gameplay if you're going to support modding? Is it because you are too lazy to implement proper support for DirectX11 / current PC hardware? You just don't want to? Why is it acceptable for your game to look like a PC exclusive from 2006, and have noticeably worse visuals than a PC exclusive from 2008 (Crysis)?

tl;dr: Justify "parity of performance" to me, because it sounds like an excuse.

It means they don't want to have a feature on one platform because it makes the other platforms feel bad.

Fun fact of the day. 90% of their audience are on the consoles.

I voted no because I have a nice gaming pc, but at the same time, why should they go to the extra work on the PC version when they can just as easily keep it the same as the Xbox one and focus on the game content.

the same article also said: "Still, the game will be best on PC."

I've mentioned this before in these threads, and would be interested if anyone else has some more insight into this -

I'm willing to bet, just based on what I know about corporate workings in general, rather than the gaming industry in particular, that part of Beth's licensing agreements with Sony and MS require that the PC version of the game be limited to roughly the graphics of the console versions - that this is not simply something that Beth intends to do, but something that they have to do in order to get the game on consoles at all.

Parity of performance is just a diplomatic way to say:

" Console Platform market don t accept that a cross platform (PC/Console) game perform better on PC than consoles. So we have to bend and obey".

In regards to your statement about Battlefield 3. DICE has come out and said that the reason they're building such a good looking game is because they're developing it for the PC.

I wish more companies would do this. Its the only way this industry will evolve, technologically.

Why is this a poll if you're asking Bethesda 'why'?

Also, oh look, another imminent console war thread.

Crysis actually came in 2007. One year after Oblivion!

Fun fact of the day: That study was based on horrible statistics. Steam / other digital distribution accounts for 60+% of PC game sales in North America. That study completely ignored Steam and all other digital distribution. Stop bringing that up.

The PC crowd is so cute when they're angry.

Todd and Pete have both publicly stated that. Until they say otherwise, i'll keep bringing it up.

I think it's less that they want to make sure it looks the same across the PS3, 360, and PC and more that they don't want to spend time developing feature that only 5.6%* of people can use.
*Percentage taken from the http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey, information is only gathered on an opt-in basis and is best taken as only a view of general proportions of different hardware types across PC gaming in general

Look guys many many games in the last 5 years have suffered from being dumbed down for consoles, but Skyrim will not be one of those, unless they do something like not include hotkeys...but come on guys this game is not one where we need to have the whole PC vs. lame things debate

Thanks for the stat. I didn't know that.

I doubt it. Battlefield 3 will be on consoles, and the devs of that had some choice words for MS and Sony "Your platforms are holding the entire gaming industry back, and PC gaming is much, much better. Watch us make a PC game." BF3 will have visuals that push even the best PCs and will support more players in multi-player. So clearly gimping the PC version is not a requirement for either platform.

I don't see why they would do this. Personally, I feel that all platforms should have the game be as good as possible for them... and that would do NOTHING to make me feel bad. The only thing that could make me (primarily a PS3 player) feel bad is if Bethesda did not take special care to notice the PS3 version needs to be optimized differently from the other two and has separate weaknesses/strenghts from the 360 as well as a different architecture. If they're willing to properly optimize for different hardware in the case of two versions, then I don't see why that shouldn't be the case for the third... assuming that is the case... with the traditional graphics setting options on that third, however, as I'm sure many PC gamers don't have PCs capable of maxing out everything and having tesselation.

I think the justification is that 90% of their customers are console users so they want to concentrate on features that most of their fanbase will be able to enjoy.

As a PC user it kind of svcks in some respects but the flip side is the console market provides a lot of the development budget to make the overall games good in the first place.

i hope it doesn't turn into a war but there are valid issues here. interviews have pointed out that development took into account new coding technologies to further take advantage of consoles. however, consoles being static (no upgrade options) does limit what they can do from a hardware standpoint. pc and console both serve a purpose. personally i choose pc because a pc can do everything a console can do. it doesn't work the other way around. now, i'm not saying consoles are lesser or inferior, i'm saying that for me, a pc is much more flexible. knowing that they have to market the game to the widest audience means that i also have to understand that to a certain degree they have to nerf it a bit because consoles just can't keep up with pc's from a hardware standpoint. they have to develop it to look as good as they can on the console but that limits what they can do for pc users.

But Crysis started development several years after Oblivion's development started and had a much shorter development time than Oblivion. They had access to new tech (tessellation being one of those features)

Untrue. That study used numbers that only include brick & mortar. Read: No Steam.

they dont want it the same on everything, Todd howard even said that computer would look better

I'm pretty sure Crysis doesn't support the praised, yet somewhat fabled, tesselation. It was a 2007 game. DX11 wasn't even OUT (let alone in use for development) by the time Crysis was released, was it?

Yes, they have. Using that study makes them both very unprofessional though. Especially if they understand why that number is deeply flawed and statistically useless.