4K Resolution FFXI And PS4

Since you altered my words, twisted and distorted while calling me ignorant. I don't have time to debate such.
I will say this tho......
The few games ported over don't count cuz they are 110% console based and AAA conversion here to there was never returned bk to console.

What and Where are AAA games on PC? The few anyone could name console owns the market with and sweeps the floor with such franchises.

Even if 1/10 Final Fantasy or Tomb Raider is ported doesn't make those games PC based nor blockbusters.

Name one PC game breaking records in sales or ported to PC from console that made a huge splash? Again this is a one sided affair.

It was too broad a generalization; I'll admit that. But I don't think it was intended as the bold faced lie it is on paper. It's nearly undeniable that the big devs that grew up making console games have never had a healthy interest in making a PC exclusive or games designed for that platform initially. What we've always wound up with, AAA-wise, have been ports of varying quality.

haha, go play those Playstation ports of Chrono Trigger and and stuff and tell me there wasn't a problem with loading times.

Eh, there have most definitely been a few PC specific AAA releases, but the idea of AAA studios is fairly recent unless you're talking about in-house stuff. And there are a lot of exclusive studios, too. I don't bat an eye at Naughty Dog not making PC games, they don't even make Xbox games, for example. So the list of AAA dev's who ignore PC isn't as long as it initially seems, and for at least 5-6 years of recent game history, good ports probably just weren't possible without the company taking a loss.

Of course, but a PC port is still the game being developed for PC, so the statement is still wrong. The games that you play on PC do not magically work for PC, they need development time to get there. That is what I would refer to as "being developed for PC".

There are similar examples of games being made on PC and ported over to consoles, obviously the development studio is going to use whatever is easiest and cheapest for their specific staff's skillsets and work from there. If developing the game using PS4/XBone hardware and then adapting it to work on PCs is the easiest for them, then so be it. But saying that the games are not developed for PC at all because they don't use PC hardware to make all of the games initially is foolish.

We also can't ignore the poor console ports over the years, some games that didn't even function on their initial release due to not being ported properly, people losing their save games and sometimes even corrupting all of the game data and requiring them to download the entire thing again. This is not a PC specific problem and it should not be painted as such.

Not sure what you mean. For example, Metal Gear was an MSX game, which was a Microsoft Japan home computer. Metal Gear Solid was released for Windows, published by Microsoft no less. It's technically the only version of Integral release outside Japan too if I recall.

There are PC versions of arcade (and in turn console) releases going back to basically ever. Often crummy, with early graphics modes on PC/C64/etc...but they tried. Castlevania was released for DOS, Sonic CD for Windows, etc. There were also crappy ports of PC games to consoles (King's Quest V for NES anyone? Half the DOOM ports, etc).

PC gaming isn't exactly just getting ports either. RTS and MOBAs still focus on that, competitive FPS was around before consoles typically had online at all - really most online gaming for that matter. Minecraft and similar for other more recent stuff.

There are pros and cons either way, great exclusives all around. Really quite a lot on PC though. You just don't necessarily see it on the shelf anymore due to most distribution being via Steam and the like.

Only PC to console coversion I can think of that worked was Maddens....
Electronic Arts took it and made Maddens, and the rest of thier sports franchises, into the beast that they are of today on console. Beyond that it's always been a one sided affair while console flourishes in sales. PC lacks and remains stagnant.

Of course consoles sell more copies of a game than PC, more people will own and play on a console for various reasons (ease of access, limited technical knowhow, wanting to keep their work and games separate, etc.). But this isn't even what I'm referring to. My issue is with your argument pertaining to "AAA Developers" not developing for PC, which is a false blanket statement that holds no ground.

If you really want examples though, until Fallout 4, all of Bethesda's games were developed on PC and brought over to console afterward.

Inb4 "Elder Scrolls and Fallout aren't AAA"

2 whole games? So console does showcase the best that PC can develop.....
I'll admit my memory was a little off but the vast majority of console gaming was not ported to PC bk then. I'm sure, it atleast should, get better in the present tense w/ PS4 Xbox1.
Point remains tho. No one will claim Final Fantasy nor Metal Gear are PC franchises. They might have a few in between ported but definitely not all were.

If people earlier in the thread are to be believed, they don't even do THAT. It's cheaper and easier for them to just contract that work out.

Also, I'm not talking about cases where the games have a multiplatform development life and release within a month on each platform or something, where it is clear that the devs spent real time developing something for inclusion on the PC, even though those cases are technically ports. I'm talking about ports in the more layman sense of the word, where something comes out on a different platform months or even years after it came out originally, as is the case with most of our recent(though well done) Final Fantasy releases.

We're getting way off of even the tangent that this thread turned into, though. I'm going to leave it at that. I think, now that I'm able to spend more time reading everything, that we're all correct, but we're all talking about completely different things.

"The evidence is only evidence when it works in my favor"


Yes, very different things. I'm not sure how you could think that I'm talking about month/yearlong port cycles when I'm arguing about the statement that AAA developers don't develop for PC and using references that were released same-day on PC and consoles. :C (for the most part)

I think the problem lies more with calling Bethesda a AAA developer. They basically only have Fallout and Elder Scrolls, which weren't even popular until recently(in the case of Elder Scrolls) or weren't even theirs(in the case of Fallout). Seriously, I worked at a GameStop from 2002 until about 2008 and I could hardly sell an elder scrolls game to save my life, on PC or on consoles, and they're some of my favorite games.

I got stuck on the part where you said something about several final fantasy games, nearly all of which have been recently ported. I'd also still contend that a game coming out for PCs and Consoles at the same time isn't automatically included in "being developed for PC."

But... they are a AAA developer so I'm not sure how it isn't a reasonable example.

Would we like some more examples?

Maxis
Firaxis
id Software
BioWare
Valve



All of these either develop on or for PC, and develop AAA titles. Unless we next want to say that the only titles that are to be referred to as AAA are Uncharted and Call of Duty, or some other ridiculous assertion.




Obviously wasn't talking about those when I even included a timestamp of "as early as the '80s".



And I would content that you're very wrong in your definition of "being developed", because once again, the game isn't going to magically work for PC. It requires development time. To be developed on, the game must be developed for PC in some fashion. Ergo, games that work on, or are ported for, PC are developed for PC.

I'm not sure what created today's gaming society's fascination with exclusivity and platform specific-centric arguments, but saying that "X is developed for Y" is not intrinsically stating that "X is developed exclusively for Y", if that's what you think I'm saying.

Like everyone says, labeling a dev AAA status, is all a matter of personal opinion. So the only way for me to personally solidify such claims is sales figures. I don't know any other way cuz they are right. It's all subjective and if PC doesn't sell as well, for whatever reason, I don't know how to claim any PC dev is a AAA studio....
If there's a PC game exclusive to PC that broke all sorts of sales figures and overwhelmed the masses. This game I don't know of. Never heard of it.

Because there's no such thing as a PC only dev, except for some indie studios that are obviously not AAA. I'm not disputing your sacred sales figures, I'm disputing your assertion that AAA studios do not develop for PC. If anything, your sales figures go directly against your own statement, because there are PC copies of those games being sold in those sales figures.

Are those numbers existing on another plane? Or did the studio port/develop the game over to PC? HmmmMMmmm!

You're taking things way out of context cause I was talking console vs PC exclusive development and if Konami ported 1/5 or 1/3 of all Metal Gear games to PC the fact remains that it is indeed a console franchise no? Same goes with the rest of the games I mentioned.

My whole case and point was that console is flooded with support yet PC is often overlooked and forgotten by developers time and time again throughout gaming history.

To add to that, I also take affront to your implied argument that the PC-centric studios aren't as good as the console-centric ones based solely on sales figures, when you for damn sure know that there are far more variables at play when it comes to comparing the sales numbers of PC and console games than just the quality of the games being released.

That's subjective. Even different consoles could be considered specific franchises. Is FF a Sony or Nintendo franchise?

Not really subjective. It's foremost a console franchise. Originally Nintendo's from NES to SNES and ever since Playstation but no one could argue it's a PC franchise since the vast majority of FF games never saw the light of day on PC.

SE won't even publish subscription information, you'll never get ahold of those numbers.

No, I disagree with that label. It isn't a "console franchise", it is a game franchise. The game itself is the focal point, the brand name associated with it that sells both games and spinoff merchandise. The fact that the games are developed or ported over to PC at all shows that the publisher and the developer saw the PC as a worthwhile investment to begin with.

I think the core difference between us is that you're seeing things as black and white while I see it as a mix of both. Separating it between separate fields is the problem with the Gaming industry these days, and there's 0 reason for it. The game is the same no matter what platform it's played on. The experience may change based on available options and accessories, but the game itself does not change.

Luckily, some devs and publishers see this too, and that's why I can not agree with your choice of naming for these franchises. If you want to choose more reasonable wording, such as "This franchise is dominant on consoles", that would be more acceptable. But outright saying "This franchise belongs to consoles" is false.

World of Warcraft is a PC exclusive flopbuster but does it = Final Fantasy? Idk.

Look man; I respect your infatuation with PC, as I now also play FFXI on PC and not console, as well. Yet I know the difference between console and PC development and achievements.

If not for consoles, gaming would be just as uninspired and lifeless as PC gaming has been throughout these years.

I'm not trying to kid myself into thinking that PC games pushed the video game industry into the > Hollywood status it has garnished..... Console is King of the industry. End of Story. I apologize. Moving on.

I'm saying that you saying "someone had to make this game work on the PC" is not the same as "this game was developed with running on a PC in mind."

Like, to illustrate the difference we could look at The Witcher 2 versus something like FFXIII, or even The Witcher 3(if those downgrade threads on 4chan hold any weight).

The Witcher 2 was developed for PCs and it shows. With the notorious ubersampling it is undeniable that they made it with PCs in mind and consoles were literally an afterthought. A year later someone "made it work" for consoles, including things like downgraded texture filtering and shadow quality to maintain an acceptable framerate(though the enhanced edition is not without its improvements).

FFXIII, on the other hand, was unequivocally developed for the PS3 and (much)later it came to the PC. It wasn't impressively updated, but I was able to get it into 4k resolution at 30 frames per second with some third party tools(could probably go higher and faster now that I have a 980 instead of a 480) for a simply beautiful game.

Edited to alleviate unreadable text wall

This is a bit of a misconception. Although games are often ported between platforms, hardware differences have played a huge role in the way games are programmed. An in-house studio is able to get a lot more mileage out of their devs if they're building a game specifically to one platform/console.

We're nearing the point where they'll be functionally interchangeable but I don't think we're there yet.

Like I said, the experience changes but the game itself does not (outside of stupid console-specific DLCs). What people should be focusing on is the games rather than the superiority of one platform to the other.

Much more cause to be upset by the growing integration of microtransactions and cut content DLCs than the sales figures of one platform to the other. Are these DLCs and other practices necessary with the growing cost of game development to stay at the top of the heap? Yes, no one can really argue against that, but what can be argued against is the content, and quality thereof, itself that is being put on offer.

oh man don't get me started on DLC.

Witcher 3 Heart of Stone expansion ($10) - 10+ hours of content, numerous additional equipments, monster species, characters, quests, and an entirely new love interest

Dragon Age Inquisition Jaws of Hakkon DLC ($15) - 3+ hours of content, a handful of crafting schematics, one or two new characters


???????????????????????

Why is one allowed to be so much better than the other?

because based slavic devs