I don't think you've been paying attention. Ignoring the DRM, some titles being ported from console to PC, not only do they have better graphics, there's better control schemes and extra content.
Even if Epic had to, I somehow doubt they'd do it. They've stated multiple times that they would never make a Wii game.
The reason being? They want to keep pushing the latest hardware and see what they can do with it. Apparently doing something with the old hardware is outside of their scope.
All that tells me that they don't know how to develop an efficient game. They could port one of their older games to the Wii if they wanted to do so. It would probably sell nicely too if it was done right.
I realize companies like this enjoy making glorified tech demos and once in a while coming out with a game that's actually good. But you know what? For whatever reason, people have always enjoyed their glorified tech demos in the past and they've sold nicely and have been lauded as an awesome experience. As I stated earlier, it probably wouldn't hurt them to port something to the Wii. A few tweaks to AI here. Optimizing the control scheme there. Perhaps a few new pieces of content. Boom, people are happy. It seems awfully short sighted to not at the very least consider it.
And do you think what you get from Fox or CNN is any more credible? I find that you can't trust any news agency, big name or not. Each one has an agenda and a set of advertisers. If you do anything to upset your advertisers you lose money.
Secondly, he regarded all other drivers as dangerous even though the world is full of competent drivers.
Well yes, there are plenty of other competent drivers out there, but Childs point was that he feels the other drivers in his locality aren't competent. It says nothing of the broader group, "the whole".
By what percentage does the HD4780 "spank" the GTX280 exactly? Are we talking twice as fast? Maybe 10 times as fast? Just curious.
It depends on the game. HL2: EP2 shows a massive 30% gain. ET:QW? A few percent. Crysis? The GTX 280 wins (not by a whole lot). Oh, and the GTX 280 will cost you a couple hundred dollars more too. It has the price and performance over Nivida. I just hope they aren't losing money on these cards like they have with their processors. When was the last time an ATI card was king of the hill in the GPU segment?
AMD's acquisition of ATI has really improved driver support for ATI cards. It shows. No longer does one have to fear that their game won't run correctly with an ATI card.
And the ATI purchase was a bad move because they simply didn't have the money. It is the reason why AMD may be closing up shop by 2009.
And they simply couldn't have afforded not to either. AMD needs to stay competitive. The only way they're going to do that is by constantly reinventing the wheel like they've done in the past. The new idea of a GPU processor put into your CPU will probably be the next generation.
AMD closing its doors next year is all speculation anyway. Hopefully their new CEO will turn things around.
It doesn't matter how badass their cards are when they are gone. But I guess you can email all the out of work AMD employees and congratulate them on what a fabulous decision it was to buy ATI. I'm sure they will appreciate it. And which part about losing over a billion dollars last quarter did you miss exactly?
Wow, there's a lot of irrelevant flamebait there. Them buying ATI a couple years ago has nothing to do with the money they lost this year. Or were you too busy trying to bait me to notice that?
I want to disagree with you, but you're essentially right.
However, both ATI and Nvidia scale back their design for cheaper cards. While they push out 512MB/1GB cards for $xxx amount, they can push out 64MB variants at the $30 range.
Now, what I'd like to see is companies like Dell making deals with these guys to put in these low end cards into their desktops instead of using on-board video, instead of using only their high end cards for their over priced PC's. The extra cost would be minimal.
It would make huge leaps and bounds for the PC gaming market. Now instead of the average person most likely having no video card in their box, they now at least have one. It might be weak, but it's a better base-line to work with. I have seen numerous of these casual games, like Roller Coaster Tycoon 3, have extremely poor framerate on those type of PC's where even with the onboard GPU, they exceed the minimum system requirements, and some of the PC's specs far exceed the recommended system requirements.
AMD tried to buy Nvidia, but Nvidia said no. They went after number 2 in that market, ATI.
And why exactly was buying ATI a bad move? ATI cards have come a very long way in a very short time since AMD has bought them. Who's king of the hill in the GPU market now? ATI. Why? It's because the driver support has significantly improved. ATI cards have always had better hardware for them afaik, that was never the issue.
ATI's new cards spank Nvidia's with moon rocks, hard. Not only do they perform better, they're also significantly cheaper.
And how exactly was buying ATI a mistake? Every since AMD bought ATI, ATI's driver support has became significantly better. ATI cards have usually had better hardware than NVidia's cards. With the improvement in Driver support plus the better hardware and at lower prices (I hope AMD isn't losing money for the lower cost of these cards), ATI is now finally king of the hill in the GPU segment.
Maybe you should read the article again. The women wrote that on her blog, thinking it was the real deal, even if it was spam. The first 3/4 of the sentences proves that she initially thought at first glance, "hey, this can't be too bad".
If it's exactly the same then it went through the same QA.
Well yes and no. Yes, it went through the same QA testing with whoever manufactured said RAM. However, I doubt Dell and Apple test their hardware the same. So really, it goes through at least two different phases. One at the manufacturer, and one at the jerks who like to sell overpriced PC's.
Again, you get what you pay for. If you decide to buy cheap RAM, there's a good chance you'll be buying it twice.
And so would Apple (in some fashion). If the RAM you get is defective, RMA'ing it always works. All you pay for is shipping. That alternative is still cheaper than going through Apple, for those that have the know how.
Just because it might have the "duh" factor around here, that doesn't mean that Cnet's target audience is nearly as tech savvy as the rest of us. Besides, it gives us a reason to bitch about something.
Games are released later on the PC because the market's so much smaller.
That's a perceived notion created by asshats who don't know how to program their games. The market is there, and it's huge. We just don't want to be ripped-off with shitty games. But apparently you console kiddies eat that stuff up. If you're making a crappy game, it should be priced accordingly from the time it's released to the public.
I don't see the problem with controller interfaces...
Every person who has said this has been a person who hasn't tried playing both console games and PC games. You don't see the problem because you're not educated enough about the problem.
guns aren't supposed to be fast to aim with. I think PC gamers have just got used to running around at 100mph shooting accurately at single-pixel targets twelve times a second.
If that really was the case, then why add that nifty little delayed auto-aim feature in every single FPS console game? Why do you think they do that? I'll give you a hint, it's because they realize the limitations of the controller, and therefore try to make up for it with that. They want to try and simulate fast paced action and accuracy as much as possible.
I think PC gamers like you are just sore that you're flagship genre, the FPS, is now bigger on consoles, so all you're left with really is poopsocking MMOs, and maybe an RTS every ten years or so.
We're not really sore about anything, we're just tired of hearing the same shit every fucking cycle from nincompoops who believe that somehow they have amazing insight. It's even more annoying when the same fucking bullshit comes from studio heads who clearly have had their head up their ass for far too long.
Want to bash PC gaming? Try doing so intelligently.
I know console gamers bitch about this too to some extent, but maybe if they stopped buying those fucking games in the first place, they wouldn't be made so often.
Why wouldn't they buy them if they enjoy them?
You missed the point. If you, the consumer, is unhappy with how something turns out time after time again, and the company making said product refuses to even acknowledge that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, you do have options to make your voice heard. Voting with your dollars is the simplest method.
COD4 of Halo 3 on the console are more fun than anything the PC can offer like Crysis or shit like that.
COD4 was released on the PC at the same time, or very shortly after. The Halo games? All gonna be on the PC. Halo 1 had more stuff added to the game for the PC port.
Games being ported from console to PC, if done correctly, are better as far as the individual experience goes. Look at Mass Effect. So much more content and higher resolution graphics. The PC can offer more than the console can at this point. Can you easily mod your games on the console (and no I don't mean cheating)? No. Will you ever in the future? Who knows, but certainly not anytime soon. PC gamers do enjoy taking the SDK's and seeing what they can create from them.
It's only comic book guy PC gamers who whine about keyboards and mice. What exactly do PC FPSes challenge you on other than moving the mouse around really fast? I mean, other than installing hacks and cheats.
