PS4/ Xbox One Version of the Game?
- Thread starter TheMinion9
- Start date
Playing a game like Sims on the PS systems was easy and that involved placing down items and building. Walls, beds, doors, windows and every tiny thing imaginable so to have a game like Planet Coaster on there would be entirely possible should the developers widen their minds a little bit to the potential paths they can take from this point.
Granted, it may take extra work and funds but by allowing that they'd be open to even more players, (as after all, not all of us have or can even afford the high-end PC it takes to run the graphics on the Steam version alone.)
I remember playing Zoo Tycoon on a NintendoDS years ago, I never had any problems and if anything, that's even more limited than a PS4 controller!
Imagine PS VR too! You'd feel like a giant building a park using motion controllers!
I feel it would definitely be a leap forward for PlanetCoaster to be available on the newer Playstation/XBOX and an opportunity that would offer so many benefits, not to mention sales!
Granted, it may take extra work and funds but by allowing that they'd be open to even more players, (as after all, not all of us have or can even afford the high-end PC it takes to run the graphics on the Steam version alone.)
I remember playing Zoo Tycoon on a NintendoDS years ago, I never had any problems and if anything, that's even more limited than a PS4 controller!
Imagine PS VR too! You'd feel like a giant building a park using motion controllers!
I feel it would definitely be a leap forward for PlanetCoaster to be available on the newer Playstation/XBOX and an opportunity that would offer so many benefits, not to mention sales!
You miss the most crucial thing here.
The PS4, PS4 Pro and Xbox One are no where near powerful enough to run this game. FACT!
This was also confirmed by developers.
The SIms games have never been too taxing on hardware, so it's no surprise they ran on consoles.
The PS4, PS4 Pro and Xbox One are no where near powerful enough to run this game. FACT!
This was also confirmed by developers.
The SIms games have never been too taxing on hardware, so it's no surprise they ran on consoles.
Xbox One and PS4 Pro lack the hardware power required to run this game. And far more people likely, game on PC than on Xbox One/PS4. These are the specs required to run this game: https://support.frontier.co.uk/kb/faq.php?id=292
Minimum:
•OS: Windows 7 (SP1+)/8.1/10 64bit
•Processor: Intel i5-2300/AMD FX-4300
•Memory: 8 GB RAM
•Graphics: nVidia GTX 560 (2GB)/AMD Radeon 7850 (2GB)
•DirectX: Version 11
•Storage: 8 GB available space
•Additional Notes: Minimum specifications may change during development.
Recommended:
•OS: Windows 7 (SP1+)/8.1/10 64bit
•Processor: Intel i7-4770/AMD FX-8350
•Memory: 12 GB RAM
•Graphics: nVidia GTX 980 (4GB)/AMD R9 380 (4GB)
•DirectX: Version 11
•Storage: 8 GB available space
•Additional Notes: Recommended specifications may change during development.
They could create a dumbed down version of the game so it could be played on console. Xbox Scorpio will beat PS4 Pro, but it won't come out until what could be late next year. Even my AMD R9 390 has a higher bandwidth (384GB/s, 512-bit bus) than Xbox Scorpio (320GB/s) and PS4 Pro. My Intel Core i7-6700k is also much faster and superior to the 2.13Ghz AMD APU on PS4 Pro, and this game is CPU intensive. Not to mention Xbox and PS consoles originally come with HDD's which are inferior to SSD's in terms of load/save/boot times.
Also, Xbox One only has DDR3 RAM (badwidth 68GB/s) and Microsoft has programmed the console OS to only allow 5GB of that RAM for gaming, the rest is reserved for system/apps. It also only has a 1.75Ghz clocked AMD APU too. In a nutshell, the system is too weak to run this game, unless they create a dumbed down version of this game. There is only so much companies like Microsoft/Sony can do software wise to push their hardware, but it's clearly hardware limited. Software can't just tell hardware only designed to output 4 Teraflops and say "hey, output 8 Teraflops". Where did Sony fans get this? It's like Xbox fans saying ok Xbox Scorpio will have 6 Teraflops. Following that impression, Xbox Scorpio we can push it to output 12 Teraflops computing power. But consoles require a good CPU too. Even Xbox 360 has a faster clocked 3.2Ghz CPU compared with the 1.75Ghz AMD APU on Xbox One, and an Intel Core i7-6700k which has 4 cores 8 threads 8MB cache high 4Ghz base speed with turbo boost to 4.2Ghz, and that i7 CPU can be pushed furtherer to near 5Ghz clock speed via overclocking. An Xbox One 500GB console takes 2-3 minutes to boot. However, my PS4 Pro which has a 1TB 5400RPM HDD takes only 20 seconds to boot. It feels like PS4's OS is less heavy than the Xbox One OS. And I have Xbox One, Xbox 360 Slim, and PS4 Pro. PS4 Pro may have twice the GPU power as the original PS4, but the bottleneck would be the CPU component as it's only clocked at 2.13Ghz and minimal cache. How can PS4 Pro have 8 teraflops computing power what some claim on YouTube, when it has such a weak CPU (2.13Ghz) and since simulation games require a faster clocked and better CPU. It's not only the GPU and teraflops that are important to gaming. It's also the CPU. And all leading consoles Xbox and PS don't have the CPU power found on gaming PC's.
Minimum:
•OS: Windows 7 (SP1+)/8.1/10 64bit
•Processor: Intel i5-2300/AMD FX-4300
•Memory: 8 GB RAM
•Graphics: nVidia GTX 560 (2GB)/AMD Radeon 7850 (2GB)
•DirectX: Version 11
•Storage: 8 GB available space
•Additional Notes: Minimum specifications may change during development.
Recommended:
•OS: Windows 7 (SP1+)/8.1/10 64bit
•Processor: Intel i7-4770/AMD FX-8350
•Memory: 12 GB RAM
•Graphics: nVidia GTX 980 (4GB)/AMD R9 380 (4GB)
•DirectX: Version 11
•Storage: 8 GB available space
•Additional Notes: Recommended specifications may change during development.
They could create a dumbed down version of the game so it could be played on console. Xbox Scorpio will beat PS4 Pro, but it won't come out until what could be late next year. Even my AMD R9 390 has a higher bandwidth (384GB/s, 512-bit bus) than Xbox Scorpio (320GB/s) and PS4 Pro. My Intel Core i7-6700k is also much faster and superior to the 2.13Ghz AMD APU on PS4 Pro, and this game is CPU intensive. Not to mention Xbox and PS consoles originally come with HDD's which are inferior to SSD's in terms of load/save/boot times.
Also, Xbox One only has DDR3 RAM (badwidth 68GB/s) and Microsoft has programmed the console OS to only allow 5GB of that RAM for gaming, the rest is reserved for system/apps. It also only has a 1.75Ghz clocked AMD APU too. In a nutshell, the system is too weak to run this game, unless they create a dumbed down version of this game. There is only so much companies like Microsoft/Sony can do software wise to push their hardware, but it's clearly hardware limited. Software can't just tell hardware only designed to output 4 Teraflops and say "hey, output 8 Teraflops". Where did Sony fans get this? It's like Xbox fans saying ok Xbox Scorpio will have 6 Teraflops. Following that impression, Xbox Scorpio we can push it to output 12 Teraflops computing power. But consoles require a good CPU too. Even Xbox 360 has a faster clocked 3.2Ghz CPU compared with the 1.75Ghz AMD APU on Xbox One, and an Intel Core i7-6700k which has 4 cores 8 threads 8MB cache high 4Ghz base speed with turbo boost to 4.2Ghz, and that i7 CPU can be pushed furtherer to near 5Ghz clock speed via overclocking. An Xbox One 500GB console takes 2-3 minutes to boot. However, my PS4 Pro which has a 1TB 5400RPM HDD takes only 20 seconds to boot. It feels like PS4's OS is less heavy than the Xbox One OS. And I have Xbox One, Xbox 360 Slim, and PS4 Pro. PS4 Pro may have twice the GPU power as the original PS4, but the bottleneck would be the CPU component as it's only clocked at 2.13Ghz and minimal cache. How can PS4 Pro have 8 teraflops computing power what some claim on YouTube, when it has such a weak CPU (2.13Ghz) and since simulation games require a faster clocked and better CPU. It's not only the GPU and teraflops that are important to gaming. It's also the CPU. And all leading consoles Xbox and PS don't have the CPU power found on gaming PC's.
Last edited:
That is why I only mentioned the Xbox Scorpio which actually is above recommended specification based on the information with have
They would not need to create a dumbed down version of the game and Microsoft have already said they are not blocking Scorpio exclusive games. So yeah, what would be interesting is if Microsoft and Frontier talk about an exclusive in future because that would be a good way to pick some sales up.
In terms of CPU, The scorpio all we know is that it will be 8 core. nothing more at moment but I would expect it to break the 2.5GHz mark again so feel that would be fine as that puts it above what the FX-8350 is.
If it breaks the 2.5GHZ mark, It is still slower than an FX 8350 as they run at 4GHZ stock speed. However, it is going to need a relatively powerful CPU to push 4K gaming and to power the GPU which is roughly going to be as powerful as a GTX 980ti. We know nothing yet of the architecture used, as some architectures can push more data through them at lower clock speeds.
I find it so funny that there are some idiots like you who think it's not powerful... They are most powerful computers in the world. Why on earth do you think US Air Force's super computer is made up of PS3s? For fun? No because they are powerful and having loads 100x the power.
The best theme park game on a PS was "Themepark world" back on the PS1 and PS2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_Park_World I remember playing it and spent hours and hours on it. I can't find anything more about it anymore but I believe it was a best seller behind Final Fantasy at one point.
Super computer: https://www.cnet.com/uk/news/playstations-power-air-force-supercomputer/
Final Fantasy the best PS4 game has sold millions:
2006 Final Fantasy XII: sold more than 1,764,000 copies in its first week in Japan | sold more than 2.38 million copies in Japan in the two weeks since its March 16, 2006 release. | In North America, Final Fantasy XII shipped approximately 1.5 million copies in its first week.
2016 Final Fantasy XV: Within the first twenty-four hours, Square Enix reported that Final Fantasy XV had shipped five million units worldwide in both physical shipments and digital sales. In Japan, the PS4 version topped Japanese gaming charts, selling 690,471 units. The Xbox One version sold 3,791 units. --- PS4 sales is 100x more than the PC Microsoft's Xbox sales.
Thanks MikeD, I needed a laugh
I think that would be a great idea, but they would have to get the controls set well. As others have said, rollercoaster building would be very difficult. If Frontier could create a special Planet Coaster controller for PS4/Xbox One, I think it could work, but it is also very unlikely that will happen.
Yes and no. The fact is that currently microsoft (or more importantly Phil Spencer) said it would launch with the latest hardware and not a jaguar architect CPU so this is almost certain to be Ryzen. Now bearing in mind the CPU will release with an 8 core 16 thread 3.4Ghz + CPU I don't see them pushing clock speed that much. Maybe 3Ghz is closer to the mark but they are significant improvements over the current AMD lineup.
Again I believe with the new Architecture and the 8 cores at 2.5GHz would put performance above the FX8350 in honesty.
So this is likely to be a Ryzen & Vega setup. I don't see any issues with that. The big news really is that they more instructions to be completed per clock cycle which would be ideal for PC.
To be more specific I feel the core will be an SR-5 (Summit Ridge series). The only thing of concern is that it is looking like an 8 core - 16 thread SR-7 is only on par with Intels current i7-6700k although that is 3.4Ghz to 4.0Ghz matching up so if it can clock well maybe it can gain later.
But yeah that is about where we are at the moment from what I have read.
Very interesting and very valid and true points. I absoloutly agree that the new architecture (ryzen) will out perform the FX 8 series at lower clock speeds. I am pretty certain too that if the CPU they use is fast enough to power 4k titles, it should have enough horsepower to give Planet Coaster a good run for its money at atleast 1080p. Maybe higher.
I dont think this is about the performance of the consoles hardware, but the fact that console platforms have a shorter life span then PCs and steam. I cant see the devs putting in time and effort to convert the game to a different operating system when they are still working to improve the base game. Even if they did take the time to port the game, chances are certain features would not be compatible, like sharing blueprints (at least cross platforms)
lets say they make some add-ons for PC over the next year, and then begin working on a port for consoles which wouldnt release for another year. By then there will already be talk about a new console and people clamoring about the port being outdated. It just doesnt make sense logically why anybody would want a port of this game rather than to see more additions made for this version
lets say they make some add-ons for PC over the next year, and then begin working on a port for consoles which wouldnt release for another year. By then there will already be talk about a new console and people clamoring about the port being outdated. It just doesnt make sense logically why anybody would want a port of this game rather than to see more additions made for this version
Well the Scorpio isn't out for another year so that is why I feel that could be viable for 1080p port of this game especially as Microsoft release keyboard/mouse support.
I would say that current gen consoles though would be below spec to run the game and make it worth while. Even if the xbox Scoprio only sells a million devises and only 20% buy the game at £49.99 that is still £10 million so allowing for porting costs and team, QA etc I can see this being viable in the future.
I've made huge arguments for console ports for games for years. As a person who just recently got back into pc gaming and bit the bullet on an expensive PC build. AS pc gaming can be very expensive hobby. But this is one of those games that I can't see happening. At least not in a way that looks positive for the brand.
Sure they did the SIms, but almost everyone universally panned those games. Does any one even remotely remembers Thrillville ? (Outside of this group) Games like this are heavily carried on two really big pillars. Heavy CPU performance & custom content. Its hard for console to mass up the amount of CPU needed to run these games. Let alone give the tools needed to build decent custom content.
For those who mentioned then Scorpio and Ps4 Pro. While these are "updates" to existing hardware. Many people have already confirmed both the ps4 Pro and Xbox One Scorpio are just getting new GPU components to their APUs. Their CPU will remain remotely the same.... So if the current "standard" machines can't handle PC there newer counter parts won't do to much better...
Sure they did the SIms, but almost everyone universally panned those games. Does any one even remotely remembers Thrillville ? (Outside of this group) Games like this are heavily carried on two really big pillars. Heavy CPU performance & custom content. Its hard for console to mass up the amount of CPU needed to run these games. Let alone give the tools needed to build decent custom content.
For those who mentioned then Scorpio and Ps4 Pro. While these are "updates" to existing hardware. Many people have already confirmed both the ps4 Pro and Xbox One Scorpio are just getting new GPU components to their APUs. Their CPU will remain remotely the same.... So if the current "standard" machines can't handle PC there newer counter parts won't do to much better...
MikeD, I am well aware they PS3's were used a super computer. Why? Because the original version of the original PS3 allowed them to be linked together and work as a super computer. This made it relatively cheap to build a relatively powerful super computer as PlayStation's were quite cheap, in terms of super computer costs. Not because they are the most powerful on their own, because they are not. The PS3's cell broadband processor is basically a custom IBM chip anyway.
The cell broadband processor that was inside the PS3 was and is very powerful yes, but only when code is written specifically right for it. It was never harnessed properly for games because of the difficultly in programming for it. Plus combined with the GPU and system RAM that was inside the PS3, the system could not even run a single game in native 1080p, every single game was upscale.
You need more than just a powerful CPU to run games, and you can have the most powerful processor in the world, but if no one specifically optimises it for consumer applications and games or ever writes those for it anymore then it is useless, like the cell broadband processor is today, when talking in terms of games. The cell broadband processor may have been very fast, but it was never properly used due to it being so complicated to write code on and even then it wont run modern games well because the system ram is very very low by todays standards and so is the GPU. Thanks for the post though, I needed a laugh.
Last edited:
If you do a side by side comparison, of xbox 360 games to their ps3 counter parts. Due to programming and optimizing issues, most games actually ran better on the xbox 360. (which had a different architecture to the ps3) Mostly because it was closer to a standard computer at the time. The ps3 had a much more powerful GPU then the 360, much like the ps4 does to the xbox One. But due to the issues with programming the ps3 lost out in many ways. Its also why you see the ps4 use a standard x86 architecture like a pc would. Made it much easier to program for. Although it uses its own custom operating system. Its also worth noting most ports even on the 360 and ps3 were dumbed down from their pc counter parts. You can find plenty of videos online showing the differences. Although in some cases its minimal. But in others is quite drastic. Point and case Crysis 3.
But that aside MIKED your argument is silly, DisortAMG is right. "They strapped 300 ps3s together so it was a super computer. , so it totally can run planet coaster". To be honest due to the system processing, with the cell architecture im not even sure thats possible. But lets take the ps4 alone. Which does use a relatively similar setup to modern day PCs. Lets say you strap 300 of those together. Lets say the team actually set the game up to run on a hive setup like that. How many people own or are willing to string together multiple ps4s to run the game? The answer is very few.
I can tell you right now the ps4 as it currently sits with limited ram, hard drive space and apu limitations could not on its own run Planet Coaster as is. Due to development costs the hardware limitation and the amount of work it even take to do it. There no is no guarantee it will sell. The risk vs reward is to high.
Last edited:
You are very wrong on the Scorpio side of things in regards to the CPU. See my previous posts.
Yes, for a while the ps3 was quite cheap for its performance and they were applied to several unusual applications. Both current consoles have less esoteric architecture though, more easily comparable to PCs and so it's easy to say that they don't meet the minimum spec. Scorpio is also being pitched as a mid-generation refresh and as such Microsoft probably won't be allowing releases that don't also run on the original console.
However, having said that, people are clearly, from support enquiries and such, trying to run the game on much poorer hardware than the current consoles. Who knows if Frontier have those stats, but in terms of giving the best experience to the most players, it could be through consoles even if it doesn't match the 'recommended' experience on PC.
Elite Dangerous is out on Xbox now and ps4 in 6 months using the same engine, so it should at least be possible to see what would need to be curtailed for it to run well. But if they went ahead it could well offer benefits to the current crop of players too like;
However, having said that, people are clearly, from support enquiries and such, trying to run the game on much poorer hardware than the current consoles. Who knows if Frontier have those stats, but in terms of giving the best experience to the most players, it could be through consoles even if it doesn't match the 'recommended' experience on PC.
Elite Dangerous is out on Xbox now and ps4 in 6 months using the same engine, so it should at least be possible to see what would need to be curtailed for it to run well. But if they went ahead it could well offer benefits to the current crop of players too like;
- Developing joypad/motion controls and VR which may not be viable for just Oculus/Vive
- A lean-back interface for anybody with a Steam Link or similar
- A warm fuzzy feeling when the console version is inferior in park size/number of guests/reticulating splines than the original
Your facts are still inofficial. microsoft has not released any info about its CPU. It could likely be an APU. Xbox 360s CPU is much higher than xbox one sitting at 3.2Ghz. While the GPU will have 320GB bandwdith if the CPU is not at least as good as the minimum requirements for this game then it will be the bottleneck. Consoles also need to be affordable especially for people who cant afford high end PCs.
There are plenty of notes from Phil Spencer showing that it is not current AMD architecture and will be on the new Ryzen architecture. Be it an APU or seperate CPU/GPU changes nothing on the the fact it would be build from a core AMD are already producing such as the SR-5 which incidentally is the only noted CPU with the same core count/thread count at moment. This of course could all change but that is the information I have read through consistently over the last few months.
The 360's CPU is nothing close to what the Xbox One CPU can produce though. The base figure your reading is all good but it is not the full story. Ghz is not the only part that matters.
Further to that, Phil Spencer & Microsoft have already said they are targeting high end gaming and not the general public with this console. Rumours would suggest they are targeting a US $600 price ish with almost zero profit margin and rely on game sales as always to make the money. Microsoft have also claimed to build an equivalent PC would costs thousands of dollars.
I think that would suggest that console gaming may be pushed in a large way and honestly if they can hit a cycle of 3 years with the highest end gear at a price that works with backwards compatibility and mouse/keyboard support then my PC would be redundant.
Just because things have worked a certain way for 2 decades doesn't mean things won't move forward.
Edit: My facts are also official statements from Microsoft. I can't say if they are lying or not. That is not for me to judge but I am taking face value of what is said for now in hope we really do progress further along.
Edit 2: Further to that I may have miss-understood or similar but it appears more recent information (just took a look) actually suggests the CPU will be closer to the SR-7 with 8 true cores.
Last edited: