Moderator: Content Admins
BovineDeath wrote:I pointed out that development costs for games now have blown out because of the need for more detailed, varied graphics and sound. Games used to be made by one or two guys in a shed. Dev teams have hundreds of people working on games now. This is not because of a certain piece of console hardware, if anything PC tech is more advanced and users demand higher graphical fidelity. That costs money.
If developers don't get adequate returns on development of PC games, then they won't do it. I just stated that if the assets weren't being developed for multiple formats, companies would not get adequate returns for making a lot of games PC exclusive.
hunterkiller wrote:I love the idea of a gaming OS and hopefully that will happen in the near future, it is said that MS are developing Windows 8 for gaming in mind but i dont think anyone is going to hold their breath about that.
Tim Colwill wrote:Carmack: Raw Horsepower of PC's ''Hampered'' by Console Development
John Carmack wrote:"But the timetables are so long, to do best of breed on here takes years to develop and engine and develop the content to go with it and you'll just run yourself out of business doing things that way.
"And those just end up being the cold hard economic truths," he concluded, "that you can spent $100 million working on a game now, and if you did that focused on the PC you'd be out of business."
John Carmack wrote:"It is a little bit of a shame that despite the raw horsepower, we are hampered by the arm's length API interface because it is, unhappily, true that we have the consoles here running at 60 frames per second and we can have these massively more powerful PC systems that struggle sometimes to hold the framerate because of unnecessary overheads.
"Where, if we were programming that hardware directly on the metal the same way we do the consoles, it would be significantly more powerful."
The end note was a positive one however, as Carmack said, "But there are moves afoot to be improving that and we are working closely with all the vendors to address that."
TRB wrote:hunterkiller wrote:I love the idea of a gaming OS and hopefully that will happen in the near future, it is said that MS are developing Windows 8 for gaming in mind but i dont think anyone is going to hold their breath about that.
Its true and I would bet money that the Xbox replacement coming in a few years will be running a version of win8.
in the same way that there are different versions of windows already for different devices, from media centre to portables.
I bet there will be a console version for their next console and I bet they will do so to make multi-platform development cheaper and faster.
now will that translate to better games for PC? I don't kow and thats the part I'm sceptical about.
exe3 wrote:For those blaming windows, when they talk about overheads I don't think they're referring to the OS using some of the systems resources.
BovineDeath wrote:exe3 wrote:For those blaming windows, when they talk about overheads I don't think they're referring to the OS using some of the systems resources.
Nah, he's talking about having to use the API's instead of controlling the hardware directly, which is something that the OS forces them to do. Plus, as well as the OS, you always have other stuff running - a messaging client, @#$%#$% adobe and apple updaters, and various other background programs.
Mekon wrote:Tim Colwill wrote:Carmack: Raw Horsepower of PC's ''Hampered'' by Console Development
I'm curious just where he expresses that opinion... yes, that's how CVG summarised the interview (which I haven't watched) but their article (and the GON summary of it) don't reflect that point of view.
Seems to me he says that the PC horsepower is hampered by development costs.
Mekon wrote:Where in that does he lay the blame on the consoles?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests