Probably pc's are holding consoles back then.
Question - Is pc version being curtailed because of console versions?
- Thread starter valbarr
- Start date
Probably pc's are holding consoles back then.
Minimal specs are always used as "guidelines" because of the sheer amount of hardware available- in terms of variables. That's with any piece of software. Hell, it's not even guaranteed to work just because you meet the minimal hardware requirements.
Those who have "top end hardware" will always whine about the fact that their investment gains them no advantages. (That's why shopping "smart" is always its own advantage...)
Want something that takes advantage of that NASA computer you've got in your living room? Good luck. Software in general is developed for the mainstream- not the privileged few. That's why there are people out there who develop post-processing software options, because the majority of people don't buy $600-1000 GPU's, etc. They buy what's affordable for their budgets- and what's sensible for current technology. Not everyone is following "bleeding edge" and "future proofing" their systems.
Didnt the polygon count drop for cockpits in a recent patch and the planet surfaces took a nose dive right before Console roll out for Xbox and eventually PS.
And you think that res of a monitor/tv automatically gives you better textures. Okkkaayyyy.
Yes but the console players who run the older platforms need some degree of detail tuning for consistent frame rates.
No doubt the Pro consoles run equal to a higher end PC in ED, but the lower end Consoles?
Should we? Should we really be comparing consoles to a top end PC? If we did then in almost every case it would be true, consoles are holding them back.
But then so is every lower end or average PC. Are they not holding the game back too? I mean after all, my system isn't at the cutting edge of anything it sits firmly at the recommended specifications for the game, yet to hit that magic 60fps mark I have to reduce settings or reduce resolution. Quite frankly had they introduced all the fancy planetary graphics they were going to there is a pretty good chance that anyone at the current recommended settings would be struggling to play. Anyone skirting around the minimum settings would have had a gaming experience similar to playing FE2 on an A500 (we are talking coloured, flat shaded polygons and frame rates in the single digits). They would have alienated well over half their current player base without taking consoles into the equation. Even top end systems would be struggling to hit 60FPS with VR reserved for only those that can afford to drop £2/3/4k+ on a server level gaming rig.
Those same "average" rigs including my own share the same client as your top end system this means the same shaders, the same planets, the same graphics, sounds, npc's the same literal everything has to be pared down to them too.
So, in conclusion, I have to apologise for all us lower end budget gamers, we appear to be holding back ED development of those at the top because we like to play too...
Still, don't feel guilty enough to drop a grand or two on a better rig, I guess you folks are just going to have to suffer for the sake of me...
To the human eye ofc. It strongly depends on the res, the panel size and the distance that you sit in front of it. The best graphics will look crappy if you stick your nose on a tv panel. Modern TVs are brilliant but i dont know on what gear you are making comparison. I still believe that your friend does something wrong. Maybe on settings. But then again, you should provide screenshots from both if you want to make an argument.
Why should we bother with low end gear? I think this thread's argument is pretty much non existant on low tier machines on both sides. Am i wrong?
There are plenty of screenshots around. Just search the forums.
Probably.. but they are not working for your argument and i dont intend to do your work. Your are the one that should provide the crappy console material and the amazing pc material. I ve seen HD videos of elite on consoles and they look pretty much same-ish.
I never said it was crappy. Please don't put words in my mouth. The console versions look great. Just not as good as my PC or a high-end PC. I would say that they have an equivalent of a mixture of medium and high settings on a PC. I have ultra on everything. But medium and high settings still look very good.
So no consoles are not holding the game back. I would also say that very few PC players have top end gaming PC's and probably have very similar visuals to the consoles and and some will be worse. Also if you have a PC good enough you can run the game in 8k and 16k which would look far better then anything.
If ED were truly limited to console capabilities, then there would be no VR.
Of course, depending on how "limiting" is being defined here, the answer could just as easily be "yes" as it could be "no."
Some of the rhetoric here about mindsets of one group vs the other is just absurd and I'm not sure where it fits into the conversation anyway, unless ita a segway to talk of rounding them up in work camps or something.
As for quality between the two, it is difficult to compare because while the quality of the console version is fairly static or consistent, the quailty of the "PC Version" will vary wildly depending on the specs of the PC being used. For development challenges, at least development towards the consoles doesn't have to account for such a wide range of hardware and software configurations.
I have been gaming on PCs since the late 80's, from Oregon Trail and Wings of Fury on the Apple IIE to Half Life (1&2), CS, GTA (Vice City & San Andreas) and BF1942 in the early 2000's. My gaming life went on hold for three to four years or so (kids took over my rig, but I got them into gaming playing Spore and Mindcraft), and now I have a PC and an Xbox One. Aside from the Apple, I built my PCs and though I enjoyed it for a long time, I'm not at a point where I want to invest the time at the moment. When I have time for gaming, I want to turn it on and play, and I want to be on my couch infront of my 70+ in 'monitor'.
I play ED on my console, and I think that most people would not be aware of any differences in graphics or overall experience between the console version and one on the average spec PC, especially without side by side comparisons.
Even in the first decade of this century, it was still true that things were vastly different on PC, for some games. For example, the worlds in the GTA games were much larger for the PC versions than the console versions.
For the past few years, I've been able to download and play Vice City and San Andreas, ON MY FR%$*G PHONE. All things considered, with the difference with game performance and content between PC and console versions being nearly non-existant, it would seem that PC capabilities have not increased at the same pace as those of consoles.
There are differences and always will be, but to say that consoles are holding back ED are overblown.
Personally, I think the PC elites are still bitter about the fact that I purchased one copy of the game and am currently playing three CMDRs at no additional cost.
Yeah, I went there.
Of course, depending on how "limiting" is being defined here, the answer could just as easily be "yes" as it could be "no."
Some of the rhetoric here about mindsets of one group vs the other is just absurd and I'm not sure where it fits into the conversation anyway, unless ita a segway to talk of rounding them up in work camps or something.
As for quality between the two, it is difficult to compare because while the quality of the console version is fairly static or consistent, the quailty of the "PC Version" will vary wildly depending on the specs of the PC being used. For development challenges, at least development towards the consoles doesn't have to account for such a wide range of hardware and software configurations.
I have been gaming on PCs since the late 80's, from Oregon Trail and Wings of Fury on the Apple IIE to Half Life (1&2), CS, GTA (Vice City & San Andreas) and BF1942 in the early 2000's. My gaming life went on hold for three to four years or so (kids took over my rig, but I got them into gaming playing Spore and Mindcraft), and now I have a PC and an Xbox One. Aside from the Apple, I built my PCs and though I enjoyed it for a long time, I'm not at a point where I want to invest the time at the moment. When I have time for gaming, I want to turn it on and play, and I want to be on my couch infront of my 70+ in 'monitor'.
I play ED on my console, and I think that most people would not be aware of any differences in graphics or overall experience between the console version and one on the average spec PC, especially without side by side comparisons.
Even in the first decade of this century, it was still true that things were vastly different on PC, for some games. For example, the worlds in the GTA games were much larger for the PC versions than the console versions.
For the past few years, I've been able to download and play Vice City and San Andreas, ON MY FR%$*G PHONE. All things considered, with the difference with game performance and content between PC and console versions being nearly non-existant, it would seem that PC capabilities have not increased at the same pace as those of consoles.
There are differences and always will be, but to say that consoles are holding back ED are overblown.
Personally, I think the PC elites are still bitter about the fact that I purchased one copy of the game and am currently playing three CMDRs at no additional cost.
Yeah, I went there.
Last edited:
Well.. ED was a PC game years before its console release. Typically a PC gamer will look at the specification requirements for a game and buy it or not buy it.
IF they have performance issues during game play it can be an issue with a number of different factors that can either be addressed with software tweeking and updates or an upgraded item of hardware.
Usually a PC gamer will reserve an area of trepidation when buying a game that is somewhere in the middle of their hardwares ability. If the game runs less then optimal they typically write it up as.... 'Yeh i was expecting this and i will live with it by tweeking the settings' or 'its time for an upgrade'.
A console player does not have that mind set or these options.. The hardware is set THE GAME MUST WORK!
Patching on Console apparently costs the developer moneyz paid to the console mafia, so each patch must work.
On PC that isnt an issue... Patch away.
So a developer has to think forward to make sure that game is optimised and works right out of the box for that static platform. And yes a static platform is easier to optimise for but if that platform is below the ceiling requirements (even by a smidge) of an average gaming PC, then that fat needs to be trimmed in order to squeeze the product into the (X)box and guarantee an optimum experiance.
--
There are a good number of examples showing the visual fidelity dropping on ED (gradually) online prior to the console market opening.
But the issue in this thread is really just a conspiracy theory and thats all it will be.
Last edited:
A very informative video about ED performance on the different platforms.
Seems the console versions are a 'ship in a bottle' compared to the PC jug.
Its hard to argue that the ED client could be pushed much higher given that the consoles are dragging the line.... even to some degree on the Pro versions. With a 30 fps swing on quality vs performance modes.
A low end PC user will just tweek the settings or upgrade his rig.... a console player cannot.
This video is 7 months old.... So im not sure if this has changed since then....
Does anyone run ED on console at 4k now? How does it run? I'd be curious to know what the frame rate differences are between performance and quality settings now.
[video=youtube;mDyi7Fwrxno]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDyi7Fwrxno[/video]
Seems the console versions are a 'ship in a bottle' compared to the PC jug.
Its hard to argue that the ED client could be pushed much higher given that the consoles are dragging the line.... even to some degree on the Pro versions. With a 30 fps swing on quality vs performance modes.
A low end PC user will just tweek the settings or upgrade his rig.... a console player cannot.
This video is 7 months old.... So im not sure if this has changed since then....
Does anyone run ED on console at 4k now? How does it run? I'd be curious to know what the frame rate differences are between performance and quality settings now.
[video=youtube;mDyi7Fwrxno]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDyi7Fwrxno[/video]
Last edited:
That's why Sony had to create its own (very limited) version of VR for the PS? If it's not so "limited" then why the hell can't you just plug in an Oculus or Vive and start playing?
Yeah I went there.
And I really had no idea you *could* do this to begin with. Color me surprised. Does it make a difference in my views? Not in the slightest... so much for the "jealousy" hyperbole, eh?
To the OP - No. Combined with your thread on "can we have a part of 3.0 early?" I'm not surprised but disappointed.
Release
They won't release a bit of 3.0 early because it's stupid to do so. It risks bugs coming up, it's a lot of work for the developers and not just a cut+paste job. A mini-update is also no small feat for the servers to just do. Finally it leads to scope creep. Can we just have this early, can we just have that early. Pretty soon the whole release is out there but in 20 bits and you have delayed the project 4 weeks just to release the same content in small chunks.
The console thing is a little bit of why due to the Microsoft and Sony agreements and them not liking lots of updates (they prefer fewer larger updates so that they are easier to test and validate before release).
Anyway, the consoles are not the reason for a small chunk being put out there early. They are also not the reason for 3.0 delay, previous releases have gone live the end of beta across all 3 platforms, this could have happened with 3.0, it was a deliberate decision by FDev not to, it's not the consoles causing the delay.
As others are speaking graphics:
Graphics
On PC go to graphics.ini in the install folder. Whack up the textures to 8k or 16k on planets and other things and watch it get beautiful and rather slow. PC is undeniably better graphics if tweaked and has mod-ability with reshade etc and VR support.
Yes 4k XBone and PS4-Pro is nice, I'd say you'd not notice the difference most of the time with PC and console on max settings, performance on console suffers by comparison tho. However, with the tweaks above consoles are not a patch on a high end gaming rig set up right.
Consoles have come closer to PCs in recent years but are still worlds apart from a high-end rig... That being said a high end rig is several times the cost so well, I guess you get what you pay for.
That being said I'd love to see some official ultra quality options especially for nebula and planets. Maybe even a filter option.
I say this from being at the Expo, lavecon and playing the game at friends who have an XB1 and PS4-Pro as well as my personal rig detailed in my spoiler. I've seen all 3 and that's my opinion.
Summary
Overall no the PC development hasn't suffered at all or been cut due to consoles. All fair I'll admit yes there will have been some slowdown in content release whilst it was ported from PC to XBox and PS as well as a few developer hours spent doing the same for each update and quality testing time for all 3 platforms. BUT, both the consoles have brought significant income to Frontier which has in turn led to more developers being hired (FDev is still hiring now), which means that there's more investment in the future of Elite so overall it's been a good thing for PC to have the consoles on board.
Edit: Finally version parity does make sense from a development point of view, however, Elite was developed for PC so the graphics can go higher, much higher as shown by the graphics.ini edit. Console versions are basically the code altered to work and the graphics settings tweaked to get the appropriate performance points for Sony/MS. It's not like other games where they do the console version first then go over to PC and realise they need to re-create every single texture in the game again in better resolution/quality.
Release
They won't release a bit of 3.0 early because it's stupid to do so. It risks bugs coming up, it's a lot of work for the developers and not just a cut+paste job. A mini-update is also no small feat for the servers to just do. Finally it leads to scope creep. Can we just have this early, can we just have that early. Pretty soon the whole release is out there but in 20 bits and you have delayed the project 4 weeks just to release the same content in small chunks.
The console thing is a little bit of why due to the Microsoft and Sony agreements and them not liking lots of updates (they prefer fewer larger updates so that they are easier to test and validate before release).
Anyway, the consoles are not the reason for a small chunk being put out there early. They are also not the reason for 3.0 delay, previous releases have gone live the end of beta across all 3 platforms, this could have happened with 3.0, it was a deliberate decision by FDev not to, it's not the consoles causing the delay.
As others are speaking graphics:
Graphics
On PC go to graphics.ini in the install folder. Whack up the textures to 8k or 16k on planets and other things and watch it get beautiful and rather slow. PC is undeniably better graphics if tweaked and has mod-ability with reshade etc and VR support.
Yes 4k XBone and PS4-Pro is nice, I'd say you'd not notice the difference most of the time with PC and console on max settings, performance on console suffers by comparison tho. However, with the tweaks above consoles are not a patch on a high end gaming rig set up right.
Consoles have come closer to PCs in recent years but are still worlds apart from a high-end rig... That being said a high end rig is several times the cost so well, I guess you get what you pay for.
That being said I'd love to see some official ultra quality options especially for nebula and planets. Maybe even a filter option.
I say this from being at the Expo, lavecon and playing the game at friends who have an XB1 and PS4-Pro as well as my personal rig detailed in my spoiler. I've seen all 3 and that's my opinion.
Summary
Overall no the PC development hasn't suffered at all or been cut due to consoles. All fair I'll admit yes there will have been some slowdown in content release whilst it was ported from PC to XBox and PS as well as a few developer hours spent doing the same for each update and quality testing time for all 3 platforms. BUT, both the consoles have brought significant income to Frontier which has in turn led to more developers being hired (FDev is still hiring now), which means that there's more investment in the future of Elite so overall it's been a good thing for PC to have the consoles on board.
Edit: Finally version parity does make sense from a development point of view, however, Elite was developed for PC so the graphics can go higher, much higher as shown by the graphics.ini edit. Console versions are basically the code altered to work and the graphics settings tweaked to get the appropriate performance points for Sony/MS. It's not like other games where they do the console version first then go over to PC and realise they need to re-create every single texture in the game again in better resolution/quality.
Last edited:
I and other players have been running ED at native 4k on Xbox One X since November. There's actually 4 graphic modes available on XB1X - 1080p Performance, 1080p Quality, 4K Performance, 4K Quality.
Suffice to say that the 4K Quality mode runs at a better frame rate then the original XB1 version (which ran at native 1080p), despite pumping out the additional quality effects (heat blur from thrusters etc) and 4x the number of pixels.
The performance modes have superior frame rate, minus of course the quality effects. Personally I prefer 4K/Quality, its more than good enough for me and looks great on my Sammy Q7 TV.
Hi!
Well a dev have to be mindfull of the limitations that multiplatform can bring.
Something more advanced like DCS would proberly not be a good Idea
so some ideas to new content, will likely be discarded due to limitations.
Rolling out fixes and updates could also takes more time.
(Testing & getting the "ok" from microsoft/sony, stuff like that)
--------
But there is also the added sales to think about.
At least we do not have to buy ships for real money to keep the dev-ship afloat. ��
BB !
Well a dev have to be mindfull of the limitations that multiplatform can bring.
Something more advanced like DCS would proberly not be a good Idea
so some ideas to new content, will likely be discarded due to limitations.
Rolling out fixes and updates could also takes more time.
(Testing & getting the "ok" from microsoft/sony, stuff like that)
--------
But there is also the added sales to think about.
At least we do not have to buy ships for real money to keep the dev-ship afloat. ��
BB !
In that case the thread title should be "Question - Is Elite being curtailed because of low end machines?"
It isn't.
This is very true.
Imagine Star Citizen at 4k on a Console. If Ed wanted to borrow some of the scope of SC and expand the ED vision with some broader features like in SC, How limited would ED find itself given that 2/3 of its market is now console and that static hardware has to be catered to.
Maybe ps4 holding us back but my Xbox one x runs the game better than my GTX 1060 pc, looking at upgrading my rig but prices are silly at the moment