Yeah, and console owners were so sympathetic with Arkham knight. They totally didn't use it as validation for their purchase of a console.Rubblemaker said:
Report: Just Cause 3 Suffers From 15 Minute Load Times on Console
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
To be fair, I remember PC users being unsympathetic to console woes in different situations before that as well. I think everyones getting caught in an infinite loop of smugnessWouldYouKindly said:
That and Monolith Soft was working in a very different environment. On PS4/Xbox One there's a lot of pressure to be cutting edge; to aim for 60fps at 1080p and still have mindblowing graphics, which is something that just doesn't work if you're building big worlds. Heck, even on PC you have to compromise if you want anyone other than the folks with killer rigs to be able to run it properly. Meanwhile, the technical expectations for Wii U games are generally low as it is the weakest of the bunch, and Nintendo, owner of Monolith Soft, has very high standards when it comes to quality. Like many reviewers, I got my digital copy of Xenoblade Chronicles X a few weeks ago and I have played for over 100 hours since then, and I have yet to not into any noticible glitches, frame drops or whatevers. The game is fantastically stable. It's the magic of getting your damn priorities straight.Arcadian Legend said:
It would be quite surprising if things reversed over the next ten years, where the PC became known for easy software upgrades, stable performance etc... while consoles would switch from the glory days of the PS2 generation (pop-in and play) to the tedium which started when the xbox 360 gen connected to the internet, to this, where every other game released needs a performance patch.
Ten years ago a performance patch for a console game was unthinkable.
Interesting times.
Ten years ago a performance patch for a console game was unthinkable.
Interesting times.
Oh man up a bit. His comment serves no purpose in this thread other than to brag about how great things are for him. Whoop de doo for Daemascus. Constructive input to this thread? Negative.Vigormortis said:
Back on topic: When Arkham Knight launched in a farcical state on PC I completely empathised with the frustrations of gamers as I am also a PC gamer. In fact. I wanted to buy it on PC, but to this day, haven't. Precisely because of the problems with it. I'm waiting for that one to be fixed properly as well.
Precisely my point really. I remember when Skyrim launched and it was the same story. PC gamers laughing at PS3 gamers. We're all gamers. One persons dodgy format release is bad news for all of us because it breeds laziness in the industry. Sneering at someone else's misfortune and bragging that 'I'm all right jack' gets all of us nowhere. We should be united against games companies releasing broken games.The Bucket said:
And this game will be the excuse next time, which will be the excuse PC gamers use the time after, which will...yeah. Because this is exactly how it went down with pretty much every other release.WouldYouKindly said:
Uncommon, yes, but not unthinkable.Leon Royce said:
And while I appreciates me some nostalgia goggles, let's be realistic. Before the Xbox 360 generation, console gamers were generally stuck if a game was broken. And going back to the 80s, any number of PC games were broken as hell and before games were frequently updated, it often fell on the end users to make it work and actually, that's still not that uncommon.
Keep in mind that the option isn't necessarily "patch it later" or "game works." Game companies spent a couple of decades shipping games anyway.
Agreed. But I don't remember any games of the PS1 to end PS2 generation having any major performance problems or game breaking glitches.Something Amyss said:
As someone who started on PC at the age of 6 with no internet in the mid-90's I can definitely appreciate how far PC's and games released on PC have come, especially since 2008. Back then every other game I bought didn't work, and I wouldn't get to play it until 3 or 4 years later, when the family would get a new PC. I remember praying while games would install, sometimes with my best friend. But the PS1 changed that.
But now, disastrous PC launches, while they still happen, are less and less frequent, while it seems more and more big title games on consoles have problems maintaining a decent FPS, by console standards. This talk of adding horsepower to the PS4/ Xbone with modules. This is precisely what console's greatest strength use to be: not having to deal with technical problems. And all this despite the fact that PC horsepower's growth has seriously slowed down. All a good PC build 5 years ago needs to stay relevant is a GPU upgrade and a little extra RAM.
Now, with an automatic driver update service (like Geforce Experience, steam etc...), and not having to pay to use your own internet connection, PC's are slowly starting to get the upper hand. Maybe a decade from now games will be developed first with KBM in mind, with PC friendly user-interfaces, and with the PC mindset.
It saddens me to see this happen to console users, but then again, I did find most of the last gens games to be unremarkable. The only two games from the 360 gen that left an impression were Dark Souls and Red Dead Redemption.
It's one thing for current gen games like Transformers Devistation and Black Ops 3 to be launched on current and next gen consoles despite the length of time next gen consoles have been on the market. That being said, it's downright baffling that Just Cause 3 was launched on the Commadore 64. Alright, maybe Just Cause 3 isn't on the C64 but load times THAT long are definitely reminiscent of that machine...Honestly I'm kinda surprised someone waited that long for the game to load. I would have assumed the game had crashed after the first 2 minutes.
You have a habit of putting words in my mouth. Even the guy I quoted agreed with what I actually said.CaitSeith said:
I'm unlikely to comply with such a demand, because it strikes me as fundamentally dishonest to hold me to it. But moreso, because this is not a one-time thing, I'm simply inclined to not reply to you.
You can take this as a "taking my ball and going home" post if you want, but it's more "in case the next person you pounce on is someone you actually want discourse with, consider the following."
I can confirm that it appears to run quite fine, i have had it on for about 5 hours straight (don't judge, it gets lonely!WolvDragon said:
) and have had no lengthy load screens or significant frame-rate dips. The odd physics and sneaky pop-in happens as with many busy sandbox games, while perhaps i haven't stress tested it enough yet, mostly enjoying the wingsuit/grappling/parachute combo and scenery so far. Once you get a hang of always pulling up when wingsuit grappling, it starts to make sense. Word of advice, like MGSV with its' online connection making the game a slight annoyance, this game is best played offline. And i don't mean the game's idea of offline, as it constantly tries to reconnect to Squeenix servers, i mean the PS4's idea of offline. So far it has been smooth sailing. Still don't trust Squeenix though. Oh, i have the digital copy, but apparently the physical copies are no different. Can't 100% confirm that yet, of course.
SEE!? THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD BE TELLING THE GAME INDUSTRY!NPC009 said:
Prettier graphics mean nothing if the experience is a load of old tripe...
A great looking aesthetic is infinitely prettier than "the closest to photorealism"
It'd be like going back to play Zelda: Windwaker on the Gamecube again...
"Oh, it's only at 480p" The (current) game industry would say
"BUT IT LOOKS NICE AND RUNS SMOOTHLY!" We would reply.
I can assure you that the PC version most certainly is not fine. It's not as bad as the Xbone version by the sounds of things but it's pretty bad.
There are a number of inconsistent frame drops. The weird thing is I'll get 45-55fps while there's loads of explosions, enemies and vehicles on screen, but as soon as I grapple hook myself to something with not much else going on, I'll get about 22fps. This is with everything lowered to medium, SSAO turned off, depth of field turned off and luminosity turned off. Also the game is almost unplayable with v-sync turned on.
My hardware is GTX 770, AMD FX 8350 and 16GB 1866MHZ memory. Other PC players have experienced the same issues as me, a lot of whom have better hardware than mine. Check out Steam reviews.
I really hope they don't Arkham Knight this.
Sidenote: To those of you arguing over who was less sympathetic than who over poor ports, stop it. Point your anger towards the publishers who release these bad ports. Stop being smug over your choice of platform. Lazy developing and porting should not be accepted and used as leverage in the argument over whose toy is better.
There are a number of inconsistent frame drops. The weird thing is I'll get 45-55fps while there's loads of explosions, enemies and vehicles on screen, but as soon as I grapple hook myself to something with not much else going on, I'll get about 22fps. This is with everything lowered to medium, SSAO turned off, depth of field turned off and luminosity turned off. Also the game is almost unplayable with v-sync turned on.
My hardware is GTX 770, AMD FX 8350 and 16GB 1866MHZ memory. Other PC players have experienced the same issues as me, a lot of whom have better hardware than mine. Check out Steam reviews.
I really hope they don't Arkham Knight this.
Sidenote: To those of you arguing over who was less sympathetic than who over poor ports, stop it. Point your anger towards the publishers who release these bad ports. Stop being smug over your choice of platform. Lazy developing and porting should not be accepted and used as leverage in the argument over whose toy is better.
"Man up"? Seriously?Rubblemaker said:
You were the one who got his jimmies all rustled over someone having the gall to point out the lack of issues with the PC build. Don't go accusing others of being all "hot and bothered" over your comment.
Yet you're so quick to call another a "PC elitist". For what? Being happy his version isn't broken?
You seem like a very angry individual. Needlessly so.
OK, I'm sorry. The comment ended up more aggressive than I intended. It's just that it's pretty much hard for me to believe that such patches existed back then, and I thought you knew a game that had it. I was pretty much away from gaming in that era, so most of what I know about it comes from second-hand (and most comments I heard are pretty much positive ones).Something Amyss said: