I've been arguing against people blaming consoles since I joined the forum (as a console owner myself), but your post is the first one to give me pause and ask, "Is that true?"
What happened to the graphics / textures?
- Thread starter her3sy
- Start date
I've been arguing against people blaming consoles since I joined the forum (as a console owner myself), but your post is the first one to give me pause and ask, "Is that true?"
I`m not the one who said this first, there were tons of similar posts just after first big graphical nerf. If its the performance issue then give us more "ultra high" options for hi end pc users. And it cant be performance issue since ED runs (and was running from the start) on pretty average setups with no major problems. So I will stick to the idea that its for marketing issues that PC version cant stand out too much from Xbox one. And I`m sure ED could not be the only PC game that was held back by the console publisher in the same way.
Last edited:
verminstar
Banned
As a number of devs have already stated the issues are absolutely nothing to do with consoles, does that mean anyone clinging onto their master race attitudes are calling the devs liars? Would ye call them out to their faces as liars? Because ye just know and can make an undisputable case that backs up yer theory beyond any shadow of a doubt?
Somehow I doubt it very much ^
Somehow I doubt it very much ^
Huh... Well I've lived to see some pretty draconian policies come out of Redmond, and there are many of us PS4 owners who believe Frontier had a special deal with Microsoft to keep ED exclusive to the XBox until recently (a deal likely proposed by Microsoft), so it would not necessarily surprise me...
Perhaps with the advent of the XBox One X, graphics will get a much-needed buff across all the platforms. I'm not saying I'm totally sold on your theory, and I'm almost certain Sony doesn't have such a policy seeing that they no ties to the PC market (unlike Microsoft who owns it), but like I said, nothing would surprise me when it comes to Microsoft. That company is one of the reasons I left PC gaming in the first place....
Last edited:
One thing I learned quite early on, particularly when it comes to anyone trying to sell something, is to ignore what they say and look at what they do.
What they said: There will be no graphical downgrade due to console parity and microsoft didn't ask us to do anything.
What they did: Downgraded the graphical fidelity around the same time as a console port release, modified the game (added a quick play arcade game mode) at the behest of microsoft.
Now I'm not saying definitively that they did or did not lie, but the evidence is not in favour of what they said compared to what they actually did. Decide for yourself, and remember, they're here to sell you a product, not honourbound to tell you the god's honest truth.
I stand here right now, and declare yes, those responsible for advising us that there was NO REDUCTION in graphical fidelity are indeed lying. It matters not. No developer/Community manager is ever going to confirm I'm right, so it's a moot point. It DOES happen, it HAS happened, and it WILL happen again.
Exactly. No publisher/developer/spokesperson is EVER going to come on a public forum and state they've 'streamlined' things to ensure console versions run well, and are not overshadowed by a vastly superior PC version. That cannot ever happen, but that's exactly what DID happen.
They were altered. Pray they do not alter them any further...
It's consoles.
Don't kid yourself into believing anything else. The PC quality graphics were downgraded shortly before the first Xbox release and have continued downwards ever since. And there's a legit reason to do this which is simply that it saves development resources to design for universal use - for the different PC and console architectures. Many companies are open about this fact yet FDev seem to want to hide it under the carpet.
Don't kid yourself into believing anything else. The PC quality graphics were downgraded shortly before the first Xbox release and have continued downwards ever since. And there's a legit reason to do this which is simply that it saves development resources to design for universal use - for the different PC and console architectures. Many companies are open about this fact yet FDev seem to want to hide it under the carpet.
Ironically, the argument can be made in the other direction. If FDev made a dedicated, optimized version of ED for my PS4 (with extras for the Pro), it could look better than it currently does. We've got Uncharted 4 and Horizons: Zero Dawn as examples. I'm not saying it would look as good as it can on a high-end PC, but it could look better. As I've told people in the past, my PS4 can show way more colors than beige.
But I understand why PC owners are angry. Upgrades should never be downgrades. Nor should FDev hamstring your graphics for the sake of us console owners. Nor should they need to. This has been my argument since day one. It wasn't until Vasea Azure's point about secret handshakes with Microsoft that caused me to stop and think, "Wait a minute, I can actually see that happening." And if that's the case, then that screws over PS4 owners, though to a lesser extent, as well..
Microsoft has used their monopoly muscle in the past to force parity between game versions in order to make the Xbox version more appealing. It's a shady tactic that is never in the best interest of the consumers. Not saying that has happened with Frontier and Elite, but it's not without precedent so it's certainly possible.
There are two possible scenarios regarding the graphical downgrade of Elite over the years, either:
1. It was done purposefully
2. It was done accidentally
So either Frontier is just slightly incompetent at "upgrading" their Cobra Engine and the Stellar Forge, or they have reduced the graphics and visuals on purpose for some unknown reason. Certainly some graphical aspects of the game have improved since 1.0 but the overall look of the galaxy and game has regressed, so it hasn't been a worthwhile trade-off in my opinion. Either way I am not a fan of losing interesting planets to land on and explore, the galaxy is the environment in which Elite Dangerous takes place and right now it looks worse than it ever has. I wish Frontier would place improving it on a higher priority. Maybe they can't improve it and that is the reason they avoid talking about it in detail so much. Maybe this is as good as it will ever get for Elite Dangerous graphically.
I don't even care why, I must have those planet textures!!! If they have that sort of thing available perhaps they should let us decide to use it or not by say an HD download to run on our client. However, I would presume that if a planet/moon looks like that it would effect the terrain between two systems. However, I don't care at all, I'll play in solo forever to have those textures/3d models... lol...
Sorry but no the argument really cannot be made the other way as that would be saying it's smarter to use more staff / more resources and not be efficient. Only companies that do this get spiffed or financial support in some way by the platform that gets the optimized release(s).
If PC gamers are upset they do have a right as they funded the development. It wasn't console players that paid for the Kickstarter.
You run Potato, I run Tomato, some weird guy is running Rutabaga 2.0 under Linux :/
Literally! What, six sentences over the past year? from three different people, the longest and most honest from a team member no longer on the team (responding to a youtube callout), the second response a null sentence that clarified nothing and a third basically saying 'we're looking at it but don't hold your breath.'
That's some quality communication there.
As for the PC / console thing I don't think a MS secret handshake is even required. If the game is qualitatively better on the PC it's gonna eat into console sales so better to create parity across all media. Just gotta hope Scorpio and Plus allow more graphical fidelity in the future.
I also agree.
The problem is that most rocky planets are now a nearly monochrome orange/beige/brown color, so they are repetitious and boring. I'd like to see more color variation both in terms of average planet color and localized areas. A great example of what I'd like to see is the first picture linked at the top of this thread. I'd also like to see more contrast between the dark and light areas. I'd like to see multiple shadows on planets with more than 1 sun in the system.
Like people have said; the "need" for the PC version of the game to not look any better than the console version happened. I have absolutely nothing against the people who play on consoles, but coming into contact with the companies that make them is almost invariably bad for a PC game.
This is complete rubbish. My above average PC already looks far better then any console. so to say that it is to make them look the same is not correct.
Why do people say this rubbish. Just look at the screenshots of the PC version and the PS4/Xbone versions to see the difference.
Now does that mean that they now have to make the PS4 pro version the same as the ps4 version. Of course not, the ps4 pro version looks better.
Common sense needs to be used in these forums at times. But people seem to have a severe lack of it.
Those look really good.
Can you share those pipeline settings or they're unique to your setup?