And it's the console fanboys who seem to think that somehow mouse and keyboard setups aren't better.
Look, games that are generally not being made for the console first, tend to be harder because the AI is better. The AI needs to be dumbed down on console versions because the controller setup isn't nearly as fast or accurate than the mouse and keyboard setup. It's also why there's a delayed autoaim feature on console versions. This is exactly the reason why FPS's getting ported from console to PC are generally ridiculously easy. They don't ramp up the AI in some fashion. They don't even bother to add more things to shoot at.
A lot of the FPS's on consoles are later ported to the PC. The PC variant of those games are easy, even on the hardest difficulty.
Why is that they're considerably easier on the PC? Mouse and Keyboard.
The challenge doesn't have to be the control scheme. If the console kiddies want that, let them have it. I'd rather have a game that challenges me in other ways, not on how well I can contort two joysticks.
Can't give me that? Then you're developing on the "wrong" platform.
I know console gamers bitch about this too to some extent, but maybe if they stopped buying those fucking games in the first place, they wouldn't be made so often.
It did, for the most part. You needed some highly decked out gear to be able to reasonbly solo hell difficulty. After the 1.10 patch, my bowazon, which didn't have uber gear, took over an hour to beat Baal. Before that patch I could solo the game reasonably.
I think it's some secret plot created by pedophiles. It looks to see if any kid is stupid enough to enter their actual age. Then when one is, it routes all necessary information it can gleam from that back to a master server... The thinking must be "hey, if they're stupid enough to enter their real age, maybe they're stupid enough to get into my car!"
The original developers created Hellgate: London, and that game was terrible. It's clearly not the developers who made the Diablo series what it, it's Blizzard, as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think you've been paying attention. Ignoring the DRM, some titles being ported from console to PC, not only do they have better graphics, there's better control schemes and extra content.
Even if Epic had to, I somehow doubt they'd do it. They've stated multiple times that they would never make a Wii game.
The reason being? They want to keep pushing the latest hardware and see what they can do with it. Apparently doing something with the old hardware is outside of their scope.
All that tells me that they don't know how to develop an efficient game. They could port one of their older games to the Wii if they wanted to do so. It would probably sell nicely too if it was done right.
I realize companies like this enjoy making glorified tech demos and once in a while coming out with a game that's actually good. But you know what? For whatever reason, people have always enjoyed their glorified tech demos in the past and they've sold nicely and have been lauded as an awesome experience. As I stated earlier, it probably wouldn't hurt them to port something to the Wii. A few tweaks to AI here. Optimizing the control scheme there. Perhaps a few new pieces of content. Boom, people are happy. It seems awfully short sighted to not at the very least consider it.
No problems here.
Who buddy, that's one mighty high horse you've got yourself planted on there.
And do you think what you get from Fox or CNN is any more credible? I find that you can't trust any news agency, big name or not. Each one has an agenda and a set of advertisers. If you do anything to upset your advertisers you lose money.
Secondly, he regarded all other drivers as dangerous even though the world is full of competent drivers.
Well yes, there are plenty of other competent drivers out there, but Childs point was that he feels the other drivers in his locality aren't competent. It says nothing of the broader group, "the whole".
By what percentage does the HD4780 "spank" the GTX280 exactly? Are we talking twice as fast? Maybe 10 times as fast? Just curious.
It depends on the game. HL2: EP2 shows a massive 30% gain. ET:QW? A few percent. Crysis? The GTX 280 wins (not by a whole lot). Oh, and the GTX 280 will cost you a couple hundred dollars more too. It has the price and performance over Nivida. I just hope they aren't losing money on these cards like they have with their processors. When was the last time an ATI card was king of the hill in the GPU segment?
AMD's acquisition of ATI has really improved driver support for ATI cards. It shows. No longer does one have to fear that their game won't run correctly with an ATI card.
And the ATI purchase was a bad move because they simply didn't have the money. It is the reason why AMD may be closing up shop by 2009.
And they simply couldn't have afforded not to either. AMD needs to stay competitive. The only way they're going to do that is by constantly reinventing the wheel like they've done in the past. The new idea of a GPU processor put into your CPU will probably be the next generation.
AMD closing its doors next year is all speculation anyway. Hopefully their new CEO will turn things around.
It doesn't matter how badass their cards are when they are gone. But I guess you can email all the out of work AMD employees and congratulate them on what a fabulous decision it was to buy ATI. I'm sure they will appreciate it. And which part about losing over a billion dollars last quarter did you miss exactly?
Wow, there's a lot of irrelevant flamebait there. Them buying ATI a couple years ago has nothing to do with the money they lost this year. Or were you too busy trying to bait me to notice that?
I want to disagree with you, but you're essentially right.
However, both ATI and Nvidia scale back their design for cheaper cards. While they push out 512MB/1GB cards for $xxx amount, they can push out 64MB variants at the $30 range.
Now, what I'd like to see is companies like Dell making deals with these guys to put in these low end cards into their desktops instead of using on-board video, instead of using only their high end cards for their over priced PC's. The extra cost would be minimal.
It would make huge leaps and bounds for the PC gaming market. Now instead of the average person most likely having no video card in their box, they now at least have one. It might be weak, but it's a better base-line to work with. I have seen numerous of these casual games, like Roller Coaster Tycoon 3, have extremely poor framerate on those type of PC's where even with the onboard GPU, they exceed the minimum system requirements, and some of the PC's specs far exceed the recommended system requirements.
AMD tried to buy Nvidia, but Nvidia said no. They went after number 2 in that market, ATI.
And why exactly was buying ATI a bad move? ATI cards have come a very long way in a very short time since AMD has bought them. Who's king of the hill in the GPU market now? ATI. Why? It's because the driver support has significantly improved. ATI cards have always had better hardware for them afaik, that was never the issue.
ATI's new cards spank Nvidia's with moon rocks, hard. Not only do they perform better, they're also significantly cheaper.
And how exactly was buying ATI a mistake? Every since AMD bought ATI, ATI's driver support has became significantly better. ATI cards have usually had better hardware than NVidia's cards. With the improvement in Driver support plus the better hardware and at lower prices (I hope AMD isn't losing money for the lower cost of these cards), ATI is now finally king of the hill in the GPU segment.
Maybe you should read the article again. The women wrote that on her blog, thinking it was the real deal, even if it was spam. The first 3/4 of the sentences proves that she initially thought at first glance, "hey, this can't be too bad".
I think I saw her in a porn once, and then got spam from the website!
This is God. And no, I won't get a life. You try living for eons upon eons and entertaining yourself. Go ahead, do it!
If it's exactly the same then it went through the same QA.
Well yes and no. Yes, it went through the same QA testing with whoever manufactured said RAM. However, I doubt Dell and Apple test their hardware the same. So really, it goes through at least two different phases. One at the manufacturer, and one at the jerks who like to sell overpriced PC's.
Forget that. I want blackjack and hookers! In fact, I want a browser coded by blackjack and hookers.
And if that fails... more duct tape! Always worked for me.
Again, you get what you pay for. If you decide to buy cheap RAM, there's a good chance you'll be buying it twice.
And so would Apple (in some fashion). If the RAM you get is defective, RMA'ing it always works. All you pay for is shipping. That alternative is still cheaper than going through Apple, for those that have the know how.
Mod this parent down for spreading disinformation. The fact is, it's the same fucking hardware you can buy from Circuit City or Newegg.
Or you can go back to the kool-aid. There's always plenty of tasks for the sheeple.
Just because it might have the "duh" factor around here, that doesn't mean that Cnet's target audience is nearly as tech savvy as the rest of us. Besides, it gives us a reason to bitch about something.
Games are released later on the PC because the market's so much smaller.
That's a perceived notion created by asshats who don't know how to program their games. The market is there, and it's huge. We just don't want to be ripped-off with shitty games. But apparently you console kiddies eat that stuff up. If you're making a crappy game, it should be priced accordingly from the time it's released to the public.
I don't see the problem with controller interfaces...
Every person who has said this has been a person who hasn't tried playing both console games and PC games. You don't see the problem because you're not educated enough about the problem.
guns aren't supposed to be fast to aim with. I think PC gamers have just got used to running around at 100mph shooting accurately at single-pixel targets twelve times a second.
If that really was the case, then why add that nifty little delayed auto-aim feature in every single FPS console game? Why do you think they do that? I'll give you a hint, it's because they realize the limitations of the controller, and therefore try to make up for it with that. They want to try and simulate fast paced action and accuracy as much as possible.
I think PC gamers like you are just sore that you're flagship genre, the FPS, is now bigger on consoles, so all you're left with really is poopsocking MMOs, and maybe an RTS every ten years or so.
We're not really sore about anything, we're just tired of hearing the same shit every fucking cycle from nincompoops who believe that somehow they have amazing insight. It's even more annoying when the same fucking bullshit comes from studio heads who clearly have had their head up their ass for far too long.
Want to bash PC gaming? Try doing so intelligently.
Why wouldn't they buy them if they enjoy them?
You missed the point. If you, the consumer, is unhappy with how something turns out time after time again, and the company making said product refuses to even acknowledge that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, you do have options to make your voice heard. Voting with your dollars is the simplest method.
COD4 of Halo 3 on the console are more fun than anything the PC can offer like Crysis or shit like that.
COD4 was released on the PC at the same time, or very shortly after. The Halo games? All gonna be on the PC. Halo 1 had more stuff added to the game for the PC port.
Games being ported from console to PC, if done correctly, are better as far as the individual experience goes. Look at Mass Effect. So much more content and higher resolution graphics. The PC can offer more than the console can at this point. Can you easily mod your games on the console (and no I don't mean cheating)? No. Will you ever in the future? Who knows, but certainly not anytime soon. PC gamers do enjoy taking the SDK's and seeing what they can create from them.
It's only comic book guy PC gamers who whine about keyboards and mice. What exactly do PC FPSes challenge you on other than moving the mouse around really fast? I mean, other than installing hacks and cheats.
And it's the console fanboys who seem to think that somehow mouse and keyboard setups aren't better.
Look, games that are generally not being made for the console first, tend to be harder because the AI is better. The AI needs to be dumbed down on console versions because the controller setup isn't nearly as fast or accurate than the mouse and keyboard setup. It's also why there's a delayed autoaim feature on console versions. This is exactly the reason why FPS's getting ported from console to PC are generally ridiculously easy. They don't ramp up the AI in some fashion. They don't even bother to add more things to shoot at.
A lot of the FPS's on consoles are later ported to the PC. The PC variant of those games are easy, even on the hardest difficulty.
Why is that they're considerably easier on the PC? Mouse and Keyboard.
The challenge doesn't have to be the control scheme. If the console kiddies want that, let them have it. I'd rather have a game that challenges me in other ways, not on how well I can contort two joysticks.
Can't give me that? Then you're developing on the "wrong" platform.
I know console gamers bitch about this too to some extent, but maybe if they stopped buying those fucking games in the first place, they wouldn't be made so often.
It did, for the most part. You needed some highly decked out gear to be able to reasonbly solo hell difficulty. After the 1.10 patch, my bowazon, which didn't have uber gear, took over an hour to beat Baal. Before that patch I could solo the game reasonably.
I think it's some secret plot created by pedophiles. It looks to see if any kid is stupid enough to enter their actual age. Then when one is, it routes all necessary information it can gleam from that back to a master server... The thinking must be "hey, if they're stupid enough to enter their real age, maybe they're stupid enough to get into my car!"
The original developers created Hellgate: London, and that game was terrible. It's clearly not the developers who made the Diablo series what it, it's Blizzard, as a whole.