Yes it does, and I been saying all the time.

Previously I said similar to "Developers want to make THE best game they can, thats not possible by basing your game on 2005 hardware."

But few people fail to see the reason why that is bad. Similar people fall into the category of this guy on another forum a 360 player actually think his 360 can handle the same as a 2010 PC because he bought it in 2010.

Ah, okay. I think I've just been misreading/misinterpreting what you've said.

If a computer he bought in 2010 can only handle a game as well as his Xbox, then he got himself a very crappy computer. The Xbox is based on technology from 2005, giving PC technology a two generation boost in comparison by 2010.

I think he meant the guy thought his 360 would be as powerful as a PC with 2010 hardware because he bought it in 2010.

^

yes that, sorry for making it a bit confusing.

Ah yes, that makes more sense then. I'm afraid he's going to have to wait until 2015 for any sort of hardware upgrade.

Todd knows what he is talking about dont forget they have a team whose sole job is to fiddle with new tech and he has thus seen exactly what they can do with it ... or I should say he saw what they could do with it back when the skyrim featureset was locked down.

It doesnt matter whay it doesnt matter what dx11 has or dx9 doesnt. Right now it wasnt needed.

dx11 can wait.

Of course not, consoles can't run it and because PC isn't their favorite platform anymore, why bother? "Epic" battles are those in which 8-10 people fight at once (with frame drops), not in which 40-50 excenge blows and magic. :hubbahubba:

Anywho, about DX11, the problem is like this:

DEV: There aren't enough video cards out there, capable of that API,
Gamers: Well, since developers don't care about us and don't make DX11 game, why should I change my card anytime soon?

Answer: Probably the "next-gen" consoles will change all that... or Dice and similar devs.

PS: My "poor" 6850 OC (helped by a Q6600@2,9GHz) can handle Metro 2033 at 3360x1050 (two 22" displays) in DX11, high details, tessellation on at 30FPS. There isn't really necessary a high end card for DX11 "goodies".

Indeed, while the steam hardware survey shows only 5% of gamers are DX11 capable, that has quite a lot to do with sub-DX11 capable cards being capable of maxing out absolutely everything that's not DX11, there's very little justification for an upgrade right now. That number would spike if there was a reason to switch.

...6850 isn't a high end card? Interesting, how differently, different people view the world.

On http://www.overclock.net/graphics-cards-general/502403-graphics-card-ranking-5th-time-last.html ranked list of cards, the 6850 is #20. Considering my current card is #126 (and that the computer I'm considering upgrading to has a 6750 or 6770), I consider 20 to be amazingly high.


(also 'I can drive two 22" displays at high settings', sounds like a monster card to me, not a budget setup. :shrug:)

6850 it's a mid-range card in the current generation from ATI and to reach the high end performance, I would need 2 of these in CrossFire - around GTX580. Now, a class, like mid-range or high end or low end (to relative cover them all), does not mean it describes only one product, but rather an interval of performance in which a large variety of products can be found. 67xx series is going to be just some 57xx cards renamed, basically, you're going to be in the same performance area as I am for this generation, depending on specific cases .
By the time Skyrim would hit the shelves, the next gen should already be on the market, probably the high end of these days at the available price of mid-range cards; win-win situation.


To be honest, I'm surprised of the FPS this card can hit on such a big resolution, but games are not that demanding anymore - general speaking. Plugging the second monitor in Oblivion made little to no difference in frame rates. Also, the card can't run a graphics intensive game in full details, AA, AF @ 60 FPS. Keep that in mind.

PS: The value of components from my rig, might be as "high" as a brand new PS3. It ain't that expensive, now is it?

It's interesting how far off perception is from some people. The "mid end" that the PC enthusiast claim as the mid end is actually really high end for the average gamer, and the "high end" is "wow waste of money" to the average person.

I really feel for the person that dumped $1500 into their machine. It's like burning money, especially with a preemptive PSU purchase. For that price they could have built a $750 beast of a machine that could run all current and near future games very well and then in a couple years spend the other half of the $750 on a machine that will blow away their current monstrosity in every detail. But hey, if having a $1500 machine makes them happy I guess that's all that matters, not whether or not it's a smart upgrade path.

How are PC players getting the short end of the stick? YOU ARE GETTING THE EXACT SAME THING AS EVERYONE ELSE
Are they taking advantage of all the technology available for computers? No, but just because you aren't being spoiled doesn't mean you are being ripped off.
Actually, you are still getting more than console players are, because you will be able to mod the game

Well it's being tailored to push YOUR system to the limits. Whereas it hardly does anything to push current PC hardware.

But you are right. We get mods. I will say hello to levitation, new dungeons and areas, numerous other changes and fixes, open cities, and Qarls next texture pack (here's to hoping he does a new one) for ya.

If it was being designed for Wii first and foremost without being upgraded for xbox360 and ps3, you would be complaining the same amount.

These threads are just a console v PC rant.

Just because a stand alone picture can highlight the extra level of detail, actual implementation into a game takes time.

I dont doubt that this level of detail could eventually be developed into a fast moving action/rpg game, but think back to oblivions release and the graphics/detail that it had.

Now look at the details available on the same hardware for skyrim, do you not think if developers could have had this level of detail upon release of the xbox they would have?

The same goes for the 720 release, there will be minor advancements in detail on release games, which is what Todd meant, but give it 2-3 years time and we can then be looking at the extra levels that are being banded about as possible.

It's definitely impressive, but what most people don't understand is how long DX9 has had to improve. It's almost a decade old now. Almost 10 years of development. Give DX 11 or 12 ten years of development, and it will look FAR better than that! Don't believe me? Compare old DX 9 games to the modern iterations.

Nintendo's new console will be interesting. It will be superior to both the X and the P, and will start the new console hype. When people say the modern consoles are enough, they are clueless about what better hardware is capable of. Interestingly, we don't even know what's possible because we've been stuck using the old hardware for so long. Personally, if I was at M or S, I would opt for cheaper consoles, so as to release newer consoles sooner(integrating newer tech sooner), while focusing on backwards compatibility and profit per console sale.

The last generation was a joke. I don't think M or P has even turned a profit to this day. They just went about designing those consoles all wrong. The next batch will show us what they've learned, and I bet it'll be interesting, starting with Nintendo very soon.

In response to the previous post, Microsoft's made a profit for awhile but it took a bit after the price drop to $299 for the PS3 brand to turn a profit. Sony was looking to be in real trouble with the PS3 for awhile due to the exorbitant launch price.

And yeah I'm really looking forward to seeing what Nintendo has up its sleeve, but you're right they aren't going to be going for the latest PC hardware. How far from 2006 PC hardware is the big question. I think only Nintendo and Microsoft could afford to sell a new console at a loss to the level of the PS3 next generation, and Nintendo has never done it and I doubt Microsoft would do it that much. Like I said though, I doubt Sony could afford to this time. Considering the PS3 only relatively recently started even making a profit, I'm sure Sony will be less than thrilled if Nintendo's machine uses even 2009 high end computer graphics, which easily blow away even the PS3 for way less than the PS3's initial launch price.

I initially mistook the rumor that Nintendo is using pixel shaders version 4.1 as meaning OpenGL 4.1, but the real question is what features the hardware supports. If I understand it correctly the Xbox 360 can actually do things that aren't in the specifications for DX9, so it's all a big question mark.

In direct response to that demo note how they aren't showing realistic hair and such in combination with many characters at once. Who cares if you can make a pretty looking guy or a couple of guys when it's embracing the same kind of limitations with limiting the amount of characters on screen and such that we have now? I'd rather see technology used to have more characters at once and bigger draw distances than wasting all of the new power on making things pretty pretty while choking the power to the point that even N64 games had more common split screen support than modern games do, putting graphics over local multiplayer in too many modern games.

You're right who cares about making the world look believable, or even consistent. Just imagine how many characters they could put on screen at once using stick figures and weapons. Hair is for the birds.... :dance:

Look up dwarf fortress if you want to see how demanding gameplay can be on a system. Graphics really aren't the issue so much as gameplay features are. Even with stick figures, the current crop of consoles are very limiting. You couldn't properly manage all of the AI for numerous stick figures, for instance, with current consoles. There is more to the problem than just graphics. Graphics just serve as the most obvious, surface indication of how technology drives change. However, beneath the surface, modern consoles have serious gameplay design limitations.

Heck, even minecraft is beyond modern consoles, and that game has very little to do with graphics. I doubt you'll ever see a port. Why? It's simply beyond what modern consoles can handle, in the gameplay department. There's just not enough RAM or CPU power, even after extreme(and costly) optimizations.

IN the same vein of logic. There is a reason the Nintendo Wii never got Oblivion. It simply did not have the specifications to run it without massive design changes. In a similar vein, this is true of the X and P in comparison to modern technology. The X and P are holding everything back. I mean, what if the Wii got all the games and the graphics/gameplay were only as good as what the Wii offered for the X and P? You'd feel pretty pissed off about it, for sure.

This. Xbox 360 and PS3 users love to cry foul when we (PC gamers) complain about "press start" screens or poor (for our platform) visuals / gameplay. The very same people would scream bloody murder if Skyrim came out on the Wii and their platforms got slightly upgraded Wii visuals and ported menus + controls that were clearly designed with the Wii remote in mind. It's a hilarious double standard and I wonder how many of them are aware of it.

Actually, what 'we' are getting is a game crippled to use 5-6 year old hardware that is (a) not multithreaded, therefore not taking advantage of the 2-8 thread capabilities available for AI, general physics calculations, lighting, pre-rendering, dynamics in cloth and/or hair and/or softbody, advanced stage loading, etc; (b ) limited to a Direct X 9 GPU that while good for its age, is just that. Aged. No shader Model 4 (or 3 for that matter; just a hacked up custom version of 3). Limited pipelining. Limited GPU accessable memory. (c ) Bound to a 32 bit architecture, which renders the 4-16 gigs of system ram many PC users have available meaningless. They may compile a 64 bit game .exe for us PC users, but if the game isn't coded to fully take advantage of the extra memory bandwidth, well.....much ado about nothing is the phrase that comes to mind. (d ) World size, character count, ingame loaded content ability, all of it is bound to the -least- capable platform specs; like it or not, any midrange capable computer less than 3 years old will pound any game console flat on power. Both graphically and computationally. And it will be between 2-3 years before =any= new console hardware is fielded. Which means that the game companies that have bound themselves to multiplatform releasing will be crippling their products for at least that much longer.....or will be forced to either establish dual development patterns, or cut one or the other loose. And if they create a gaming system that uses a processing scheme that is fundamentally incompatible with general purpose computing standards, the blood will flow thick indeed.

Maybe it's just me.....but love affair with a console type or not, I would want to pack enough under the hood so the PC users who -do- have superior hardware are blown away. A handful of gamegeeks foaming at the mouth about how uber something looks with (name your feature) is what typically entices a broad spectrum of users to upgrade....and sets up possible bundling deals with makers of said hardware. M$ and Sony dictate regarding their gaming platforms. In the PC world it is much more organic, and far more of a collaborative effort. Gaming consoles are not gaming computers, and I see no reason to punish the latter due to the formers extremely long hardware cycles, which essentially obsoletes them inside of the year they were released in (as in better hardware exists, and could really add some pizzazz to the old console...except you can't upgrade anything, really).

Even if the game wasn't being designed with consoles in mind, you'd still be getting almost the very same things anyway. Alot of people are still using Windows XP as their OS, dual-core processors are the norm at the moment, and not that many people even have DX11 video cards yet. So unless they were to cater to a very small elite who happen to have all the latest gizmos and a high end rig, the game wouldn't be all that much better that it already will be. And it just wouldn't make any economic sense to focus on such a small segment of the gaming market. So PC users are losing out on virtually nothing at the moment, they would still be getting the same game regardless. They might end up with a few more bells and whistles, but not all that much. The average household computer system just isn't up to the kinds of things you're describing here. If you're going to place any blame for having a high-power rig that you can't make full use of, you should place it on yourself for spending money on hardware that's still years ahead of what the software industry is prepared to cater to at the moment.

The bottom line is that computer technology is advancing faster than the public's ability to absorb it. While the hardware industry is turning out more advanced products every 18 months to 2 years, (Moore's Law), the average consumer is only on a 3-5 year cycle as far as upgrading their personal system is concerned. And the software industry is going to focus on where the general public is at the moment because they make up the largest share of the market. So the gap between technical capability and practical application is widening every year, and will continue to do so until Moore's Law no longer functions.

There are a lot of games already, who make a quad core CPU "a must" and some, even show some massive gains in FPS with six core CPUs http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,794274/From-Medal-of-Honor-to-Civ-5-17-Games-that-already-benefit-from-six-cores-CPUs/Practice/. You can't wait for everyone to make the leap if driving forward the quality of games is what you want.

Limitations of the today's consoles hardware are suggested even by Todd and they're not on the graphics side. Closed cities is one of them, many of those who played Morrowind or any of the Gothic titles from 1 to 3, can say a lot of good things about the feelings and gameplay opportunities you've get when exploring the land from one side of the map to another, without artificial "boundaries".

There's no denying that it's possible, but it's clear that Bethesda is trying design their games in a way that they will be accessible to the greatest number of people as possible. And that's not going to happen by catering to some niche segment. Clearly their goal is to become a major player in the gaming industry, and that means appealing to the broadest market segment that they can. It's all part of their overall business plan. They don't just want to be some fringe development studio that simply comes up with cool games. They wouldn't have bothered to set up their own publishing arm if that were the case.