Id follows Crytek, Lucas Arts

[frythecpuofbender]

About Killzone2:

How it works.

1. RSX renders frame at 640 x 360 and send it to CELL.
2. CELL upscales to 720p, then applies a bunch of advanced post processing like filtering, motion blur, and depth of field to hide its low resolution look.

Final rendering res is 960x1080 (for 1080i output) or 1280x720 for 720p output.


http://cmpmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/vaul...sCaseStudy.pdf

Holy fuck, RSX renders Killzone 2 at 640 x 360, then CELL takes it and post process it to fake HD look with post processing??? Unbelievable!!!!

http://img9.imageshack.us/img9/5202/image1xqx.jpg
Quality of Typical Raw RSX render output.

http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/5629/image2lpm.jpg
RSX renders at 1/4th of resolution

http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/2885/image3r.jpg
A whole bunch of blurring added

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/7872/image4sgy.jpg
Combine RSX output with blurring.

 

[CoinOperatedBoy]

Originally posted by: frythecpuofbender
http://cmpmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/vaul...sCaseStudy.pdf

Link is broken.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: CoinOperatedBoy

Originally posted by: frythecpuofbender
http://cmpmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/vaul...sCaseStudy.pdf

Link is broken.

Source with correct linkage: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=53842

edit: this is actually pretty interesting stuff. While I don't think anyone would argue that rendering games at 1920x1080 natively wouldn't be preferrable, it is a quite fascinating and impressive what they can do with post processing effects to a low rez image.

edit 2: You guys got way off track with this thread...

I'm sort of on the fence about consoles (mainly the 360) becoming the primary target platform for game developers.

On one hand, I dig my 360: it was relatively cheap (I sold one of my video cards in an SLI rig to fund its purchase), I can buy lots of used games for good deals, can sell my used games, and I don't have to mess around with settings. I also think that while consoles do nickle and dime you, the cost of entry into the console arena is cheaper. Sure, it skyrockets if you factor in a huge HDTV, but that isn't necessary. I actually play my 360 on my PC monitor pretty often (1920x1200 LCD with 1:1 pixel scaling for 1920x1080 output). Oh yeah, there is no DRM hassle. I was pissed as hell the 4th time I installed NWN2, and got denied - I had to email Direct2Drive to get my key reset which they did in about 48 hours.

On the other hand, games I've played on both platforms ALWAYS look better on my PC - this includes Bioshock, GRID, Fallout 3, Orange Box, L4D, FEAR 2, CoD 4, Quake 4, Lost Planet, and GoW. There is just no substitution for 1920x1200 native IMO, and nothing I've seen on the 360 even remotely rivals Crysis. Controls are not an issue for me either, as I have an Xbox controller for my PC. Also (and this my just be me), I actually like messing around with PC hardware and upgrading my rig, so the associated cost adds its own amusement. Hell, I was tempted to do a preventive RRoD fix on my 360 just because I wanted to crack the sucker open. Luckily common sense got the best of me, but I still have the washers/bolts to replace the X-clamp handy.

...so, I'm on the fence...

 

[4537256]

Originally posted by: frythecpuofbender
About Killzone2:

How it works.

1. RSX renders frame at 640 x 360 and send it to CELL.
2. CELL upscales to 720p, then applies a bunch of advanced post processing like filtering, motion blur, and depth of field to hide its low resolution look.

Final rendering res is 960x1080 (for 1080i output) or 1280x720 for 720p output.


[L=http://cmpmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o1/vau.......blah, blah, blah[/quote]

OMG, who f**g cares if it still looks good. No one cares how they do it, its still better attention and effort than they ever put into PC games.

wheres the PC games that push the limit then uses various tricks to get even more graphics and stuff out of those $500 grahics cards that pop up every 6 months that despite everything only get a few better frame rates than previous ones but require 4 months to get half the driver kinks worked out?

Originally posted by: BenSkywalkerThat's rendering power, although it is a process by definition. I have already pointed out that PC GPUs are far ahead of consoles atm, as is the amount of RAM they have at their disposal. What they lack is computational power on the CPU side.

PC hardware specs sure can look good on paper dont they?
but in reality, all i see thats most noticable is higher resolutions and less blurring, consistant driver updates fixing problems and console ports that run like crap assuming DRM doesnt interfere first.
translation: B.S.

so where exactly is all the games that makes use of all this great technology with its insane specification numbers on paper doing exactly? Theres a very few that use DX10 fully, far fewer that legitimatly look like its on higher end hardware than consoles (crysis being the main example) yet to look great they still play like crap with poor frame rates and dumbest A.I. ever seen.

wheres the efficiency? wheres the sweat from developers brainstorming on ways around problems? but more imporatant wheres the stuff that matters more than visuals, like A.I or better phsyics?

physics, A.I., map sizes, # of onscreen objects, high polygons, audio effects, skyboxes....aaahhh, its all the same on a $4000 PC as it is on a $200 console. thats B.S and because devs refuse to put the same kind of attention into PC games then its completely pointless to debate about how the PC is sooooo much more powerful when no one makes all the hardware work in tandem much less push any boundaries.

