Good companies develop for PCs, then port

[catzilla]

 

- It doesn't remember your graphics preferences.

There is a way around that: change them before starting a game, then exit. They will be saved.

 

- Keyboard mappings only save if you change them before you start a game.

Same.

 

- You need three hands to drive and shoot at the same time.

No: left hand drives on keyboard, right hand shoots with mouse.

 

- The options still has the xbox controller when you click to view controls.

I use them (see the generic controller sticky).

[steve30x]

I agree that GTA IV should have been developed for the PC then done for the Consoles. Because the game was ported from a console it isnt up to par with a proper PC game.

[divinee]

rofl pc fanboy. gta 4 sold 11M on consoles while pc wont even sell 1M. pwnt?

LOL, only a retard thinks quality = quality? Yoi see the crap music that dominates the charts? Mass Appeal often means dumbed down to retards cna play it, PC gamers have much higher standards, console gamers buy any average crap because of sheer Stupidity.

quantity = quality u mean? just because u dont like the "crap music" dont mean other people dont like it.

 

gta 4 took $100M to make. lets say every gta is $50. pc version would have to sell 2M just to match 100M and u know it wont even get close to 2M in sales. pc version does have to ability to look alot better then console but does it make enough money? no.

 

not all console games are crap btw. some do look really nice. some even up to the pcs level.

[disposeablehero]

 

rofl pc fanboy. gta 4 sold 11M on consoles while pc wont even sell 1M. pwnt?

LOL, only a retard thinks quality = quality? Yoi see the crap music that dominates the charts? Mass Appeal often means dumbed down to retards cna play it, PC gamers have much higher standards, console gamers buy any average crap because of sheer Stupidity.

quantity = quality u mean? just because u dont like the "crap music" dont mean other people dont like it.

 

gta 4 took $100M to make. lets say every gta is $50. pc version would have to sell 2M just to match 100M and u know it wont even get close to 2M in sales. pc version does have to ability to look alot better then console but does it make enough money? no.

 

not all console games are crap btw. some do look really nice. some even up to the pcs level.

What does anything in this topic have to do with sales? It is common knowledge the music industry has been going downhill for ages, thats what happens when you have to appease the masses, and yes, console are dumbing down gaming and innovation. Sales does not equal quality = fact. If games were made PC first, devs would not have to worry about making a game to tailor to the lowest common denominator, then they could port it to consoel and still get sales, makes sense, but in todays world style of substance wins. no game on console matches PC graphics, fact. The same game comes out on both looks better on PC even if devs do not even try to improve the game to take advantage of PC tech (See Mass Effect, or any other port). If a game is designed from the ground up on PC, a game can look like crysis, which no console can even think of looking that good.

[catzilla]

Why don't them at least first make it for PC, port it to console, then hold it for half a year and then release the pc version? That would be so much better.

[Gaffa08]

 

rofl pc fanboy. gta 4 sold 11M on consoles while pc wont even sell 1M. pwnt?

Is this guy serious??

 

Judging by the FACT that GTA4 was release FIRST on console, of course its going to sell more. How many braincells did that kill trying to think about that? pwnt maybe?

 

Also, baring in mind console users get ripped off every time a game comes out is funny to laugh at. Console users pay £45-60 for a game whereas PC users pay £15-30 for a game. Then on top of that, can you use modding tools on consoles? I doubt that. Can you do it on PC? Yes!

 

It makes perfect logical sense for all games to be developed on PC as consoles are basically a PC anyway. The only difference with consoles is every console is the same... You wont get 2 different PS3's, or 2 different 360's. This is one reason why devs take the lazy approach as they don't have to optimise the game. You can basically see this from GTA4... Port and fail, for one reason, and one reason only... The optimisation is f*cked beyond belief.

 

Saying people can't use the high/highest setting because that's for next gen PC's, WTF??? What a load of bollocks... Sounds like Rockstar are trying to dig themselves out of a very deep hole. My PC and allot of other peoples PC's are monsters... So maxing GTA4 should be a walk in the park.

 

 

Also if you developed a pc game and all of a sudden wanted to port it to a consoles, chances are some features would have to be removed

 

Its easier to improve/remove features than add them in.

Edited December 11, 2008 by Gaffa08

[Sub12]

Think about it, every game, whether console or PC, are developed on PCs to begin with. So it is always the console which is the port. I am pretty sure GTA IV was first developed, then optimized first for the consoles then for the PCs. Obviously something went wrong with the PC release. It's a game that's been in development for 4 years, and such projects often rely on estimating power of future hardware. So maybe they overestimated? Same thing happened for Crysis. They thought the 8800 GTX would be dethroned significantly 1 year after release, but all we got was a 8800 GT which is less powerful. Normally we have new generations every year, that is the trend. 8800 GTX came in Sep 2006. Instead of late-2007, the GTX was only really dethroned in June 2008. That's a massive, massive lag. Same with the CPU scenario. Intel's normal tick-tock schedule is 1 year. Yet, a Q6600, which was released way back in 2006 still remains a favourite and a top notch CPU more than 2 years later. Yes, the Core i7s are finally hitting, but they aren't completely significantly faster. That is made worse by the fact that the mainstream versions - Core i5s, will only launch in H2 2009. Hardware has really slowed down, thanks in part to a lack of competition from ATI and AMD in 2007. But they are fighting back. The GPU market has completely come back to life since the 4870 launch, and there are rumours for the next-gen in mid-2009. Back on schedule!

 

I am going completely overboard though. Yes, you could call it a very unoptimized port. But there are reasons for it.

[Funkdafide]

I completely agree with the idea of aiming high and porting low. If companies were rational and responsible, this would be a no-brainer. Maximize the consumer base. Problem: too much time. The only reasoning I can see is short-sighted, profit motivated, corporate thinking. By limiting their target to console development equals a smaller focus and in turn a quicker development of a final product. There is no doubt that the console gaming market is much stronger than the pc, therefor they aim for the biggest payoff in the least amount of time. I don't believe you can pin much of the blame on the game company itself since they are likely at the whim of corporate investors. These people don't give a sh*t about anything if it doesn't mean dollars in their bank accounts. Their sole function is to generate profit, not develop games. Good games just happen to be the means they use to generate their profit. Since the money is more valuable than the games for the most part, their is a high probability these corporations will make huge errors in judgment. Example: GTA 4

 

On another note, I also find it incredible how irrational some people react to this whole issue. Yes, this game has some HUGE issues. Obviously Rockstar is aware of this and *hopefully* (though doubtful) they will learn something from it. Bitching and moaning to a bunch of gamers on a forum isn't going to achieve anything. Make your opinion count and get a god damn refund. Otherwise, sit back and wait (and hope and pray) for these fools to muster up a proper patch for this mess.

[Kreepman]

rofl pc fanboy. gta 4 sold 11M on consoles while pc wont even sell 1M. pwnt?

lol.

 

It just came out.

[NIR_NazcaC2]

John Carmack from iD Software said awhile ago that developing on the Xbox 360 was better and easier than developing on the PC.

[Gaffa08]

 

John Carmack from iD Software said awhile ago that developing on the Xbox 360 was better and easier than developing on the PC.

Of course its easier to develop on consoles.

 

Can you upgrade the hardware in a 360 or PS3? No... (well some parts, HDD for example..) Meaning they don't have to optimise the game. All consoles are the same.

[bekhan]

How they develop on the PS3 ? With a PS3 pad ?

sh*t, they win her developer license in a loto ?

[Vasil]

John Carmack from iD Software said awhile ago that developing on the Xbox 360 was better and easier than developing on the PC.

You people actually think that 360 developers do their job with the console itself, with the controller and all that stuff? .

[Weses]

Since PC's are much more superior, if the games are developed on them, the console versions will have to be compromised greatly as far as detail goes. I wish everybody played on PC so that wouldn't have to happen.

[ikt]

Playing games on a console is easier. Stick disc in, play. I agree wth the superiority of computers, but most people don't even know how to use their computer properly. In fact, most people don't even know what there is in their computer. Or Dutch people are stupid. What i doubt.

[gwalker]

Wawawaaaa more babycrying. STFU and get a refund if you don't like it.

Why dont you STFU ??? some (no sorry most) people cant play and cant get a refund.

 

I got one copy from Play and one from Gamestation, opened pack = no refund.

 

Play.com (return policy)

You may return any unopened item within 7 days of receiving it, for a full refund. We will refund your card once we have received and processed the item.

 

Gamestation (return policy)

Any software may be returned for refund or exchange within 28 days of the despatch date, providing that the seal remains unbroken on the software.

[ArecBalrin]

Bioshock was developed heavily as a PC game. It was almost certainly a port to Xbox 360 from a PC, with the very good Unreal3 engine making it a breeze. The only issue was that PCs had to(and still have to) put up with a physics refresh rate capped at about 15 or 20 frames per second, far below the graphics FPS. But it was *optomised* almost perfectly, even using DirectX 10 without taking a huge performance hit. It's the only DX10-enabled game I know of that has managed to avoid a performance hit with the app yet.

 

So really why is it so hard to do this? PCs are not a minority platform; they are the single largest gaming platform demographically and I'm not talking about casual games like Minesweeper and Peggle.

 

Because of this, devs for Halo, Assassin's Creed and Gears of War straight came out and said that if they did release for PC at the same time as the console versions, they know they would lose money because people would opt for the PC version which goes for between £10 to £20 less than the console RRP. PC owners simply refuse to buy anything for £35 or higher unless the Second Coming is promised with the purchase. We are experts at waiting, and waiting, and waiting, price hits £20, sold.

 

But on the PC, games lives forever, if they are good and recognised for what they are. Many console games get forgotten, even the very good ones. But on the PC a community is allowed to grow around it, mods are made and the longetivity is huge. Remember Starcraft? Remember Shogun: Total War? Remember Deus Ex? Half-Life? Of course you do. What they all have in common is that they are western-made games: this is important. Remember Body Harvest? Remember Aliens VS Predator the RTS? Remember Champion Boxer? Some of you do, but I'd hedge my bet that most of you do not. These non-PC games, two of which scored 90% on average and AvP RTS not doing too badly either. Three prime examples of games which I think would still be with us if they had been on PC, been modded, expanded multiplayer, new content, etc. We'd be seeing sequels now, sequels which would net the developers and publisher MORE money, but they had to foolishly go console-only, not realising their games were better than they thought and were ripe for PC-based expansion.

 

What is important is that these are all western games. Only Nintendo, Capcom, Konami, etc, eastern-based game developers ever made a console-only franchise last. Westerners have *always* needed the PC. Your game will DIE without the PC and you will lose money by being conservative and treating the PC as a second market.

[disposeablehero]

 

John Carmack from iD Software said awhile ago that developing on the Xbox 360 was better and easier than developing on the PC.

What does that have to do with developing on PC first, learn some comprehension. he also never said it ws easier, just made more sense financially. also, you realise every game ever made was made on Pc right? They are then made (AKA dumbed down) to run on consoles using dev kits? This reason alone means Pc gaming will always be there, without PC console would not exist, also, independant devs always start on PC. It costs hundreds of thousands to be a certified Console dev and recieve a dev kit, for this reason new devs alwats start on PC (Crytek, CDPROJECT, GSCGAMEWORLD). By the time they go to console and PC, new independant devs arise on PC, cycle repeats. Pc is where all the innovation happens. Stalker devs only recently could even afford to become a 360 certitifed dev because of the success of Stalker. consoles are controlled way too much by the manufacturers and big publishers.

Edited December 11, 2008 by disposeablehero

[AndreasEr]

 

rofl pc fanboy. gta 4 sold 11M on consoles while pc wont even sell 1M. pwnt?

That's because the mediocre majority like yourself can't handle a mouse and a keyboard.

That's why the console version sold like that.

 

And I'm sure if R* would have released the PC version at the same time with Xbox and PS3, the numbers would have been closer.

 

But anyways, consoles win in earnings. But it's important to know why as well

I doubt that GTA4 for PC will sell less than 1 million copies, it probably won't reach 11 million, but that you can only blame Rockstar for, not us.

Know why? pirates ....

[gtathebest4ever]

so what exactly is wrong with the pc port? it's the same as the console versions, i really don't get it, can someone explain?

