Can somebody explain to me what he meant by this? I know John Carmack is a smart guy, so there has to be some logic behind this that I don't get.
>>321746891
"Please buy my new console exclusive announced February 2016"
A console has dedicated hardware, developing software for this kind of systems if thrice as cheap to develop for than a general purpose PC, also allows full optimizations knowing the hardware is always the same.
Mobile phones sufferes of the same "general purpose machine" problem and it's also twice as varied as well as weak.
>>321746891
It was a sarcastic joke I believe.
>>321746891
PC is twice as efficient as mobile, console twice as efficient as PC.
Or the paper specs lie.
That his next game is on console.
You can hypothetically get twice the performance out of a console than you could a pc of equivalent specs because of optimization based on its standardized hardware/spftware setup and low system overhead.
The same applies for pc's and mobile phones, but more because phones have issues with heat management and battery usage that mean they often highly limit what their components can do.
>>321746891
In theory, you can make extreme graphics on PC.
In practice, this will limit your audiences too much, and you'll have to scale it down to actually make it run smooth on everyone's machine.
Meanwhile, while consoles are really, really weak, you get more relative power out of them because you can always aim at the "top-end" - there is no low end versions of what you're aiming at.
And on mobiles, the issue is similar to PCs but worse, since tons and tons of people use low end cell phones.
So PC's got the power to crush everything, but you don't necessarily get to use it. You can get to use everything in a console, but it's just not as much as on PC. And on mobiles, you have to aim low to reach a big audience.
Carmack's tweets are a bit confusing.
>>321746891
It's mostly related to API/OS overhead.
>>321746891
>>321747653
It's because games can be more heavily optimized for consoles because they're fixed hardware. PC can have wildly more powerful hardware but have performance issues because it's impossible to test games on absolutely every hardware and software configuration and combination so compromises have to be made. Similar with mobile, but PCs have enough grunt that it's less of an issue. Mobile shit still has to work with a bunch of different phones and hardware, but it's all much weaker and less forgiving than PC.
I don't know anything about consoles, last one I had was a N64 but I believe for current pc and gpu you are restricted by their drivers as a developer. On consoles you have much more direct contact with the raw power of the gpu and a lot less loss due to overhead. DirectX12 and Vulcan are also going in this direction, devs will have to code more but if they do it right will get a lot more power out of the gpu.
>>321747747
This.
A CONSOLE HAS LOCKED HARDWARE.
THIS MEANS A CONSOLE CAN USE STUPID LOOPHOLES FOR BETTER PERFORMANCE THAT MIGHT NOT WORK ON DIFFERENT BUILDS.
THIS IS ALSO WHY EVERY GENERATION RETARDED TOASTER USERS COME ALONG WITH THEIR "BUT I HAVE THE SAME SPECS AS A PS4 WHY DOESN'T MY GAME RUN SHIT PORT????" EVERY FUCKING TIME.
FUCK.
>>321747849
This is true. Most of the apparent "increased power" has been thanks to improved coding algorithms rather than just faster computers.
optimization with standardized hardware
>>321746891
>facebook employee tweeting about paper specs
So a very bad PC offers worse performance than a much more expensive console of the same specs? Okay. This makes sense because the console doesnt have to also run Windows, Steam, and however many services and deamons.
How about dollar specs though? Because you can easily get a PC with twice the paper specs of a console, and thats the argument mustards give.
You practically never compare a PC of the same paper specs to a console, its always much greater.
PCs can do more than just gaming.
You can do structural complicated tasks on it, but you cant on console
>>321746891
I'm not completely agreeing with the numbers, but what he means is that
if you have a mobile, PC and console platform with the same computational power, a console will outperform a pc and a pc will outperform the mobile platform due to optimization.
>>321747919
Eh, with PS4 it actually starts to kinda work since it's so similar to PCs.
But back in, for example PS2 days, the same game that ran fine on PS2's 304MHz CPU usually required 500-1000MHz CPU on PC side. Not necessarily more video memory though.
>>321746891
It's some bullshit that hasn't been true since DX9.
Nowadays the only reason console seem like they deliver better performance with inferior hardware is due to hardware jinx and software shenanigans.
And they still look like shit due to using subpar post-processing AA, running at sub 30fps and using non-standard resolutions that force the console to use shitty rescaling filters to fit your HDTV panel.
>>321748005
>This makes sense because the console doesnt have to also run Windows.
>he doesn't know
And thanks to DX12 and Vulkan, PCs will now get almost identical levels of efficiency to consoles.
To be honest, performance is almost on a par with consoles now, as DX11 optimisation has got that good, and there is usually plenty CPU to spare for the driver. That's why a 750ti can beat a PS4 in most games.
Not twice the performance, but a console delivers significantly more performance with the same hardware as every console is identical and its nuch easier to optimize for just one hardware config.
>>321748041
He didn't give any numbers. It's all relative.
Consoles, PCs and mobiles don't actually have the same paper specs. You have to scale it to the real life situation where PCs are usually twice or more faster than consoles, and where mobiles are only about half as powerful as consoles.
>>321748081
What model is your console, that has to run Windows at all times, including plug&play functionality for a a range of devices, advanced networking, antivirus, skype, browser, etc?
A PC just runs more stuff at the same time as games, which is why for the same specs it will perform worse. The good thing is that it can get twice the specs for the same dollar.
>>321748005
Except XboxOne literally runs Windows 10 and the Xbox app.
>>321746891
I think the more important question is ratherwhy the fuck does this tweet from almost two years ago still rile people here up so much?
>>321747472
Two different widespread, competing OS' can't help, either. Mobile doesn't have the "benefit" of Windows dominating forever.
>>321748252
XboxOne also literally performs worse than a PC of similar specs.
>>321746891
It is really simple.
Assume you have to write assignment about certain subject.
In case A (consoles) you are given one sheet of paper with extremely specific and ONE set of guidelines about the topic, nothing else.
In case B (PC) you are given a phone book of guidelines that you have to follow, within book you have 60 set of guidelines and you have to make them all work together.
As someone who develops software, as much as people shit on locked hardware, it is nothing compared to the reality of gorillion PC parts that can be in gorillion combinations without any order or logic, without a clue if you have to aim for shitboxes or high-end stuff.
>>321746891
He's right.
The current state of the game market means many games are optimized for consoles, and not the PC platform.
This gives rise to Carmack's statement.
Although there are 2 things you have to take to hand; 1) Consoles are limited to their hardware, if you have the money you can increase the paper spec of the PC, but you are spending more money of course. 2) PCs do more than merely play games, consoles have started to do more too but not as much.
>>321748197
Considering how complex is DRM for consoles nowadays and how much memory their OS eat, I don't think that's no longer the case.
>>321748107
Jarring flaw in that logic is the reality of integrating Vulkan/DX12 in a game. Which is gonna be hard for the overwhelming majority of devs.
>>321746891
This isn't rocket science, anyone with a bit of tech knowledge knows this, thought whether it would be double is arguable.
Consoles are specifically designed to do one thing with little to no interactions in the background. PCs have far more stuff happening in the background. Because PCs have more things happening in the background, the games run on a PC get less resources to work with. Also, consoles have always a set of specific hardware, whilst PCs can vary with all kinds of different hardware. So when the dev is making the game engine, for a console, he knows what hardware will be used and he can optimize the game to run on that specific hardware, whilst with a PC the dev has to optimize the game for many various hardware variations.Playing vidya on a phone is a joke, unless it's puzzle games.
>>321748350
I dont think you realize how much work Windows does for you.
Open your task manager and you will see how much it eats. And that doesnt include Steam, Skype, your browser, your music player, your antivirus, your firewall, etc that all run while you play.
>>321746891
Windows has a considerable performance overhead because everything needs to be run through layers of abstraction to provide compatibility.
Aggressive power saving features on mobile compound the above issue further, and performance concessions are made on the hardware end due to form factor and temperature concerns.
>>321746891
He means nothing as those are actual lies to get you to buy console exclusives.
>>321748319
This is why APIs, standards, and minimum requirements exist.
>>321746891
set hardware means you can do low level, processor-specific wizadry for high performance
>>321748448
>spoiler
Football Manager and Hearthstone are two examples of serious and well loved PC games that made their way to phones.
>>321748190
I was referring to the relative statements, I personally have my doubts about the 'twice'. I agree that consoles will perform better, but I don't think the difference will be double the performance.
>>321748319
>>321746891
Closed systems are more efficient than open systems but I really doubt consoles are twice as efficient.
>>321746891
Console is made by mobile part.
Don't you get it? Its a CYCLE!
>>321748061
every single console is lower res, lower frame rate and are riddled with input lag.
I don't even know why this shit keeps getting discussed, consoles are just simple machines that kids get their parents to buy for them and casuals use to pass the time, it is like comparing serious films with cartoon gibberish, they are on different levels, they are for different audiences.
In my youth I knew the mega drive i had was just a toy compared to the amiga 1200, now all consoles are just toys compared to PC.
I do look forward to a time when /v/ shuns console kids the same way they shun people playing games on a phone.
>>321748458
Actually I do, and those are mundane tasks compared to all the shit that goes on in a game, your AV idlying is eating more processing power than every single Windows service at this point.
Windows is mostly a memory hog, and ram is dirty cheap for PCs.
On the other hand costantly running checks on your code against all sorts of exploits in and around your system is a bitch.
>>321748569
No one reads minimum requirements anymore. People just try to run anything and cry because it doesn't work on their 8 year old laptop with integrated Intel gpu.
>/v/ Tries It: Graphics Programming: The Thread
>>321748810
consult with >>321748685
Single point of optimisation vs Optimising for a variety of specs
>>321748812
No.
Nowadays you can have Titan,i7 and 16 GB Ram and it still can run like shit.
Recommended and Minimum don't mean anything anymore.
>>321748979
>they dont make em like they used to i wish i was back in vietnam
>as told by a 14 year old boy
>>321748434
A lot of devs will probably just use an engine that supports it well, like Unreal
>>321747828
This. It's why most PC games are made to run every Joe's computer. Blizzard found this out, then Valve went in and the others followed.
>>321748005
>facebook employee
Are you really going to do this?
It's fucking Carmack. His employer doesn't relate to the discussion and certainly doesn't negate what he's saying.
>>321749062
Yeah, I suppose that's what's most likely to happen. But then I don't think it'll make for a drastic improvement in performance on average compared to devs that know the inner working of those APIs and use their features to improve overall performance like async compute and stuff. Just like when it took years for games to be optimized for multi-core rendering. I'm just a pessimist I guess.
>>321749263
By the same logic we cant speak ill of Tim Schafer, because once you become great, you arent allowed a fall from grace.
>>321749385
>comparing creative director to renowned engine programmer
anon pls
>>321747828
That's what 'Options' is for.
Make a game for an upper-mid range computer, add the option to add in some unoptimized stuff for better visual quality on beastly PCs and allow to turn off some shit on the worse PCs.
Considering just what percentage of today's performance is dictated by post-processing effects for which this is a breeze, you can easily make a good looking game and still cover a decent potential audience.
>>321749263
>It's fucking Carmack.
So? The last time he did anything remotely impressive was 1996.
>>321749535
Fall from grace is fall from grace. Carmack fell.
>>321749372
It will take time, but there's bound to be a few low-level optimisation tricks they've been using on consoles that they can bring over to DX12 and Vulkan straight away. It's going to make the biggest difference on PCs with dual core or low-power CPUs.
It's far easier to optimize for a single set of standardized hardware.
how the fuck is this quote being misconstrued
I'm not even a computer man this is basic shit
>>321746891
It's about how abstract the code is. Optimising for one set of hardware is easier than a million with a ton of APIs in the way.
>>321746891
it doesn't matter since my pc from 5 years ago is still more than twice as strong than current gen consoles
Lol !
>a console will deliver twice the perf of a PC
According to this very fucking stupid argument, then consoles should be doing solid 120FPS right now, but that's just not the case, is it?
Even with the premise of excusing shit hardware by comparing it's performance to other shit hardware, it's still ridiculous that your shit box can barely make it to 30fps sometimes and then often dips down to 9fps when too many things are happening on the screen, or when a second player joins co-op mode, and you can barely get to this lousy level of performance by running the game on a bare-bones O.S. You're still stuck with "worse of both worlds"!!!
>>321749628
What? That suddenly means he is an idiot? This is much more like Tim Schafter making a comment about point and click adventures and an anon saying that he can't talk on the subject because he "fell from grace".
>>321749886
If you'd read the thread, and the millions of other threads on this twitter post, he's talking about API overhead. It's why consoles with shitty 1.6ghz processors can perform reasonably well.
>>321749891
>This is much more like Tim Schafter making a comment about point and click adventures and an anon saying that he can't talk on the subject because he "fell from grace".
You mean like everyone did and still does about Broken Age, a point and click adventure game?
>>321749886
not his fault people can't code
rage ran buttery smooth on consoles, even though it still had that texture load problem
>>321747828
You console fags are fucking stupid. Consoles allow for better optimization because it has set hardware. A PS4 will run into the same issues no matter where you got it. An R9 290 & GTX 970 on the other hand will run into different issues. PCs also have to support Windows & any background programs running while a PS4 only has to support the bare minimum. He pulled the numbers out of his ass if the image is real, though they would be irrelevant anyways. Dollar for dollar PC will often still outperform consoles.
As far as scaling games down for older hardware is concerned, no. Most of the intense shit these days comes from optional lighting, AA, & filtering effects. Even textures can be repackaged at low resolutions with hardly any effort if the devs were worried about it.
>>321750078
>reasonably well
30fps with framedrops to 9fps if you do anything else besides "watching paint dry" is not exactly reasonable, and not exactly well either. Who do you think you're fooling?
>>321750231
You're just cherry picking a bad example (and there are lots of them). But there are some really well optimised console games.
>>321750324
there haven't been since last gen desu
i can only think of gears, uncharted and bayonetta on 360 as well optimized games
Doesnt matter if the games run at 30fps
>>321750078
>It's why consoles with shitty 1.6ghz processors can perform reasonably well.
There's 8 of them, anon.
It is still a shitty CPU but coming in at 12.8 GHz of computing power spread across 8 processing units, it's not that bad considering the average gaming PC has an i5 ~3.5GHz -> 14 GHz spread around 8 processing units.
>>321750324
>But there are some really well optimised console games.
Same could be said for PC games, which again, nullifies your whole pro-console argument altogether.
>>321750485
>you will never be this stupid
Dodged a bullet right there.
>>321750696
>I live in 2007 and don't know that algorithm paralellism has progressed a lot since then.
Anything that requires straight 3.5 GHz of power should not even be in the game in the first place.
>>321746891
Here OP, this might help explain it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yH5MgEbBOps&t=58m27s
As you can see, consoles only having 1 config lets devs optimize for it better
It's that simple
>>321750879
I'm not going to debate it.
Arguing with retards isn't healthy.
>>321750485
You can't compare Intel's GHz to AMD's GHz.
Skylake or Haswell Intel core at 4GHz performs the same as an AMD core at 7Ghz. AMD tries to counter this by giving you more cores, but fewer, stronger cores are usually the better choice.
Just a reminder that the same people trying to defend consoles with this very dumb argument are the same idiots who walk into a store and pay $80.00 for a printed copy of a game's installation file printed on a DVD for a "nextgen" console, thinking they're keeping a "special, physical copy of the game" like if they were still living in the SNES golden age era of console games.
>>321750904
I want to commit a crime.
>>321746891
Consoles > PC
Carmack agrees, don't bother him about it.
>>321747472
This is mostly theory though. If you actually look into console development you'll find that most "optimisation" is reducing the quality where the player is less likely to notice, often at the cost of general game mechanics, e.g. downscaling the size of levels, and so on. Also, the expectations on console are much lower, letting developers get away with 20 - 30fps which on PC would be regarded as barely even playable.
>>321750485
i5s are either quad core with no hyperthreading or dual core with hyperthreading. However, the performance per cycle is higher than the AMD CPUs in the consoles. So you can't really make a direct comparison.
>>321748319
>As someone who develops software
t. web designer
>>321751393
>"Dentists arent real doctors, so a dentist shouldnt ever talk to me about medicine", said Mark the taxi driver.
>>321746891
God himself has spoken and settled it then.
>>321751442
How does hardware bother you then as a developer, would you mind giving me some example? Unless you write your own engine in OpenGL - which you shouldn't - it shouldn't bother you a bit.
>>321750904
Say what you will about the games but Naughty Dog are fucking wizards when it comes to working with hardware.
>>321751827
How does hardware bother you, as an unemployed bachelor, any more than it bothers me?
Also I am not the same guy, and my job description reads "video game developer". I'd say I can talk about video game development.
>>321752216
Then you should be able to answer the same question.
"video game developer" is a nice title, but you're in the company of Brianna Wu, Zoe Quinn and Phil Fish, so that doesn't mean too much.
>>321752682
Having two hands is nice, but these other horrible people also had two hands. Please be ashamed.
>>321752771
So you can't give me an example from your rich experience of video game development?
>>321752846
Example of what, exactly? How hardware influences your work?
Very simple, hardware limits you, for example it limits how detailed your AI can be to keep turn timers low. Cant have the AI calculate every possible move X steps forward, and pick the most favorable one, for high X values, need to lower them. Thus the AI becomes worse, because the expected hardware is worse.
Your question isnt getting answers because its a stupid question. There are many obvious and basic answers, but the question isnt detailed enough for serious answers. Also it doesnt help that all your posts are accompanied by terrible B tier insults.
>>321752992
>Very simple, hardware limits you, for example it limits how detailed your AI can be to keep turn timers low. Cant have the AI calculate every possible move X steps forward, and pick the most favorable one, for high X values, need to lower them. Thus the AI becomes worse, because the expected hardware is worse.
And how is that an issue on the PC where you have a fuckload of processing power and a fuckload of RAM at your disposal - much more so than on consoles where you actually need to be quite stingy with it? How do hardware specifics come into play?
What I see from you is general talk in regards to things you need to keep in mind in software development in general but no good argument in favour of why console development is easier due to fixed hardware.
>>321746891
Consoles, much like ASICs, (should) have better performance than general-purpose machines like computers at the task their hardware is designated to do.
In practice, consoles are a piece of shit because no one will spend the amount of money people usually spend in high-end PCs on them, so they have to make them cheap so they can sell them.
>>321753216
If thats what you wanted to know you may have wanted to actually properly ask it.
Console development is harder for my part, because it limits resources more (cant just say the game requires X and Y high specs), and the devkit is limiting in itself, despite things apparently getting better in the last gen (never worked on past gens, dont know). There is also the problem that you have to pay money to patch your game on console, so you have to work much harder and not take risks.
>>321751257
>This is mostly theory though
Yes, the "theory" that allows a machine with 256MB of RAM and shit tier graphics to run games like these
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzqJswRGc8o
>>321753539
>If thats what you wanted to know you may have wanted to actually properly ask it.
And if you had actually followed the conversation, maybe you would have derived that on your own.
>Console development is harder for my part, because it limits resources more (cant just say the game requires X and Y high specs), and the devkit is limiting in itself, despite things apparently getting better in the last gen (never worked on past gens, dont know). There is also the problem that you have to pay money to patch your game on console, so you have to work much harder and not take risks.
Maybe you should tell that to people who are under the impression that console development was easier.
>>321746891
I'll give Carmack the benefit of a doubt and assume this is a poorly explained logical argument and not just paid shilling for whatever console-based game he's working on(DOOM reboot now, right?)
Closed-system mass produced consoles are easier to optimize software for than open-box handbuilt custom hardware PCs.
But honestly that doesn't excuse the lengths that modern publishers go to prevent games on PC from running at their best, just to give the appearance that consoles are somewhere in the ballpark of PC performance.
>>321753608
This does not refute what I've said in the slightest. While the game looks good, it is fairly cinematic and limited in terms of gameplay. Static paths through the level, small areas, etc. - the fact that it runs on that kind of machine doesn't surprise me at all. It's good looking, but the good looks come at a price.
>>321753768
Maybe you should revisit all your trash posts and delete them, because instead of asking your question you insult people for being web developers and thus not real developers, or being in the same profession as Brianna Wu, and thus fags, etc.
>>321753862
You're implying that single target optimisation is a reduction in effects when in reality it's thing like optimising functions based on fixed CPU cycle values etc
>>321753791
Tweet was made years ago, Einstein.
>>321753926
Maybe you should take a look at the posts I responded to.
If someone keeps spouting the meme that console development was easier due dealing with fixed hardware and backs it up by being a software developer then I'm going to doubt whether he actually develops software for consoles.
he's not wrong. consoles have standardized hardware and software, so with every user you have the same configuration. you also don't have to worry about other processes going on, because every user has the same set of processes. it'll run the same for everyone. on pc you're capable of doing much more but the fragmentation makes it difficult. it's the same problem with android.
>>321753953
>You're implying that single target optimisation is a reduction in effects when in reality it's thing like optimising functions based on fixed CPU cycle values etc
As if anyone does that these days. In most cases you see cheap tricks at play, i.e. reduction of texture sizes where the player is less likely to notice, shrinking of maps, limiting where the player can "see" so less content needs to be rendered at once, and lastly: dealing with the fact that the game is going to run at 20 - 30fps.
I'm not seeing any remarkable programming magic in console game development.
>>321754274
>As if anyone does that these days
Exactly what Naughty Dog, Santa Monica etc do.
>>321754274
>reduction of texture sizes where the player is less likely to notice, shrinking of maps, limiting where the player can "see" so less content needs to be rendered at once
These are just optimizations that apply to video games no matter the platform.
>Saving resources is a bad thing
This is how stupid you sound.
>>321753791
Carmack got fired by Bethescucks, he is not working at id any more.
And the tweet was made around the time Rage was released I think, and for that game well, the console versions did work much more evenly than the PC versions which were outright broken depending on your hardware even if your PC was more powerful than the consoles.
>>321754274
People didn't notice this back in the day and there wasn't a digital foundry around to analyze it. They just assumed singular corridor games were the best looking or basically lied.
Couple that with the fact that the ps3 had a
gpu: nvidia 7800GTX 256mb
cpu: quad core 3.0Ghz
This was pretty good build to have in 2006. This time around sony cheaped/out didn't bother using the high end cards from last gen and so with visuals advancing and devs getting lazier, their little tricks aren't working as well anymore.
http://gamingbolt.com/ps3-was-more-or-less-maxed-out-with-uncharted-2-naughty-dog-has-a-very-talented-graphics-team
>I’d say that the PS3 was more-or-less maxed out. On Uncharted 2 most of the code running on the SPUs was hand-optimized assembly
This is what he means. You can't do this on games that are shipping to tons of possible platforms.
>>321753791
>modern publishers go to prevent games on PC from running at their best
Why would they? PC players don't pay them shit
Not only is piracy much more common, but thanks to Steam most people just wait for discounts. How many people got DaS at full price on console? And how many got it under 10$ or even 5$ on Steam?
Just look at your own library about count the % of games you got at discount and at full price.
Big games can't be sustained on PC alone. The limit is AA games like XCOM2, but a AAA game wouldnever everget a PC-only release nowadays.
Of course you have the exception of Starcitizen but that doesn't come with a big marketing campaign so I can't consider it a true AAA, and it wasn't a publisher that paid for it all but the impressionable public.
> just to give the appearance that consoles are somewhere in the ballpark of PC performance
It's true, though. Consoles absolutely lead the market. PC is their cuck. Last PC-minded game that didn't give a shit about consoles and blew everyone away was the first Crysis (and now StarCitizen but we're talking about publishers, not crowd funded games)
PC will only get games the current consoles can run, so in a way consoles are in the ballpark of PC performance, even if a good PC can render the games better, in the end the game had consoles in mind.
>>321754354
This?
>In most cases you see cheap tricks at play, i.e. reduction of texture sizes where the player is less likely to notice, shrinking of maps, limiting where the player can "see" so less content needs to be rendered at once, and lastly: dealing with the fact that the game is going to run at 20 - 30fps.
Yes, that's what they're doing.
>>321746891
I can see that none of the people who replied here actually have any fucking clue of what they're talking about.
The reason is actually fairly simple: On consoles developers have much lower level access to everything that is going on than on PC. On PC, a ton of stuff is hidden away behind higher level abstractions (because they need to abstract away the differences between different types of hardware configurations), but often also do so in an unnecessarilly restrictive manner. This is the reason why DX12 and Vulkan are touted to be such a huge deal - they significantly lower this barrier of abstraction and give developers closer access to the metal so to speak. His statement (and he himself would agree) will have to be significantly adjusted once usage of those new APIs is widespread.
>>321754436
>These are just optimizations that apply to video games no matter the platform.
The point is that on a PC you don't need them because you have the resources at hand. Also, this imposes limitations in terms of game design. You can't simply allow designers things the way they want. Guess why we only have corridor shooters these days with tiny maps?
>Saving resources is a bad thing
It's not a bad thing but it is often unnecessary. Especially on the PC where you have the resources at hand. You don't need to put effort into limiting yourself.
See, I'm not saying that all of it is bad: I'm saying that console development is NOT easier, since the hardware you're developing for - even though highly standardised - is not top of the line hardware.
>>321755008
>but it is often unnecessary
We're in fucking crazy town. Stop all new technologies. We don't fucking need them.
>>321747472
>allows full optimization
All they're doing is turning the graphical settings down, or even turning some of them off. Having the ability to change graphical settings is a must in the first place in order to develop multiplatform games. This has been the case ever since the PS2/Xbox/GameCube era. Before that, if a game was to be multiplatform it would be even more expensive due to the huge differences in hardware between the PS1 and Nintendo 64. Basically with a PC multiplatform, or I guess even PC exclusives, they just hand off optimization to the users by way of letting them have full access to the graphical settings. Either way John Carmack is pulling shit out of his ass. The guy has lost his edge and no longer knows what he's talking about, obviously.
>>321748197
>A PC just runs more stuff at the same time as games, which is why for the same specs it will perform worse.
The PS4 and the Xbone have a ridiculous amount of ram reserved to the OS, 3 gigs or something
>>321755173
Glad to see we have experts here who know more than John Carmack. Any other insights to share?
>>321754274
While i agree with you,GOW 3 run at ~45fps average.(unlocked 60fps)
Besides that,you're right,what people call optimization is not what developers call optimization.
To people optimization is some voodoo code that allows a weak machine to magically run a game it's not supose to run.
To devs optimization is how to reduce the graphics and design the game around the hardware constraints without people to notice that much.(that is why first parties usually look better than third parties)
That is why most sony's first parties(and even some third parties games) last gen were walking cinematic corridors where everything was scripted sacrificing the player's agency in order to make the game look good.(PS3 shitty RAM = bad for sandboxes)
>>321755164
The guy is literally saying that dev's are 'saving resources' by reducing the overall quality of the game.
Nowhere did he say new tech which save resources is bad.
>frog
Really not surprised. If the other guy replies, you got two (You)'s.
>>321754709
Take a guess how many developers actually want to deal with the low level shit. It's simply too expensive and takes too long. They'd rather pay for a pre-made engine so that they don't need to focus on lengthy engine building and can focus on content creation instead.
Most of this talk about hardware access is purely theoretical, because in practice all you see is scope being limited, games getting more cinematic and "silky smooth 30fps".
>>321755348
You're literally saying that "saving resources" in unnecessary. I'm in fucking tears. Just stop all research into making anything more efficient. This guy fucking cracked it.
>>321755259
>appealing to authority
Top kek.
>>321755259
Hi John. Stop making an ass of yourself on Twitter.
>>321746891
Everyone is wrong. He was talking about a specific feature, not about performance in general.
Read the whole conversation
>>321755414
I didn't, he did. He'll reply to you most likely in a second.
Also, he didn't actually say that, I advise you to read everything he said again. Unless you can't read.
>>321755506
We all know it's you.
>>321755008
I'm not the guy you replied to and I'm only a shitty dev that made 3 quick games as uni projects but what I'm about to say is completely unrelated to that and you only need common sense:
>It's not a bad thing but it is often unnecessary
>unnecessary
yes, because you want your market to be the top 5% of PC gamers with the best specs out there
Not the vast majority that plays CS:GO, LoL and Hearthstone and only owns a laptop or pre-built middle-spec tower pc
>>321755414
>I'm in fucking tears.
Well, as they say, "little things please little minds". Glad you can be amused by your own retarded brain and your inability to read. Read what those two people said. Or don't, whatever, here's another (You).
>>321755559
Yeah, it isn't, but, whatever, think it is. Even if I took a picture to prove it's not me, you'd go "p-photoshop" despite it being possible to prove it wasn't edited via EXIF data, but you don't know how to see that.
Here, anon-kun, this picture might help you :3 You'll fit in with 4chan in no time! I believe in you, new-friend :D
>>321746891
Assume a console and a PC have nearly the exact same hardware.
Then the console will outperform the PC because the software is more optimized to handle graphical input, since that's it's only job.
Of course, this ignores the fact that you can get a PC with much better hardware than a console for much cheaper so it's irrelevant that it's not as optimized
That's basically it, I don't get why /v/ is having so much trouble with this
>>321755286
>To devs optimization is how to reduce the graphics and design the game around the hardware constraints without people to notice that much.(that is why first parties usually look better than third parties)
Yes, pretty much.
The point is that people have this idea that just because you're dealing with a fixed set of hardware you have an easier time developing games and everything magically runs faster because it's written by oompah loompahs in assembly.
They're completely ignoring that there are lots of things that are getting in your way. Most of all hardware limitations, since you're not dealing with a modern computer that has a fuckload of RAM you can fill but you need to be stingy with your hardware and carefully track every bit of resource allocation (to a certain extent this is also true in PC development, but it's not nearly going to break your neck as much). And they're also ignoring that you're dealing with a "new" platform and that you have to walk paths nobody has walked before, while in PC development there are countless resources out there you can consult and chances are many problems you encounter have already been encountered before.
>>321755784
Except it has to outperform the pc by 2x the performance according to carmack.
>>321755414
>just stop all research into making anything more efficient.
not him but there is a diference between making things more efficient and downgrade.(and that is exactly the point he is trying to make)
Crysis going from a sandbox with lots of destructible objects to a walking corridor with less destructible things(crysis 2) is not making things more efficient.
>>321755173
Except this is wrong and you don't know shit about programming.
>>321755414
>You're literally saying that "saving resources" in unnecessary.
It's not generally unnecessary but when you're on a modern PC you have lots of resources at your disposal. Putting effort into saving resources is thus unnecessary and only takes your attention away from actual software development. You should only optimise where it's required.
Also, it should be considered that certain types of optimisation in the sense of "saving resources", e.g. locally reducing texture resolution, or something of that sort, puts more strain on other sorts of development too, since the level designers need to design their levels with these limitations in mind.
>>321746891
>John Carmack is a smart guy
for you
>>321755259
>know more than John Carmack
Carmack thought megatextures was a good idea and released Rage in the state it was.
>>321755008
Optimization is vital in any software development process, not only videogames.
Just because some PCs could run everything without problems doesn't mean you can just ship whatever inefficient piece of garbage you coded, you want to have the largest market possible.
Optimization in graphical software almost always consists on omitting, or compressing everything that doesn't produce a loss of quality in the eyes of the average human.
No, saving resources is never unecessary, optimization is a part of software development that is often times as important as the development itself, this is even more important in PC when while developing you don't know how many threads and processing power you'll be left to when an user opens your application.
If you think PC game devs just devote all the time they have making the game, and when they have a playable version they just ship that then you're gravely mistaken.
>>321756027
>>321755937
Watch him cry samefag to you too. It's the last refuge of somebody BTFO. He's trolling for (You)'s anyway.
>>321749886
>often dips down to 9fps when too many things are happening on the screen, or when a second player joins co-op mode
Why does co-op tank fps anyways? In BB once a second player joins the framerates tank
It's just one player and sometimes while soloing there are tons of enemies without that drop
>>321755991
>this is wrong
>but I'm too stupid to articulate why
If you're going to rebut something, at least try to rebut it.
>>321750426
Are you delusional retards actually serious? Off the top of my head MGSV TPP and GZ both run at 1080p 60fps on the PS4, Battlefront looks better than 99% of the shit out there and runs at locked 60 on the ps4 etc
Games running shittily despite looking mediocre (Bloodborne) is ALWAYS because of the coders being incompetent and simply not knowing how to fucking make the game run better
>>321756354
What's there to rebut? Anyone who knows anything about programming knows he's wrong. I don't need to explain shit to uneducated peons like you.
>>321756157
>Optimization is vital in any software development process, not only videogames.
Optimisation is vital where it's necessary. Optimisation is not a quality that has value in itself since the time you spend optimising old code you could also spend with writing new code.
>Optimization in graphical software almost always consists on omitting, or compressing everything that doesn't produce a loss of quality in the eyes of the average human.
This isn't completely true, but it certainly is an "easy" way unless you want to hire lots of really talented developers and give them a lot of time to think, which is rarely ever done simply because it's not the most economic choice. My point is that it imposes limitations. You can see it yourself in modern games. Small, linear maps, lots of cinematics in order to control how the player views certain things in order to not break the illusion of good graphics, etc.
>If you think PC game devs just devote all the time they have making the game, and when they have a playable version they just ship that then you're gravely mistaken.
Nowadays they often ship before it's finished, but that's a different story.
>>321756520
>NOPE YOU'RE WRONG TOO BAD!
>LALALALALA! I'M NOT LISTENING!
>EVERYONE ALREADY KNOWS YOU'RE WRONG ANYWAY!
lol okay then, have a pleasant day anon
>>321756157
>Just because some PCs could run everything without problems doesn't mean you can just ship whatever inefficient piece of garbage you coded....
not him but you're not talking about the same optimization that he is.
He never said devs should make ubisoft tier-coding,when he talks about not doing optimization he refering to things like static lightning that changes to dynamic when you come closer(read dead redemption does that in order to run on PS3/360) which becomes pretty obvious and ugly when you're paying attention or in the worst case scenario design the entire game around this constraint to the point the scale and even the gameplay are sacrificed in order to run in an outdated hardware.(crysis consolization and sony's linear first parties are good examples of that)
>>321756527
>Optimisation is vital where it's necessary. Optimisation is not a quality that has value in itself since the time you spend optimising old code you could also spend with writing new code.
I might add: a programmer might see things differently, but a lead programmer or senior software engineer or by whatever title you want to call someone who has to manage a certain time frame will certainly share my point of view.
>>321756354
>All they're doing is turning the graphical settings down
this part is just wrong. just read any late gen rendering presentations to see how the two different architectures get exploited between the x360 and the ps3
Is John Carmack still relevant?
>>321756604
You sound upset. Try to read up on programming sometimes, it's both educational and calming.
>>321756507
To be more precise it's because they their memory (resource) management algorithms suck. If you want a great example look up Naughty Dog rewriting distribution on their cpu to hit 60FPS on TLOU.
Off topic but it can't be easy being a dev right?
What you learn is constantly being outdated and companies are cracking the whip for the game to be put out faster and then dump you once the game is done
Plus you have to keep learning the new shit while holding a job
Do you even get paid well ?
>>321755164
>often
>OFTEN
>OFTEN = NEVER???
you illiterate sack of shit
>>321756527
>Optimisation is vital where it's necessary.
No, Optimisation is always necessary.
In commercial software you must appeal to the largest market possible, this means that improving your code is as vital as the code itself.
>This isn't completely true,
No, this is completely true and it has been since the beginning of image/video/audio compression story, decades ago.
The thought that you can reduce the amount of data the computer has to process without any quantificable loss of information is (mostly) false.
Anytime you compress something, youre losing quality, the trick to optimisation is to profit the fact that our visual systems are imperfect to reduce things that we won't notice.
You're talking about another thing.
Optimisation is making the same product run better on inferior machines via reducing the amount of input it requires or the processing cycles the processor has to dedicate to it.
What you're talking about is game devs changing characteristics of the product (the design of the game, making linear corridors or cinematic experiences, etc...) so the product is easier to code and is less demanding from the get-go.
That's not optimisation, that's just plain incompetence.
>Nowadays they often ship before it's finished, but that's a different story.
They start optimising blocks of code far before they have a full version.
>>321756507
>MGSV TPP and GZ both run at 1080p 60fps
And it shows. The visuals on anything but the npc/player models are stripped which makes sense since textures just need better vram and having nothing do to with framerate
The levels are barren and often consist of desert and wide open areas with nothing
On the PS4 specifically a lot of visuals were toned down.
>>321756619
>He never said devs should make ubisoft tier-coding,when he talks about not doing optimization he refering to things like static lightning that changes to dynamic when you come closer(read dead redemption does that in order to run on PS3/360) which becomes pretty obvious and ugly when you're paying attention or in the worst case scenario design the entire game around this constraint to the point the scale and even the gameplay are sacrificed in order to run in an outdated hardware.
That is a perfect example of what I've been talking about.
The issue is that all of these things need to be considered by the designers. You can't simply write a good engine and have it do the job - which makes your product significantly less "general purpose" but the experience needs to be deliberately tailored.
And this very often results in rather static, cinematic content.
I'm not even saying that this is bad per se, all I'm trying to do is challenge this mindset that console development was super easy because you have the most basic access to everything, since this potential is mostly theoretical. If most people are fine with how games are today then no AAA publisher in existence is going to give you the time to develop some computer science marvel. If you want to push the boundaries of graphical development, you're much better off in some academic context to show your findings at SIGGRAPH, or perhaps lock yourself in your basement and publish on your own on Steam, rather than getting into console development.
Makes sense really. A console is a dedicated gaming machine, when it's running a game that's mostly what it is running. A Windows PC still has to emulate the huge OS in the background with god knows how many processes/services.
So yeah, when done right, a console with proper PC like architecture and same parts should get better performance than a regular PC machine, but I doubt it would be DOUBLE. Perhaps without Winblows I guess.
Isn't he just saying that consoles are dedicated for gaming and don't have to run shit in the background?
Because modern consoles dedicate some of their ram to running the OS in the background at all times aswell.
>>321748434
>Jarring flaw in that logic is the reality of integrating Vulkan/DX12 in a game. Which is gonna be hard for the overwhelming majority of devs.
The good thing is the xbox one uses dx12 so with the pc doing it as well, there will be two platforms benefiting from it and it might be adapted faster.
>>321755173
>they just hand off optimization to the users by way of letting them have full access to the graphical settings
No you fucking retard
THere are ALOT of games that basiclly have 0 ptimization and no matter what settings or reslution you play them at they'll run like garbage
See: Saints Row 2
It was made for consoles first so it ran fine on the 360 but the PC version didn't get much effort put into it so it runs like garbage.
I respect Carmack for what he's done to the game industry but you can't deny he's becoming senile, so most shit he'll say will end up being stupid.
>>321756703
Yea, kinda, he is still quite good at what he does, i loved his lectures about lighting.
Only if he'd stop with stupid experiments with engines and do something conventional - it would be best engine ever, like q3 was for quite some time.
>>321757075
>A console is a dedicated gaming machine, when it's running a game that's mostly what it is running. A Windows PC still has to emulate the huge OS in the background with god knows how many processes/services.
see >>321755252
>>321756832
>Do you even get paid well ?
no, game devs are the cucks of the tech industry
>>321756910
>What you're talking about is game devs changing characteristics of the product (the design of the game, making linear corridors or cinematic experiences, etc...) so the product is easier to code and is less demanding from the get-go.
But that is exactly what devs call optimization(or polishing).Most devs use engines,they don't code anything more than some event scripts.To them,optimization is exactly what you're assuming that is not optimization.
>>321756695
If you're talking about the differences in APIs, soon PC games will start using DX12 and Vulkan, and yet again consoles will be left in the dust. All of the cores and the hyperthreading that PCs haven't been utilizing will now be used. At this point I wonder why they even bothered putting 8 cores into these consoles when a quad-core Intel CPU far outperforms them.
>>321756727
>u mad
No, I'm amused. Come back when you have an argument. Until then, here's your (you).
>>321746891
The creator of RAGE is talking about technology, really all there needs to be said.
>>321757206
That doesn't really make my argument any less valid. It just reinforces that consoles as they are right now are total shit because they have bloated operating systems.
>>321756973
>On the PS4 specifically a lot of visuals were toned down
well Its good you didnt address the elephant in the room
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on1Oj52vrMo
>>321756910
>No, Optimisation is always necessary.
Refer to what I wrote in >>321756646.
Perhaps we're talking about the same thing, but if you're going to spend time optimising every bit of code to hell, then you're really going to annoy the guy who needs to explain to the guy who pays you why you're not done yet with what you were supposed to do.
>The thought that you can reduce the amount of data the computer has to process without any quantificable loss of information is (mostly) false.
Certain problems can be parallelised, approached by different means (e.g. in terms of data structures), new advancements in terms of hardware and instruction sets may open up new paths, so no, you're not right in that regard. Of course - in most cases making rendering faster involves omitting information, but there's a big difference in regards to doing it dynamically and thus allowing for general purpose game design or doing it statically in some level editor.
>>321757252
He only created RAGE's engine, which is idTech5, he wasn't very much involved with the game development, his work was pretty much done by the time they started making the game.
>>321757252
>got the game running at 60fps on the 360
>spent 3 entire months to get the game from 24fps to 60 fps on the ps3
I'd say he's the most qualified to talk about console optimization, and also a good example of why companies don't bother to spend months getting their games to 60 in case they turn out to be RAGE.
>>321746891
>Can somebody explain to me what he meant by this?
a console have to run only the game
a PC have to run the game + the operational system + all the background shit you leave open
mobile have to run the game + operational system + the phone system
>>321757252
and engine is amazing, look at wolfenstein
carmack is good at making engines he doesn't and didn't make games
>>321757138
>Saints Row 2 ran fine on consoles
If you can call 30 fps and constant frame drops fine. That's not an example of bad PC optimization, that's an example of bad optimization all around.
>>321757496
Out of 4 games on the id Tech 5, aside from the two Wolfenstein, run like complete ass, The Evil Within is probably the worst offender. I wouldn't say the engine is amazing, it doesn't look very impressive either.
>>321746891
Games run close to hardware on consoles. On PC they have driver overhead and OS overhead and other things running on the system slowing them down. On mobile they have shitty drivers, shitty OS, and shitty other things slowing them down.
Anons like >>321747828 are wrong; "same given paper spec" means they're equally powerful.
>>321757238
Because that's literally not optimisation.
They're changing the product so it's less demanding.
I'm not making up some weird definition so I can shit on them, I'm going by the text-book definition of optimisation in software development.
>>321757326
>Certain problems can be parallelised, approached by different means (e.g. in terms of data structures), new advancements in terms of hardware and instruction sets may open up new paths, so no, you're not right in that regard. Of course - in most cases making rendering faster involves omitting information, but there's a big difference in regards to doing it dynamically and thus allowing for general purpose game design or doing it statically in some level editor.
Yes you can improve the algorithm for the data processing so you need less cycles, but that can only take you so far, all tasks have a limit on how efficient the algorithm can be while still doing the intended program.
And most of the times is not enough, as fast as actual processors are, videogames with uncompressed audio, video and assets are prohibitively demanding.
>>321757627
3 games used it, one by a japanese dev that can't into computers
WHAT THE FUCK?!
WHY ARE YOU GUYS SO FUCKING RETARDED?!
HOW DO YOU NOT GET WHAT HE IS SAYING?!
>FOR THE SAME GIVING PAPER SPEC
>SAME
>S
>A
>M
>E
A CONSOLE WILL PERFORM TWICE AS GOOD AS A PC, WHICH IS COMPLETELY LOGICAL AND HAS BEEN THE CASE SINCE THE FUCKING NES
>>321755349
Well, the big engines from Unreal to Unity to the in-house ones like the Red Engine and Source 2 will all support it which means you already cover about 99% of the 3D game space. There are literally only a tiny number of 3D games made with in house engines that don't need or want this high level sort of performance (like M&B Bannerlord for example)
>>321748039
And that's why i use my PC for work and my consoles for gaming.
Also i don't play indieshit like Lisa, Gone Home and Undertale so i don't miss on anything.
>>321757845
>wasting money consumerist scum
Sure buddy.
>>321746891
THANK YOU BASED JOHN!
FINALLY somebody clearly rubs that shit into faggot PCucks faces!
>>321757807
It's a shit engine m8 no one else wants to use it
>>321757807
>3 games used it
4 games, both Wolfenstein games by Machine are two separate things, they even have different graphical settings.
>>321757814
This.
A Console is basically a PC with fixed specs.
That's where the true advantages of PC comes from, you don't have to settle for fixed specs but arrange them as you see fit.
>>321757906
Sorry for not being poor i guess?
>>321757913
...Are you retarded?
>>321749586
>forgetting about the lighting system he wrote for doom 3 from the ground up that revolutionized lighting systems for games since.
sure it was wasted on all dark corridors but it was the first time you could get real light sources and objects casting shadows on themselves in real time with out starting house fires.
>>321757916
it is experimental, true, that's why i want id to stop fucking around and make proper engine like q3 but modern
>>321757818
The big engines will of course be tailored to run quite fast on consoles. And the people who work on them have a good reason to optimise the shit out of them. However, they can't work magic either, and an engine will usually have a certain scope, allow for certain types of scenegraphs to do certain things, etc. - so while the general rendering on a console will likely be faster than it would be on a PC of the same specs, it won't magically make a console more powerful than a modern computer, or in some cases even an average computer, simply because hardware development doesn't halt. A lot of optimisation is still to be done by the developers themselves if they want graphics that are comparable to a modern PC and that very often results in "trickery" rather than super low level hardware access and programming magic. Which is completely legitimate but often fielded as some supposed reason why console development is easier, better, and whatelse.
>>321757916
>no one else wants to use it
Nobody else can use it, it's not a licensed engine, it's owned by Bethesda to exclusive use on their games.
>>321757627
all except TEW run at 60fps even on last gen, TEW being that way because it was touched by the japs
>Carmack
>Constantly flip flopping
>Megatextures
>Works for fb now
JUST
>>321757243
>The DX12 API places more responsibilities on the programmer than any former DirectX™ API. This starts with resource state barriers and continues with the use of fences to synchronize command queues. Likewise illegal API usage won’t be caught or corrected by the DX-runtime or the driver. In order to stay on top of things the developer needs to strongly leverage the debug runtime and pay close attention to any errors that get reported. Also make sure to be thoroughly familiar with the DX12 feature specifications.
lol, like anyone's going to bother with that shit for PCs. Maybe you're not yet familiar with just how much shit nvidia / amd has to clean up in the background to get pc games stable
>yet again consoles will be left in the dust.
kek
>>321757496
>engine is amazing, look at wolfenstein
What exactly did wolfenstein do that would qualify engine as amazing?
>>321758062
carmack's reverse/shadow volumes haven't been used in a while. carmack's reverse in particular is patented so it's not like others could use it even if they had a reason to (they don't really). and a lot of other studios were getting into pixel shaders at the same time anyways
Okay, hold up. I'm seeing alot of misundertandings between people in this thread, so let me clear this up.
Optimization
>Same product made to run better on inferior hardware without loss of anything
>Mostly consists of making the code more efficient and to make best use of said hardware
Downgrade
>Toned down textures, compressed audio etc.
>Having to change the game/software features/graphics/elements in order to make it run as well on inferior hardware as modern hardware
From a developer's point of view, these are NOT the same thing, even though they are both used to achieve the same goal: to get the damn thing running as well as possible.
A good example of DOWNGRADING is Shadow of Mordor, which did not include the Warchief mechanic in last gen versions due to hardware limitations.
A (fairly) good example of OPTIMIZATION is Metal Gear Rising, which, while last gen, had crisp graphics and ran 60fps even on toasters.
Optimization is always trying to make the product better without influencing the quality.
>>321758385
running 60fps on last gen with decent lighting?
PS3 ran GTAV at 256mb of RAM
>>321758581
I wouldn't put compressed audio on the downgrade category desu.
Audio data has compressing boundaries in which it's been proved that the normal human can barely tell any difference from a piece with more quality than the other.
>>321758792
Your ears can't tell the difference, but a decent home movie setup can.
You're right, though. It does, however, linger between the two considering it's not that performance intensive.
>>321757243
nothing, read NOTHING, will remove the overhead of the code portability required for pc development
>>321758142
or because it had fucking black bars taking up 25% of the screen
>>321757814
/v/ is barely literate, m8.
Can you take that tweet and turn it into a cutscene with explosions and memes? We might get somewhere then.
>consoles struggle to get 30fps most of the time
>always hearing how consoles are better from a design standpoint because of hardware conformity
60 keks per second over here.
>>321759772
>i7 4790k
>980ti
>0 fps in bloodborne
>>321759884
Oh no, not identical meme game #4, anything but that!
>>321759993
yeah, it'd be a real tragedy if instead we'd lost such innovative PC games like Gone Home, Dear Esther, and Undertale.
![wolfenstein-comp-gif[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/mVbwS2N.gif "wolfenstein-comp-gif[1].gif")
>>321758623
Last generation version was gimped as fuck and lightning was a joke.
>>321759772
60fps is just reaching the "standard" definition because game development is lagging behind hardware development or rather hardware choices for consoles.
Games that run sub-60fps on consoles aren't because the devs are incompetent, but because the hardware is limited and optimization/downgrades will only do so much for the quality of the product.
Next gen will most likely have better specs (god willing), so developers can actually use what they have now (great optimization for consoles) and add more content while retaining the newly found standard of 60fps.
You guys should educate yourselves and watch this video. They're like an underrated Digital Foundry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dor46KKh9h4
>>321760264
I meant game development is lagging behind BECAUSE of hardware choices for consoles.
>the idiots arguing in this thread hasn't gassed themselves yet
Do it anons, you are wasting resources by being alive
>>321760264
>Next gen will most likely have better specs (god willing), so developers can actually use what they have now (great optimization for consoles) and add more content while retaining the newly found standard of 60fps.
That's always the excuse
What will actually happen:
Console makers will cheap out on hardware since they know console users are ok with buying cheap shit and still paying for online
Consoles will try to keep up with the visuals of pc of that era while they know they can't and get sub 20 fps
Or they just might convert to pure streaming
>>321758362
>lol, like anyone's going to bother with that shit for PCs. Maybe you're not yet familiar with just how much shit nvidia / amd has to clean up in the background to get pc games stable
I hear you there. It's tough developing for PC compared to the more streamlined APIs available for consoles. Everyone seems to love developing for the PS4. That said, a good developer should still be able to do wonders with DX12 and/or Vulkan.
>kek
What are you keking about? Up until this generation consoles have always been ahead in terms of hardware at release, and PCs have always had to play catch up. The 360 was top of the line for about a month before a new graphics card came out that was better in terms of specs. PCs will always catch up to consoles and then surpass them, and with every generation they've been doing so faster. Just this gen consoles were shat out onto the market with underwhelming specs, and look at the results. They're sub-30fps machines, and the're going to be left in the dust.
>>321760346
>watch video
>long intro
>goes on to introduce video series for 2 min
>boring shitty After Effects everywhere
>starts listing xbox speccs down to the proccesor structure which is unrelated to the subject
Shitty video honestly, they are overrated
>>321760814
>which is unrelated to the subject
Are you a fucking retard?
>>321760554
Even pure streaming is a better option than low specs on consoles.
The fact is, that while the specs of consoles are ridiculous even compared to modern mid-tier PCs, devs can still produce native software that can handle 60fps while having beautiful visuals and content.
If all consoles would be specced as high-end PCs, who could imagine what could be.
There are no excuses in business, only profit. The profit is in the customers, who buy cheap decade-game-machines to play games. I doubt if they buffed up the specs to accommodate more loose space for content and graphics while raising the price of the console people would buy consoles anymore.
>>321760906
presentation is pretty important in a video desu
>>321760906
How much cache the xbox proccessor has is completely unrelated to understanding why optimizing for 1-2 targetplatforms makes the finished product run better on said platforms
>>321761050
You really don't understand how software works, do you?
>>321761127
No of course not, I have a master in software engineering. But please do go on
>>321746891
a pc made with the same specs as a console will run worse than a console because the console is dedicated to run games while a pc has no dedication in any os so its running other trivial things as well as trying to be a gaming platform
>>321761224
Oh, so do I. In fact, all of /v/ has a degree in software engineering according to this thread.
But please, for an unlightened Master of Software Engineering, do tell why the cache does't matter?
>>321748039
Windows pc can't though. If you were doing serious work you'd be using Linux kernels because of better ram management without all the background processes. Also the Intel arcutecture killed the console. Before there were many different chipsets and processors to split the work load. It's why virtual fighter was the first console 3d game and it ran 60fps.
>>321761427
Because the specifics of one example isn't necessary to understand a general concept. This is common knowledge and you would understand this if you didn't have brain damage.
>>321748297
Because windows doesn't run efficiently on any platform. Especially on lower performance specs because its a hog. That's why Linux kernels always perform better it's all bloat
>>321762329
But it is still relevant to the concept, you dingus. Even if it's not something you need to know to understand the concept.
You're a fool if you do not understand the importance of detail in an explanatory video.
>>321762660
Its like explaining how yeast works in a recipe, its really fuckin stupid and no one eants to read it.
Btw kill yourself, you seem to have severe autism if you think that video is good in any way.
>Just look at your own library about count the % of games you got at discount and at full price.
This seriously the most cancerous post I ever even in /v/ a while. Why are you shaming people doing some perfectly legal something ever fucking consumer market does.
Are you tell me you never waited until games became bargain bin prices, or waits for sales? Are you so much of shill that you will buy games at full price, and buy preorders for no particular reason. You might as well as be shilling to stop games from having used copies with this attitude.
>BUT MUH DEVELOPERS
You stupid idiots, Publishers get the cut from the revenue not the developers. The Publishers pays the developers to make after the game is made, they disband them, and they go to the next. Publisher made the shitty working conditions, not the customer.
>>321763376
I never said the video was good. I was just asking why you didn't think it was necessary to explain. I think the information, while not need-to-know, is nice to know. Even knowing how yeast works is nice to know.
Hell, I just like specifics to fill my understanding of things. Not my problem you're autistic about a video.
>>321763878
You are still the idiot defending a pos video with shitty presentation and typing hundreds of words to defend your delusion
>>321764106
I'm not even defending anything, senpai.
You're the one spouting aggressive words over a video, not me :^)
>>321764268
Lmao, whatever you say autismo
>>321763865
>literally nobody on pc actually buys games on full price
>publishers take note
>tells developers to prioritize consoles instead
wow! that wasn't fucking hard at all to understand!
>>321764493
inb4m-muh pirates stealing sales
>>321764493
You are a fucking shill.
Are you shame people who buy used games, or bargain bin prices? Publishers down the line will do the same thing.
>>321746891
He's right. Even using some shitty 2010 hardware, 9th gen consoles are still capable of producing 1080p at a steady 30 fps. Can your 2010 PC do that? Probably. But for PS4 the answer is, "almost definitely", and this is the difference Carmack was pointing at.
>>321746891
a machine designed to do one thing will be more efficient at it than a machine designed to do multiple things.
a console is supposed to be designed to only play games, but to make it affordable, efficient is lowered.
a pc is supposed to do whatever you need it to do, so you can build it to match that.
>>321748448
>This isn't rocket science
Well, rocket science is even simpler than computer graphics, if you ask Carmack.
>>321750167
>rage ran buttery smooth on consoles
Actually, Rage had hilarious bugs where it loaded most of it's megatexture (whatever it's called) after you've looked at it. Shit was literally appearing from nothing in front of you as you turned around.
>>321746891
It's all about resource management and background applications on the software side, like operating systems. John is saying that for a console, a PC, and a phone with identical hardware specifications; that consoles are the most efficient and phones are the least efficient.
>>321764593
I'm not shaming anyone, newfriend. it's just you drawing shit and getting offended at a simple fucking logical conclusion.
>>321764483
I think /v/ has gotten to you. You're getting mad over normal conversation.
I suggestyou calm down.
>>321765241
"le butthurt xd"
What epic meme are you going to find on 9gag next?
![18j3z1b9en48ajpg[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Sk7LKZJ.jpg "18j3z1b9en48ajpg[1].jpg")
>>321765163
No you are a pro-industry shill, who wants to punish savvy consumer that didn't fundamentally nothing wrong.
You are favoring publishers who want to make fixed prices for games that do not warrant those prices on the digital market.
>butthurt r/pcmasterrace fags in this thread
>>321765450
5/7 post, my friend :^)
>>321758150
His words in OP do not contradict this at all. Learn to read.
