DICE's Alan Kirtz Says that DX12 will not fix the Xbox One

[WYP]

DICE's Alan Kirtz Says that DX12 will not fix the Xbox One as it is "it's just an inferior horse in the horsepower category"

Read more on DICE's comments on DirectX 12 on the Xbox One.

 

[SPS]

Lol that dude has some serious haters on Twitter :lol:

 

[AlienALX]

So once again a console is going to be responsible for holding back PC gaming.

Noice (he says, sarcastically).

 

[ImprovizoR]

So once again a console is going to be responsible for holding back PC gaming.

We'll still see a lot of benefits because at least Xbox One will also use Dx12. And tbh, we need consoles as a current gaming hardware standard in order to keep PC gaming affordable and therefore existent. If a game can run on a console, it can run on a PC of similar specs similarly. That's not a bad thing. And we can still do more, but we don't have to shell out hundreds of monies every year.

 

[Kushiro]

Was dx12 ever really targeted at consoles?

 

[shambles1980]

. If a game can run on a console, it can run on a pc of similar specs similarly. That's not a bad thing.

batman

Was dx12 ever really targeted at consoles?

when it comes to the xbox.. they probably did have it in mind.

 

[Asperatis]

it's time they release new and improved consoles so the pc market isn't as nerfed as it is now in many cases :/

 

[NeverBackDown]

it's time they release new and improved consoles so the pc market isn't as nerfed as it is now in many cases :/

Consoles arent holding us back. If they were you wouldn't be getting many games that come out. Consoles provide studio's with enough funds to enable to continue making games better. Witcher 3 for example, would not have been the same game without console's. They wouldn't have been able to afford the investment for strictly PC.

It's time people drop the whole console holding us back thing. If anything they push us forward as new engines are made to take advantage of new technology and new IPs are made to go along with them.

 

[ImprovizoR]

batman

Provided that the game is actually finished. Arkham Knight wasn't a finished product on the PC. Even the devs acknowledged it by pulling the game from Steam.

 

[SuB]

Consoles arent holding us back. If they were you wouldn't be getting many games that come out. Consoles provide studio's with enough funds to enable to continue making games better. Witcher 3 for example, would not have been the same game without console's. They wouldn't have been able to afford the investment for strictly PC.

It's time people drop the whole console holding us back thing. If anything they push us forward as new engines are made to take advantage of new technology and new IPs are made to go along with them.

I'd love for you to provide factual sources for all this information.

 

[Feronix]

I'd love for you to provide factual sources for all this information.

To be fair, he does make a point. Rockstar didn't release GTA V until nearly two years after the consoles because 'that's how they make the money and PC people would pirate it anyway'. Okay, I do wanna say that it's absolute bull**** that they still charged us full price for a 2 year old game when it came out, while most of us had already bought it on a console at full price as well, so I could see where people came from if they were to pirate it. But saying that all PC gamers pirate everything is a stupid thing to say.

Anyway, whatever way you want to look at it, the console game purchases do provide a steady cashflow to the developers for them to work with. Whether they do that, or just put it in their pockets and bring out a second crappy game is not the point here :lol:
Also the consoles don't have platforms like Steam and their Steam Sales, nevermind CD key websites, so console users generally have to pay full price for any game.

There is no denying that the inferiour hardware of the consoles is forcing developers to make the compromise of lowering the standard for graphics so that they can keep up. But he makes a fair point in saying that this also forces developers to try very hard to make games look good while still running on low-end hardware, cause even console players keep having an increased expectation of pretty graphics.

 

[AlienALX]

I really don't want to get into the long argument but to say PC gaming has not been held back by the consoles is just too ridiculous for words.

As soon as the Xbox came out Microsoft threw all of their PC dev stuff in the bin (and there used to be lots of it) and realised that with a console they could make a licensing fee per game. As soon as they realised that it was all over (they tried with Windows but due to the fact that they stole DOS they weren't allowed to, or something like that going back years and years).

They even openly admitted that Alan Wake on the PC was going to come out but they gazumped the devs and forced them into keep it a console exclusive. Only a couple of years later did they actually release the game.

And the same will go for any game that is worth having. Both Sony and Microsoft want their exclusives, so will pull any dirty trick they can.

And that, briefly, covers just the games. The rest would take weeks to fully debate over and the bottom line would be the same.

DX11 was nothing but a console designed API that we guinea pigged with for X amount of years.

That's right. Not only do we get screwed over with the games we also play guinea pig for console designs.

PC gaming was never ever as expensive as a console. Ever. For £15-£30 you got a game in a large cardboard box with all sorts of other stuff.

Then it went £25-£30 for a PC game in a plastic case, now we're being hit up for exactly the same amount of cash a console game costs. Only there's no licensing fee so some one is having it large off of us.

We've only seen all of this exciting new stuff since the Xbone and PS4 came out and we are probably only seeing it because they are some sort of X86 arrangement so anything made for us can be used to benefit the consoles. Before that? we were stuck on DX9 for god knows how many years.

And yes Feronix I completely agree with you. Due to the cheap and quite rubbish construction of these consoles in hardware terms we are going to be hurt and held back. The big payday is still the consoles. They get all of the big titles and exclusives first. I can't even remember the last big exclusive on the PC. Crysis, perhaps? Since then everything has been derpy derp console rubbish.

 

[barnsley]

I really don't want to get into the long argument but to say PC gaming has not been held back by the consoles is just too ridiculous for words.

PC gaming with AAA games might have been held back however games that are PC exclusives (such as Arma 3 etc) are the pinnacle of game development, especially in AI or physics . Just because some big games have been a bit poor does not mean that PC gaming as a whole has been held back from progressing by consoles.

I think that also, while GTA took a long time to arrive, it hasn't really been held back by consoles has it? The game has much more detail than any of the console versions and you can't really max it out on a mid range rig.

 

[AlienALX]

PC gaming with AAA games might have been held back however games that are PC exclusives (such as Arma 3 etc) are the pinnacle of game development, especially in AI or physics . Just because some big games have been a bit poor does not mean that PC gaming as a whole has been held back from progressing by consoles.

I think that also, while GTA took a long time to arrive, it hasn't really been held back by consoles has it? The game has much more detail than any of the console versions and you can't really max it out on a mid range rig.

GTA does look nice yes. However, under all of those improvements it's still an old game that people were playing on a console ages ago. Nothing about the gameplay has been changed at all, so it was literally a two year or so wait just for some better graphics.

By which time most people would have caved in and bought a console.

GTAV is nothing but a polished turd IMO. I'm just glad I've never liked the GTA games, so didn't buy a console for it.

Wouldn't mind "The last of us" though.

 

[SuB]

I think that also, while GTA took a long time to arrive, it hasn't really been held back by consoles has it? The game has much more detail than any of the console versions and you can't really max it out on a mid range rig.

GTA is kind of a law unto itself though, name another game that made as much money as that did, and sold as many copies as that did. They only solidified their statement about coming to PC after they made bank with the consoles, then they had the resources to tart it up for a full phat PC release.

GTA does look nice yes. However, under all of those improvements it's still an old game that people were playing on a console ages ago. Nothing about the gameplay has been changed at all, so it was literally a two year or so wait just for some better graphics.

Err yeah they did, they added the never done before (in GTA) full first person mode, which changes the gameplay pretty drastically actually.

 

[barnsley]

GTA does look nice yes. However, under all of those improvements it's still an old game that people were playing on a console ages ago. Nothing about the gameplay has been changed at all, so it was literally a two year or so wait just for some better graphics.

By which time most people would have caved in and bought a console.

I had it for the xbox 360 and there is less in common between the two then you'd think.

 

[AlienALX]

Err yeah they did, they added the never done before (in GTA) full first person mode, which changes the gameplay pretty drastically actually.

If you think so. To me it looked a bit stupid.

But then that's how I feel about GTA in general. Very nice looking games with massive worlds to explore but as soon as you take on a mission it becomes very linear. "Here take this car and drive it to a set point on the map using a GPS" but I had already driven all around that area.

It just feels like a very big impressive world full of crap mini games and quests.

Each to his own and all that.

 

[NeverBackDown]

I'd love for you to provide factual sources for all this information.

I'd love for you to use another tab and google it yourself
Don't believe if you want. Although CDPR would agree with me, was there words after all

PC gaming with AAA games might have been held back however games that are PC exclusives (such as Arma 3 etc) are the pinnacle of game development, especially in AI or physics . Just because some big games have been a bit poor does not mean that PC gaming as a whole has been held back from progressing by consoles.

I think that also, while GTA took a long time to arrive, it hasn't really been held back by consoles has it? The game has much more detail than any of the console versions and you can't really max it out on a mid range rig.

I agree that PC exclusives are the pinnacle of game development. GTA is a great example as is Witcher 3 or even BF. None of these are exclusive however they all are noticeably superior to there console counterparts while still having amazing performance on all 3. Also each of those games are massive in there own way and they still pulled it off. AAA games are either hit or miss depending on how much time was actually spent on optimizing everything. It's kinda linked to the quality of devs working on it and the time they get.

In addition to PC games being the pinnacle of development. You don't see any RTS games on consoles do you? If you did they would have actual K&M being made for them. Consoles really just cannot handle that level of CPU usage. These are also the games that tend to excel in AI which again adds to your argument.

Just to repeat myself.. console aren't really holding us back. I would agree the last gen was as they took way to long to bring out new systems and were far underpowered from the start, but these new consoles are much more capable and honestly the PS4 was equal to about a mid range GPU which was already quite competitive. You couldn't say that about the PS3. Consoles will simply push development forward whether you think it does or not. It's fact. It keeps the cash coming in for devs which just means bigger better games for every platform and new tech coming out to get the most out of everything. Yes the graphics will always get further behind... but then again graphics don't make a game right? That's what everyone keeps saying about Fallout 4? So why should it matter for consoles? The graphics on consoles provide a baseline, a good one at that, and forces devs to improve on PC. I don't see how you could argue against that. Just look at the past tbh. I respect everyone's opinion on the matter if you disagree as everyone already has there mind made up about it; however opening your minds isn't bad either

 

[shambles1980]

One thing i would love to say about consoles "but cant" is that devs learn tricks to make things look nice with less hardware, use less memory, and utilize more cpu cores effectively..
the reason i cant say that is that the ports are usually terribly optimized and if its ubisoft they wont even bother to make it look nicer for the pc or give us a decent resolution or frame rate and then they will call it cinematic..

It really isnt consoles thats to blame though. and i wont even blame developers, its just publishers that are an issue..
sometimes a game dev will say Right we are making this game we want to make it its a great idea, and we are going to make it for pc so we can really make it how we want to make it.. But that is becoming a distant memory because of publishers saying.. People are buying call of face shooter the assassin building jump games. So make one of those twice a year, and make it so it runs on a console.. actually just make it for the consoles we will pay some one to port it to pc later.. If you have any time left after that "which you wont" then you can make that great game you wanted to make.
so the devs make assassins duty and the publishers go ahead and find some one to port the game who offers to do it for the least amount of money. and those people suck.

The pc does have more exclusives than the consoles but the consoles always get the big budget stuff 1st these days, and all the pc's get are ports, even though there is good money being made from pc games sales.

but the publishers know that the console players will take call of creed 1 in to game stop and trade it in for a brand new copy of assasins ops on release day, and its good constant money.. so its publishers who are to blame and always have been. either that or the console gamers i guess..
but lets just blame publishers.
p.s
i dont even own a console. well i have a wii but thats for the wife.

p.p.s

RTS games dont really work without at least a mouse. and to be competitive you need a kb too for hot keys.
there are a lot of classic rts games that people still play that consoles could easily play, but not much of a market for them on consoles. its not like a fps where you can have some aim assist on a console so its not 100% unplayable without a mouse.

 

[SuB]

I'd love for you to use another tab and google it yourself

Or... you could come up with actual facts, with numbers, quotes and prove me wrong?

If you genuinely believe that the current generation of consoles are not holding things back, all I can say is I think you're a little deluded.

Consoles had their golden age and pulled the industry forward, but the PC has been the more developed platform for many years now, the last gen consoles were around for many, many years too long. The sub-par performance of the current gen consoles isn't up to scratch, and wasn't even on release. They too, will be around for years to come.

If you seriously, and genuinely believe that isn't an issue... well... then good for you, you're wrong, but good for you.