I wonder if it was more of a "here are the specs" at one point and then "we are taking this much for our dashboard and features".sonicjms said:I think I know the reason behind this, the last trailer we got was before the then next gen consoles had launched meaning that the power wasn't absolute. The game probably got downgraded to meet the final specs of the ps4 / xbox one.
I'm also a console/pc gamer but I have to disagree with these two points:ddrkreature said:1: Consoles cost 250-500 dollars per generation, or 6-8 years. About the same as a mid-mid high graphic card (high you're looking at about $550+) that lasts half that time and gets outdated in less than that. Add in the price of a case, motherboard, PSU, CPU, RAM, hard drive(s), monitor, OS, keyboard, mouse, speakers, etc.
2: Set-up, drivers, software installation, back-ups...that takes hours of work. consoles are much simpler than that. Consoles are plug in, update, and go.
If the internet hadn't exploded over the visual downgrade, they would have gotten away with pre-order money based on the trailer that was supposedly running on specs comparable to current-gen machines. Maybe they still will, since it seems so many people are ready to jump to the defense of the practice. It seems like there's a lot of money to be added by lying to people.canadamus_prime said:Yes gameplay is more important graphics, but false advertising is still unacceptable. Also wouldn't they make more money off the game if they didn't waste it making these phony trailers? The AAA industry just baffles me these days.
I generally expect things to improve from an alpha build. Every alpha build I've seen has helped to form this expectation.gigastar said:Nobody expected changes over the past 2 years?
You can get or make a decent gaming PC for the cost of an Xbone. Hell, even if your video card only handles output at medium or low settings you're usually getting a better visual output than the console version. I mean, true, you can keep upgrading to play at ultra. It's far from required, though, and even if the quality of the video you can select degrades, you're still going to see better returns in most cases than on a console. The idea that you need a high end or mid-high card for a good (or even better than console) PC gaming experience is absurd.ddrkreature said:1: Consoles cost 250-500 dollars per generation, or 6-8 years. About the same as a mid-mid high graphic card (high you're looking at about $550+) that lasts half that time and gets outdated in less than that. Add in the price of a case, motherboard, PSU, CPU, RAM, hard drive(s), monitor, OS, keyboard, mouse, speakers, etc.
I'm not going to go look for a whole slew of examples, but Mario 64? They promoted with stuff like this:Silentpony said:BUT at what point did we accept trailers were representational of game content? And before you say 'that's what a trailer is' think back to the 90s. Did any game trailer ever, EVER look like the gameplay of the actual game? Warcraft had an epic trailer of orks vs humans and terrible gameplay and terrible graphics. Duke Nukem, Goldeneye, Conkers Bad Furday, Mario 64, hell even Resident Evil had live-action trailers of actual people cosplaying as Chris and Jill fighting zombies. I don't recall RE looking that good...
Sorry, but the consumer is fucking stupid.Jimothy Sterling said:"I like to think the consumer is not fucking stupid. I'm not that cynical yet."
Because it NEEDS to be reiterated because people never fucking learn. Think about it!gigastar said:If thats the problem then how did the majority of the video come out as ranting over the same subjects that were covered by pretty much everyone of note with the Colonial Marines hype crash?Jimothy Sterling said:Except it takes YOU to say that, not Ubisoft. Who is not saying that.gigastar said:The E3 footage 2 years ago was what they wanted for it, what we saw last week was what they had to settle for.
And that is my problem.
harsh, so harsh. but fair.randomthefox said:you become part of the problem.
Second, there's way too much sympathy towards the "current gen" (gag) consoles in this episode for me to agree with it.
Oh, boo on Watch Dogs because you don't think it's gonna justify your $500 purchase of a system with no fucking games on it, and expected a game that has been in development for five-six years to NOT be built from the ground up to work off "old gen" console technology?
My heart bleeds for you, you short sighted, financially insecure, self centered morons, it really truly does.
im not saying this has much to do with PCs, is classic big game dev lies, but i think the argument about price is gettign less and less valid, as new consoles force you to pay for online and PC games become less expensive than a pack of bubble gumddrkreature said:I'm going to take an opportunity to vent a smidgen:
"This is why PCs kick console ass. All those kiddies will never know what gaming is until they get on our level. They are the reason gaming is going down hill. Developers conform to the console-tards and make 'games' that look like this garbage. PC Master Race!!!"
That is literally all I'm hearing in some places and it's ticking me off. First, let me say that, I have a good gaming PC and a hefty steam library and I have seen and experienced the difference. Yes it's staggering but put this into comparison.
1: Consoles cost 250-500 dollars per generation, or 6-8 years. About the same as a mid-mid high graphic card (high you're looking at about $550+) that lasts half that time and gets outdated in less than that. Add in the price of a case, motherboard, PSU, CPU, RAM, hard drive(s), monitor, OS, keyboard, mouse, speakers, etc.
2: Set-up, drivers, software installation, back-ups...that takes hours of work. consoles are much simpler than that. Consoles are plug in, update, and go.
Graphical difference between E3 and trailer, sure, but E3 was/is probably PC footage. For a box that costs (at least) half the money and time of a PC and requires less add ons to get it to function the way it should, I can accept what I'm seeing. It does look good and still has a lot going on. As good? No, but not to the point of raging and calling it bad or canceling a pre-order. To the tone of dropping another ~$500 just to run it? Absolutely not. The PS4 is fine in my eyes. It's still a big step forward from the PS3.
It's rare, but it does happen. Not to mention, Fast and Furious promised me an "Edge of my seat thriller" in the trailer, but turned out to be really stupid.Thanatos2k said:It's because we apply the same standards to game trailers as we do to their predecessor - the movie trailer.
It's quite rare to see something in a movie trailer that doesn't show up in the final product. Maybe a scene here or there but NEVER have we seen a movie trailer which boasted state of the art special effects only to have the movie come out and look like crap with those effects no where to be seen.
Same thing is applied to games. If you show me a trailer the final product sure as hell better look like that.
They were actually totally up front that the builds shown earlier were on PC, that the game was built for PC first, and that the final product would be scaled down on consoles from the outset.lukesparow said:According to sources Dark Souls 2 is apparently doing this as well.
Screenshots and gameplay videos have been released, showing there's a big difference in the lighting department.
While this wouldn't necesarilly be an issue, it seems to hurt the atmosphere quite a bit.
there were, like the footage of the dark souls ish multiplayer modeWulfram77 said:Have there not been any videos for 2 years? If so, wasn't that a warning sign?
with these damn requerimentsTheSebWoofer said:But is it deception when all we've ever seen of the PS4 version is literally raw footage of the ps4 version (which has never been visually degraded, only we've been shown different slices of time, weather, and place in chicago)? The E3 2012 reveal trailer was running on a high end PC and there's no evidence to suggest the pc version has had those assetts removed which made it look that good.
If it's deceiving to show PC footage to show off your new game when people may be playing it on less powerful machines, then why can battlefield use the pc version for all of their footage? Should people feel deceived when they see PS4 footage, buy the PS3 version of the game, then find that "oh shit, this looks way worse than the ps4 footage I saw!".
That said, the latest trailer could have picked some better shots to show the game, and the gamespot gameplay video where the car drives over the bridge is ugly as sin, and I do hope that was due to it being an early build. Developers have come out and said that the PS4 version still looks just as good if not better than the videos we saw throughout 2013 though, and I believe them, looking at the story trailer and the rest of the gameplay footage. They should upload a video of the 2012 reveal running on the PS4 to show people just how much of the PC version the PS4 version shall be getting.