The Last of Us PS3 vs. PS4 - "Like DVD vs. Blu-ray" Says Naughty Dog

[Rozalia1]

The second point is finally something though. A good example is Bayoneta I believe. Unfortunately, I did not understand the rest mate

Wouldn't all the games out of the studios owned by the big three be examples? I mean some of those companies were acquired so some would likely still exist if not for the big three, but would they still have the capital behind them? Unlikely, they'd likely have produced a couple of games before being sacrificed at EA's alter at some point.

What is confusing to understand? I thought it was pretty clear.
Normally people who complain about "hostages" want the games on the PC, but will get their panties in a bunch when told their PC exclusive/its sequel is now heading to consoles (e.g Crysis).
Some mask their reason for getting pissed with valid comments, others don't bother...but they all deep down have the same reason.

 

[Manlyburger]

The second point is finally something though. A good example is Bayoneta I believe. Unfortunately, I did not understand the rest mate

Wouldn't all the games out of the studios owned by the big three be examples? I mean some of those companies were acquired so some would likely still exist if not for the big three, but would they still have the capital behind them? Unlikely, they'd likely have produced a couple of games before being sacrificed at EA's alter at some point.

What is confusing to understand? I thought it was pretty clear.
Normally people who complain about "hostages" want the games on the PC, but will get their panties in a bunch when told their PC exclusive/its sequel is now heading to consoles (e.g Crysis).
Some mask their reason for getting pissed with valid comments, others don't bother...but they all deep down have the same reason.

PC gamers don't want console ports to avoid the series being dumbed down, such as how Crysis 2 went from the open island setting to a corridor shooter with downgraded visuals.

Why would we care otherwise?

 

[Vivi22]

Like DvD vs. Blu-ray? So, incredibly overpriced and with barely any visible difference?

So what you really mean is a few bucks more with a fairly massive visible difference? Because if you're not seeing a significant difference between DVD and even 720p then I can only think of two explanations. The first being that you have a surprisingly small TV and sit really far from it. But considering I used to have a 26" HDTV that I sat a good 20+feet from and I could still tell the difference I'm not sure you could own a TV small enough or a room large enough for this to be the case. The second possibility is that you need glasses. Which is okay since a lot of people need them, but I hope you won't be driving until you get some. Could be dangerous.

 

[Something Amyss]

I have to be honest here, all of these strange arguements on legality are new to me. Seems like (and I mean it in no way as trying to pick something with you mate, you do not deserve it) strange bullshit talk or wooden philosophy(in my language, almost same thing).

So simply saying something isn't legal, which is all I've said, is "strange bullshit" or "wooden philosophy?"

That doesn't make sense, no matter how many disclaimers you put on it.

As long as one has purchased the original, I honestly could not care less whether they choose to emulate it or not. Whether someone thinks it is legal or illegal, under those conditions I outlined here, to me it is 100% legal until I am at gunpoint/change my way of thought.

A matter of law is a matter of law. It's absurd to say something is "legal to me."

I don't see why a single purchase entitles you to all future versions of a game, or to violate laws. You're advocating piracy, though, and on The Escapist.

 

[Rozalia1]

I am almost deadly tired (is that even a real phase?) but now I also see you probably mean that people are annoyed when old games are ported to consoles? Heck if I know on that, I do not see anything wrong with that. Argue it with someone who does. Only thing that may make me worry is if a previously PC only series goes on consoles. That usually means loss of modding (and my friend, that alone is one gigantic, absolutely monumental point that has to be hammered down developers throats, it IS important).

... So you talk of "hostages" on consoles, yet see nothing wrong with PC gamers wanting to keep "hostages" of their own... Yeah that fits nicely into what I said previously. This painting of the big three as villains for keeping "hostages" isn't going to fly when you give a free pass to a group of hypocrites.

PC gamers don't want console ports to avoid the series being dumbed down, such as how Crysis 2 went from the open island setting to a corridor shooter with downgraded visuals.

Why would we care otherwise?

And what pray do visuals matter? Did the downgrade result in Crysis losing its oh so "unique" visual style? Wanting more people to enjoy the game means the game has to become more accessible. Be it through downgrading the graphics, or simplifying the mechanics of the game.

Why do you not want more people to enjoy the game?

A matter of law is a matter of law. It's absurd to say something is "legal to me."

I don't see why a single purchase entitles you to all future versions of a game, or to violate laws. You're advocating piracy, though, and on The Escapist.

What you feel is legal apparently trumps the actual law to many people on here. I'd wager its because they know its illegal in their heart of hearts, but they don't want to consider themselves criminals/Pirates, or at least admit to being so.

To save some time the reasons for why bringing up the law in all this is apparently wrong are:

1: "Preserving" art/keeping it alive.
2: Game is old so I have rights to play it for free.
3: Screw the man.
4: The law is wrong.
5: The law is right and it totally says my pirating is legal because emulators (software) themselves are legal.
6: Its not sold anywhere so I have free reign (ignore all those games that can still be brought).
7: Game series hasn't had any new games in a while so its been "abandoned".
8: Once upon a time I bought the game, this means I can pirate it even though I only bought a singular copy that was likely in disc/cartridge form.

That all of the arguments that are going to prop up? Or are there any more to add to the list?

 

[Risingblade]

I've never seen the dvd version of a movie compared to the blue ray version so i can't even imagine the difference.

 

[Manlyburger]

PC gamers don't want console ports to avoid the series being dumbed down, such as how Crysis 2 went from the open island setting to a corridor shooter with downgraded visuals.

Why would we care otherwise?

And what pray do visuals matter? Did the downgrade result in Crysis losing its oh so "unique" visual style? Wanting more people to enjoy the game means the game has to become more accessible. Be it through downgrading the graphics, or simplifying the mechanics of the game.

Why do you not want more people to enjoy the game?

The game was limited in scope so it'd fit into 512MB of RAM, not merely the visuals were changed. And if visuals don't matter, don't buy a current gen console.

So you think every game should have the most simplistic mechanics for "accessibility"? I think I want to play things besides variations on Call of Duty.

What you feel is legal apparently trumps the actual law to many people on here. I'd wager its because they know its illegal in their heart of hearts, but they don't want to consider themselves criminals/Pirates, or at least admit to being so.

To save some time the reasons for why bringing up the law in all this is apparently wrong are:

1: "Preserving" art/keeping it alive.
2: Game is old so I have rights to play it for free.
3: Screw the man.
4: The law is wrong.
5: The law is right and it totally says my pirating is legal because emulators (software) themselves are legal.
6: Its not sold anywhere so I have free reign (ignore all those games that can still be brought).
7: Game series hasn't had any new games in a while so its been "abandoned".
8: Once upon a time I bought the game, this means I can pirate it even though I only bought a singular copy that was likely in disc/cartridge form.

That all of the arguments that are going to prop up? Or are there any more to add to the list?

If they want PC gamers to buy their games, they should probably release them on PC.

 

[Strazdas]

well no shit its like DVD going to Blue Ray. i mean the resolution alone is almost exact fit.

"We have the game running in 1080p at 60fps, and YouTube brings it down to 30fps and does a compression on it, and it's hard to tell the difference."

which is why you do screenshot comparisons and host videos on your own site, duh! or you could at least use dailymotion, that one allows 60 fps videos.

So... does that mean that if there was a PC version it would be a Super Blu Ray then (discoutning future emulation of PS4 which would indeed look better then what the PS4 can do)?

They are spot on about YouTube though ... wish it was possible for there to be less copression

Considering PCs have no problem playing 4k videos and even playing games at that sometimes id say PC would be that, a 4k.

well, youtyube recieves hundreds of hours of video every minute, imagine how much space that would tkae uncompressed. so i can understand some compression applied there, what i dont udnerstand is that people insist that youtube can show graphics quality when the compression does not allow that.

Soooo much more expensive and kind of pointless and not well adopted?

blue ray is kidna well adopted now thanks to porn industry. and its not pointless for people who have american internet (read: cant download shit). for games DVDs distribution are great there of course, for video blueray is way beyond DVD in terms of quality, much thnaks to horrible DVD codecs too.

Also quit with the held hostage BS, PC has their games held hostage and this gen is "so alike" in architecture so really again the older PC games are still being "held hostage", really shitty way of complaining to something you could just easily buy in the end and actually support, but hey that's obviously quite beneath you.

Its not bullshit if its true.
And yes, there are some PC games that are held hostage too. As far as older games though, i dont think you should retroactively port your old games each time new console comes out, only make sure you can port them to all versions on release. the only exception that would allow not porting in my eyes is either the device is incapable of running it (to weak, does not have necessary gimmick, ect) or the devloper admits he is incapable of porting it and the game didnt make enough money to afford hiring someone.

No, if it was a PC game it would have been released as early access 2 years ago for $30 and look worse then the PS3 version. After 2 years of trying to help the 90% of PC users with shit computers Naughty Dog would have gone out of buisness, EA would have bought them out and stripped their developer base, released it on a Fremium model with MMORPG elements, and required you to have Origin to play it.

Oh and after 2 weeks the 90% of PC gamers who are criminal pirates will have stripped out all the DLC requirements and made sure the game will never turn a profit even in it's stripped down state, and killed the IP.

But yeah, thankfully that didn't happen.

i hope your being fateciuos becuase if your not theres so much wrong here.....

Normally people who complain about "hostages" want the games on the PC, but will get their panties in a bunch when told their PC exclusive/its sequel is now heading to consoles (e.g Crysis).

so what you are doing, is your are insulting PC gamers, ech?

As for the case of Crysis, the Crysis 2 was donwstripped quite a lot stating the lack of pwoer from the console to run it. if you played both you could clearly see how Crysis 2 was less than crysis 1, so at least in this case the complaints are fully understandable.

Honestly, Crysis 2 is technologically SUPERIOR to Crysis 1. Especially with the DX 11 patch and tesselation and HD textures. Just its set in a much different area that it may look worse.
Also Crysis 1 was NOT an open island. It was an OPEN MAP (for the level that is). It was still a corridor, just an expansive, well designed one with interesting gameplay offerings and varied approaches.

ech, no. Crysis 1 is still the best example of scalable to your GPU and fully utilizing it game that we have released. that game is a technological wonder. I do admit tesselation on Crysis 2 looks interesting, but that is diminished by other problems it brought up. and if you have to download a HD textures mod to have equal quality.... Its like downloading the UI mod for Skyrim and claiming that UI was not simplified for consoles.

And what pray do visuals matter? Did the downgrade result in Crysis losing its oh so "unique" visual style? Wanting more people to enjoy the game means the game has to become more accessible. Be it through downgrading the graphics, or simplifying the mechanics of the game.

Why do you not want more people to enjoy the game?

Oversimplifying situation. first of all, it was not just the visuals that got downgraded. the maps, the AI, the UI, weapons, all of that got downgraded as well, and significantly (in fact you lost half of your suit powers, and physics with it too). So its not just a visual downgrade.

As far as visual, well, visuals sell. like it or not, its one of the strongest selling points games has. Crysis itself is a perfect proof of that, their campaign was all about "best graphics" and it sold in millions.

As for your ending question, answer is simple. ever heard the saying, jack of all trades master of none? Id rather prefer a game be made where a niche audience enjoys it immensly rather than a wider audience think its "meh, ok". by trying to "appeal to everybody" we got into situation we are now - brown military shooters all the way.

 

[Something Amyss]

What you feel is legal apparently trumps the actual law to many people on here. I'd wager its because they know its illegal in their heart of hearts, but they don't want to consider themselves criminals/Pirates, or at least admit to being so.

To save some time the reasons for why bringing up the law in all this is apparently wrong are:

1: "Preserving" art/keeping it alive.
2: Game is old so I have rights to play it for free.
3: Screw the man.
4: The law is wrong.
5: The law is right and it totally says my pirating is legal because emulators (software) themselves are legal.
6: Its not sold anywhere so I have free reign (ignore all those games that can still be brought).
7: Game series hasn't had any new games in a while so its been "abandoned".
8: Once upon a time I bought the game, this means I can pirate it even though I only bought a singular copy that was likely in disc/cartridge form.

That all of the arguments that are going to prop up? Or are there any more to add to the list?

Oh, trust me, I know. And to some extent, I even get the concept of "The law is wrong." I've argued against laws before and gotten involved in changing them. I'm just not a fan of rationalising. Especially something as ridiculous as "it's not illegal to me." There are issues with copyright laws, and IP laws in a broader sense. And maybe emulation is even a victimless crime in this sense, but the poster was still talking about the superiority of an illegal method of accessing a game. And specifically your eighth example, that someone once bought a game and so that entitles them to have access to it forever and ever in any format for any reason.

 

[NiPah]

So... does that mean that if there was a PC version it would be a Super Blu Ray then (discoutning future emulation of PS4 which would indeed look better then what the PS4 can do)?

No, if it was a PC game it would have been released as early access 2 years ago for $30 and look worse then the PS3 version. After 2 years of trying to help the 90% of PC users with shit computers Naughty Dog would have gone out of buisness, EA would have bought them out and stripped their developer base, released it on a Fremium model with MMORPG elements, and required you to have Origin to play it.

Oh and after 2 weeks the 90% of PC gamers who are criminal pirates will have stripped out all the DLC requirements and made sure the game will never turn a profit even in it's stripped down state, and killed the IP.

But yeah, thankfully that didn't happen.

Quite the strange exageration.
Though TLOU itself is a relatively poor looking game . Does not stop it from being quite damned good though.

Oh I wasn't saying TLOU was a bad looking game, it's quite a good looking game.
I was just saying it would have looked like crap if it was made for the PC.

going off of what you said before if it was made directly for PC it would have looked like the 240p Russian car cam uploaded on Youtube with the "free use" watermark, instead of the DVD PS3 or BD PS4.

By the time TLOU came out, the PC has long eclipsed the ps3 in power.

The average PC now mocks the ps3. Its been mocking it for years now.

And there are early access games with good graphics, next car game is one of them, as well as assetto corsa. Project cars too.

Spoiler: Then we have Age of Wonders III and this huge list of pc exclusives with good graphics off the top of my head.

Crysis 1.

Natural Selection II.

The entire Total War series.

Dawn of War 2.

Company of Heroes 2. 1 also counted at the time.

Arma III, and II.

Maia.

Godus.

Space Engineers.

Omerta.

Rising Storm.

Rust.

Day Z.

planetary annihilation.

Planet Explorers.

Gal Civ III.

war for the overworld.

star citizen

Games don't need consoles to look good. Because they are weak. A pc game can look good as long as the dev wants it to. Its why PC games always look better than console games. And lets not even get into exclusive features like physx.

I never even mentioned how big and powerful your PC unit is, I'm quite sure its much better then the PS3 and pleases all the ladies.

No what I mentioned above was that if ND had made The Last of Us for the PC it would have been an awful looking early access mess that would have bankrupt the company and would have ended up being a free to play title with required social connectivity.
I'll also add required online DRM, that's what PC games are doing these days right?

Oh and 80% of computer users are using Macbook Air laptops right? Why would they bother to properly implement a feature set that the 1000 some odd PC users have the ability to use?

 

[Rozalia1]

The game was limited in scope so it'd fit into 512MB of RAM, not merely the visuals were changed. And if visuals don't matter, don't buy a current gen console.

So you think every game should have the most simplistic mechanics for "accessibility"? I think I want to play things besides variations on Call of Duty.

Scope eh? Explain to me why that necessarily has to be a bad thing? Sometimes less is more as it is said, and if they couldn't make the sequels actual good games than perhaps you ever thought that the blame is squarely on them?

Ironic you talk about Call of Duty when going by the vibe you're giving you want every game to be in some sort of sandbox.

If they want PC gamers to buy their games, they should probably release them on PC.

I know you're trying to be all smart with such a comment...the problem of course is you are completely, and utterly wrong.

First there is the very simple problem that they are not required to make the product available to you, and if they don't for any reason than doesn't give you free reign to "legally" download their games as you put it.

Secondly that you shouldn't expect to have a game for a system it wasn't aimed at, I should not expect a PS2 game to play on the Dreamcast, and the same applies with the PC (want it legal than find the system for it).

Thirdly and this is the big one, a large part of games are available for you to buy, yes even on the PC. You can legally buy them, yet doing it illegally is still defended...which reminds me of pirating still being defended with that pathetic demo excuse when you know...an actual bloody demo exist for the game.

so what you are doing, is your are insulting PC gamers, ech?

As for the case of Crysis, the Crysis 2 was donwstripped quite a lot stating the lack of pwoer from the console to run it. if you played both you could clearly see how Crysis 2 was less than crysis 1, so at least in this case the complaints are fully understandable.

Am I wrong that the large part of such people are shameless hypocrites? Certain posters in this thread alone don't disprove me.

Not the tools fault if they can't make a good game. Not the consoles fault Crytek didn't care about the PC version as much as people would have liked.

Oversimplifying situation. first of all, it was not just the visuals that got downgraded. the maps, the AI, the UI, weapons, all of that got downgraded as well, and significantly (in fact you lost half of your suit powers, and physics with it too). So its not just a visual downgrade.

As far as visual, well, visuals sell. like it or not, its one of the strongest selling points games has. Crysis itself is a perfect proof of that, their campaign was all about "best graphics" and it sold in millions.

As for your ending question, answer is simple. ever heard the saying, jack of all trades master of none? Id rather prefer a game be made where a niche audience enjoys it immensly rather than a wider audience think its "meh, ok". by trying to "appeal to everybody" we got into situation we are now - brown military shooters all the way.

AI and UI are all things that could have been easily upgraded with the PCs "lack of limitations" shall we say. So explain to me how it is the consoles fault? Perhaps you never ran across it before, but it has happened many times where a game will have better AI on one version over the rest.

Wasn't the Crysis series a failure? Wasn't Crysis 3 supposed to address certain issues of 2? How did that sell?

So you want to play/on PC console exclusives because you want those games to reach more people (namely you), but don't want PC exclusives going to consoles because only you must be able to play them, and them experiencing it would "ruin" your own.
The truth of the matter is that console exclusives are just business done by corporations. Your want for hoarding PC games on the other hand you can dress up however you like, but in the end you can't hide your own selfishness.

Oh, trust me, I know. And to some extent, I even get the concept of "The law is wrong." I've argued against laws before and gotten involved in changing them. I'm just not a fan of rationalising. Especially something as ridiculous as "it's not illegal to me." There are issues with copyright laws, and IP laws in a broader sense. And maybe emulation is even a victimless crime in this sense, but the poster was still talking about the superiority of an illegal method of accessing a game. And specifically your eighth example, that someone once bought a game and so that entitles them to have access to it forever and ever in any format for any reason.

The age argument is the one that really bugs because where is this magical line drawn? And who bloody agreed to put the line in the sand.

As for the eighth example yes, like with everything else they by law have no leg to stand on yet its perpetuated like its some right.

As for the second part: No, I do not even belive it is illegal. Reasons number 1, 4 (though the law states no such thing) and 6 (because many can not) are enough of reasons to me. And a combo of 8 + 6. Beyond that, even if it was illegal (and it is not) I will honest- I do not care, nor do I respect your stance as a possible right one (even though I try).

So even if you came to see it as indeed being illegal...I'd still be wrong and you'd not care.
Once you say things like that you shouldn't be shocked if some people see you as advocating piracy.

The thing is... I still have not been shown proof that emulation is illegal, nor that emluating TLOU PS4 version in 12 years time will be illegal.
From the only objecive point in gaming (tech), it is true. An emulated game is actually superior to the original. Not as gameplay and story, but in looks, frames, load times, resolution and so on. It simply IS better.

Pretty sure I've shown you the link from Nintendo that lays it all out, but as you'll dismiss it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_console_emulator

The above is a link to a page that is often used to defend illegal emulating, however it actually has the opposite effect.

First you need an actual copy of the game, simply having played it in X period of time does not count. So yes ISOs as a whole are illegal...unless of course you actually do buy it from an online store that makes use of emulation to allow the use of the product (something I'd normally not think need to be said, but clearly it does here). So anyway you need a legit CD to emulate a PS1 game for example legally.
However you also need the PS1's BIOs (if we continue with that example) which you have to extract from your own device.

So if you have a copy of the game, and a PS1 that you can extract the BIOs off...you can do it legally. Otherwise its illegal (and remember I mentioned emulating by way of online store, so please don't try and jump me with that).
You could of course say everyone does exactly that and thus its all legal but...well I'd hope you'd not say such a thing.

 

[Rozalia1]

if we are using the "hardware doesn't matter" card, then explain why we have these consoles. We can easily just make more games for the Atari.

Me stating that Crytek could have made the PC version of your dreams if they really wanted, and that a smaller game isn't necessarily worse equals the "hardware doesn't matter" card now?

After all, we can just make "better games" on the atari than the current consoles.

hardware matters because it allows us to do more. You can't do everything on just 512mb of RAM anymore.

When modders added dynamic economy and war to skyrim, the RAM usage skyrocketed. When you want to make a living world, you need more than 512mb. In fact, RAM is the reason these consoles exist.

You have completely misunderstood what I was saying.

I was stating that this victimisation that console players have ruined your game and thus shouldn't enjoy it is pure tat. They could have polished the PC version and made it better if they wanted, did they? Well as always I'm sure they try but even had they put out a perfect game we'd still hear about how its "worse" that it "should be".

Now in terms of game areas, how much can be happening, and so forth...yes the console can effect that if the developers don't want to sacrifice quality in certain areas of their game...that is their choice, the consoles don't put the gun to their head.
Besides as I said not every game needs to be an expansive boring waste of time, how do you know they didn't want to downsize the sequels in the first place? Isn't that the popular thing to do, make a big first game and than cheaply pump out the inevitable 2 sequels.

Now if your argument is that consoles are somehow responsible for COD clones (that is the popular thing to attack right?)...than I really don't know what to say to you. What genre is popular gets filled up with clones, whatever game is popular gets copied...that is simply a fact, consoles have nothing to do with it.
I mean look at all those bad first person horror games with flashlights/phones/+no weapons, is the PC ruining gaming because its the platform that is happening on?