Side side note: You can easily have more then 8 skills while playing a MMO. (Look at FFXI) or heck, look at how fable (the first one) handled multiple skills... I LOVED that system..
Anyways I do find the argument that you need to have 30 skills + pet skills a complete joke.
Yes I've played alot of MMO's, and the first thing 90% of us do is map our "rotation" down to 1 or 2 keys.
I played wow. and used probably a average of 20 different spells per game, but when it really came down to it.
I welcome EQNext on PS4, and looking forward to it.
I do not understand why so many people have an aversion to console gaming, or pick sides in these silly "xbox vs ps" debacles. I could understand if the game was going to become unplayable by porting to console, but it is being built from the ground up to support gamepads. Also the current iteration of consoles are vastly superior to the last generation, so I repeat once again: I don't see what the problem is here.
If you're worried about the degenerate crowd of casual gamers invading your space, it's a little too late for that post-WOW.
Two main reasons for the console hate (not just here or with MMO's either).
1. Consoles have effectively gimped game development in the last 7 to 10 years. Developers want to release games on as many platforms as possible, which means designing them at the lowest common denominator; the console. This is why games that are released today look very much the same as games that were released 10 years ago. Some things have gotten a little better, particularly lighting and water, but that's it. What's really troublesome is that, contrary to your comment, the new generation of consoles are really not that much more powerful than the last. They are better, just not enough to expect any further advances in the industry any time soon.
2. Controls are also not very well ported. If an MMO is getting released on a console, they have to make sure the gameplay is designed to be simple enough to translate to a controller. As a result, we're seeing a real shift towards "action-rpg" styles of MMO's, where characters only have access to a few skills at a time.
If you want to see a great example of how catering to the console crowd can ruin a game, look at Dragon Age 2 compared to Dragon Age: Origins. The first was developed for the PC, and ported to the consoles. On the PC side, it was a fairly deep and strategic RPG. Unfortunately, it didn't play well on the consoles because it wasn't designed to be used with a controller, so things like pausing and selecting units and stuff were a bit rough. Dragon Age 2 was designed with consoles in mind, which meant we got stuck with a simplistic game focusing on generic "action" combat, fewer character creation choices, lots of reused art assets, and practically no strategy required.
1. (Consoles are) why games that are released today look very much the same as games that were released 10 years ago.
2. Controls are also not very well ported. If an MMO is getting released on a console, they have to make sure the gameplay is designed to be simple enough to translate to a controller.
#1 is pure speculation more than anything else
otherwise you'd see many more games cross platform during the last 10 years -- not just a handful
I don't think consoles have hindered the development of PC games, economics and whether it's an MMO/multiplayer has if anything. Developers have to follow the same rule about making a product that's good and that can reach as many people as they need. I have a hard time believing that there was a majority out there with rigs good enough to surpass the console quality of the time. If anything consoles have kept the PC game market viable. Plus, you can't make a strait spec comparison between PC and console since the console is tuned just to play games. Especially with the "PC like" architecture of the PS4, you can get a lot more out of that than a rig of the same specs.
1. (Consoles are) why games that are released today look very much the same as games that were released 10 years ago.
2. Controls are also not very well ported. If an MMO is getting released on a console, they have to make sure the gameplay is designed to be simple enough to translate to a controller.
#1 is pure speculation more than anything else
otherwise you'd see many more games cross platform during the last 10 years -- not just a handful
FFXI was first released on the PS2 then ported to PC
I've never heard anyone claim FFXI is a simple mmorpg
Most games are cross-platform. Maybe not most MMO's, but that's not the point.
As for FFXI, it's been a long time since I played, but I remember combat being fairly simple and very slow-paced. Long animation and casting times and such. Any "complexity" of that game came from not knowing things like "what does strength actually do?" To this day, I'm pretty sure Square Enix has never explained what the various stats actually do, so people are left experimenting and inferring.
But yeah, combat and gameplay wasn't really that crazy or complicated. Just unforgiving.
I don't get the argument that consoles cater to the least common denominator. Last time I checked, the PC platform was the birthplace for just about every casual game available. Facebook games, pop cap, zinga, all those shovelware flash games came from the PC. Consoles are where the hardcore come to play, always have. When I first played WoW, I couldn't believe how slow it felt. 1.5 second gcd is an eternity when you are used to playing games where its all about how fast you can react and input commands. Everything is hotkeyed in pc games. You make the whole keyboard hotkeys and my gamepad still has more combinations. SO what are you nitpicking? You have a special mouse that can assign 300 hotkeys? Whoop dee shit. Half of it is the bloat of menu shortcuts anyway.
Tired of people crying about consoles. I play PC games and console games and holy crap my head didnt cave in. Instead of whining about graphics or gamepads, why not challenge yourself to actually get good at a game that doesnt let you macro and map your way to victory.
I guess its easier to blame the decline of an entire industry rather than consider trying something new. Talk about xenophobic lol. All the usual suspects that say you want community yet you constantly look down on your fellow gamers because they like something you dont. And thats all it is. Stop blowing this up into some genocide propaganda bs.
Originally posted by Razeekster If it is being made for the console as well as the PC, count me out. FFXIV 2.0 did that and look at it: Limited zone sizes that feel maze-like, no exploration, lots of loading screens... MMORPGs made for the console and the PC is something I truly despise. Yes, there are open world games that are huge for both the console and and PC like Skyrim, but until I see an MMORPG that is able to pull of the same thing, I'm going to believe that it is something that isn't possible or that MMO developers are unwilling to implement it.
Planetside 2? You're looking at issues that plagued the PS3's inferior memory, the PS4 doesn't have such limitations.
I said MMORPG. Not an online FPS. And either way, consoles simply do not make for good MMORPGs. MMORPGs are not only supposed to be massive, but they are a social experience that just doesn't equate with consoles.
Welcome to next gen gaming, where the xbox one and PS4 are more powerful then most peoples PC's.
Most people don't play PC games on top of the line PC's, they play on outdated systems that aren't capable of even running an MMO with shadows on; that's if they aren't playing on a laptop.
There's a reason why console games outsell their PC counterpart by excessive margins, the vast majority of gamers aren't playing games on PC.
MMO's and RTS were about the only games people needed a PC for. The RTS genre is practically dried up to the point of dead, as was said by several of the top RTS developers, and the new consoles will run MMO's better than the PC's that most people already play them on.
You're not an elite gamer because you only play on a PC, you're a restricted one.
I welcome EQNext on PS4, and looking forward to it.
I do not understand why so many people have an aversion to console gaming, or pick sides in these silly "xbox vs ps" debacles. I could understand if the game was going to become unplayable by porting to console, but it is being built from the ground up to support gamepads. Also the current iteration of consoles are vastly superior to the last generation, so I repeat once again: I don't see what the problem is here.
If you're worried about the degenerate crowd of casual gamers invading your space, it's a little too late for that post-WOW.
Two main reasons for the console hate (not just here or with MMO's either).
1. Consoles have effectively gimped game development in the last 7 to 10 years. Developers want to release games on as many platforms as possible, which means designing them at the lowest common denominator; the console. This is why games that are released today look very much the same as games that were released 10 years ago. Some things have gotten a little better, particularly lighting and water, but that's it. What's really troublesome is that, contrary to your comment, the new generation of consoles are really not that much more powerful than the last. They are better, just not enough to expect any further advances in the industry any time soon.
2. Controls are also not very well ported. If an MMO is getting released on a console, they have to make sure the gameplay is designed to be simple enough to translate to a controller. As a result, we're seeing a real shift towards "action-rpg" styles of MMO's, where characters only have access to a few skills at a time.
If you want to see a great example of how catering to the console crowd can ruin a game, look at Dragon Age 2 compared to Dragon Age: Origins. The first was developed for the PC, and ported to the consoles. On the PC side, it was a fairly deep and strategic RPG. Unfortunately, it didn't play well on the consoles because it wasn't designed to be used with a controller, so things like pausing and selecting units and stuff were a bit rough. Dragon Age 2 was designed with consoles in mind, which meant we got stuck with a simplistic game focusing on generic "action" combat, fewer character creation choices, lots of reused art assets, and practically no strategy required.
They made a bad design choice, this had nothing to do with it being on console or not and the first Dragon Age was cumbersome and clunky (to say the least) they were merely trying to streamline it and went too far. You're choosing a flawed game to try and justify a flawed argument. Try again kiddo.
Also to those with the ignorant "The next gen consoles are equal to middle of the road PCs.", you show how naive you are when you say this. Their hardware might be equal to what you consider to be middle but the fact that it's ALL optimized for gaming means that it runs faster than your $3000 rig. I thought this was common knowledge, but seems to be a bit above some.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
Eqn and final fantasy 14 will bring in lot of player I suspect on ps4 !I feel Xbox ones is superior but as usual ms way of coding isn't well learned by Dev (yes including amd itself ) hopefully ms will premake the normal everyday code to simplify things .so far it doesn't look like ms was able to show Dev how to optimize their game for xb1 ,its all nice and good to have that potentiality but not very useful if Dev are coding like they were in 2001 ! Intel looks like they all mobile Xeon phi !if intel have an apu with a seperate mobile Xeon phi and put this on tablet ! I predict we will all be gaming on those !hopefully intel will offer the option for gamer to set message signal interrupt extended to one per CPU core (instead of one per CPU socket! Ya ms suggest to use one per socket but recommend one per CPU core !since we all know other corp couldn't do this (too many variation) this is a huge advantage for intel
I welcome EQNext on PS4, and looking forward to it.
I do not understand why so many people have an aversion to console gaming, or pick sides in these silly "xbox vs ps" debacles. I could understand if the game was going to become unplayable by porting to console, but it is being built from the ground up to support gamepads. Also the current iteration of consoles are vastly superior to the last generation, so I repeat once again: I don't see what the problem is here.
If you're worried about the degenerate crowd of casual gamers invading your space, it's a little too late for that post-WOW.
Two main reasons for the console hate (not just here or with MMO's either).
1. Consoles have effectively gimped game development in the last 7 to 10 years. Developers want to release games on as many platforms as possible, which means designing them at the lowest common denominator; the console. This is why games that are released today look very much the same as games that were released 10 years ago. Some things have gotten a little better, particularly lighting and water, but that's it. What's really troublesome is that, contrary to your comment, the new generation of consoles are really not that much more powerful than the last. They are better, just not enough to expect any further advances in the industry any time soon.
2. Controls are also not very well ported. If an MMO is getting released on a console, they have to make sure the gameplay is designed to be simple enough to translate to a controller. As a result, we're seeing a real shift towards "action-rpg" styles of MMO's, where characters only have access to a few skills at a time.
If you want to see a great example of how catering to the console crowd can ruin a game, look at Dragon Age 2 compared to Dragon Age: Origins. The first was developed for the PC, and ported to the consoles. On the PC side, it was a fairly deep and strategic RPG. Unfortunately, it didn't play well on the consoles because it wasn't designed to be used with a controller, so things like pausing and selecting units and stuff were a bit rough. Dragon Age 2 was designed with consoles in mind, which meant we got stuck with a simplistic game focusing on generic "action" combat, fewer character creation choices, lots of reused art assets, and practically no strategy required.
They made a bad design choice, this had nothing to do with it being on console or not and the first Dragon Age was cumbersome and clunky (to say the least) they were merely trying to streamline it and went too far. You're choosing a flawed game to try and justify a flawed argument. Try again kiddo.
Also to those with the ignorant "The next gen consoles are equal to middle of the road PCs.", you show how naive you are when you say this. Their hardware might be equal to what you consider to be middle but the fact that it's ALL optimized for gaming means that it runs faster than your $3000 rig. I thought this was common knowledge, but seems to be a bit above some.
Why do console types continue to repeat this lie? It gets old after awhile.
While it's hard to argue with the multitude of amazingly intelligent points you bring to the table (as usual), I'll just say I'm not a "console type"; I'm a gamer, period. I play my PC, PS4, XB1, hell I'd be in the arcade still if there were still games worth playing that way. Guess we differ in that way...and I'm ok with that.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
I don't get the argument that consoles cater to the least common denominator.
Last time I checked, the PC platform was the birthplace for just about every casual game available. Facebook games, pop cap, zynga, all those shovelware flash games came from the PC.
While I am all for console sharing mmos, I have to disagree when it comes to performance. Yes the new consoles are amazing but to say they are optimized in such way that a 3000 dollar rig (or even cheaper for that matter) is slower than a ps4? People are playing assassin's creed 3 above console settings with a single old card like an 8800 gt.
The new killzone is running on the ps4 around 32 fps average or so in single player and 45 or 48 in multiplayer. There are FPS games in my opinion that look as good as killzone and run way faster on the pc with the proper hardware. I would bet a single r9 290x or a Titan will keep up with the consoles in the future, if the graphics settings used in the game are comparable with the consoles. Just as graphic cards like the 8800 gt still perform well enough at 720p (and better settings than the console) playing crysis 2 for example. Again this is my opinion based on observations and before someone can set up a benchmark to run on both consoles this is how I see it.
Smedley needs to take his console and his free to play, money grubbin cash shop mindset and retire already. The man who thought the SWG CU would be a hit needs to hush and leave and let the EQ team do what they want.
While I am all for console sharing mmos, I have to disagree when it comes to performance. Yes the new consoles are amazing but to say they are optimized in such way that a 3000 dollar rig (or even cheaper for that matter) is slower than a ps4? People are playing assassin's creed 3 above console settings with a single old card like an 8800 gt.
The new killzone is running on the ps4 around 32 fps average or so in single player and 45 or 48 in multiplayer. There are FPS games in my opinion that are as good as killzone and run way faster on the pc with the proper hardware. I would bet a single r9 290x or a Titan will keep up with the consoles in the future, if the graphics settings used in the game are comparable with the consoles. Just as graphic cards like the 8800 gt still perform well enough at 720p (and better settings than the console) playing crysis 2 for example.
Seeing as the bulk of your post was either making assumptions or deciding that because x can run y at n speeds and a runs b at n speeds then x < a. I'm sure using simple math like that shows you how flawed your argument is.....moving on.
What you're not understanding, clearly, is that while you can definitely build something that can do what you "think". You're comparing platforms that have been tried and tested for 10+ years (PCs) to platforms that literally just came out. These aren't just iterations of old platforms, these are completely new configurations that the programmers now have to relearn and figure out how to optimize for.
Comparing Crysis 2(garbage) which is playable and looks GREAT on the PS3 is just an asinine excuse for an argument. The 8800gt can barely compete with the PS3, let alone the newer systems. I can only assume that you're trolling so my hats off to you.
(At least you edited your post to reflect and acknowledge your ignorance.)
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
First you are quiet agressive and I would say lack manners. Secondly yes there is no scientific proof, however there are people running ps3 games with the 8800gt, they just do not play at 1080p with 16x aniso the highest anti aliasing settings, tesselation and stuff like that. I own an old desktop with one (which is not my current main pc anyway) so it is not just other people but my own experience. People overestimate the capabilities of a console in my opinion and while there are indeed optimizations they are not enough to make up for the current high end gaming machines, in my and many other's opinion. At least i do show observations you on the other hand rely on us all believing what you say.
Lets agree to disagree you will not convince me (and obviously running the same games is not good enough to convince you) and will probably keep flamming so nothing good will come out of this.
One thing I do agree though they will be able to code better for the ps4 in the future but the r9 290x also will get better drivers. At some point some nvidia graphic cards, at least the 780 m, got aboost of 60% performance in tomb raider with a driver release, for example. I compare the 8800 gt with the 290x because they were both released around the "new" consoles. So it will be interesting to see how a titan or 290x will fair in (say 5 or 6 years) playing a ps4 title on even foot.
One thing I do agree though they will be able to code better for the ps4 in the future but the r9 290x also will get better drivers. At some point some nvidia graphic cards, at least the 780 m, got aboost of 60% performance in tomb raider with a driver release, for example. I compare the 8800 gt with the 290x because they were both released around the "new" consoles. So it will be interesting to see how a titan or 290x will fair in (say 5 or 6 years) playing a ps4 title on even foot.
However the big difference is that the 8800 gt was a HUGE step up in architecture. It was a REAL change not just an iteration, similar to the R9. I'm not arguing that there is more power on PCs...my point is that we require more power to get the same results, which has been scientifically proven time and time again. I play on all platforms so my preference only lies in genre so I have no vested interest in who has the best performance only the games I want to play.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
There is nothing I disagree with your last post, PCs do take a lot more horsepower to match a console and people should not compare the same hardware as any indication. The same GPU on the PS4 will run faster than on the PC.
I saw some people in this thread talking about the 290x or the Titan holding up to the console in the future and stuff...You do realize a Titan costs TWO PS4s right? And thats just the GPU, not even the whole PC...
So sure, go build your PC with no games while I play my PS4 with 10-15 games for the same price lol
Originally posted by deveilblad I saw some people in this thread talking about the 290x or the Titan holding up to the console in the future and stuff...You do realize a Titan costs TWO PS4s right? And thats just the GPU, not even the whole PC...
What they're getting at is that with a console developers will optimize for the consoles specific hardware. You will never see any PC game optimized specifically for a Titan or a 290X, meaning that the power of those cards will always go largely unused. It's why a direct comparison of console and PC graphics shouldn't really be made. Eventually developers will squeeze every bit of power out of consoles, whereas PC parts most likely won't ever reach their maximum potential. They'll be discarded and replaced with something even more powerful so as to brute force the same type of performance that consoles will see through optimization.
That is not really true. There are drivers that people make that do what you just said. That is why a PC is better, because there are a bunch of people that can make their own stuff. I cannot really think of anything that a user made to mod a pc, that Developers do better. Users made skyrim playable, and all the other TES games. They make better drivers, they make better Bios for parts, ect ect..... The user made content that I have played in MMOs that allow it, which the only one I have played is STO, was better then the Developers content. The mods for BF were way better then the battlefield game.
But with the play station your just stuck with the garbage they give you, and you have no choice. And the problem with that is sony only wants one thing, your money. So a good example of this is, the ps vita is capable of streaming bf3 from the ps3 to the vita, but since Sony only cares about money they stopped it.. Even though they said it was going to do that, but then they figured out they could make more money by selling people a ps vita copy of a game, and a ps3 copy of the game. So there you have it. You get content from developers who care little to nothing about anything other then your money.
But with a PC you get users who make content because they have fun doing it, and want other people to have fun, and dont expect money for it. That always always makes a better product.
As for me, I will never buy a console, when those dirty sony people told me if i bought there 300 dollar paper weight i could stream my ps3 games to it. But the only ones that could do that, are the people who put there own operating system on it. My guess though is a large majority of users of the play station could even figure out how to put a mod in skyrim, so i guess they bought the right gaming machine for them.
With all that said, that is why I think the thought of a console mmo is not a good idea, because that will ruin the pc version.
great, yet another mmo balanced around reduced interface and communication options .. just what we need.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity. I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
Comments
Side side note: You can easily have more then 8 skills while playing a MMO. (Look at FFXI) or heck, look at how fable (the first one) handled multiple skills... I LOVED that system..
Anyways I do find the argument that you need to have 30 skills + pet skills a complete joke.
Yes I've played alot of MMO's, and the first thing 90% of us do is map our "rotation" down to 1 or 2 keys.
I played wow. and used probably a average of 20 different spells per game, but when it really came down to it.
press 1
press 2
press 3
wait for CD
press 1
etc.. etc...
So yeah... I'm not buying what you have to sell.
Please check out my channel. I do gaming reviews, gaming related reviews & lets plays. Thanks!
https://www.youtube.com/user/BettyofDewm/videos
Two main reasons for the console hate (not just here or with MMO's either).
1. Consoles have effectively gimped game development in the last 7 to 10 years. Developers want to release games on as many platforms as possible, which means designing them at the lowest common denominator; the console. This is why games that are released today look very much the same as games that were released 10 years ago. Some things have gotten a little better, particularly lighting and water, but that's it. What's really troublesome is that, contrary to your comment, the new generation of consoles are really not that much more powerful than the last. They are better, just not enough to expect any further advances in the industry any time soon.
2. Controls are also not very well ported. If an MMO is getting released on a console, they have to make sure the gameplay is designed to be simple enough to translate to a controller. As a result, we're seeing a real shift towards "action-rpg" styles of MMO's, where characters only have access to a few skills at a time.
If you want to see a great example of how catering to the console crowd can ruin a game, look at Dragon Age 2 compared to Dragon Age: Origins. The first was developed for the PC, and ported to the consoles. On the PC side, it was a fairly deep and strategic RPG. Unfortunately, it didn't play well on the consoles because it wasn't designed to be used with a controller, so things like pausing and selecting units and stuff were a bit rough. Dragon Age 2 was designed with consoles in mind, which meant we got stuck with a simplistic game focusing on generic "action" combat, fewer character creation choices, lots of reused art assets, and practically no strategy required.
You make me like charity
#1 is pure speculation more than anything else
otherwise you'd see many more games cross platform during the last 10 years -- not just a handful
Regarding #2
FFXI was first released on the PS2 then ported to PC
I've never heard anyone claim FFXI is a simple mmorpg
EQ2 fan sites
Most games are cross-platform. Maybe not most MMO's, but that's not the point.
As for FFXI, it's been a long time since I played, but I remember combat being fairly simple and very slow-paced. Long animation and casting times and such. Any "complexity" of that game came from not knowing things like "what does strength actually do?" To this day, I'm pretty sure Square Enix has never explained what the various stats actually do, so people are left experimenting and inferring.
But yeah, combat and gameplay wasn't really that crazy or complicated. Just unforgiving.
You make me like charity
I'll concede that cross platform games are more than a handful
take a look at this list of video games that sold more than 15 million across all platforms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_games
the vast majority are not available on the PC
EQ2 fan sites
I don't get the argument that consoles cater to the least common denominator. Last time I checked, the PC platform was the birthplace for just about every casual game available. Facebook games, pop cap, zinga, all those shovelware flash games came from the PC. Consoles are where the hardcore come to play, always have. When I first played WoW, I couldn't believe how slow it felt. 1.5 second gcd is an eternity when you are used to playing games where its all about how fast you can react and input commands. Everything is hotkeyed in pc games. You make the whole keyboard hotkeys and my gamepad still has more combinations. SO what are you nitpicking? You have a special mouse that can assign 300 hotkeys? Whoop dee shit. Half of it is the bloat of menu shortcuts anyway.
Tired of people crying about consoles. I play PC games and console games and holy crap my head didnt cave in. Instead of whining about graphics or gamepads, why not challenge yourself to actually get good at a game that doesnt let you macro and map your way to victory.
I guess its easier to blame the decline of an entire industry rather than consider trying something new. Talk about xenophobic lol. All the usual suspects that say you want community yet you constantly look down on your fellow gamers because they like something you dont. And thats all it is. Stop blowing this up into some genocide propaganda bs.
/rant
Welcome to next gen gaming, where the xbox one and PS4 are more powerful then most peoples PC's.
Most people don't play PC games on top of the line PC's, they play on outdated systems that aren't capable of even running an MMO with shadows on; that's if they aren't playing on a laptop.
There's a reason why console games outsell their PC counterpart by excessive margins, the vast majority of gamers aren't playing games on PC.
MMO's and RTS were about the only games people needed a PC for. The RTS genre is practically dried up to the point of dead, as was said by several of the top RTS developers, and the new consoles will run MMO's better than the PC's that most people already play them on.
You're not an elite gamer because you only play on a PC, you're a restricted one.
They made a bad design choice, this had nothing to do with it being on console or not and the first Dragon Age was cumbersome and clunky (to say the least) they were merely trying to streamline it and went too far. You're choosing a flawed game to try and justify a flawed argument. Try again kiddo.
Also to those with the ignorant "The next gen consoles are equal to middle of the road PCs.", you show how naive you are when you say this. Their hardware might be equal to what you consider to be middle but the fact that it's ALL optimized for gaming means that it runs faster than your $3000 rig. I thought this was common knowledge, but seems to be a bit above some.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
While it's hard to argue with the multitude of amazingly intelligent points you bring to the table (as usual), I'll just say I'm not a "console type"; I'm a gamer, period. I play my PC, PS4, XB1, hell I'd be in the arcade still if there were still games worth playing that way. Guess we differ in that way...and I'm ok with that.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
hear! hear!
EQ2 fan sites
i agree
EQ2 fan sites
While I am all for console sharing mmos, I have to disagree when it comes to performance. Yes the new consoles are amazing but to say they are optimized in such way that a 3000 dollar rig (or even cheaper for that matter) is slower than a ps4? People are playing assassin's creed 3 above console settings with a single old card like an 8800 gt.
The new killzone is running on the ps4 around 32 fps average or so in single player and 45 or 48 in multiplayer. There are FPS games in my opinion that look as good as killzone and run way faster on the pc with the proper hardware. I would bet a single r9 290x or a Titan will keep up with the consoles in the future, if the graphics settings used in the game are comparable with the consoles. Just as graphic cards like the 8800 gt still perform well enough at 720p (and better settings than the console) playing crysis 2 for example. Again this is my opinion based on observations and before someone can set up a benchmark to run on both consoles this is how I see it.
No bitchers.
Seeing as the bulk of your post was either making assumptions or deciding that because x can run y at n speeds and a runs b at n speeds then x < a. I'm sure using simple math like that shows you how flawed your argument is.....moving on.
What you're not understanding, clearly, is that while you can definitely build something that can do what you "think". You're comparing platforms that have been tried and tested for 10+ years (PCs) to platforms that literally just came out. These aren't just iterations of old platforms, these are completely new configurations that the programmers now have to relearn and figure out how to optimize for.
Comparing Crysis 2(garbage) which is playable and looks GREAT on the PS3 is just an asinine excuse for an argument. The 8800gt can barely compete with the PS3, let alone the newer systems. I can only assume that you're trolling so my hats off to you.
(At least you edited your post to reflect and acknowledge your ignorance.)
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
First you are quiet agressive and I would say lack manners. Secondly yes there is no scientific proof, however there are people running ps3 games with the 8800gt, they just do not play at 1080p with 16x aniso the highest anti aliasing settings, tesselation and stuff like that. I own an old desktop with one (which is not my current main pc anyway) so it is not just other people but my own experience. People overestimate the capabilities of a console in my opinion and while there are indeed optimizations they are not enough to make up for the current high end gaming machines, in my and many other's opinion. At least i do show observations you on the other hand rely on us all believing what you say.
Lets agree to disagree you will not convince me (and obviously running the same games is not good enough to convince you) and will probably keep flamming so nothing good will come out of this.
One thing I do agree though they will be able to code better for the ps4 in the future but the r9 290x also will get better drivers. At some point some nvidia graphic cards, at least the 780 m, got aboost of 60% performance in tomb raider with a driver release, for example. I compare the 8800 gt with the 290x because they were both released around the "new" consoles. So it will be interesting to see how a titan or 290x will fair in (say 5 or 6 years) playing a ps4 title on even foot.
Threads like this:http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2344297 support my opinion. One can go to youtube and see these cards playing the games and not just read:).
However the big difference is that the 8800 gt was a HUGE step up in architecture. It was a REAL change not just an iteration, similar to the R9. I'm not arguing that there is more power on PCs...my point is that we require more power to get the same results, which has been scientifically proven time and time again. I play on all platforms so my preference only lies in genre so I have no vested interest in who has the best performance only the games I want to play.
Just because every car has similar features doesn't mean that Ferraris are copies of Model Ts. Progress requires failure and refining.
So sure, go build your PC with no games while I play my PS4 with 10-15 games for the same price lol
That is not really true. There are drivers that people make that do what you just said. That is why a PC is better, because there are a bunch of people that can make their own stuff. I cannot really think of anything that a user made to mod a pc, that Developers do better. Users made skyrim playable, and all the other TES games. They make better drivers, they make better Bios for parts, ect ect..... The user made content that I have played in MMOs that allow it, which the only one I have played is STO, was better then the Developers content. The mods for BF were way better then the battlefield game.
But with the play station your just stuck with the garbage they give you, and you have no choice. And the problem with that is sony only wants one thing, your money. So a good example of this is, the ps vita is capable of streaming bf3 from the ps3 to the vita, but since Sony only cares about money they stopped it.. Even though they said it was going to do that, but then they figured out they could make more money by selling people a ps vita copy of a game, and a ps3 copy of the game. So there you have it. You get content from developers who care little to nothing about anything other then your money.
But with a PC you get users who make content because they have fun doing it, and want other people to have fun, and dont expect money for it. That always always makes a better product.
As for me, I will never buy a console, when those dirty sony people told me if i bought there 300 dollar paper weight i could stream my ps3 games to it. But the only ones that could do that, are the people who put there own operating system on it. My guess though is a large majority of users of the play station could even figure out how to put a mod in skyrim, so i guess they bought the right gaming machine for them.
With all that said, that is why I think the thought of a console mmo is not a good idea, because that will ruin the pc version.
great, yet another mmo balanced around reduced interface and communication options .. just what we need.
LFD tools are great for cramming people into content, but quality > quantity.
I am, usually on the sandbox .. more "hardcore" side of things, but I also do just want to have fun. So lighten up already
There's still hope for everquest Land mark:)