I'm not sure what you want me to say. I said what I wanted to say after prince's post already.

Yeah, but why, what's the point. It started off as a harmless re-post where you somewhat accidentally lol-ed at the quote (He went there whoops!) but now, one day later, you're religiously defending it, so that first post in retrospective seems a bit silly don't you think. Like I said we're all adults here and know each other for quite some time, so why not cut through all the unnecessary bullshit and say it as it is: I'm an EA shill, I worked there for some time, I'm also an avid PC supporter and negate everything that is not on Steam.

Even if you take the best games in the last decade, most of those are visually impressive and demanding.

1. Make difference between graphics and aesthetics.
2. Yeah, demanding, but that's back in 2005-2008 isn't it? Today, a game that's "demanding" is called "poorly optimized" for a reason and that reason is that there's far fewer benchmark-type of games and none of them are popular or functional, and the reason for THAT is that games are made to run on almost every rig at at least medium/high, whereas "Ultra+4k" is the benchmark and it's less game-specific than it used to be. Graphics are a commodity now, not something only enthusiasts go for anymore.
3. And the "best games of the last decade" argument would sink even further once you consider that many of them can run on last gen and also a lot of them run on platforms OTHER than pc/ps/xb. Like look at this random list I found, with a few more titles underneath http://www.craveonline.com/culture/8994 ... r#/slide/1

I'd say all of these have great aesthetics and that they look great, a few have great --graphics-- in the sense of image complexity and even most of those can run on old/new consoles or are even console exclusives.

Tell me, how is Super Mario Galaxy, running on Wii, demanding? Or Metroid Prime, running on Gamecube?

Also, see Prince's point 1).

m4st4 wrote:one day later, you're religiously defending it

Defending what? I answered to prince. Not to the article. Read my posts. Saying that I dismiss the article but understand the concern doesn't mean I'm defending it lol. The very idea that I dismiss it goes against that. Can't quite follow the logic here. The article has pretty much nothing to do with what me and prince are talking about.

m4st4 wrote:Like I said we're all adults here and know each other for quite some time, so why not cut through all the unnecessary bullshit and say it as it is: I'm an EA shill, I worked there for some time, I'm also an avid PC supporter and negate everything that is not on Steam.

I'm not exactly sure why you're putting words in my mouth and why you wanna hear something from me that I never believed in.

Nothing I've said so far has anything to do with EA so bringing EA in this discussion is nothing but a means to derail the conversation for whatever reason. And nothing I've said has anything to do with PC either. I mean hell, I'm more of a console supporter now than you are even if I don't own a console. With the exception of Nintendo. I just hate that shit and I have every right to do so. But that doesn't mean that I discredit it's existence or whatever. As for the one time I used the term PC in my discussion with prince -not with you by the way-, I used it to highlight a real factual difference between the two platforms which more or less impacts gaming development. I made no negative statement against consoles but against the daddy companies started to change the design of the platform itself and how in the long run it will hurt development if they don't find ways to avoid one-upping. And there's nothing wrong in making a negative statement as long as you back it up by arguments. Which I did. Whether you have a different view, that's the actual discussion.

So how exactly are you acting like an adult making a statement that is completely nonsensical? That entire quote is nothing but a big ass bait.

Anyway, back to prince...

prince0gotham wrote:1. Make difference between graphics and aesthetics.

I'm talking about graphics not aesthetics. As in the technical complexities behind the aesthetics. And the standard in 2017 is 60fps. And they can't achieve that even with 1080p let alone 4K.

and 60fps is not graphics

Well they're not but they work hand in hand. I mean, the idea is that they wanna push the graphics while aiming for that 60 fps bar. And having this sort of one-upping in the console market will cause increased development costs in the future.

For example, The Last of Us has the vanilla version and then the remaster. The remaster was made for PS4/X1. But maybe they'll wanna remaster the remaster and up that shit to 4K in the future. But that wouldn't be a problem since you already have the game launched.

The problem comes when you have a new game in development. For what platform are you actually developing it for? Let's say that you wanna push the graphics while also aiming for the 60fps. We ignore PC here since it's irrelevant. Obviously you'll develop the game for Scorpio (imma use scorpio cuz X1X is so stupid lol) and PS4 Pro. Problem is the publisher will say "well, yeah but there's millions of PS4 and X1 out there so the game needs to run on those too. Now you have to basically downgrade a version just so it can play on the old 1080p consoles. This increases costs which in return might force you out of your initial idea of pushing the graphics further. After all you do have a budget.

Now imagine a developer that wants to utilize the full potential of Scorpio. Then he's going to readjust that very game for PS4 Pro. Then he's going to do it one more time for the 1080p consoles. The development costs have increased even more in this case.

Now what happens when you have "PS4 Ultra" or PS5 coming out in 2020 and one-ups the Scorpio by 20 or 30 percent? You see what I'm saying. The gap will get higher and higher between the lowest most popular spec and the highest spec on the market. As in the gap between PS4 and PS5. Which drastically increases costs of production, which may force developers that want to push graphics further into not doing so because they have to take into account the 1080p consoles.

And this is tied basically with the Scorpio arriving too soon for a market that's not there yet. But the developers that want to use it's power now will have problems. And if the one-upping will start to occur in more visible ways in the console market then yeah, it will limit the possibilities by increasing the low spec-high spec differences which will have to be taken in consideration when developing a new game.

Here's your view on videogames.

The problem comes when you have a new game in development. For what platform are you actually developing it for? Let's say that you wanna push the graphics while also aiming for the 60fps. We ignore PC here since it's irrelevant. Obviously you'll develop the game for Scorpio (imma use scorpio cuz X1X is so stupid lol) and PS4 Pro. Problem is the publisher will say "well, yeah but there's millions of PS4 and X1 out there so the game needs to run on those too. Now you have to basically downgrade a version just so it can play on the old 1080p consoles. This increases costs which in return might force you out of your initial idea of pushing the graphics further. After all you do have a budget.

But you're arguing that...

1. It's bad for Console developers to increase their costs (even if this really did that and ASSUMING having Pro/Scorpio wouldn't also increase profits, even if not yet) by developing for 2 products per each console's generation.
2. It's ALSO bad to have just ONE product per console generation, because that product becomes irrelevant too fast.

... at the same time. Like, at the same time you want Consoles to be more like PCs, which means you should technically endorse Pro/Scorpio regardless of complications, at the same time they're not identical enough, and that's bad, but they're also more complicated than classic consoles, so that's bad too, but PCs being complicated in the first places ISN'T bad? So if it's good that optimizing a game for a console is easy because there's just 1 graphical setting, is it bad that on PC developers have to either optimize low/medium/high/ultra equally OR just leave it to Users to figure things out just because it's PC and it's open, even though that's also often a problem?

You're just all over the place with this and the double standard just shows and we're not even looking into difference between MP and SP.

Like, judging by this http://steamcharts.com/top an Online component >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> graphics>>>>>>>>>everything else, right?

And this is tied basically with the Scorpio arriving too soon for a market that's not there yet. But the developers that want to use it's power now will have problems.

so... more power is... bad... then? or good? because it either has to be just one or the other, regardless of contexts and circumstances (sarcasm)

m4st4 please leave this conversation.

@Prince

It's bad for PC too. I mean look at the complaints when a game is developed only for the highest spec on the market. That game gets trashed for having shitty optimization.

However, there's a lot of differences in PC optimization of games which you ignore so it can drive your argument. One of the main ways developers REDUCE the costs is the following:

- Optimization is done through implementation of In-Game Settings. Which allows the developer to basically create a game like Crysis while also offering an instant downgrading option within the same BUILD. You don't need to invest in another special build for AMD users or Nvidia users. So tweaking is far easier given the resources PCs have.

Consoles however have always been whatever they were being sold. What you get in the box is what you have. So then what's the point of releasing a full-priced console every 2 years now that one-ups the previous one? Only so you can have developers wishing to develop games on the highest-spec but being forced to take a look at the lowest spec too because guess what, you can't really tell people that their 2 years old console is going to be ignored now. Console crowd is used with spending LESS and they start to spend more and more. And this way of developing impacts the budget as they have to work on different builds so that the games are optimized for each platform. This can be fixed by two ways imo (and I think the second is far more viable):

1. Create a console that has the ability to change parts. I mean consoles are getting closer and closer to a PC so why not?! Of course with a far more refined and less complex/annoying design than PC, easy to use even by a 7 year old. Think of a VHS tape being put in a recorder. If that tape would be a new spec then it would make things easier as people will more than likely update a lot more often rather than having to buy a NEW console. And the spec itself would be cheaper. This way the old games will automatically work on the new spec because the console is the same. You just increased it's power. It's not a different code in the program. And games can be developed on the same platform without having to make additional builds.

2. Develop the ability to have IN-GAME options for consoles. If this is being worked on and made possible then devs would have a much easier time developing games for the highest console spec out there on the same build.