@Crytek’s on ODB’s post
What? That’s like giving someone a Bugatti Veyron and telling him he’s not supposed to drive it at more than 60 mph.
@ODB: Well alright, I guess we agree that there should be a choice for gamers who want the “top-of-the-line”.
And as another example to your console optimization, just look at Epic Citadel on the iphone/ipod touch. Graphics I never thought possible on that device were achieved using heavy optimization of the Unreal 3 engine.
Well thats because its developed for a specific set of hardware. PC games have to be developed to take control and thounds of combinations of hardware. Its a lot easier to optimize when you know what the software is going to run on.
Tell them. But to be perfectly fair, they also said that they were quite pleased with the advance in PC hardware technology.
This too, completely forgot about that. Epic are great.
Well there’s your biggest advantage of console game developing.
Name a process in making a videogame that’s easier to do for consoles then computers.
Selling it to 12-yo kids.
TBH I prefer PC gaming, but it is easier to develop for consoles because you’re developing for one platform only. One OS, one set of hardware…
Well that does not really count for XBox360/PS3 “multiplatform” titles. Or I may be wrong.
I’d imagine its still easier to develop for only two sets of hardware rather than the practically infinite amount of PC hardware combinations. I do know that its easier to develop for XBOX than PS3 though.
Most multiplat games are built on engines that are made to work on both consoles with pretty much the same code. All they have to change are the execution binaries, the button icons and hooks to certain features of the operating systems.
I stand corrected.
Quite a long discussion eh?
Do you mean driver related issues? That has nothing to do with the actual game itself. For example, I can still play 10 year old 2D games (on modern hardware) without a problem.
You really are missing the point here, aren’t you?
Well seeing how you think I missed the point, care to enlighten me?
Hint: Do you understand what PC hardware combinations are? And that there are millions of them?
You haven’t answered my question.
Do I really need to explain you in details how hard it is to create a modern PC game with a multitude of possible hardware combinations in mind compared to unified console architecture?
It seems pretty starightforward to me.
Example?
…having to test your game against a huge amount of hardware combinations (ddr3 ram + core 2 duo + gtx 260, for example). See how there are a huge amount of possible combinations? All of them interact differently with each other and the operating system.
That’s not an example… I just told you I can play 10 year old games on modern hardware, now surely back then people never heard of quadcore CPUs, dual GPU’s, DDR-3 memory or anything else for that matter.
You’re both saying that it’s a lot harder to create video games for a computer due to a huge variety of hardware, yet you fail to mention even one example. A friend and I are working on our first commercial game and there is absolutely nothing besides 32/64 bit that requires drastic changes so that it functions on all hardware. You make it sound as if developers make their games, then cross their fingers and hope it will run on other combinations of hardware.
If you gave me examples such as 32/64 bit, SLI / Crossfire support, multi-core support then I could have agreed, but this is in no way affecting the development of a game so much that it would seem more logical to just skip the whole PC game and develop straight for consoles.