Assassin's Creed Unity Runs at 900p Resolution to "Avoid All the Debates" - Updated

[Rozalia1]

I think Killzone survived into this generation because SONY doesn't want to introduce a new AAA FPS exclusive in an already FPS saturated market. Maybe later on they bring in something like Titanfall or their very Destiny, but they'll probably just wait until the PS4 has around 30 Million consoles -- and which should be around sometime next December

I'm with you there, Killzone still being employed is shocking considering Sony's track record with their version of X (X in this case being Halo) where they are pushed to the moon before being forgotten about for practically no reason.
Still I'm glad Killzone is having a nice singles run with the mid card belt, I never liked the Killzone & Resistance tag team. Haze not getting over and jobbing into obscurity likely helped Killzone with job security too.

 

[pilar]

snip

funny, considering there is no Ultra in Shadow of Mordor until you download the texture pack (free). there is a setting, but it does not do anything unless the texture pack is installed. so they were comparing high. Also they do not provide a comparison. what they provided was a youtube link, which is useless as youtube compression lowers the graphical fidelity of BOTH versions. youtube is THE WORST place to go for comparisons.

[HEADING=2]PC has more games, blah-blah-blah[/HEADING]

you were the one that started listing "upcoming games".

MGSV: Phantom Pain, Witcher 3, Bloodbourne, Final Fantasy XV, The Division, No Man's Sky, AC Unity, Far Cry 4 etc... each of these, for a person with an actual life, should easily provide a month or more of gaming bliss, not to mention SONY's exclusive linear campaigns.

according to study done in UK a single game is played on average for 2 weeks. so half that of a month.

The graphical gap will increase now because consoles are done, their limit is reached and you wont see much more.

Second Son choked the Playstation 4 for every ounce of power it could use and pulled off a Very High Quality. Again, this is an APU we're talking about.

Ridiculous!

ha.
cough, cough, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Infamouse: Second son was graphically horrible. it is now best known as that PS4 game that had worse texture poping than 20th century games.

If that is your example of "Very high quality" then ill be happy knowing PC games from 2007 beat it with ease.

[HEADING=3]You don't have a clue, do you?[/HEADING]

Second Son vs NOTHING LIKE IT ON THE PC.​

You ignore every source I post, and which means that you're background is a couple half-read articles and a 5 minute KillYourConsole video.

If you want to keep your ignorant flame war going, stick to YouTube's comments section

#readingislearning

 

[pilar]

I think Killzone survived into this generation because SONY doesn't want to introduce a new AAA FPS exclusive in an already FPS saturated market. Maybe later on they bring in something like Titanfall or their very Destiny, but they'll probably just wait until the PS4 has around 30 Million consoles -- and which should be around sometime next December

I'm with you there, Killzone still being employed is shocking considering Sony's track record with their version of X (X in this case being Halo) where they are pushed to the moon before being forgotten about for practically no reason.
Still I'm glad Killzone is having a nice singles run with the mid card belt, I never liked the Killzone & Resistance tag team. Haze not getting over and jobbing into obscurity likely helped Killzone with job security too.

Shadow Fall has the looks and production value but it doesn't have the soul of SONY's PlayStation division: the same publisher that comes out with Last of Us, Second Son and Beyond: Two Souls and other very genre specific titles.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

gap is starting to close

please dotn tell me you actually believe this, is like saying you will eventually get older than your parents, it wont happen, its a fact, in the next 7-8 years, the hardware of the consoles wont change, while the hardware of PC will keep improving more and more, the gap will never close

and right now, even top of the line PCs beat consoles, im not trying to act mustard rice or anything, is a simple fact

[HEADING=3]Optimization[/HEADING]

Second Son vs Digital Foundry [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-infamous-second-son].

"Second Son delivers a visual presentation that belies its status as a first generation PS4 title - a remarkable achievement so early in the next-gen console's life-cycle."

"Texture quality is also of extremely high quality with signs, billboards and surface textures alike all exhibiting extremely sharp, high-resolution textures throughout without any evidence of texture streaming issues."

Second Son choked the Playstation 4 for every ounce of power it could use and pulled off a Very High Quality. Again, this is an APU we're talking about.

Ridiculous!

and tell me whats stopping people from optimizing for PC?

if fact, what optimization? both the PS4 and X1 have the same architecture as most PC, the optimization argument is almost completely pointless

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

snip

funny, considering there is no Ultra in Shadow of Mordor until you download the texture pack (free). there is a setting, but it does not do anything unless the texture pack is installed. so they were comparing high. Also they do not provide a comparison. what they provided was a youtube link, which is useless as youtube compression lowers the graphical fidelity of BOTH versions. youtube is THE WORST place to go for comparisons.

[HEADING=2]PC has more games, blah-blah-blah[/HEADING]

you were the one that started listing "upcoming games".

MGSV: Phantom Pain, Witcher 3, Bloodbourne, Final Fantasy XV, The Division, No Man's Sky, AC Unity, Far Cry 4 etc... each of these, for a person with an actual life, should easily provide a month or more of gaming bliss, not to mention SONY's exclusive linear campaigns.

according to study done in UK a single game is played on average for 2 weeks. so half that of a month.

The graphical gap will increase now because consoles are done, their limit is reached and you wont see much more.

Second Son choked the Playstation 4 for every ounce of power it could use and pulled off a Very High Quality. Again, this is an APU we're talking about.

Ridiculous!

ha.
cough, cough, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Infamouse: Second son was graphically horrible. it is now best known as that PS4 game that had worse texture poping than 20th century games.

If that is your example of "Very high quality" then ill be happy knowing PC games from 2007 beat it with ease.

[HEADING=3]You don't have a clue, do you?[/HEADING]

Second Son vs NOTHING LIKE IT ON THE PC.​

You ignore every source I post, and which means that you're background is a couple half-read articles and a 5 minute KillYourConsole video.

If you want to keep your ignorant flame war going, stick to YouTube's comments section

#readingislearning

you kidding right ive seen GTA4 mods that look better

and they run at 60 FPS

 

[pilar]

gap is starting to close

please dotn tell me you actually believe this, is like saying you will eventually get older than your parents, it wont happen, its a fact, in the next 7-8 years, the hardware of the consoles wont change, while the hardware of PC will keep improving more and more, the gap will never close

and right now, even top of the line PCs beat consoles, im not trying to act mustard rice or anything, is a simple fact

[HEADING=3]Optimization[/HEADING]

Second Son vs Digital Foundry [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-vs-infamous-second-son].

"Second Son delivers a visual presentation that belies its status as a first generation PS4 title - a remarkable achievement so early in the next-gen console's life-cycle."

"Texture quality is also of extremely high quality with signs, billboards and surface textures alike all exhibiting extremely sharp, high-resolution textures throughout without any evidence of texture streaming issues."

Second Son choked the Playstation 4 for every ounce of power it could use and pulled off a Very High Quality. Again, this is an APU we're talking about.

Ridiculous!

and tell me whats stopping people from optimizing for PC?

if fact, what optimization? both the PS4 and X1 have the same architecture as most PC, the optimization argument is almost completely pointless

Lack of PC optimization means that maxed out games provide such a subtle difference compared to all the platforms -- and that infuriates the guy/gal who owns a $400 GPU. And the reason developers don't do it is because (a) the game already looks next gen on the console, and (b) they'd have to contribute more resource to improving resolutions and detail settings for $300+ GPU; it's just not worth it when the game already looks good.

[HEADING=3]Witcher 3's developer[/HEADING] [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-witcher-3-tech-analysis] "Super-powerful PCs will be able to achieve higher resolutions, and they might run the game a bit faster," he explains, "but the plan is to make the experience the same for all gamers and treat everyone equally."

...speaking with executive producer John Mamais earlier at E3, an ultra setting is still on the cards for PC owners, which should embellish the game in subtle ways over the high grade settings intended for Xbox One and PS4.

Paraphrased, "nothing will be downgraded for the PC, but there's just no reason for us to push the hardware" [http://www.pcgamer.com/cd-projekt-promises-no-visual-downgrade-for-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/].

Final Fantasy XIII is locked at 720p on it's PC port and the game is 50+GB size.
So does optimization matter?

 

[pilar]

snip

funny, considering there is no Ultra in Shadow of Mordor until you download the texture pack (free). there is a setting, but it does not do anything unless the texture pack is installed. so they were comparing high. Also they do not provide a comparison. what they provided was a youtube link, which is useless as youtube compression lowers the graphical fidelity of BOTH versions. youtube is THE WORST place to go for comparisons.

[HEADING=2]PC has more games, blah-blah-blah[/HEADING]

you were the one that started listing "upcoming games".

MGSV: Phantom Pain, Witcher 3, Bloodbourne, Final Fantasy XV, The Division, No Man's Sky, AC Unity, Far Cry 4 etc... each of these, for a person with an actual life, should easily provide a month or more of gaming bliss, not to mention SONY's exclusive linear campaigns.

according to study done in UK a single game is played on average for 2 weeks. so half that of a month.

The graphical gap will increase now because consoles are done, their limit is reached and you wont see much more.

Second Son choked the Playstation 4 for every ounce of power it could use and pulled off a Very High Quality. Again, this is an APU we're talking about.

Ridiculous!

ha.
cough, cough, HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Infamouse: Second son was graphically horrible. it is now best known as that PS4 game that had worse texture poping than 20th century games.

If that is your example of "Very high quality" then ill be happy knowing PC games from 2007 beat it with ease.

[HEADING=3]You don't have a clue, do you?[/HEADING]

Second Son vs NOTHING LIKE IT ON THE PC.​

You ignore every source I post, and which means that you're background is a couple half-read articles and a 5 minute KillYourConsole video.

If you want to keep your ignorant flame war going, stick to YouTube's comments section

#readingislearning

you kidding right ive seen GTA4 mods that look better

and they run at 60 FPS

You mod old titles with new content while SONY launches more diverse IP every new generation.

Same-old,same-old vs next gen

 

[Vault101]

You mod old titles with new content while SONY launches more diverse IP every new generation.

Same-old,same-old vs next gen

infamous second son is a sequel, and its like....one game out of many

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

You mod old titles with new content while SONY launches more diverse IP every new generation.

Same-old,same-old vs next gen

so free extra content for my games is... bad?


not all new IPs are good, remember knack?

Lack of PC optimization means that maxed out games provide such a subtle difference compared to all the platforms -- and that infuriates the guy/gal who owns a $400 GPU. And the reason developers don't do it is because (a) the game already looks next gen on the console, and (b) they'd have to contribute more resource to improving resolutions and detail settings for $300+ GPU; it's just not worth it when the game already looks good.

you clearly have no idea what optimization means, optimization doesnt means "it looks better", optimization means a game run faster because it consumes less resources, some of the best looking PC games last gen, such as crysis, were actually poorly optmized

an argument can be made that a game that consumes less resources can show more and better stuff on screen, but then again, that point you never refuted

And the reason developers don't do it is because (a) the game already looks next gen on the console, and (b) they'd have to contribute more resource to improving resolutions and detail settings for $300+ GPU; it's just not worth it when the game already looks good.

yes this does not answer the question, "whats stopping devs from making PC versions of games consume less resources?"

and then the simple irrefutable truth, a well optimized game will always run better on PC, if a game consumes less resources, it means that on a high end hardware you can expect higher framerates and resolution

[HEADING=3]Witcher 3's developer[/HEADING] [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-witcher-3-tech-analysis] "Super-powerful PCs will be able to achieve higher resolutions, and they might run the game a bit faster," he explains, "but the plan is to make the experience the same for all gamers and treat everyone equally."

...speaking with executive producer John Mamais earlier at E3, an ultra setting is still on the cards for PC owners, which should embellish the game in subtle ways over the high grade settings intended for Xbox One and PS4.

Paraphrased, "nothing will be downgraded for the PC, but there's just no reason for us to push the hardware" [http://www.pcgamer.com/cd-projekt-promises-no-visual-downgrade-for-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/].

Final Fantasy XIII is locked at 720p on it's PC port and the game is 50+GB size.
So does optimization matter?

so FF13 completely proves your point? does BF4 and metro redux refute it then?

also FF13 is bigger on PC because it includes the japanese audio from what i understand


anyways it doesnt seem i can make you understand i guess im going to keep playing XCOM Enemy Within and be on my way

Spoiler

i think i will even download the Long War mod to add extra, quality content for free to my game and get more hours of enjoyment out of it

 

[Rozalia1]

I think Killzone survived into this generation because SONY doesn't want to introduce a new AAA FPS exclusive in an already FPS saturated market. Maybe later on they bring in something like Titanfall or their very Destiny, but they'll probably just wait until the PS4 has around 30 Million consoles -- and which should be around sometime next December

I'm with you there, Killzone still being employed is shocking considering Sony's track record with their version of X (X in this case being Halo) where they are pushed to the moon before being forgotten about for practically no reason.
Still I'm glad Killzone is having a nice singles run with the mid card belt, I never liked the Killzone & Resistance tag team. Haze not getting over and jobbing into obscurity likely helped Killzone with job security too.

Shadow Fall has the looks and production value but it doesn't have the soul of SONY's PlayStation division: the same publisher that comes out with Last of Us, Second Son and Beyond: Two Souls and other very genre specific titles.

Its an FPS so what do you expect exactly?

and tell me whats stopping people from optimizing for PC?

if fact, what optimization? both the PS4 and X1 have the same architecture as most PC, the optimization argument is almost completely pointless

x86 was birthed fully optimised, as is any piece of standard kit really...apparently. Do you think PC games can't be optimised too?
Optimisation is about improving the efficiency of the hardware, and with it being static as always that won't change. Additionally people forget that not everything is standard, things like eSRAM will be used more efficiently in the future for example.
What we have today is essentially developers doing quick fixes to get the things out to sell, in time they'll get it going better.

I don't understand why this is such a mainstream statement honestly... the internet darlings have mostly said the opposite of what is claimed, and what reason would they have to support the evil shadow cabal of console manufacturing?
Are they always right when they say something you like, and ignored when they say something you don't? Usually how such things go I suppose.

 

[pilar]

You mod old titles with new content while SONY launches more diverse IP every new generation.

Same-old,same-old vs next gen

infamous second son is a sequel, and its like....one game out of many

It's barely the 3rd game in the series, and across 5 years! I swear, you make it sound like it's Assassin's Creed or COD.

 

[pilar]

snip

snip

snip

snip

[HEADING=3]Witcher 3's developer[/HEADING] [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-the-witcher-3-tech-analysis] "Super-powerful PCs will be able to achieve higher resolutions, and they might run the game a bit faster," he explains, "but the plan is to make the experience the same for all gamers and treat everyone equally."

...speaking with executive producer John Mamais earlier at E3, an ultra setting is still on the cards for PC owners, which should embellish the game in subtle ways over the high grade settings intended for Xbox One and PS4.

Paraphrased, "nothing will be downgraded for the PC, but there's just no reason for us to push the hardware" [http://www.pcgamer.com/cd-projekt-promises-no-visual-downgrade-for-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt/].

Final Fantasy XIII is locked at 720p on it's PC port and the game is 50+GB size.
So does optimization matter?

so FF13 completely proves your point? does BF4 and metro redux refute it then?

also FF13 is bigger on PC because it includes the japanese audio from what i understand


anyways it doesnt seem i can make you understand i guess im going to keep playing XCOM Enemy Within and be on my way

Spoiler

i think i will even download the Long War mod to add extra, quality content for free to my game and get more hours of enjoyment out of it

Quick fixes? Are you twelve?
I just explained all of this. You don't know what a console is or what 'optimization' means. What's worse, there's too many avenues across the net to satisfy a shred of curiosity on your part. So play away, sheep.

I'm sorry, but you need to be more curious.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

x86 was birthed fully optimised, as is any piece of standard kit really...apparently. Do you think PC games can't be optimised too?
Optimisation is about improving the efficiency of the hardware, and with it being static as always that won't change. Additionally people forget that not everything is standard, things like eSRAM will be used more efficiently in the future for example.
What we have today is essentially developers doing quick fixes to get the things out to sell, in time they'll get it going better.

I don't understand why this is such a mainstream statement honestly... the internet darlings have mostly said the opposite of what is claimed, and what reason would they have to support the evil shadow cabal of console manufacturing?
Are they always right when they say something you like, and ignored when they say something you don't? Usually how such things go I suppose.

actually you are improving the efficiency of the software, not the hardware

and i do think PCs can be optimized, pilar is the one who doesnt

 

[pilar]

x86 was birthed fully optimised, as is any piece of standard kit really...apparently. Do you think PC games can't be optimised too?
Optimisation is about improving the efficiency of the hardware, and with it being static as always that won't change. Additionally people forget that not everything is standard, things like eSRAM will be used more efficiently in the future for example.
What we have today is essentially developers doing quick fixes to get the things out to sell, in time they'll get it going better.

I don't understand why this is such a mainstream statement honestly... the internet darlings have mostly said the opposite of what is claimed, and what reason would they have to support the evil shadow cabal of console manufacturing?
Are they always right when they say something you like, and ignored when they say something you don't? Usually how such things go I suppose.

actually you are improving the efficiency of the software, not the hardware

and i do think PCs can be optimized, pilar is the one who doesnt

Software is why the Playstation 4 can't stay on the shelves. There's no way to dispute that Watchdogs even on Ultra was choppy, and so was Thief and SimCity2013 etc... The hardware is more capable, but developers, stuck with inflexible deadlines and pressure from the suits upstairs, have no incentive for true, console burning optimization.

Development is longer because the hardware on the console is more capable this generation and developers are trying to cram even more in their games than ever before, so we WILL NOT see a widening between them and the PC in multi-plats.

 

[Lord_Gremlin]

Honestly, this just helped me to finally decide that I will never buy another assassin's creed game.

 

[feandil]

One thing that PC gamers don't seem to understand, is that the PC market for these kind of AAA games is about 5% of the total sales.
AC games sell about 10M copies, and less than 500K on PC (I've seen the figures).
so basically the developpers don't really give a shit. they still do the PC port because it's relatively cheap and it makes a bit of money, but it's mostly to satisfy the PC gamers, who are very vocal, as forums like this one can attest.
and nobody is gonna spend tons of time optimising games for PC, the return on investment is just not there. so you can keep crying, but as long as the money is on consoles this is not gonna change

 

[Strazdas]

[HEADING=3]You don't have a clue, do you?[/HEADING]

Second Son vs NOTHING LIKE IT ON THE PC.​

You ignore every source I post, and which means that you're background is a couple half-read articles and a 5 minute KillYourConsole video.

If you want to keep your ignorant flame war going, stick to YouTube's comments section

#readingislearning

Oh, look, a poorly pixelated flame effect from 2003 painted purple. certainly proves your point.

Software is why the Playstation 4 can't stay on the shelves. There's no way to dispute that Watchdogs even on Ultra was choppy, and so was Thief and SimCity2013 etc... The hardware is more capable, but developers, stuck with inflexible deadlines and pressure from the suits upstairs, have no incentive for true, console burning optimization.

Development is longer because the hardware on the console is more capable this generation and developers are trying to cram even more in their games than ever before, so we WILL NOT see a widening between them and the PC in multi-plats.

They have delayed WatchDoge claiming its solely to optimize the game further, what it actually was was hiding the options to make the game look better that were already present and toglable. WatchDoge is a perfect example of Lazy, even maliciuos developing. it wasnt developers stuck with inflexible deadlines, they delayed the deadline.

Erm no, if hardware is capable and you are developing the same thing the developement will be easier because you have to code less efficiently since the more capable hardware will still run it. the jump from 512mb of ram to 5gb of ram (has 8, 3 reserved for OS) should have allwoed them to put a lot into RAM. Some developers like Shadow Of Mordor ones utilized it. others just used it for dumping all inefficiency and still failed to even avoid texture popins.

One thing that PC gamers don't seem to understand, is that the PC market for these kind of AAA games is about 5% of the total sales.
AC games sell about 10M copies, and less than 500K on PC (I've seen the figures).
so basically the developpers don't really give a shit. they still do the PC port because it's relatively cheap and it makes a bit of money, but it's mostly to satisfy the PC gamers, who are very vocal, as forums like this one can attest.
and nobody is gonna spend tons of time optimising games for PC, the return on investment is just not there. so you can keep crying, but as long as the money is on consoles this is not gonna change

Thats mostly because bad ports are bad and were not stuck with them. see, on PC if a shitty game is realesed you can just go buy another game instead, there are that many games around. Euro Truck Simulator sells better than assasins creed for example.

ALso your figures are questionable, as most places only count physical sales, and on PC vast majority of sales happen to be digital ones.

Yeah, nobody except half the studios that release games on PC. for example Metro being optimized. pretty much every MMO. ect.

The money is no longer on the consoles. the money is in handheld/phones. that market earns twofold what consoles and PC make together. but if were comparing PC vs Consoles, well, the big three financial reports seem to indicate they make more money of PC gamers, so theres that. See, Steam knows basic economic - you sell more when price is lower. the most profitable time for steam is sales. and since steam takes a %, it also means its the msot profitable time for companies. altrough they would rather go the EA route and shout at us for "Daring" to demand cheaper price games.

 

[Rozalia1]

actually you are improving the efficiency of the software, not the hardware

and i do think PCs can be optimized, pilar is the one who doesnt

If it didn't improve the efficiency of the hardware there would be no difference.

Thats mostly because bad ports are bad and were not stuck with them. see, on PC if a shitty game is realesed you can just go buy another game instead, there are that many games around. Euro Truck Simulator sells better than assasins creed for example.

Are you saying people on console will just buy the game anyway as they have no choice? I sure hope not.

ALso your figures are questionable, as most places only count physical sales, and on PC vast majority of sales happen to be digital ones.

Well being perfectly fair at least he has some figures, do you have any concrete ones yourself? Or this all anecdotal? How much are you estimating they sold so he can estimate half that and be about as credible?

The money is no longer on the consoles. the money is in handheld/phones. that market earns twofold what consoles and PC make together. but if were comparing PC vs Consoles, well, the big three financial reports seem to indicate they make more money of PC gamers, so theres that. See, Steam knows basic economic - you sell more when price is lower. the most profitable time for steam is sales. and since steam takes a %, it also means its the msot profitable time for companies. altrough they would rather go the EA route and shout at us for "Daring" to demand cheaper price games.

You're really going to have to describe yourself better here. You're using the term "big three" to what looks to not be the usual characters when it comes to gaming. Either attach an identifier to the term or just not use it full stop as otherwise its just confusing. If we were talking some other industry than whatever, but we're not.

Anyway as always the evidence quoted in regards to PC-Console also makes clear how the money is being made...not that you dispute that though. Its odd because you bring up money on the PC platform when in the same post rendering it irrelevant.
Even if PC makes more, if as you say PC gamers don't exactly bring in the moolah to AAA than what does it matter exactly? It'll make them try harder to get a bigger piece of that pie? Now that would be a jest, the last decade should teach you better if that is the direction you take.

Oh and also all the companies involved know basic economics too. Prove that their model is inferior, that it would result in massive increases in sales that would overcome the set back on making less per customer. Oh and just to let you know PC related evidence is practically meaningless due to the differences of the platforms.

 

[Strazdas]

Are you saying people on console will just buy the game anyway as they have no choice? I sure hope not.

Not entirely. Im saying that consoles have less games overall and thus there is less to choose from, which leads to less people finding "just that one game fitting them perfectly" and thus a single titles sales are higher as more people chose it over the competitors, seeing as the competitors have less to offer wheras there is more diversity on PC games and more people can find their niche, so a game being a big title (AAA) does not automatically increase its chances of being sold that much.

To put it more simply - more choices leads to move spread out spending.

Well being perfectly fair at least he has some figures, do you have any concrete ones yourself? Or this all anecdotal? How much are you estimating they sold so he can estimate half that and be about as credible?

according to This article [http://www.pcgamer.com/analyst-says-digital-sales-made-up-92-percent-of-pc-game-market-in-2013/] Digital market on PC has been around 92 percent last year.

You're really going to have to describe yourself better here. You're using the term "big three" to what looks to not be the usual characters when it comes to gaming. Either attach an identifier to the term or just not use it full stop as otherwise its just confusing. If we were talking some other industry than whatever, but we're not.

When big three are named it usually refers to the three largest publishers that is EA, Ubisoft and the acti-blizzard.

Oh and also all the companies involved know basic economics too. Prove that their model is inferior, that it would result in massive increases in sales that would overcome the set back on making less per customer. Oh and just to let you know PC related evidence is practically meaningless due to the differences of the platforms.

I dont know the data of how much people in charge of said companies know economics, but lets assume they know basics because they aren bacnrupt yet. that does not stop them from using economically worse models from time to time for biased reasons. for example Uplay was an economic disaster. it did not stop piracy in the slightest (pirates even hacked into and stole the server files to emulate it at one point), it scared legitimate fans away (after Uplay blocked my AC2 from playing i did not buy a Ubisoft game for years, and know of others who didnt either) and overally gave them the reputation of awful publisher (remmeber, Ubisoft used to actually be a loved brand back in 2007 or so). and yet they continue going forward with it. Knowing economics and always choosing best monetary path isnt always the same thing.

Oh, and as far as making less per costumer being profitable you need to look no further than console prices. they lower them to the point of selling at a loss to get larger amount of costumers to later sell games to. heck, pretty much every sale on consoles proves that.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

If it didn't improve the efficiency of the hardware there would be no difference.

...

you DO know how software works right?

theres a big difference, for instance, between calling a function 100 times and calling a function only 10

im a programmer myself, ive had instances in which ive made my software much faster without having to upgrade my hardware