Not sure what you are trying to say there, but the game does indeed look better on PC than it does on consoles.
Question - Is pc version being curtailed because of console versions?
- Thread starter valbarr
- Start date
Not sure what you are trying to say there, but the game does indeed look better on PC than it does on consoles.
Yes and no.
I had the chance recently to talk to a dev of another game developed very similarly for PC and then ported to console (probably the most famous dinosaur game ATM).
Graphically I don't think the console version is directly holding back the PC version like a lot of people assume since the ports can be adjusted and optimized individually.
But from a development standpoint, according to that dev, for a game that is still in active development after release, the console versions very much limit what can be implemented into the game.
There is a lot of stuff that is simply not possible to implement because of the consoles overall limited memory. This actually covers a lot of QOL stuff and assets that you would never realize could be a problem to implement. And if you want to have the PC and console versions to have the same functions because of parity, you simply can't implement them, so a lot of ideas are already scrapped early in the development process because console wouldn't be able to manage them.
PS: I mean we are talking about 8GB consoles where the graphics engine already occupies 3-4Gb, which doesn't leave much room to play for the rest of the game engine. This is very different compared to a low end system with 8 GB ram and a dedicated 4GB graphics card.
I had the chance recently to talk to a dev of another game developed very similarly for PC and then ported to console (probably the most famous dinosaur game ATM).
Graphically I don't think the console version is directly holding back the PC version like a lot of people assume since the ports can be adjusted and optimized individually.
But from a development standpoint, according to that dev, for a game that is still in active development after release, the console versions very much limit what can be implemented into the game.
There is a lot of stuff that is simply not possible to implement because of the consoles overall limited memory. This actually covers a lot of QOL stuff and assets that you would never realize could be a problem to implement. And if you want to have the PC and console versions to have the same functions because of parity, you simply can't implement them, so a lot of ideas are already scrapped early in the development process because console wouldn't be able to manage them.
PS: I mean we are talking about 8GB consoles where the graphics engine already occupies 3-4Gb, which doesn't leave much room to play for the rest of the game engine. This is very different compared to a low end system with 8 GB ram and a dedicated 4GB graphics card.
Last edited:
Yes but not by far. Consoles play this game very nicely.
They do indeed.
Pretty sure the console versions influence the patch behavior negatively. before they were available, we got a lot more small and more frequent updates. In the last releases, even pure Bugfix patches took quite a bit longer due to the processes of pushing updates through the Xbox and PS validation procedures. one time a patch was even released for the pc version only, and then weeks later for the consoles. but quite often it seems they just keep the pc users waiting for unified release dates.
also read what aguettinger wrote just a few posts above. everyone simply saying "clearly no" is either a fanboy or doesn't know what he is talking about.
also read what aguettinger wrote just a few posts above. everyone simply saying "clearly no" is either a fanboy or doesn't know what he is talking about.
Last edited:
I won't deny that the consoles' cert process can be prohibitive to a frequent update schedule, but there's also the fact that this game is past the point of requiring frequent updates. Some bugs need fixing, but the game isn't broken. Not by a long shot.
This is in comparison with mates PS4pro and my PC which has an i5 2500k, 16gigs ram and an AMD Fury GPU card in it. It is far from top end but better then medium.
Textures are better, I have better looking planets ground textures. My FPS are far better too. The game runs better on an slightly above average PC. Low end PC will look worse then a console, so maybe it's low end Pcs that are supposedly holding the game back.
Saying that though most games look good on the consoles and only look slightly better on top end PCs, why would ED be any different.
I just don't see it myself. I think it's just an excuse to bash the consoles and possibly FDev again.
I blame smartphones, clearly holding ED back. We'd have space legs and atmospheric landings now if it wasn't for those pesky devices.
Reasonable question. If all of FDev were working on the PC version, things would move quicker. Someone has sat down, crunched the numbers and gone we'll make a profit if we port to consoles. It's borderline crazy talk but businesses like to turn a profit.
Your friend is playing on a TV?
EDIT: Resolution and panel size pls? Its probably a crappy tv.
Last edited:
Actually, I blame smart watches - clearly preventing this game from reaching its potential.
4k tv. Don't know the refresh rate and can't remember the brand, but he isn't one for getting crap stuff.
You're clearly not going to be convinced whatever Max Factor says or shows, so why don't you just show them your comparison images?
Although most console advocates will continuously chalk up such arguments to "PC masta race" hyperbole, the reality is it's the truth.
Consoles DO hold back PC development- not only in Elite Dangerous, but many other games as well.
Consoles simply have hardware limitation where the PC does not. It's really simple.
Examples:
User Interfaces being designed to navigate with controllers.
Graphics being simplified for interpretation on inferior GPUs.
Now, with the advancement of "next gen" consoles- they are always getting a bit better. That said- they're always going to be inferior because in actuality they're "mini-PC's" through and through.
Consoles DO hold back PC development- not only in Elite Dangerous, but many other games as well.
Consoles simply have hardware limitation where the PC does not. It's really simple.
Examples:
User Interfaces being designed to navigate with controllers.
Graphics being simplified for interpretation on inferior GPUs.
Now, with the advancement of "next gen" consoles- they are always getting a bit better. That said- they're always going to be inferior because in actuality they're "mini-PC's" through and through.
So your pc has noticably better textures from a PS4 Pro at 4K? OMG.. Sorry, but i find that hard to believe mate. I wont ask you any more details, thats enough.
Told ya!
That may be true, but people shouting "Consoles are hindering the game development" should realize that they are also helping to pay for it. Without consoles and the money devs receive from them, the development would be even slower, if any at all.
(Not talking about Elite specifically)
Or perhaps all that extra revenue generated by those console sales was enough encentive to hire a few extra staff for that purpose.
Heck! Maybe the extended player base and associated monetization allowed them to expand their core development team. Companies have been known to do crazy things with increased profit...like expand or improve a product.
Those pesky console players and their money just cause havoc to the gaming industry.
The bottom line is that a minimum spec PC for this game is currently inferior to a console. Until the minimum specs for this game are comparable to the base console variants, we can't really claim they're what's holding it back. Consoles have historically held many things back, but I don't think we're there just yet with this generation of hardware. Getting close though. At a any rate, the moment consoles do begin to become a burden, Frontier should split the platform builds once again and not hold the PC version back. I say this as an Xbox CMDR.