Crysis pushed graphics beyond console reach but thats it.
the A.I sucked and is seen in consoles.
the physics i can see on consoles.
the audio effects i can hear on consoles...so WTF!

I'm a console and high end pc gamer, but i can't defend a PC thats 4x's the price having the only difference between them purely visual with the addition of DRM, Activations, Bugs, poor support, no resale value, heavily pirated. The publishers treat the game and consumers like trash by comparison. Some PC titles have more mods or better online but its not worth the hardware price.

 

[frythecpuofbender]

How did Killzone2 push anything? That dirty trick with 640x360 could only be pulled off because Killzone2 pretty much is a corridor shooter with lots and lots of boxy architecture and sci-fi crates. Try to render vegetation or more organic stuff that way and it will be a mess.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: 4537256
so where exactly is all the games that makes use of all this great technology with its insane specification numbers on paper doing exactly? Theres a very few that use DX10 fully, far fewer that legitimatly look like its on higher end hardware than consoles (crysis being the main example) yet to look great they still play like crap with poor frame rates and dumbest A.I. ever seen.

...well this is actually part of the issue that PC gamers have with developers going more towards a multi-platform target, as opposed to developing for strictly for the PC. Essentially, what "multi-platform" means is lowest common denominator. IIRC, this is the case with Rage specifically. Id supposedly had to reduce texture sizes because the 360 can only handle games that will fit onto a single DVD. This may have changed since NXE and the ability to install games into the HD, but where does that leave owners of the Arcade console? This example doesn't even get into any other limitations imposed by consoles, this is just storage space which is essentially limitless on the PC side of things for all intents and purposes.

PC hardware specs sure can look good on paper dont they?
but in reality, all i see thats most noticable is higher resolutions and less blurring, consistant driver updates fixing problems and console ports that run like crap assuming DRM doesnt interfere first.
translation: B.S.

I'm not sure why some people constantly downplay the resolution. Look at any video card review, and you can see what a drastic effect changing the resolution can have in some cases. People need to understand that developers aren't choosing to run the games natively at low resolutions on consoles, but they are forced to in order for the games to play smoothly. This isn't "optimization", this is an old trick well known to any PC gamer as "dumbing down the graphics" to achieve playable frames.

Go to any big box electronics store, and you'll be bombarded with the buzzwords "HD" and "1080p". Hell, a lot of 360 games even (deceptively) claim "1080p" on the box, even though they aren't rendered at 1080p natively. HD is all the rage nowadays, yet for some reason gamers are ready to dismiss low rez console games as "looking great anyway" or "it doesn't matter on a big screen". It just doesn't make any sense. I have fun playing 360 games, but I can't honestly say that I don't notice they are low rez.

As far as GT5 being 1080p at 60fps solid... I'll believe it when it launches, looks as good as the previews, runs at a solid 60fps, AND has been proven to run at a constant 1920x1080 resolution. There was a rumor about Forza 3 being 1080p as well, but it's actually 720p native upscaled by the 360 to run on 1080p HDTVs.

 

[frythecpuofbender]

I don't believe in developers suddenly harnessing some secret power previously undiscovered and all of a sudden games start coming out that are truelly 1080p. BS!
They are at max rendered in 720p and upscaled. If PC gamers wouldn't sit so close in front of all those 1920x1080+ LCDs and you'd take away their freedom to choose resolution, detail level and AA, etc and just force every game to run in 720p. Every Core2Duo with a GeForce 8 could easily handle any XBOX360 or PS3 game.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Holy fuck, RSX renders Killzone 2 at 640 x 360, then CELL takes it and post process it to fake HD look with post processing??? Unbelievable!!!!

You don't understand the document I take it? I'll just quote the thread from B3D-

The lower resolution buffers they discussed were regarding particles, transparencies, and post-processing effects, which are different from the game's true 720p render targets. The lower resolution buffers are typical for such effects in order to reduce the hit to memory bandwidth and fillrate. For effects that are by nature blurry and on-screen for very little time, it is a wiser trade-off. In screenshots the lower res buffers will be noticeable to the trained eye to some extent; the game is otherwise rendered at 720p with Quincunx.

The game is rendered at 720p, they render to a lower res target for certain processing effects, PCs do the same for example when they are using cube maps(because it is wasteful not to).

How did Killzone2 push anything? That dirty trick with 640x360 could only be pulled off because Killzone2 pretty much is a corridor shooter with lots and lots of boxy architecture and sci-fi crates. Try to render vegetation or more organic stuff that way and it will be a mess.

I'd point to GT5 for large areas with lots of vegetation support.

...well this is actually part of the issue that PC gamers have with developers going more towards a multi-platform target, as opposed to developing for strictly for the PC. Essentially, what "multi-platform" means is lowest common denominator.

Sadly, this impacts the consoles in some ways more then PCs. It is easy to drop to the next LOD step for textures, as it is to adjust ouptut resolution. The difficult issues would be reducing CPU overhead and shader load a significant amount, each side has a different downgrade the force upon the other.

This example doesn't even get into any other limitations imposed by consoles, this is just storage space which is essentially limitless on the PC side of things for all intents and purposes.

In terms of real world atm, I would say storage space goes PS3-PC-360 atm. While developers could, they have yet to take advantage of BRD and the PS3 also has a HD.

I'm not sure why some people constantly downplay the resolution.

What looks better, HL at 25x16 or Crysis at 12x10? Resolution without a doubt helps a game look better, but it is simply one element.

People need to understand that developers aren't choosing to run the games natively at low resolutions on consoles, but they are forced to in order for the games to play smoothly.

The 360 was designed to run games at 720p, that is quite clear by their choice to support eDRAM in the amount they did. One upside to it, 'free' AA on the 360 which no current PC part offers.

As far as GT5 being 1080p at 60fps solid... I'll believe it when it launches, looks as good as the previews, runs at a solid 60fps, AND has been proven to run at a constant 1920x1080 resolution. There was a rumor about Forza 3 being 1080p as well, but it's actually 720p native upscaled by the 360 to run on 1080p HDTVs.

In terms of code I don't think you would find anyone who would argue Polyphony>>>>>>>>Turn10. Check out GT4, that was running on a Voodoo1 class rasterizer chip. Besides that, RR7 runs at 1080p 60fps solid already, not like it would be a new thing for PS3 games and Polyphony has already stated that it what the game runs at(many devs may lie on a regular basis, Polyphony doesn't).

I don't believe in developers suddenly harnessing some secret power previously undiscovered and all of a sudden games start coming out that are truelly 1080p. BS!

GT4 ran at 1080i on the PS2. Yes, devs harness far more power over the lifetime of a console, the more complex the architecture, the larger the difference tends to be.

They are at max rendered in 720p and upscaled.

Most games are ouput at 720p as long as your display supports it. Some do upscale, but I haven't seen that it is terribly common.

If PC gamers wouldn't sit so close in front of all those 1920x1080+ LCDs and you'd take away their freedom to choose resolution, detail level and AA, etc and just force every game to run in 720p. Every Core2Duo with a GeForce 8 could easily handle any XBOX360 or PS3 game.

Coding to fixed hardware and using the hardware in an optimal fashion aren't something you can do on the PC side of things. To get the most out of a console you are going to make games in a way that they wouldn't run on a PC without a complete rewrite(if they would work at all). The example you brought up above with what you thought was KZ2 'cheating' on rendering is a way of offloading certain rendering tasks to Cell to handle(which can write directly to RSX's RAM). Those sorts of things can't be reasonably done on the PC because you can't count on the hardware being there that is capable of handling the code path(even if the hardware is more then capable, certain approaches aren't allowed on the PC at all due to the way the system is built and particularly what the OS and drivers will allow).

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

This example doesn't even get into any other limitations imposed by consoles, this is just storage space which is essentially limitless on the PC side of things for all intents and purposes.

In terms of real world atm, I would say storage space goes PS3-PC-360 atm. While developers could, they have yet to take advantage of BRD and the PS3 also has a HD.

My point wasn't that the PC, 360, or PS3 was better or worse, but that multi-platform development has to accommodate the lowest common denominator.

I'm not sure why some people constantly downplay the resolution.

What looks better, HL at 25x16 or Crysis at 12x10? Resolution without a doubt helps a game look better, but it is simply one element.

Agreed, but the comparison really only makes sense when you compare the same game at different resolutions. I assumed this was implicit. Similarly, it doesn't really make any sense to talk about an exclusive to any platform when making comparisons... It's a forgone conclusion that if any given platform has enough exclusives you want, it would probably make sense to opt for that platform regardless of its strengths and weaknesses. Exclusives are probably also a tad but off topic in a thread about game developers opting for a cross platform business model.

People need to understand that developers aren't choosing to run the games natively at low resolutions on consoles, but they are forced to in order for the games to play smoothly.

The 360 was designed to run games at 720p, that is quite clear by their choice to support eDRAM in the amount they did. One upside to it, 'free' AA on the 360 which no current PC part offers.

Exactly, the 360 is designed to run at 720p so devs are pretty much stuck with 720p as their max resolution. That's pretty much what I said.

As far as GT5 being 1080p at 60fps solid... I'll believe it when it launches, looks as good as the previews, runs at a solid 60fps, AND has been proven to run at a constant 1920x1080 resolution. There was a rumor about Forza 3 being 1080p as well, but it's actually 720p native upscaled by the 360 to run on 1080p HDTVs.

In terms of code I don't think you would find anyone who would argue Polyphony>>>>>>>>Turn10. Check out GT4, that was running on a Voodoo1 class rasterizer chip. Besides that, RR7 runs at 1080p 60fps solid already, not like it would be a new thing for PS3 games and Polyphony has already stated that it what the game runs at(many devs may lie on a regular basis, Polyphony doesn't).

I stand by my original statement... I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'll believe it when I see it.

Again, bringing any platform exclusive really isn't relevant in a thread about developers going to a more multi-platform business model. I know I mentioned Forza 3 as well, but that was probably not really on topic either.

 

[BenSkywalker]

My point wasn't that the PC, 360, or PS3 was better or worse, but that multi-platform development has to accommodate the lowest common denominator.

They need to make considerations for LCD, they doesn't by defaul mean they need to make compromises. Actually, depending on how ambitious they were they wouldn't necessarily need to make any sacrifices on any platform.

Similarly, it doesn't really make any sense to talk about an exclusive to any platform when making comparisons... It's a forgone conclusion that if any given platform has enough exclusives you want, it would probably make sense to opt for that platform regardless of its strengths and weaknesses. Exclusives are probably also a tad but off topic in a thread about game developers opting for a cross platform business model.

Exclusives prove the capabilities of the platform. Anything below the standard of the exclusives for a given platform bring in to play the limitations of developers.

Exactly, the 360 is designed to run at 720p so devs are pretty much stuck with 720p as their max resolution. That's pretty much what I said.

No, it isn't-

People need to understand that developers aren't choosing to run the games natively at low resolutions on consoles, but they are forced to in order for the games to play smoothly.

I'm not seeing you specify the 360 at all, not to mention the 360 was also designed to always run with AA, if you want to sacrifice AA the 360 can quite easily run at 1080p.

I stand by my original statement... I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I'll believe it when I see it.

If Carmack announced his game was going to run at 1080p on the 360 would you doubt him? Polyphony's record is certainly comparable at least.

Again, bringing any platform exclusive really isn't relevant in a thread about developers going to a more multi-platform business model.

Of course it is relevant if you are trying to say that going multiplatform by default limits the games. Platform exclusives prove what a platform is capable of. Crysis, GoW2, GT5(or GT5P/KZ2 if shipping is required) show proof of what we know a platform is capable of. Anything below those standards on a given platform are due to the developer's limitations. Discussing how limited a developer will be because they are going multi platform needs to take into consideration both what the upper limits of a platform are and what the cost is going to be to extract them(time and financial).

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Of course it is relevant if you are trying to say that going multiplatform by default limits the games. Platform exclusives prove what a platform is capable of. Crysis, GoW2, GT5(or GT5P/KZ2 if shipping is required) show proof of what we know a platform is capable of. Anything below those standards on a given platform are due to the developer's limitations. Discussing how limited a developer will be because they are going multi platform needs to take into consideration both what the upper limits of a platform are and what the cost is going to be to extract them(time and financial).

That is exactly it, an exclusive shows you what one platform is capable of. However, all platforms have limitations. So, when you go multi-platform you essentially adopt all limitations for every platform to all platforms, and compromises are made because of this. Rage appears to be an example of this.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169963

"The PC is limitless in the amount of data you can put on it," said Willits. "The PS3 has about 25GB. But the Xbox 360 roughly has 6 to 8 GB of data. We're hoping we can squeeze the game down to two discs for the 360 version."

"I wouldn't say the overall story was changed in any way in order to fit on the Xbox 360 version," Willits said, "but how the player experiences Rage's story has been altered."

While it looks like they have cut down the number of game zones to accommodate the 360, it does look like they will take advantage of the PS3's Blu-Ray drive. Which is a good thing.

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/ca...box-ps3,news-2254.html

Developer friendliness aside, Carmack did acknowledge that the PS3 version will look slightly better due to more storage space for high-resolution textures, thanks to Blu-ray Disc?s 50GB capacity. ?All of the key scenes, the things anyone is going to take a screenshot of are going to look exactly the same on both platforms. They?ll get the high quality compression,? said Carmack. ?But if you go into some areas in the wasteland, like behind a fence where nobody will typically go and explore, this is where the 360 version may look a little blurry compared to the PS3.?

 

[BenSkywalker]

That is exactly it, an exclusive shows you what one platform is capable of. However, all platforms have limitations. So, when you go multi-platform you essentially adopt all limitations for every platform to all platforms, and compromises are made because of this. Rage appears to be an example of this.

It's funny you would say that, and then prove yourself that it isn't the case? It makes development easier for id, but they themselves prove that the 360 doesn't have to hold back the other two platforms-

Developer friendliness aside, Carmack did acknowledge that the PS3 version will look slightly better due to more storage space for high-resolution textures, thanks to Blu-ray Disc?s 50GB capacity. ?All of the key scenes, the things anyone is going to take a screenshot of are going to look exactly the same on both platforms. They?ll get the high quality compression,? said Carmack. ?But if you go into some areas in the wasteland, like behind a fence where nobody will typically go and explore, this is where the 360 version may look a little blurry compared to the PS3.?

So they are not making the same compromise on the other platforms that they are on the 360 because they don't have to(for megatextures, although they are compromising the other versions in zones). They didn't need to change the game structure either, though it certainly would have increased development time and costs, and given Carmack's comments MS would have penalized them for bringing out their game the way they wanted.

I don't get Willit's comment on the PS3, he says it has 25GB? BRD's are 50GB, given that the entire game is supposed to fit on 2 DVD9s for the 360 that would indicate that the PS3 version is still likely to use less then half a disc, also the PS3 does have a HD also by default- it isn't like you need to plan on their not being one on any of them.

What it comes down to is id didn't want to take the time to tailor fit the game to each console, which is certainly a popular option. It doesn't need to be the only one though, and that is the point I'm trying to make. Developers can fully optimize a game for each platform, but they need to decide if it is worth the effort or not.

 

[nitromullet]

It's funny you would say that, and then prove yourself that it isn't the case?

Id will apparently use some extra high rez textures on the PS3 (and hopefully PC) over the 360, but the point is that they fundamentally altered the game in order to make it an effective cross platform title. Basically, what they did was alter the game to make it work on all platforms, and then gave back some of the high textures to the PS3 because the could easily fit them on the Blu-Ray disc. They did not, however, make the game significantly better on the PS3 over the 360. Although, apparently they could have.

Your copy of Rage for the PS3 will be a compromised version of the original concept in order for me to be able to play Rage on my Xbox 360. I'm not sure if that makes you happy or not, but as I understand it this is why some people aren't that keen on developers adopting a cross platform model.

What it comes down to is id didn't want to take the time to tailor fit the game to each console, which is certainly a popular option. It doesn't need to be the only one though, and that is the point I'm trying to make. Developers can fully optimize a game for each platform, but they need to decide if it is worth the effort or not.

We agree on this. We can debate ad nauseam whether it is right, wrong, or the developers are lazy/cheap; but the fact remains that our games are getting compromised in order to make them cross platform. This was the original point I was making about why some PC gamers chafe at multi-platform titles.

edit: We also seem to agree that in order to get the best gaming experience these days one should not limit themselves to a single platform.

 

[4537256]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: 4537256
so where exactly is all the games that makes use of all this great technology with its insane specification numbers on paper doing exactly? Theres a very few that use DX10 fully, far fewer that legitimatly look like its on higher end hardware than consoles (crysis being the main example) yet to look great they still play like crap with poor frame rates and dumbest A.I. ever seen.

...well this is actually part of the issue that PC gamers have with developers going more towards a multi-platform target, as opposed to developing for strictly for the PC.

Thats exactly my point. why pay for all this great hardware when no developer uses it.
The pc exclusives are about died out and all it seems capable of is better graphics but still have dumb A.I?

The majority of good high quality games on PC have no resale value, poor support, DRM, limited installs, buggy code, cant even rent games and some have no demo's,....all along with the same Audio effects, A.I., physics and models as their console counterparts

Meanwhile the publishers treat its PC customers like pirate trash and many of them just take it up the azz, complain about DRM, refuse to buy most games and pirate instead and turn around and say consoles suck by comparison?...sure, whatever.
but i have a GTX 280 video card, xfi audio, 4 gigs..etc and i play far more my console than the PC. I have a couple games i bought that i had to wait for patches just to play!
so now i buy console whenever possible less its a good MP game.

I'm not sure why some people constantly downplay the resolution. Look at any video card review, and you can see what a drastic effect changing the resolution can have in some cases. People need to understand that developers aren't choosing to run the games natively at low resolutions on consoles, but they are forced to in order for the games to play smoothly. This isn't "optimization", this is an old trick well known to any PC gamer as "dumbing down the graphics" to achieve playable frames.

On pc, i play at 1920x1080 and i have PS3 on same monitor. i assure you i'm quite aware of the effect and it doesnt make a game more fun, it doesnt make you play it more often. Its about gameplay. its about advanced A.I.
its about audio effects, immersion, detail....are you a photographer or a gamer?

who gives a **** what a platform is capable of...i just want to actually beable to play it, not read about numbers, thats stupid and a waste of time. my choices these days is ..do i choose DRM and higher resoltuion or ....a game that actually freaking works and i can sell when i'm done.

 

[nitromullet]

who gives a **** what a platform is capable of...i just want to actually beable to play it, not read about numbers, thats stupid and a waste of time. my choices these days is ..do i choose DRM and higher resoltuion or ....a game that actually freaking works and i can sell when i'm done.

I agree with that... If I had to pinpoint the single largest contributing factor to my initial interest into console gaming over PC gaming it would be DRM hassle. I buy all my games, and I was getting sick of being treated like a thief by the publishers just for actually giving them money for their work. Since I'm a relatively new convert to the 360, there is a decent sized back catalog that I can work through at $5-20 a pop used. I still buy new games too, but I've bought way more used games in the past 6 months than new. The only one making any money off of that is either GameCrazy or someone on ebay. IMO, the publishers can reap what they've sown with their BS DRM schemes that treat their legitimate customers like thieves.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

who gives a **** what a platform is capable of...i just want to actually beable to play it, not read about numbers, thats stupid and a waste of time. my choices these days is ..do i choose DRM and higher resoltuion or ....a game that actually freaking works and i can sell when i'm done.

I agree with that... If I had to pinpoint the single largest contributing factor to my initial interest into console gaming over PC gaming it would be DRM hassle. I buy all my games, and I was getting sick of being treated like a thief by the publishers just for actually giving them money for their work. Since I'm a relatively new convert to the 360, there is a decent sized back catalog that I can work through at $5-20 a pop used. I still buy new games too, but I've bought way more used games in the past 6 months than new. The only one making any money off of that is either GameCrazy or someone on ebay. IMO, the publishers can reap what they've sown with their BS DRM schemes that treat their legitimate customers like thieves.

That get's my vote.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: 4537256

Meanwhile the publishers treat its PC customers like pirate trash and many of them just take it up the azz, complain about DRM, refuse to buy most games and pirate instead and turn around and say consoles suck by comparison?...sure, whatever.
but i have a GTX 280 video card, xfi audio, 4 gigs..etc and i play far more my console than the PC. I have a couple games i bought that i had to wait for patches just to play!

The reason publishers have to use DRM is because people will pirate a title much more without it. DRM buys the publisher a few days time that they can get a few more sales. Look at the recent release of Demigod, the piracy on that title reached epic levels. As I said before the problems with piracy can be attributed to the way people think now about a lot of things, not just games. They have a sense of entitlement, give it to me on my terms, or I will take it anyway.

I'm really hoping that the PCG format works. It is going to be just some games like the ones popcap makes to start with but could easily become more popular games in the future. It gives all the benefits of a console, but on a pc, you can even sell the game disc when you get tired of the game.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: 4537256

Meanwhile the publishers treat its PC customers like pirate trash and many of them just take it up the azz, complain about DRM, refuse to buy most games and pirate instead and turn around and say consoles suck by comparison?...sure, whatever.
but i have a GTX 280 video card, xfi audio, 4 gigs..etc and i play far more my console than the PC. I have a couple games i bought that i had to wait for patches just to play!

The reason publishers have to use DRM is because people will pirate a title much more without it. DRM buys the publisher a few days time that they can get a few more sales. Look at the recent release of Demigod, the piracy on that title reached epic levels. As I said before the problems with piracy can be attributed to the way people think now about a lot of things, not just games. They have a sense of entitlement, give it to me on my terms, or I will take it anyway.

I'm really hoping that the PCG format works. It is going to be just some games like the ones popcap makes to start with but could easily become more popular games in the future. It gives all the benefits of a console, but on a pc, you can even sell the game disc when you get tired of the game.

Codswallop!

The reason publisher's use DRM is because they want to prevent second-hand sales and herd us all on to consoles. There isn't a single title that hasn't been cracked, so as far as preventing piracy goes, DRM doesn't work. If your appraisal is correct, why don't the companies remove DRM once the game has been in the market for a few months? Clearly the companies are not primarily concerned with gaining a "few days of time in order to make a few more sales".

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Codswallop!

The reason publisher's use DRM is because they want to prevent second-hand sales and herd us all on to consoles. There isn't a single title that hasn't been cracked, so as far as preventing piracy goes, DRM doesn't work. If your appraisal is correct, why don't the companies remove DRM once the game has been in the market for a few months? Clearly the companies are not primarily concerned with gaining a "few days of time in order to make a few more sales".

DRM is not to prevent second hand sales or push people to consoles. Publishers prevented resale of pc games long before DRM became common. If you look at sales figures, the most a game will sell is in the first week. If they can delay the crack for that amount of time then they do get more sales, that is a fact.

You can still sell used games:
http://shop.ebay.com/items/__p...Condition=Like%2520New

While the games may be cracked eventually it does take time. Have you ever reverse engineered software ? I have and it takes lots of work. Some of the newer protections are very hard to crack. Look at chronicles of riddick for pc, took almost a month to crack.

Why don't they remove it after it is on the market ? Mainly because it isn't worth their time. DRM is not something that just anyone can remove. Often it is built with the games source code, so to remove it they need the developer. The problem is that months after retail those developers are usually on new projects. They would need the developer to make a non DRM version before the developer left the project.

DRM is here to stay. Even if pc gaming goes away , DRM will remain on applications. People would really bitch if they worked in my world. I use applications that cost several thousand dollars that cannot be resold ever! DRM in spades. I have to run license servers on a pc that counts how many copies I have installed, how much I use it and restricts functions that I can use.

Instead of complaining why don't gamers come up with a solution ? Selling the games with no protection whatsoever is not the solution.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Codswallop!

The reason publisher's use DRM is because they want to prevent second-hand sales and herd us all on to consoles. There isn't a single title that hasn't been cracked, so as far as preventing piracy goes, DRM doesn't work. If your appraisal is correct, why don't the companies remove DRM once the game has been in the market for a few months? Clearly the companies are not primarily concerned with gaining a "few days of time in order to make a few more sales".

DRM is not to prevent second hand sales or push people to consoles. Publishers prevented resale of pc games long before DRM became common. If you look at sales figures, the most a game will sell is in the first week. If they can delay the crack for that amount of time then they do get more sales, that is a fact.

Which is why I advocate removing the DRM once the game has been on sale for a few months or in subsequent budget releases. I disagree with you: DRM is not about preventing piracy. My proof? It doesn't.

While the games may be cracked eventually it does take time. Have you ever reverse engineered software ? I have and it takes lots of work. Some of the newer protections are very hard to crack. Look at chronicles of riddick for pc, took almost a month to crack.

How long? Prior to the official release? A few days after the official release? One month for Riddick - I'm sure the people who downloaded it for free without install limits were completely appauled that they had to wait two or three weeks

Why don't they remove it after it is on the market ? Mainly because it isn't worth their time. DRM is not something that just anyone can remove. Often it is built with the games source code, so to remove it they need the developer. The problem is that months after retail those developers are usually on new projects. They would need the developer to make a non DRM version before the developer left the project.

The fact that it isn't in their interest does not mean that it can not or should not be done.

DRM is here to stay. Even if pc gaming goes away , DRM will remain on applications. People would really bitch if they worked in my world. I use applications that cost several thousand dollars that cannot be resold ever! DRM in spades. I have to run license servers on a pc that counts how many copies I have installed, how much I use it and restricts functions that I can use.

I agree with you: unfortunately DRM is here to stay.

Instead of complaining why don't gamers come up with a solution ? Selling the games with no protection whatsoever is not the solution.

Consoles / Subsequent DRM removal /Simple Disc checks rather than software that remains on the system once the game in question has been uninstalled / higher quality games at cheaper prices

 

[BenSkywalker]

We agree on this. We can debate ad nauseam whether it is right, wrong, or the developers are lazy/cheap; but the fact remains that our games are getting compromised in order to make them cross platform. This was the original point I was making about why some PC gamers chafe at multi-platform titles.

I guess this would depend on your perspective. Are our games being compromised, or are we getting more games that are less then ideal. May seem like splitting hairs, but from a publishers point of view why wouldn't you go cross platform? The 50th best selling game on the consoles last year, LBP, sold 1.66Million copies, that would have been top 5 on the PC side. I think that instead of some people getting upset that developers are going cross platform, they should be happy they are still releasing titles on all the platforms in the quantity that they are. Right now we are down to it mainly being only first party developers that are exclusive(with few exceptions) and in terms of the differing sides, it seems like pretty much only strategy games aren't coming to the consoles(PCs are much worse off on this end, although Capcom bringing over SF4 does fill a gaping hole as will EA's new NFS which is putting a serious effort in to running with GT- not that I think it will quite match up, but that has been a huge gap in PC gaming for many years now).

We also seem to agree that in order to get the best gaming experience these days one should not limit themselves to a single platform.

Absolutely. As much as the more 'hardcore' may knock it, I even reccomend the Wii to people on a regular basis. Try as they may, noone has anything that truly can replace MarioKart. May sound stupid to get a platform for one titles, but all told I end with several hundred hours into MK each generation- and there are a few other games on the Wii that are pretty amusing to go along with it. Not trying to sound like a Wii commercial here, just pointing out that all of systems have something that is worth owning them for for the vast majority of people. Limiting yourself to one system only assures that you are going to miss some killer games.

The only one making any money off of that is either GameCrazy or someone on ebay.

Publishers think like this, but it really isn't the case. If I see a brand new title in a store for the PS3 or for the 360(kids still have theirs) that I'm not sure on I am far more likely to buy it then I am on the PC because if I get it home and play it for a couple days and don't like it, I can get half my money back at least. The publisher isn't giving me my money back, so it doesn't cost them anything. It does make it so that I am capable of paying 1/2 price, give or take, for a new game. That makes me a lot more likely to take a chance. On the main 'franchises'- the games I go to midnight releases for, not like I'm going to sell them anyway

The reason publisher's use DRM is because they want to prevent second-hand sales and herd us all on to consoles.

The inability to sell PC games if I don't like them makes me more likely to buy it on the consoles instead. If it isn't out on the consoles, I'm a lot less likely to take a chance on a game. There are simply too many quality games out for me to bother with wasting $50 and getting nothing out of it.

 

[habbakuk87]

http://www.geeks3d.com/2009061...gine-3-vs-cryengine-2/

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: Red Irish


Which is why I advocate removing the DRM once the game has been on sale for a few months or in subsequent budget releases. I disagree with you: DRM is not about preventing piracy. My proof? It doesn't.

It prevents it long enough to make extra sales.

How long? Prior to the official release? A few days after the official release? One month for Riddick - I'm sure the people who downloaded it for free without install limits were completely appauled that they had to wait two or three weeks

A few days is a lot of sales. The people who had to wait for a few weeks to play also went ahead and bought the game. Read forums where people discuss protection methods and you will see that any time a game has a hard to crack protection, lots of people just go ahead and buy it rather than wait.

They are in it for the money. They are not going to pay a developer to come back and remove protection unless it benefits their bottom line.



Instead of complaining why don't gamers come up with a solution ? Selling the games with no protection whatsoever is not the solution.

Consoles / Subsequent DRM removal /Simple Disc checks rather than software that remains on the system once the game in question has been uninstalled / higher quality games at cheaper prices

Some of the newer protection systems do not leave anything running on the pc. They create a directory with licensing information, but it is not a constantly running program.

Higher quality will come with the prospect of higher income.
Cheaper prices come with less development cost.

Everybody wants all these things, and I would love to have them too, but wanting it isn't going to make it happen. People need to explain how these things can be done.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
The reason publisher's use DRM is because they want to prevent second-hand sales and herd us all on to consoles.

This is at least partially correct. Publishers care a lot about second hand sales. I would go as far as saying they care about this more than piracy because there's a measurable value of how much money is being made/lost by second hand sales.

As someone who has worked for a gaming store, I'll explain a bit of this. Stores don't actually make any money on most gaming related things. PC, Xbox, and PS3 games are all sold at cost. When a customer pays $60 for a game, the store paid $55 for that game. The consoles themselves are also sold at cost. The cheapest Xbox 360 is $200, and the computer would say that the store also paid $200 for it. Things like Xbox controllers, memory cards, and hard drives are also sold at cost. The way places like EB Games make money is through warranties and second hand sales. If you want to know how much second hand sales are worth, just look at what Gamestop is up to
http://www.google.com/finance?q=gamestop

This is also the reason EB Games and Gamestop don't sell many PC games. If they're not making money on the first sale and they can't make money on the second sale, why would they care about PC gamers? They don't, so they don't carry many PC games.

It's ironic how that worked out. By trying to stop second hand sales, it completely alienates the people who rely on second hand sales, so those companies no longer stock PC games. When a multi-billion dollar company like Gamestop no longer stocks PC games, the sales numbers go way down, and the publisher blames piracy.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Modelworks


They are in it for the money. They are not going to pay a developer to come back and remove protection unless it benefits their bottom line.

Refusing to remove certain forms of DRM is adversely affecting their bottom line: I and many others refuse to buy a series of games because of the DRM.

These things can be done by doing them, otherwise, in my case, the companies loose a sale.