FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Why the same doesnot play on PC ?





bukaida
The hardware specification of a PS3 is nothing comparable to a medium config PC ( core 2 DUO 3 GHz, 2 GB DDR3 RAM, 512MB VRAM and 500GB HDD). But the PC version of most of the PS3 games are not playable on this system at moderate frame rate. I know that there are some overhead due to Operating systems and other running programs, but still the amount of free memory and CPU is far more than PS3. But still they are not playable. WHY?
Nameless
The PC version could be designed to use/require more resources for the sake of better graphics, the PC version could just be a poorly programmed port, a single component of your PC could be not up to scratch and bottlenecking the whole game, your PC could be running some kind of malware, um, that's all that comes to mind right now. There are probably other possibilities too.
Dementei
95% of the time it's a bad port.. I remember when games were made for PC first then ported to consoles but now that the market is shifted I'm afraid us PC gamers get the worst end of the deal [for the most part]. Lately there haven't been too many bad ports, I can't think of any AAA game doing bad on PC this past year, what game are you trying to run anyway?
bukaida
Actually it is not my PC specific. I was talking about the general issue. The minimum requirement specified by any modern game for PC is far more than it's PS3 counter part ( Actually the H/W of PS3 comes nowhere near the PC even with lowest configuration). I was just wondering why this distinction exists? How come some game is running smoothly under the low hardware of PS3.
Dementei
It's mainly because they build a certain game to a specific console range, utilizing that certain hardware. So coincidentally as they release it on a different console such as PC it is not fully suited to play because with PC everyone has so many different blends of hardware and if it's like absolutely unplayable that means the developers didn't put any time into configuring the game for PC. Doesn't matter if you sink thousands into your machine, the game won't run well if not optimized for the hardware, but usually there are driver fixes in some cases.. like the game RAGE, you HAD to have the fix to play it well.

It's still a pretty broad answer but it is what it is.
bukaida
The PC gaming market is quite huge. Thats why new graphics cards are coming every now and then.
The developers are releasing exclusive PC versions of the games. How are they becoming so irresponsible about optimising it? Is it because a later patch/Fix can be applied easily on PC and not on console ? Also as the piracy is more in PC than console the profit is more on console (so more attention?).
Dementei
Yes and I can say most of the AAA game developers are more interested in the console market because that's where the money is at for now, it's all about the money. Original PC game dev's have actually turned to consoles just for more money, but what do you expect, they have to pay for all that marketing somehow right? And most of the time games more recently coming out are all too linear and unoriginal, they know this, so they bust out tons of marketing campaigns to make it seem like it's a different kind of game when it never is. But anyway they simply just don't care about the lower end of the market, and yes sometimes it is the driver's fault like ATI or Nvidia (Usually ATI) but you will know almost right away if it's a good port or not. And lastly, it's easier to buy a measly console, hook it up, and play, than having to buy/build your own PC because people don't want to take the time to learn how they operate when something goes wrong. Simply put, the real gamer elitists are the one with PCs, for we will come to persevere all of this injustice with mouse and keyboard in hands.

As for piracy, well.. that is spread almost equally among all consoles no doubt.
Nameless
*twitch*

Dementei wrote:
Yes and I can say most of the AAA game developers are more interested in the console market because that's where the money is at for now, it's all about the money.

Versus what, every other commercial industry from movie theaters to furniture manufacturers? If the game developers are making more money it's because they're selling more copies of their game, which means that they've succeeded in giving enjoyment to more gamers. This is especially true since the internet has become commonplace, as any game that turns out to be over hyped and falsely marketed is revealed as such to the public very quickly.

Dementei wrote:
And most of the time games more recently coming out are all too linear and unoriginal

I seriously doubt that the average video is more linear now than it was twenty or thirty years ago with the inferior hardware that was available then. (And linearity isn't even necessarily a bad thing, depending on your tastes.) There have always been swarms of bad games and clones (again, as with any other industry). There's still plenty of variety within games now if you look around a bit, and if everything seems the same to you it's probably because you've simply experienced more of the video game world now than you have when you first started playing whatever you believe to be the most 'original' era of games.

Dementei wrote:
And lastly, it's easier to buy a measly console, hook it up, and play, than having to buy/build your own PC because people don't want to take the time to learn how they operate when something goes wrong.

Ease of use is not a flaw. And video game consoles are specifically designed to play video games, so they're generally going to perform better for the same processing power. You might as well bitch at people who buy measly toasters, plug them in and cook toast, rather than having to build their own oven and learn how to operate that for the same purpose.

Dementei wrote:
Simply put, the real gamer elitists are the one with PCs, for we will come to persevere all of this injustice with mouse and keyboard in hands.

Please take a holiday in a third world country and then come back to talk about your self-entitled injustice that you do not happen to be in the majority of gamers that major video game designers are fairly focusing their attention on instead of catering to your every nostalgicly-driven demand.
Dementei
Nameless wrote:
*twitch*

Dementei wrote:
Yes and I can say most of the AAA game developers are more interested in the console market because that's where the money is at for now, it's all about the money.

Versus what, every other commercial industry from movie theaters to furniture manufacturers? If the game developers are making more money it's because they're selling more copies of their game, which means that they've succeeded in giving enjoyment to more gamers. This is especially true since the internet has become commonplace, as any game that turns out to be over hyped and falsely marketed is revealed as such to the public very quickly.

Dementei wrote:
And most of the time games more recently coming out are all too linear and unoriginal

I seriously doubt that the average video is more linear now than it was twenty or thirty years ago with the inferior hardware that was available then. (And linearity isn't even necessarily a bad thing, depending on your tastes.) There have always been swarms of bad games and clones (again, as with any other industry). There's still plenty of variety within games now if you look around a bit, and if everything seems the same to you it's probably because you've simply experienced more of the video game world now than you have when you first started playing whatever you believe to be the most 'original' era of games.

Dementei wrote:
And lastly, it's easier to buy a measly console, hook it up, and play, than having to buy/build your own PC because people don't want to take the time to learn how they operate when something goes wrong.

Ease of use is not a flaw. And video game consoles are specifically designed to play video games, so they're generally going to perform better for the same processing power. You might as well bitch at people who buy measly toasters, plug them in and cook toast, rather than having to build their own oven and learn how to operate that for the same purpose.

Dementei wrote:
Simply put, the real gamer elitists are the one with PCs, for we will come to persevere all of this injustice with mouse and keyboard in hands.

Please take a holiday in a third world country and then come back to talk about your self-entitled injustice that you do not happen to be in the majority of gamers that major video game designers are fairly focusing their attention on instead of catering to your every nostalgicly-driven demand.


Sounds like someone's having a bad day.
What I said was out of speculation and from what I gathered interviewing GameStop employees.
Either way no need for violence over video games my brutha.
bukaida
OOPs , where the discussion has gone from the original Very Happy . Cool down guys Smile
Dementei
Yea I know right, haha not sure where to go from here my good sir Surprised
weableandbob
Along with what others have said, it's possible that the consoles are actually running at lower settings. For example, I think that console games tend to run at resolutions lower than those of PC's (at least compared to 1920 x 1080), but the distance from the TV helps to hide that. I'm not 100% sure, so don't quote me, but it's a plausible explanation.
bukaida
PS3, as per their source is running in full HD (1080p) over the HDMI port.

Quote:

AV output:

Resolution - 1080p, 1080i, 720p, 576p, 576i.
HDMI OUT connector**** - 1.
AV MULTI OUT connector - 1.
Digital out (optical) connector - 1.


http://in.playstation.com/ps3system/
drunkenkoz
Think of it this way. Games for the PC are far superior to that of a console like ps3 or xbox because of the hardware we poses. Since the console lack the specific hardware to run these games, they have to tone them down a bit. They do several other things to the games so that it doesn't lag when you play it. I doubt you would want a PC games ported to the console without being toned down, you'd be in lag heaven.
FunDa
bukaida wrote:
The hardware specification of a PS3 is nothing comparable to a medium config PC ( core 2 DUO 3 GHz, 2 GB DDR3 RAM, 512MB VRAM and 500GB HDD). But the PC version of most of the PS3 games are not playable on this system at moderate frame rate. I know that there are some overhead due to Operating systems and other running programs, but still the amount of free memory and CPU is far more than PS3. But still they are not playable. WHY?



Mostly it may be because the PS3 is optimised with an awesome graphics processor (which is better than most graphics cards you can put on your PC.


So even though the computer CPU seems to be quite decent, its the special GPU (Graphics Processing Unit) that really matters when playing games with awesome graphics.

And the PS3 graphics processor is so so high-end that there are several groups of "supercomputers" made up of PS3s linked together in parallel processing.

What I'm saying is that ur computer may not actually have a good enough graphics card Question
bukaida
The running of game depends mostly on GPU. However putting a very advanced GPU on a low end PC also suffers from problem. That is why every game includes the CPU, RAM and HDD space along with GPU in their required specification. I mean, just putting an advanced graphics card without upgrading other components does not always solve the problem.
wombatrpgs
FunDa wrote:

And the PS3 graphics processor is so so high-end that there are several groups of "supercomputers" made up of PS3s linked together in parallel processing.

What's this...? I haven't heard of people assembling supercomputers out of GPUs... well, maybe if only to mine bitcoins or something.
Hogwarts
FunDa wrote:
Mostly it may be because the PS3 is optimised with an awesome graphics processor (which is better than most graphics cards you can put on your PC.


No way. GPUs these days are a number of times faster these days than the very, very best that were in 2006 when the PS3 was released. My Radeon 6950 is around six times faster than the PS3's GeForce 7800 going by PassMark scores. I expect that the Radeon 6970, released this year and not yet on that chart, to be around eight times faster. The nVidia 770 (I believe that's the model number) which will be released at the end of this year will, according to 'leaked' benchmarks, will be approximately nine to ten times the speed of the PS3's 7800. And even then, you can SLI/crossfire multiple GPUs in a desktop to approximately double, triple or quadruple the computer's graphics performance.

FunDa wrote:
And the PS3 graphics processor is so so high-end that there are several groups of "supercomputers" made up of PS3s linked together in parallel processing.


You can do that with standard PC hardware, which as I've just mentioned is more powerful. The only benefit to using the PS3 is that they're ridiculously cheap to produce due to economies of scale and the usage of extremely old hardware.

wombatrpgs wrote:
What's this...? I haven't heard of people assembling supercomputers out of GPUs... well, maybe if only to mine bitcoins or something.


More for hash-cracking, and I imagine this was due more to the cheapness and availability of the PS3 hardware than anything else. If you tried generating bitcoins on such a system today you would probably lose money in electricity. If you wanted to do that properly, you'd aim for four or so GPU's in a conventional desktop case or better yet use an array of FPGA's configured for bitcoin mining.




The biggest difference is that generally PC's are doing more at the same time (i.e. running Windows and so forth in the background) and games released for PC often have better, more expensive, graphics.

Case in point, Battlefield 3. The Xbox release has significantly lower texture quality, can only be played at 720p (potentially scaled to 1080p by the attached TV) and runs at only 30 FPS. This is compared to, say, my desktop which (thanks to its significantly greater graphics potential) runs the game at 1080p, at a minimum 60 FPS, with significantly higher graphics quality.

And even then, older consoles such as the PS3 and Xbox are restricted in terms of play in that larger servers (i.e. 64 players) are only available on PC, whereas the consoles can only handle up to 32 players in any given BF3 game.

And even with that considered, more expensive desktops ($1100 worth of GPU's alone, 2x Radeon 7970s) can run BF3 at 5760x1080 on the absolute maximum settings at a stable 60 FPS. Here's a screenshot of what that looks like, if you're interested. How somebody could think today's console GPUs hold a candle to that kind of power is beyond me.
bukaida
Hogwarts wrote:
The Xbox release has significantly lower texture quality, can only be played at 720p (potentially scaled to 1080p by the attached TV)


Basically the consoles are attached to TVs and PCs to monitors. So the viewing distance makes a great difference. The difference between 720p and 1080p is visible upto 3 feet-4 feet from the screen beyond which both will appear same. So even if the texture quality is very high, it will not make much difference to a player who is playing from a distance of 7-8 feet( I mean the difference between high and very high quality, the difference between SD and HD is obviously noticeable from any distance) . This practical aspect was kept in mind while designing the console.
Hogwarts
bukaida wrote:
Hogwarts wrote:
The Xbox release has significantly lower texture quality, can only be played at 720p (potentially scaled to 1080p by the attached TV)


Basically the consoles are attached to TVs and PCs to monitors. So the viewing distance makes a great difference. The difference between 720p and 1080p is visible upto 3 feet-4 feet from the screen beyond which both will appear same. So even if the texture quality is very high, it will not make much difference to a player who is playing from a distance of 7-8 feet( I mean the difference between high and very high quality, the difference between SD and HD is obviously noticeable from any distance) . This practical aspect was kept in mind while designing the console.


720p and 1080p are distinguishable at such distances on TV's; namely due to the size of individual pixels on televisions being much larger. In many games the xbox 360 can easily handle 1080p, just not with games which require higher graphics output.
Related topics
GTA: San Andreas PC (OFFICIAL THREAD)
Xbox 360 Pricing
I'm tired of it...
PlayStation 3
What do you think about Mac OS X?
Why do you play computer games? Are you addicted?
Online or offline, which is your favourite
World of Warcraft movie
New to Linux
Mac vs. PC
Do you download or buy games?
Windows XP vs Mac OS X
Consoles
Asus eee PC (Laptop) - Your thoughts?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Sports and Entertainment -> Games

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.