[NIR_NazcaC2]

Excuse me? I only said what he said. Learn some comprehension? WTF. Going further, he referred to the development tools were more intuitive and easier than PC's. And, lastly, I'm all for PC's, I don't own any consoles. Before you jump to your sad conclusions just to bash someone else, think before you talk.

[ArecBalrin]

so what exactly is wrong with the pc port? it's the same as the console versions, i really don't get it, can someone explain?

Well that's the problem: a PC is not a console. For people who have the game, the code they are running is not at all designed for the PC. It's led to speculation that to get it running, it's merely using the CPU as an emulator of the PS3 or 360 hardware. Rather than translate GTA IV into PC, they gave the PC a crash course in how to speak Console, badly. This is the best theory so far explaining why the game uses so much CPU power(too much if you're on dual-core and too little if you are on quad-core) yet does very little with any video card.

 

So they haven't changed GTA IV very much, they've simply added an emulator and changed a few words in a few files. A PC by all rights should run GTA IV many times better than any console at a far higher visual fidelity. Instead, different settings in the visual fidelity don't appear to make much impact on performance and the game runs terrible comparatively on any configuration. Some people think 30fps on high settings and 800x600 resolution is fine, I don't argue with that. My point is concerning the performance in relation to the hardware, not customer expectations. I have a Q6600, 320mb 8800GTS, 4GB system RAM and Vista 64-bit and I would be happy if I got 50fps on medium settings at 1200x780, only slightly better performance than the 360 version, but I *know* this machine can do excessively better than that given that GTA IV is most certainly not 'next-gen', is not designed to utilise any predicted next-gen hardware, only uses DirectX 9(reviewers seem to have been told it had DirectX 10 only a short while ago) and there is no significant performance or fidelity difference between high and very high settings. Rockstar are giving their Rage engine CryEngine2 hype without backing it up with anything approaching CryEngine2 flexibility, reliability, performance and features. When Crysis came out, Crytek predicted it would be two years before technology would catch up with it enough for it to no longer be considered 'next-gen', meaning it would no longer be the benchmark for determining future-proofness. After a year, hardware has improved significantly enough that DX10 on very high settings in high resolution at 60FPS is now possible, sometimes without even an SLI or Crossfire config, just a little over-clocking. By summer, CryEngine2 will be 'current-gen'.

 

GTA IV is a game which is at this moment, nowhere near 'next-'gen'. In just a few months, it will be 'last-gen' but 'future-gen' systems will still not be able to play it like they should, unless Rockstar pulls their fingers out and release an optomised build like they should have done in the first place. They had seven months to do it, that's plenty of time. Instead they spent a dispicable amount of money on ineffective and inconvenient anti-piracy measures, added bloat-ware, stuck Bully in an emulator and sold it on PC in a half-broke state and now they did it with their golden goose.

[disposeablehero]

Excuse me? I only said what he said. Learn some comprehension? WTF. Going further, he referred to the development tools were more intuitive and easier than PC's. And, lastly, I'm all for PC's, I don't own any consoles. Before you jump to your sad conclusions just to bash someone else, think before you talk.

The dev tools for 360 are no better then Pc, Pc has many more tools available, but 360 and PC are very similar, PS3 is worse then both, learn some facts. Carmack NEVER SAID the tools were easier, just that being all the same machine makes it easier, development for Pc is vastly

easier due to Pc having a wide arrange of tools and ANYONE can develop for it. Thats fact. It is also fact consoel games are designed on PC.

[GTA_XP]

Happy Crysis never made for the goddamned outpissed consoles

The only game that the consoles pwns.

Hurray for the CryTek.

 

And now we all waithing ages for the patch.

Maybe the patch will comes out if we are married, got kids and getting old to get die lol

[Arlov]

Excuse me?  I only said what he said.  Learn some comprehension? WTF.  Going further, he referred to the development tools were more intuitive and easier than PC's.  And, lastly, I'm all for PC's, I don't own any consoles.  Before you jump to your sad conclusions just to bash someone else, think before you talk.

The dev tools for 360 are no better then Pc, Pc has many more tools available, but 360 and PC are very similar, PS3 is worse then both, learn some facts. Carmack NEVER SAID the tools were easier, just that being all the same machine makes it easier, development for Pc is vastly

easier due to Pc having a wide arrange of tools and ANYONE can develop for it. Thats fact. It is also fact consoel games are designed on PC.

Well, check 1:10 in this video

 

What he really means to say though, is probably that the 360 is the first console to have DevTools decent enough for Id to not have to make their own tools instead.

[gtathebest4ever]

so what exactly is wrong with the pc port? it's the same as the console versions, i really don't get it, can someone explain?

Well that's the problem: a PC is not a console. For people who have the game, the code they are running is not at all designed for the PC. It's led to speculation that to get it running, it's merely using the CPU as an emulator of the PS3 or 360 hardware. Rather than translate GTA IV into PC, they gave the PC a crash course in how to speak Console, badly. This is the best theory so far explaining why the game uses so much CPU power(too much if you're on dual-core and too little if you are on quad-core) yet does very little with any video card.

 

So they haven't changed GTA IV very much, they've simply added an emulator and changed a few words in a few files. A PC by all rights should run GTA IV many times better than any console at a far higher visual fidelity. Instead, different settings in the visual fidelity don't appear to make much impact on performance and the game runs terrible comparatively on any configuration. Some people think 30fps on high settings and 800x600 resolution is fine, I don't argue with that. My point is concerning the performance in relation to the hardware, not customer expectations. I have a Q6600, 320mb 8800GTS, 4GB system RAM and Vista 64-bit and I would be happy if I got 50fps on medium settings at 1200x780, only slightly better performance than the 360 version, but I *know* this machine can do excessively better than that given that GTA IV is most certainly not 'next-gen', is not designed to utilise any predicted next-gen hardware, only uses DirectX 9(reviewers seem to have been told it had DirectX 10 only a short while ago) and there is no significant performance or fidelity difference between high and very high settings. Rockstar are giving their Rage engine CryEngine2 hype without backing it up with anything approaching CryEngine2 flexibility, reliability, performance and features. When Crysis came out, Crytek predicted it would be two years before technology would catch up with it enough for it to no longer be considered 'next-gen', meaning it would no longer be the benchmark for determining future-proofness. After a year, hardware has improved significantly enough that DX10 on very high settings in high resolution at 60FPS is now possible, sometimes without even an SLI or Crossfire config, just a little over-clocking. By summer, CryEngine2 will be 'current-gen'.

 

GTA IV is a game which is at this moment, nowhere near 'next-'gen'. In just a few months, it will be 'last-gen' but 'future-gen' systems will still not be able to play it like they should, unless Rockstar pulls their fingers out and release an optomised build like they should have done in the first place. They had seven months to do it, that's plenty of time. Instead they spent a dispicable amount of money on ineffective and inconvenient anti-piracy measures, added bloat-ware, stuck Bully in an emulator and sold it on PC in a half-broke state and now they did it with their golden goose.

right now i'm playing a pirated version, before i get the original (can't find it but i'm trying), and the cracked version runs MUCH better then the original. i have 2 gb of ram, 8600 gts graphic card with 512 mb of ram, core 2 duo processor @ 2.6 ghz, and run this game with everything on max except textures (medium), resolution 1280x1024, and i get a decent 30 fps average. it was very strange for me to see people with much stronger pcs than mine complaining with this game, because they can't go over medium without textures disappearing and what not. so it must be because of bad coding, just like you said. the crack fixes R*'s lazy coding.

[ArecBalrin]

If we're talking about the crack that was released in the days just before release, that makes sense.

 

Rockpapershotgun is a PC games blog made by journos at PC Gamer. One did the review for PCG, another did it for Eurogamer. One of them said that his review version of the game(which he would have started playing in early Nov) was a system hog, but did not have ANY of the bugs the release version has.

 

I'm assuming the crack is a cracked review copy, not a release copy. They have different versions of SecureROM and Games for Windows. They're the main culprits for bugs in this case. The performance though is solely down no optomisation. I have no idea how Rockstar Toronto thought this would be acceptable. They're either liviing in a dream-world or aren't core PC players themselves.