Say What? Average PC Cannot Handle EA's Ignite Engine

[gmuser]

************ EA is WRONG ************

But instead of just saying what most people feel, I did some data collecting.
1) check on Steam Hardware survey shows that 74% of PCs have DX10/11 (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/)
2) I took listing of ALL those cards and compared EVERY one of them with speed of 7770 (assumed speed of xbox One) and 7790 cards (PS4), based on http://www.videocardbenchmark.net
3) there are 40% of PCs same or better than AMD 7770, and 24% better than 7790
4) EA must have games work on xBox One, so it means 30% (40% of 74% DX10/11 cards) of gaming PCs are same or better perf than xBox One

Result: 30% of GAMING PCs are even now better than xBox One, and in one year it will sharply rise.

Now, lets try to estimate how many total PCs those 30% are:
5) Intel sell about 60% of GPUs, and Nvidia+AMD about 40% (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphics/display/20110809190609_AMD_and_Nvidia_Lose_Market_Share_as_Shipments_of_Graphics_Adapters_Rises.html)
6) that means 40% of world PCs are Nvidia+AMD, so those 30%*40%= 12% of world PCs are same or better than new xBox One
7) current estimate of number of PCs in worls is 1.1-1.2billions
8) Number of PCs comparable or better than xBox One = 12%*1.15bil= 140 Million PCs
9) total number of xbox360 sold is 78mil over 12 years. Current number of xboxOne=0, expected number in one year =10mil?

Conclusion:
- 30% of PCs with Nvidia/AMD (or 12% of all PCs) are better now than xBox One
- that is 140 million existing PCs as potential market for EA ignite engine
- current market for xbox One is zero, probable market in one year is 10-20 mil?

Therefore reason is obviously not PC performance but something else, like much higher profit for game on console, compared to PCs (more console users buy games, no piracy...)

 

[quotas47]

What do they consider a "Mainstream PC" for the purpose of this comparison? I really want to know, if anyone here has a hunch.
This descriptor has to follow the "Lion's share of PCs on the market" comment as well.
Please reply and guess what EA means by this.

I would also like to say, that the "Lion's share" of computers and the "mainstream" systems are most likely owned by users who don't intend to play these games. One of the first questions thrown around when a consumer expresses interest in buying a computer is "what are you going to do with it?"

This is reinforced by retail staff who frequently gain notice in their businesses by upselling systems and value. Those who intend to purchase for gaming, purchase for gaming. EA should have no problem writing a game to work with "above mainstream" systems, and shouldn't even worry about a system below what EA intends its game to run on.

It's what the system requirements label is for.

 

[twelch82]

************ EA is WRONG ************

But instead of just saying what most people feel, I did some data collecting.
1) check on Steam Hardware survey shows that 74% of PCs have DX10/11 (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/)
2) I took listing of ALL those cards and compared EVERY one of them with speed of 7770 (assumed speed of xbox One) and 7790 cards (PS4), based on http://www.videocardbenchmark.net
3) there are 40% of PCs same or better than AMD 7770, and 24% better than 7790
4) EA must have games work on xBox One, so it means 30% (40% of 74% DX10/11 cards) of gaming PCs are same or better perf than xBox One

Result: 30% of GAMING PCs are even now better than xBox One, and in one year it will sharply rise.

Now, lets try to estimate how many total PCs those 30% are:
5) Intel sell about 60% of GPUs, and Nvidia+AMD about 40% (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphics/display/20110809190609_AMD_and_Nvidia_Lose_Market_Share_as_Shipments_of_Graphics_Adapters_Rises.html)
6) that means 40% of world PCs are Nvidia+AMD, so those 30%*40%= 12% of world PCs are same or better than new xBox One
7) current estimate of number of PCs in worls is 1.1-1.2billions
8) Number of PCs comparable or better than xBox One = 12%*1.15bil= 140 Million PCs
9) total number of xbox360 sold is 78mil over 12 years. Current number of xboxOne=0, expected number in one year =10mil?

Conclusion:
- 30% of PCs with Nvidia/AMD (or 12% of all PCs) are better now than xBox One
- that is 140 million existing PCs as potential market for EA ignite engine
- current market for xbox One is zero, probable market in one year is 10-20 mil?

Therefore reason is obviously not PC performance but something else, like much higher profit for game on console, compared to PCs (more console users buy games, no piracy...)

There are certain advantages the new consoles have that most gaming PCs do not. The shared memory architecture allows most of the memory to be used as graphics memory, and it will be more efficient to do combination CPU/GPU operations, where both operate on the same data every frame.

With the memory separated in PCs, lack of VRAM will likely be a problem in some games, and the CPU may end up having to do some of the work that the GPU will be used for on consoles. CPUs are more flexible than GPUs, but much slower at the specific tasks that GPUs are good for.

If the PC was your main platform, you'd design around the strengths and weaknesses of a typical PC with a CPU + GPU setup. But, since the consoles will be the primary target for a lot of game makers, the PC is going to end up being stuck dealing with whatever it gets.

 

[AngelLaHash]

I think a Good PC can do the game, but on a Windows Format cant.
AMD must of based the CPU/GPU on some thing they already had, other wise it would of cost millions.
Ram wise, I know i had have DDR5 in my system and I know some Vid cards do have DDR5 (but i dont, but i dont play games that much any more).
What it boils down to, is a stream lined PC for this/other games, a PC and Windows has been made so able to cope with so many different things it loses other areas.
Windows just needs to be made better more stream lined to the Users demands at that point in time, so much Junk on the Screen/Loaded up waiting READY.
Need it more for when i say i want it, and when i say DIE you die, no bits of data left in the ram that no bit of software can use just incase you want to re-load it quickly.
Also a level switch, so that when a game is loaded up you can pick the graphics, but this is wouldnt be needed if you have better OS that uses the Hardware to the just near MAX (i dont want to kill the thing)
Beter way to control software, if you been using IE/Chrome/Firefox for the last 5min then put that on its own CPU Core/2 and leave the rest on the other cores to play, it needs to figure out that if you been using some thing then that should be what it puts its power in to, and some thing that hasnt been opened for the last 20min put on a core with the rest of the junk that hasnt been used for the last 20min.
---
As for EA, there games seem to sell better on Xbox/Playstation so I wouldnt bother to convert action games to PC, most people who like Fast Moving Games like the Football do tend to have a XBox/Playstation (on average, maybe some that dont so dont jump on that) and the PC users seem to be more of Controlers (God Games, Sims CIV Rome) seems to be a Mind Vs Reaction thing

 

[MopsterUK]

I left PC gaming behind years ago. I spend $400 on a piece of hardware that doesn't have to be upgraded for years and the games look as good if not better than on a PC. OR spend $200 on a card every year just to make the game look decent. It's a no brainer.

lol, thank you for making me smile. I'm sure that fifa 13 at 720p running at 30 fps with no AA looks better than it does on a pc running it at 1080p @60fps and with AA and AF on max. I'm sure that skyrim looks better on the consoles in the same similar issue as fifa 13, excluding the high texture res pack that you get for the pc. Essentially you are wrong.

Based on the advertised processing power of the PS4, $400 console, it would take about $600 to get similar performance on a PC (though the PC can do much more than a console with also more storage and other better features)

Another person who is wrong. Essentially you can get a similar build for cheaper, or at about the same price.

Example:

"AMD APU A10 6800K Black Edition 4.4GHz Socket FM2 4MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor = £114.52
Gigabyte GA-F2A85X-UP4 A85X Socket FM2 VGA DVI HDMI DisplayPort 7.1 = £97.00
Kingston 8GB DDR3 1333MHz HyperX Blu Red Series = £50.50
Case and PSU = £23
Toshiba 500GB Internal Hard Drive @7200rpm = £40.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total = £325.02"

This is just a rough example. I haven't compared the APU vs APU specs or the motherboard. They were the most expensive at one online retailer. Neither have I shopped around to get the price down. So theoretically this could work out even cheaper.

 

[Fulgurant]

Based on the advertised processing power of the PS4, $400 console, it would take about $600 to get similar performance on a PC (though the PC can do much more than a console with also more storage and other better features)

Another person who is wrong. Essentially you can get a similar build for cheaper, or at about the same price.

Example:

"AMD APU A10 6800K Black Edition 4.4GHz Socket FM2 4MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor = £114.52
Gigabyte GA-F2A85X-UP4 A85X Socket FM2 VGA DVI HDMI DisplayPort 7.1 = £97.00
Kingston 8GB DDR3 1333MHz HyperX Blu Red Series = £50.50
Case and PSU = £23
Toshiba 500GB Internal Hard Drive @7200rpm = £40.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total = £325.02"

This is just a rough example. I haven't compared the APU vs APU specs or the motherboard. They were the most expensive at one online retailer. Neither have I shopped around to get the price down. So theoretically this could work out even cheaper.

Uh, the new consoles' GPU capability absolutely murders a Trinity APU. XBox One is roughly analogous to an HD 7770, and PS4 is roughly analogous to an HD 7850. Those are not high-end PC cards; it's true -- but they're not the lowest of the low, either.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/2

The quoted poster is right, in other words: using currently available PC hardware, you'd have to spend $500-$600 to approximate next-gen console performance. Just on a hardware-spec basis, the PS4 looks like a particularly good value -- but of course the PS4's games will tend to cost more than a PC gamer's, and of course the PS4 isn't as generally useful as a gaming PC. In the long run, I don't think either console is more cost-effective than a PC, but vastly understating consoles' capabilities doesn't do your (or my) argument any favors.

Sony's selling the hardware at a loss, it seems. Pretty standard practice.

 

[MopsterUK]

Based on the advertised processing power of the PS4, $400 console, it would take about $600 to get similar performance on a PC (though the PC can do much more than a console with also more storage and other better features)

Another person who is wrong. Essentially you can get a similar build for cheaper, or at about the same price.

Example:

"AMD APU A10 6800K Black Edition 4.4GHz Socket FM2 4MB Cache Retail Boxed Processor = £114.52
Gigabyte GA-F2A85X-UP4 A85X Socket FM2 VGA DVI HDMI DisplayPort 7.1 = £97.00
Kingston 8GB DDR3 1333MHz HyperX Blu Red Series = £50.50
Case and PSU = £23
Toshiba 500GB Internal Hard Drive @7200rpm = £40.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total = £325.02"

This is just a rough example. I haven't compared the APU vs APU specs or the motherboard. They were the most expensive at one online retailer. Neither have I shopped around to get the price down. So theoretically this could work out even cheaper.

Uh, the new consoles' GPU capability absolutely murders a Trinity APU. XBox One is roughly analogous to an HD 7770, and PS4 is roughly analogous to an HD 7850. Those are not high-end PC cards; it's true -- but they're not the lowest of the low, either.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6972/xbox-one-hardware-compared-to-playstation-4/2

The quoted poster is right, in other words: using currently available PC hardware, you'd have to spend $500-$600 to approximate next-gen console performance. Just on a hardware-spec basis, the PS4 looks like a particularly good value -- but of course the PS4's games will tend to cost more than a PC gamer's, and of course the PS4 isn't as generally useful as a gaming PC. In the long run, I don't think either console is more cost-effective than a PC, but vastly understating consoles' capabilities doesn't do your (or my) argument any favors.

Sony's selling the hardware at a loss, it seems. Pretty standard practice.

Simple. buy a cheaper dedicated cpu and a cheaper motherboard and instead buy a
XFX HD 7770 Core Edition 1GB GDDR5 Dual DVI HDMI DisplayPort PCI-E = £89.99

You are still looking at about between £300-£350 for a comparable pc gaming system to that of the xbone and ps4.
At no point did I understate the consoles' capabilities. I simple am stating that you can build a comparable gaming pc for approximately the equivalent or cheaper price. At no point did I state it would be better or worse.

Which leaves me this final point. I am failing to see the mock up that you are mentioning.

 

[Fulgurant]

Simple. buy a cheaper dedicated cpu and a cheaper motherboard and instead buy a
XFX HD 7770 Core Edition 1GB GDDR5 Dual DVI HDMI DisplayPort PCI-E = £89.99

You are still looking at about between £300-£350 for a comparable pc gaming system to that of the xbone and ps4.

I am failing to see the mock up that you are mentioning.

1.) Where are you buying a case and a half-decent PSU for £23? How long do you expect the machine to function without bursting into flames?

2.) Your first build estimated ~£115 for the CPU/APU. Now you're saying that you can "simply" buy a "cheaper CPU" and add a £90 HD 7770 to achieve the same price point. What CPU do you propose we buy at £25, and how long do you suppose that CPU will remain a credible gaming chip?

3.) What's the exchange rate on British pounds versus American dollars? Nevermind: I found it. Seems to me that even your original quibble is kinda toothless just based on your arithmetic. The quoted poster mentioned a price point of $600. Your original (and inadequate) APU build costs roughly 325 * 1.54 = $500.

It's one thing to argue that it's possible to build a gaming PC with comparable specs to a next-gen console for less than the cost of the consoles. It's another thing to argue that it's easy to do, or even that anyone should bother trying. Using a combination of sub-standard parts and a crap ton of limited-time sales? Yeah, I'm sure you could cobble something together that kinda-sorta fits the criteria, but that's not a sensible basis on which to make a recommendation.

 

[Fulgurant]

At no point did I understate the consoles' capabilities. I simple am stating that you can build a comparable gaming pc for approximately the equivalent or cheaper price. At no point did I state it would be better or worse.

You posted a build featuring a Trinity APU and proclaimed it comparable to a next-gen console. The Trinity APU is nowhere near as strong as next-gen-console GPUs. Thus, you understated the consoles' capabilities.

EDIT: My bad; you posted a build featuring a Richland APU. It still doesn't hold a candle to next-gen console GPUs.

 

[MopsterUK]

1.) Where are you buying a case and a half-decent PSU for £23? How long do you expect the machine to function without bursting into flames?

lol you can pic up cheap cases and psu's... you prob have the same amount of guarantee with such cases as you would with getting a xbox360 without ever experience the red ring of death. Do you have a guareentee that there will not be any problems with the xbone or ps4 in terms of overheating issues? no it's speculation that your system will over heat on a £23 case. Just as it is speculation that the xbone and ps4 will not suffer from any overheating issues.

2.) Your first build estimated ~£115 for the CPU/APU. Now you're saying that you can "simply" buy a "cheaper CPU" and add a £90 HD 7770 to achieve the same price point. What CPU do you propose we buy at £25, and how long do you suppose that CPU will remain a credible gaming chip?

If you read what I typed correctly I also said the motherboard. As the GPU is more crucial than the CPU in PC gaming (in terms of biggest FPS deviance) then a cheaper CPU isn't that big of an issue. The motherboard was the highest priced motherboard on the site I looked at. This is not needed in terms of providing a comparable gaming pc system. You could obtain a motherboard for appox £50. Again these are all prices using one site and not looking around for cheaper.

3.) What's the exchange rate on British pounds versus American dollars? Nevermind: I found it. Seems to me that even your original quibble is kinda toothless just based on your arithmetic. The quoted poster mentioned a price point of $600. Your original (and inadequate) APU build costs roughly 325 * 1.54 = $500.

Ok this is just being moronic. This estimate I gave is based on UK pricing. Bearing in mind that the xbone is £499 and the ps4 is £350. So if you did the exchange rate of these there are more expensive than being sold in North America. Therefore, converting from UK prices to North American prices is stupid. You'd need to find the equivilent US price with would be cheaper than the conversion price. Therefor, you are using dumb logic to make an argument.

It's one thing to argue that it's possible to build a gaming PC with comparable specs to a next-gen console for less than the cost of the consoles. It's another thing to argue that it's easy to do, or even that anyone should bother trying. Using a combination of sub-standard parts and a crap ton of limited-time sales? Yeah, I'm sure you could cobble something together that kinda-sorta fits the criteria, but that's not a sensible basis on which to make a recommendation.

If you read what I've been writing I've stated that you can build a gaming pc which is comparable to that of the next GEN for approximately the equivalent or cheaper. It doesn't matter how one can build a comparable gaming pc in terms of parts and sourcing the low part cost. The main issue is that it is achievable and easily so. Why is it not sensible? I say it's horses for courses. I stand by what I stated. The OP who stated to get a comparable gaming PC that there is a huge mark up is wrong.

 

[Fulgurant]

1.) Where are you buying a case and a half-decent PSU for £23? How long do you expect the machine to function without bursting into flames?

lol you can pic up cheap cases and psu's... you prob have the same amount of guarantee with such cases as you would with getting a xbox360 without ever experience the red ring of death. Do you have a guareentee that there will not be any problems with the xbone or ps4 in terms of overheating issues? no it's speculation that your system will over heat on a £23 case. Just as it is speculation that the xbone and ps4 will not suffer from any overheating issues.

Irrelevant. Just because we have no guarantee that next-gen consoles won't have overheating and/or defective-power-supply issues, it doesn't follow that we should recommend that people here go out and buy a PC with a crappy PSU. And by the way, I wasn't concerned about the quality of the case you proposed (although it probably is a chintzy thing); I was concerned about the quality of the power supply. The "burst into flames" comment was hyperbole, but not outside of the realm of possibility either:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Huntkey-Green-Star-450-W-LW-6450SG-Power-Supply-Review/527/7

Ok this is just being moronic. This estimate I gave is based on UK pricing. Bearing in mind that the xbone is £499 and the ps4 is £350. So if you did the exchange rate of these there are more expensive than being sold in North America. Therefore, converting from UK prices to North American prices is stupid. You'd need to find the equivilent US price with would be cheaper than the conversion price. Therefor, you are using dumb logic to make an argument.

The point is that your rebuttal isn't convincing: when a poster claims that you'd need ~$600 to build a PS4-equivalent system, and you say he's wrong and then cite a bunch of UK-priced components that aren't nearly as powerful as the XBone's/PS4's, then at best your argument is murky. At worst, it's nonsensical.

Can the poster you called "wrong" about pricing on the US market even be proved wrong by your methodology? Apples and oranges. Even if you're right about the UK market, your argument doesn't address the poster's statement.

 

[MopsterUK]

Irrelevant. Just because we have no guarantee that next-gen consoles won't have overheating and/or defective-power-supply issues, it doesn't follow that we should recommend that people here go out and buy a PC with a crappy PSU. And by the way, I wasn't concerned about the quality of the case you proposed (although it probably is a chintzy thing); I was concerned about the quality of the power supply. The "burst into flames" comment was hyperbole, but not outside of the realm of possibility either:

http://www.hardwaresecrets.com/article/Huntkey-Green-Star-450-W-LW-6450SG-Power-Supply-Review/527/7

I wouldn't be to concerned with the PSU to be honest. You are entitled to be worried if you choose to. Like you said here is an argument based on the realms of "possibilities". In that realm almost anything is "possible" just as it is possible that there could be a poor quality control system in place and people end up with dodgy next gen systems. Possible, but is that likely? meh no idea so that line of theoretical argument is silly for us both to pursue.

The point is that your rebuttal isn't convincing: when a poster claims that you'd need ~$600 to build a PS4-equivalent system, and you say he's wrong and then cite a bunch of UK-priced components that aren't nearly as powerful as the XBone's/PS4's, then at best your argument is murky. At worst, it's nonsensical.

As you can see in my original post regarding the prices I had not gone overboard to prove my point. I didn't look up the most cheapest parts from the lowest cost sources. I would assume that as the price of the xbone and the ps4 are more expensive in the UK (in comparison to when doing a US price conversion) than that in the US, that the price for equivalent components would also be cheaper in relevance to the comparison of the XBONE and PS4 in the US market. Does that make sense? Essentially I am saying that comparing the prices in their economical habitat is better than comparing prices interchangeably via economical habitats.

Can the poster you called "wrong" about pricing on the US market even be proved wrong by your methodology? Apples and oranges. Even if you're right about the UK market, your argument doesn't address the poster's statement.

Yes, they can also be proved right if somebody took the time. All they would have to do is go to a fairly reasonable priced online US PC components retailer and source relatively comparable components (using an unbiased approach). Then add up the cost and compare price of their newly built comparable gaming rig to that of the xbone and ps4.

As I have stated, through a very rough hack and slash 5 min job, that you can build a comparable gaming pc for the cost of approximately the same, or slightly less, as a next gen console in the UK. I'd be very surprised if the price of components were stupidly higher priced in the US.

 

[xaos24]

I don't believe this, remember what they said with their Simcity which was proven otherwise?

 

[xaos24]

I don't believe this, remember what they said with their Simcity which was proven otherwise?

 

[shin0bi272]

"next gen" consoles graphics based on last gen pc video cards can run new games better than pc's with more ram, SSD's, and video cards twice as powerful (if not more) in a single card. Oh wait this isnt bizzaro world? Then EA is full of sh!t

 

[shin0bi272]

"next gen" consoles graphics based on last gen pc video cards can run new games better than pc's with more ram, SSD's, and video cards twice as powerful (if not more) in a single card. Oh wait this isnt bizzaro world? Then EA is full of sh!t

 

[Justin C]

Pure BS; my GPU from 2009 has more horsepower than the GPU's in these so-called next-gen systems. Not to mention anyone with an i5/i7 and/or AMD FX "octo-core" already has a good-enough CPU.

 

[quotas47]

************ EA is WRONG ************

But instead of just saying what most people feel, I did some data collecting.
1) check on Steam Hardware survey shows that 74% of PCs have DX10/11 (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/)
2) I took listing of ALL those cards and compared EVERY one of them with speed of 7770 (assumed speed of xbox One) and 7790 cards (PS4), based on http://www.videocardbenchmark.net
3) there are 40% of PCs same or better than AMD 7770, and 24% better than 7790
4) EA must have games work on xBox One, so it means 30% (40% of 74% DX10/11 cards) of gaming PCs are same or better perf than xBox One

Result: 30% of GAMING PCs are even now better than xBox One, and in one year it will sharply rise.

Now, lets try to estimate how many total PCs those 30% are:
5) Intel sell about 60% of GPUs, and Nvidia+AMD about 40% (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphics/display/20110809190609_AMD_and_Nvidia_Lose_Market_Share_as_Shipments_of_Graphics_Adapters_Rises.html)
6) that means 40% of world PCs are Nvidia+AMD, so those 30%*40%= 12% of world PCs are same or better than new xBox One
7) current estimate of number of PCs in worls is 1.1-1.2billions
8) Number of PCs comparable or better than xBox One = 12%*1.15bil= 140 Million PCs
9) total number of xbox360 sold is 78mil over 12 years. Current number of xboxOne=0, expected number in one year =10mil?

Conclusion:
- 30% of PCs with Nvidia/AMD (or 12% of all PCs) are better now than xBox One
- that is 140 million existing PCs as potential market for EA ignite engine
- current market for xbox One is zero, probable market in one year is 10-20 mil?

Therefore reason is obviously not PC performance but something else, like much higher profit for game on console, compared to PCs (more console users buy games, no piracy...)

I think a Good PC can do the game, but on a Windows Format cant.
AMD must of based the CPU/GPU on some thing they already had, other wise it would of cost millions.
Ram wise, I know i had have DDR5 in my system and I know some Vid cards do have DDR5 (but i dont, but i dont play games that much any more).
What it boils down to, is a stream lined PC for this/other games, a PC and Windows has been made so able to cope with so many different things it loses other areas.
Windows just needs to be made better more stream lined to the Users demands at that point in time, so much Junk on the Screen/Loaded up waiting READY.
Need it more for when i say i want it, and when i say DIE you die, no bits of data left in the ram that no bit of software can use just incase you want to re-load it quickly.
Also a level switch, so that when a game is loaded up you can pick the graphics, but this is wouldnt be needed if you have better OS that uses the Hardware to the just near MAX (i dont want to kill the thing)
Beter way to control software, if you been using IE/Chrome/Firefox for the last 5min then put that on its own CPU Core/2 and leave the rest on the other cores to play, it needs to figure out that if you been using some thing then that should be what it puts its power in to, and some thing that hasnt been opened for the last 20min put on a core with the rest of the junk that hasnt been used for the last 20min.
---
As for EA, there games seem to sell better on Xbox/Playstation so I wouldnt bother to convert action games to PC, most people who like Fast Moving Games like the Football do tend to have a XBox/Playstation (on average, maybe some that dont so dont jump on that) and the PC users seem to be more of Controlers (God Games, Sims CIV Rome) seems to be a Mind Vs Reaction thing

I completely agree with gmuser. Well done sir.

Angel LaHash....
Your post gave me cancer.

 

[pocketdrummer]

"First the current mainstream PC needs to catch up on a hardware level. Second, the engine will need to be adjusted to handle the open nature of PC architecture versus the closed nature of consoles."

Well, the first has already happened, so it sounds like the second problem is EAs.

Get on it you lazy douchebags!

 

[pocketdrummer]

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Most gaming PCs are plenty capable, and they will only continue to become more capable as the consoles stay exactly the same for the next decade.

 

[pocketdrummer]

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

Most gaming PCs are plenty capable, and they will only continue to become more capable as the consoles stay exactly the same for the next decade.

 

[somebodyspecial]

This is BS, they are just trying to prop up investments in a platform for looks like a total failure. Based on other devs (see GDC 2013 usa and euro, 2800+ devs) everyone is heading to mobile (60% of devs planning games for mobile, or even PC at 40%) with only a meager 11% planning anything on consoles or even pondering them. So if consoles don't sell well EA, etc will have spent a ton on promoting the crap out of them and in game development for a generation of consoles that never sells near what they did before. This will translate in to huge bottom line losses. It's no surprise most devs are taking a wait and see until after Q1 sales are in before expending money on a WIIU like sales situation.

On the other hand aiming at say S600/T4 with a mobile game will end up with 1bil+ smartphone/tablet units in the next 12-24 months that can potentially play your game. Even just an abysmal 1% (10mil units) of that audience at $5 a game nets you $50mil (minus a 1/3 I guess to googleplay). Considering most decent games cost $1mil-10mil to make you'll have a tidy profit after paying google ~15mil+10mil for game dev (or far less - torchlight 1/2 were made for ~2mil or less, Witcher1 & 2 for ~7mil etc). It almost seems dumb to make a game for anything but mobile.

Rovio's games probably don't cost more than 500K to make and have made them 300mil+ (not to mention launching a tv show, toys, clothing etc off of it now that will further push the product line and games). Couple these numbers with the assumption they'll be selling 2Bill+ smart devices in the next few years (estimated 2.5B/yr sold by 2016-2017) and you're almost retarded to not make a mobile game as anything but a huge dev. Only a huge dev can afford to wait for consoles to sell 40-50million units over time (4-5yrs based on xbox360/ps3 sales), or you must have a huge hit within the first few years as its such a small audience. Why not aim at a market that resells every year now a billion+ units and each gen gets more powerful? By next xmas even a low end phone should be as fast or faster than T4/S600 as everything goes 20nm with a huge jump in power from top to bottom. There's no better time than now to start a game aimed at today's highend with a next xmas release in mind. It goes without saying its a LOT easier to sell a $5 game than $65 game. You could probably easily get away with $10 for a top quality torchlight 2 type game (which even for PC's small audience is only $20 on debut anyway) and a potential audience of ~20 pc gamers (discrete gpus are about 60mil units per year). Make your game in opengl/webgl/html5 and it's easily ported to PC once profits roll in from mobile.

I really hope the size of the audience leads to some really great games next xmas & forward as all the hardware hits 20nm. We should be able to get xbox360/ps3 level games from a 20nm phone/tablet and a old xbox360 controller next xmas hopefully (hawken types etc). I personally wouldn't mind paying $15-20 for top xbox360 like quality on mobile which should really shove up some small devs profits and lead to even better games going forward. A game that costs ~$5mil selling 10mil copies at $15 would net 100mil+ for a small dev...LOL. Stuff like that easily pays for a $5mil PC port with expanded features etc. Fingers crossed

 

[jowunger]

Shallow excuse from EA not to make PC version.

Pfui!

 

[Duckhunt]

Great more excuses by folk who manage these companies who don't play games. They just milk them for all there worth with another sucky title after another.

We need light guns integrated into PC with surround monitors with 4k displays. So i don't have to go down to the range and pop off so many rounds. Its an expensive habit.
I will happy when we have the look and feel of a real gun integrated into the pc.

 

[RaginGamer]

So, it sounds more like EA is just saying they refuse to write a version for the PC. Probably has something to do with them being such a horrible production company, but, once again, refusing to take the blame for their own incompetence and choosing to rush projects and cut corners.

PCs are absolutely superior in most cases; the integration of components in a console being the ONE area in which they definitely shine (possibly also that they are simpler, compared to a full OS, but you can pare an OS down a LOT via tweaking).

A prime example of PC vs platform is the Skyrim PS3 disaster. Bethesda did what they could, but the PS3 architecture was simply not "forward-friendly", so memory issues arose. Graphics are nearly always way better than consoles can manage on any relatively contemporary gaming PC. Modding is far, far easier on PCs, often being impossible on consoles (tho not always).

EA is just being EA. Again. Is ANYONE surprised at this?