>Differences in input devices are entirely market-driven and have been since the PS2. FFXI allowed PS2 players to use KB/M, remember? There's no way that a lack of KB/M would prevent a game from being released on console if the publisher wanted it there. Star Citizen is just a weird case where being designed for high-end PCs was part of its USP (and where a console port would be a terrible idea given the difficulties the development team have already been having with scope creep).
Is that why consoles don't have mouse and keyboard for first person shooters? Also you know why FFXI allowed for Keyboard and Mouse support because they were cross-platform with the PC, if they didn't then their would be issues in the multiplayer. I mean hell you know why FPS games are segregated? PC and Console it's because mouse and keyboard users would blood splatter console players.
>
Options can, in fact, be a bad thing. =P
Even ignoring the fact that graphical detail mods often look amateurish, there are some games for which allowing mods would be antithetical to their original artistic intent. I could completely understand if, say, Fumito Ueda rejected the idea of mods for The Last Guardian in order to prevent mod creators from creating a version of the game where the boy is replaced with a skilled warrior who's tasked with slaughtering a dozen Tricos.
This is the most nonsensical thing I've ever read, are you serious did you type that up in all seriousness? Options are objectively a good thing there is no debate about that,, you can choose not to use them, this artistic vision argument is BS, because you don't have to use mods, you can if you want to, thus making options an objective good, artistic vision or not, because you can choose to keep it the way they wanted it, or choose to do what you wish with it, it's your game, do what you want with it it's objectively a good thing, the option is objectively good, not subjectively, this whole options can in fact be a bad thing would mean that for some reason me using a mod in a certain game effects you, if it's multiplayer then you have a point, but in a single player experience you don't, regardless of the quality of mods, the option to use them is an objective good thing..
>Hahahahahaha, I love it. Console exclusives are unethical, but PC exclusives are perfectly okay because consoles can't run them. (Let's just ignore the fact that 99+% of PC exclusives are nowhere near current-gen quality.) No bias there!
Did you really just try to compare PC exclusives to console exclusives. Did you just do that? I don't even need to tell you why, but I'm am in shock you don't know why PC exclusives don't come to consoles.
1. What reason would their be to bring a PC exclusive title to a console, what reason would their be to bring something to a inferior platform from an inferior platform, I can name more a 1000 reasons why the opposite is good, I can't tell you a single reason apart from more people being able to play it, but then again, some games just can't be handled.
2. The PC is an open platform, consoles are a closed platform Ikkin, who controls what on console, and who controls the PC(If you say Valve I'm going to laugh, because they don't), oh yeah that's right Sony and MS has control over what goes on their systems, the PC does not. Also I would love to know where you got that 99 percent figure from.
3. Now onto my third I can't take this line serious let's look at games like Dota 2, unlike FFXI, and FFXIV Dota can't be played with a controller period, it would be rather shite if they ported it over, thus wouldn't selling period, because it wouldn't be made well, it's a game your grandpa computer can play, but the controls are several steps complexity above the consoles. I don't want to believe you didn't think this.
4. Now onto your console keyboard and mouse support, you know why FFXI, and FFXIV would be allowed, but Dota 2 is not? Well I'll give you a simply answer FF MMOs are playable with a controller, DOTA 2 would have to be dumbed down the overall complexity to achieve this why do you think most RTS games are exclusive to PC, and the ones on console don't have as much complexity. Since it will just be a shitter version of what you can play on PC, and PCs that are already in your home thus being redundant, and please don't tell me you don't have a computer, they are a basic necessity in modern day living a console is not, so even if you got the most casual computer, you would play something like Dota 2 much better than console players would, not from a graphical standpoint, but from a control standpoint using a KB and M instead of a PS4 controller, just hook it up to HDMI thus a console Version of the game will not sell since, because it would be redundant, and worse than the PC Versions that are playable on your casual game players AMD A4 Laptop with an Integrated GPU.
Also do you think that Sony or Microsoft want Keyboard and Mouse competing with their controllers? On systems that they 100 percent have control over? If your answer is yes, then you know what I don't know to tell you anymore, because if they allowed games like Dota 2 on their platform a game that is primarily made for KB and M, and is really only playable with keyboard and mouse, then they would lose sales on their expensive peripherals where as games that can use both,, they know console primary gamers will use controllers, so it's not that big of a threat for them to include other options.
This opposite is true for console exclusives coming to PC.
With those you have an infinitely better version that can run on your computer that can be 10x better than the consoles, that can scale, sadly though it might be better to play this one with a controller, because most developers of such titles don't bother to have good keyboard and mouse support, but luckily PCs don't have an owner, apart from the end user, so we have options to how we play our games, we decide ok I'll play this game with a mouse and keyboard, or I'll play this game with a Steam controller. Not to mention locking games to the PC is less about malevolence and more about it simply not being worth porting to console.
Let's look at a game like Undertale for instance you can play the game with a controller, even though I personally find it better to use a keyboard trust me I had a harder time fighting Sans with that controller than on a keyboard. Undertale is a game that can be run on all pretty much any computer bought in the last 10 years. There is almost no reason to do so, because almost any body that is interested in Undertale already has the system to play it on, and if they want to use a PS4 controller they can. Now onto console exclusives Sony and MS want you locked into their ecosystem paying to play their online, they themselves don't care if their system is inferior spec wise, thus can't deliver an experience that most PC Gamers would want, hell most gamers if they had the cash would want.They also know that if their games showed up on Steam their boxes would be irrelevant and they would lose control of their consumer. So for them dangling games in front of your face and forcing you to buy their system therefore locked, and invested in their ecosystem, games running at 60FPS be damned. Console Exclusives try to be graphical showcases, but they don't have the hardware to push the frame rate, but PCs do, but they don't care, because they want you locked in their ecosystem.
To sum this up on PC you have an objectively better version of the game that can do things the consoles couldn't handle in 1 millions years, the opposite is true for PC exclusives going to console, sometimes it has to be dumbed down control wise, graphics wise, and possibly scope wise. If it's something like DOTA 2 would be dumbed down and fundamentally changed if it reached the consoles, and would probably be something no one would want to play since they can get a better experience just playing it on their AMD A4 laptop than their PlayStation 4s. Not to mention Sony and Microsoft will not allow games that are only feasible with a keyboard and mouse on their systems it would compete with the controller, and the game simply won't sell well on consoles either since it would be an inferior experience.
>Considering how absurdly large open-world games have gotten, I suspect that limitations in scope have far more to do with budget than they do with pure technical considerations. Frame rate and resolution optimizations on console are completely irrelevant to PC ports, because those things take almost no work to increase. As for AI, that was always given short shrift even when there was plenty of extra CPU power to use for it.
If the consoles were more powerful, developers who have the budget to make bigger worlds, would do it, of course it's not a pure technical limitation thing, but it definitely plays a huge role. especially for developers that have a budget that can do it, if the consoles were more powerful like GTX 980, i7-3770k, 16GB of RAM level more powerful, modular and upgrade-able the developers that want to make bigger stuff that the PS4 can't handle, because remember while the PS4 Pro and Xbox Scorpio are more powerful they are held back by the PS4 and Xbox One originals, games have to run the same way. Sadly though some of these games aren't developed like Battlefield 3 which took PC as the focus then dumbed it down for consoles, no they take the opposite approach, they scale upwards, however keyboard and mouse suffers, and sadly sometimes these games come with a locked frame rate, or are just bad ports in general.
>What are you talking about with regards to Watch Dogs?
Ubisoft downgrades on the PC to not make the console versions look vastly inferior, they got caught when people modded the game and found the E3 settings there, they got exposed badly and released a shitty damage control statement which basically said nothing.
>Buying a premade PC means a significant reduction in the performance that you'll get for your money.
Never said premade, you pick out the parts, the store builds it, some do it for free if you buy all the parts in that store, they are of your choosing.
1) Emulators rely on the existence of a motivated development base and supporters who are willing to provide sufficient donations to keep the development base fed. As such, the OG Xbox is in a particularly poor position with regards to the development of a fully-functional emulator -- most of its games have PS2, GameCube and/or PC ports (all of which can be played on modern PCs), and of its exclusives, most can be played on X360 or XO through either backwards compatibility or HD remasters. It makes a lot of sense that it'd be difficult to get an Xbox emulator off the ground. The PS4, in contrast, has enough desirable exclusives for the emulation community to focus on.
Completely irrelevant to my point against relying on emulation for preservation, what if those emulators didn't exist that's my point, what if Xbox 360 titles couldn't be played on the Xbox One? What if an Xbox 360 emulator didn't exist period this is something abstract that can affect any console in the future. Also your emulators for preservation point is hurt because there are still Xbox exclusives no matter how you slice it, what if someone wants to play those games, all the Xbox's die, and all the people making Xbox emulators up and quit. Emulation is objectively not a solid way of preservation in comparison to just porting the game to PC, and it's foolish to even think that it will be a good way of preservation in the future when it relies on community interest, the security in place, and the complexity of the hardware, also what if a certain game that wasn't very popular was confined to a dead console with a heavily complex architecture, and some people want to play that game, then it isn't preserved since no one will be willing to deal with it.
2) By the time the last SNES dies, people will be playing SNES roms on chips implanted in their brains or something. =P Same goes for PS4 emulation, most likely.
Funny though irrelevant
3) Console exclusivity doesn't mean performance will remain the same forever. One of the reasons why emulators like Dolphin are so loved is that they're able to increase resolution and framerate to 4k/60 if you've got the computer for it. You know not all console games get those performance upgrades, and it's not just performance upgrades with emulators unless some kind soul makes texture upgrades, and allows for any type of meaningful modding, the point is moot, especially since it's more efficient for the PC to run the game natively, than from within an emulator. When you have to emulate a game you can very well say good bye to 60FPS+ in some games, especially if the game itself doesn't support it, and no one has bothered to go into modding for it which is more likely within an emulator than on a PC. There are PC exclusive features that simply couldn't happen on consoles which is why emulation is not a replacement for a good PC Port, not to mention that developers that make PC ports, have much more of a monetary incentive to make sure the game runs at the standard framerate(60FPS) as opposed to people making an emulator and trying to run a game at 60FPS when it was originally 30..
4) Physical console games can be backed up just the same as PC games. I'm sure there are illicit ways to get console games even now, and by the time disc rot is a major concern, game preservationists will have made sure the data won't be lost. (Digital can go jump in a hole. =P )
Umm no Physical games even though they can be backed up, you need the original disc to play them, what do you think that Sony's gonna let you back up the disc and discard the disc? Also dumping is useless if you can't play it, so it becomes a useless waste of space, and if the next gen console isn't BC then there might not be a monetary incentive to go about porting it. Also the PS4 and Xbox One aren't cracked so there are no illicit way of getting those games, and yes I'm aware they are dumped, but they aren't usable. Not to mention those that make it usable are under no obligation to release it to the public.
This is cringe, I brought up the SNES as an arbitrary point, and I did say if they chose not to keep supporting it's library, also if emulators didn't exist for this system, but you know what? I'm going to make a scenario let's say there is this incredibly secure console that has amazing games like 50+ games are exclusive to this console you can't get them anywhere else it's locked onto this console and even if when the discs are dumped onto your PC, for preservation purposes assuming they even compile into the game code, because it's possible to lock the disc from being ripped the original Xbox did this until they found a way past that, but what if that doesn't happen ever, they wouldn't be playable, and by the time you find out how all of this type of particular console are dead, the chips are decayed, and the discs rotted. Also emulation for this console is nigh-impossible, so you ain't playing the games on PC, you couldn't anyway since you wouldn't be able to access the games code. Also don't bother dumping the game to the hard drive the console formats your hard drive in a certain way, so it's impossible to do this, and no program currently exists that allows you to read the hard drive, so you can dump them for your PC to one day make them playable again through an emulator assuming they don't just up and quit, and no one has attempted to do so, it's far too complex. That's assuming that the console even uses hard drives to begin with, it's possible for it to use carts which aren't dump-able.
This would cause the game to not be preserved, now let's say all 50 games had a PC Version likelihood they would be on Steam, and there is a clause that says if Steam goes down you can keep all your games. Now let's say all these 50 games had incredible DRM security, someone someday can find a way to crack it, and they would have the time to because digital files don't decay, Also it's likely that the developer of the game will just sell it again, and even if it's like a DOSBOX situation where the game is so old, that it's not regularly compatible with everyday machines, luckily emulation for such a thing is easy, since it's just PC there is no one going to try and not make it emulate-able unlike consoles where they have to make sure it's not possible to emulate it. Now I don't believe that such a thing will happen, but the possibility still remains, and it's short-sighted not to see that.
Now FFXV running on a GTX 1080 Ti hmm that's pretty cool, I mean that 1080 Ti is more powerful than anything in the consoles, hopefully that means it can actually run at 60FPS preferably at 4K.
Last edited:
