>another game downgraded
Why is this allowed?
Everyone who saw the E3 demo and thought that the graphics are gonna stay and not get downgraded is a fucking moron. It was painfully obvious that those graphics would be unplayable on consoles. People who act surprised at this are idiots.
>ever trusting ubisoft
but either way why do people get so attached to early footage of games that have been in development hell, maybe its because i don't start paying attention to games until they come out but i just don't get it. whatever it'll be when its finished is what it'll be
Tom Clancy's The Division is confirmed to have NO microtransactions.
That's pretty nice of Ubisoft.
can't there be a fucking regulation against showing e3 demos for a console game on a fucking high spec pc
we all knew it was coming i dont even know why they fucking bother making it in the first place
>go to subway
>order a $5 footlong meatball marinara sub because it looks delicious on the tv commercials
>sandwich artist makes your sub
>it's only 10 inches long and they put in 6 meatballs instead of 8 as shown in the commercial
>the sandwich artist tells says "lol, surely you didn't expect it the actual sandwich to be like what you saw on tv?"
That's how retarded you sound like right now
Because, get this, they'Re developed on a pc. Looking best when ran on a pc. With ultra high settings. Games look like their trailers when you have a pc built like a developer who can blow 10 grand on something like that.
Because there is a huge gap in the power of consoles and the PCs the demos where made on. The more important question is why do console gamers keep buying this watered down shit?
That analogy sure is complete fucking garbage
If I go to McDonald's I don't expect the cheeseburger to look like the commercials or on the box
The meatballs are still all there, the thing just doesn't look like in the adds and nobody expects it to
>I have good taste, everyone else has bad taste
>I am american
I am not defending this. It is a garbage advertising practice that only server to get as many to preorder as possible.
I am criticizing people who are stupid enough to fall for it, because they cant spot graphics that are impossible to run with a decent framerate on current gen.
That is such a bait analogy.
>See commercial for a new car in development.
>"It will run 5000 miles on one full tank!"
>Wow, sure sounds cool, let me preorder this car.
People who refuse to use common sense and get baited by false advertising are what is wrong.
>Alpha footage, subject to change
YOU LYING BASTARDS!
E3 gameplay is basically the devs saying. "This is what we are working on and this is how we want to make it" but it's not "this is what the final product is going to be". They'll hit somespeed bumps along the way, and console performance is going to be one of them. Optimization is an extremely lengthy process, and they have a deadline to get the game out.
Just a shame because they blatantly utilize false advertisement expecting the audience to understand this. This is why they're now being taken to task. In March there's going to be a Supreme Court hearing about false advertisement in games and if the Supreme Court pursues they'll be in court in May.
Of course they could rectify it by not using the original trailers passed off as gameplay in promotion and clearly labeling them as target renders.
>played from a supercharged hemi developer computer
>played from a 300 dollar game machine
It's too soon to tell how bad the downgrade is. The E3 footage was on PC, and we haven't seen any PC footage yet, just Xbone stuff. The PC graphics settings leaked and they looked extensive, so I'm cautiously optimistic that the PC version won't be so bad.
The E3 footage wasn't real. It was never real. Just like Rainbow Six Siege. Just like Watchdogs. It was never real, just a target render for the purposes of wowing a crowd into getting hyped.
This is Ubisoft.
>go to subway
>order a $5 footlong meatball marinara sub because it looks delicious on the tv commercials
>sandwich artist makes your sub
>it's only 10 inches long, has a bite missing and they put in ham instead of meatballs
>the sandwich artist tells says "lol, surely you didn't expect it the actual sandwich to be like what you saw on tv?"
That's how retarded you sound like right now, even more so since you're comparing a dynamic deliverable product to a consumable product where production cost is the single biggest factor.
Didn't know that. That's pretty interesting, but all they have to do is add the "this does not represent the final product" disclaimer.
That still won't stop E3 video bullshots. E3 presentations aren't advertisements. They're presentations. A lot of the time they go on to use it as an advertisement, but all they have to do is stop recycling E3 reveals as trailers.
Sonyggers don't give a fuck and just deny them anyway. They keep telling you it is fine when Sony does it.
this is a pc exclusive.
now, jokes aside, rome 2 got downgraded pretty hard, unit models look even worse than shogun 2
You faggots will all still buy it anyway. You don't care about quality, you don't care when you are lied to, you have no self respect or standards. Want proof, see witcher 3.
>get shown incredible gameplay and graphics in trailer
>wow that looks awesome, I'd love to play
>actual game is no where near as good looking, and gameplay has been toned down
>why would you show me that perfect thing and swap it with this piece of shit?
>stop being entitled
Is anybody even surprised devs waste good development time crafting bogus bullshot bullshit Marketing hype content to display at conventions nowadays instead of actually working on their game?
The month or whatever it took for them to make a propaganda piece about how mind-blowingly next-gen their game is is a month that could've gone into optimizing their piece of shit console port.
>it's not false advertising that's the problem, it's the people who fall for it!
Yeah because I would love a world where I would have to put everything under a microscope to find out if the seller is lying about it or not
And if you're wondering where these are from:
Videos have been taken down though, probably should have downloaded them.
>by false advertising
Anon, false advertising is illegal.
If a car commercial were to say that their car got 5000mpg and it doesn't even come close to it, they will suffer legal recourse. That's why you always see several tiny little lines of text on the bottom of the commercial every time it mentions its perks.
>"Car gets 25 miles to the gallon!"
>(*Only on the highway; car gets 13mpg in a city environment.)
That do that shit to cover their asses on technicalities and still hype up the higher numbers.
In a video game's case, they can make the graphics look awesome as fuck all they want as long as the latest bit of video footage they present before the game's release looks like what you'll actually get.
Nah, there are some pretty big differences between low and ultra, the guy posting the video was just playing at 720p though, so they end up kind of muted.
Game also has a shit ton of graphics options.
Frame Rate Limit (on/off)
Spot Shadow Count
Spot Shadow Resolution
Post FX AA
Sharpen Image (%)
Enable Wind-affected Snow
Local Reflection Quality
Depth of Field
Object Detail (%)
Extra Streaming Distance (%)
Chromatic Aberration (on/off)
Lens Flare (on/off)
Vignette Effect (on/off)
Game itself is kind of boring, but at least the port might be decent.
The guy was also running the game on mainly low (with a few settings on medium and a few on high) at 720p, but with supersampling enabled, and even then he was able to get 60 FPS.
Someday a game will get it. I remember back when Battlefield 3 was supposed to, it was a little too ambitious then but come on cards are definitely getting there. Should be an option
Please tell me that no one here was actually hyped for a Ubisoft game.
I like racing games a lot. But with that name and that Ubisoft logo I knew not to be interested in it whatsoever. Has Ubisoft made anything good recently, other than the Rayman games?
Just for you.
This is why you don't announce your games several years before their release
I know that console limitations had their part in this but Jesus fuck, Ubisoft knew the technology they were working with but were too focused on trying to hype the game that they wanted to show off a build with all of the concepts that were developed first instead of a close to finished state of the game
You could at least pull a Star Fox Wii U and show the game off as it's developing, sure you're gonna get "WOW THE GRAPHICS LOOK LIKE SHIT" early on but they get better instead of worse so people are more impressed than disappointed
>Why is this allowed?
Because they can get away with it.
Because retards of this age have such low standards and short attention spans that they won't be able to tell the difference anyway. They're ready to pay any fucking price for whatever garbage you throw at them.
The fact those kids don't even bother checking what was done before makes it even worse. Not only that level of graphics was exceeded before, the quality of gameplay, presentation, sound, music, and overall game design were too. Kids could easily realize that the games we're being sold those days are garbage and that publishers are just greedy jews rehashing the same shit every single time and using cheap tricks to deliver low quality games quickly and lying about both their quality and content.
As long as kids are educated into thinking consoles are in any way "good", this will go on, for even once kids learn the truth about the console scam, stop falling for it and get a PC, a new generation of kids comes in and does the exact same fucking thing. Consoles mostly subsist on the yearly arrival of poorly educated kids into gaming, as older ones who could be the most vocal and express interesting opinions simply give up on vidya and thus on this fight.
Teach your kids, cousins, nephews, and anyone you meet, and maybe some day the opposition to that kind of bullshit just won't be constrained to fringe websites like imageboards. Already the growl is extending and reaches even official forums, but it's still a long way before we win that war.
This. Not to mention that its literally impossible for every new person of every new generation to be able to avoid every trick without having first experienced it by falling for it.
Its hands on pants retarded to defend corporations for their clear attempts at robbing people.
>save for vanity DLC
I've been a profesionnal vidya analyst for 80 years, here's my analysis: the difference between the two is usually the price (micro), the origin (downloadable/locked on disk), and to some extent the size of the content (minor/large additions).
This is 2016, the content of most DLC is small as fuck, and already on the disk and simply locked.
So they're essentially saying they'll be selling vanity items at a higher than average price.
t. Happy Merchant
>In a video game's case, they can make the graphics look awesome as fuck all they want as long as the latest bit of video footage they present before the game's release looks like what you'll actually get.
Exactly. So why does everyone get their panties in a bunch when the E3 alpha footage that was not the final product an obviously way over the console possibilities gets downgraded? Did anyone actually expect those graphics to stay? Dont people remember Watchdogs? Dark Souls 2? Ass Creed? Fallout 4?
The games are that low in graphics in the first place because this is the relatively most underwhelming console generation in history.
The games get "downgraded" because lying developers: particularly Ubisoft.
Based on the PPP index, home video game consoles are cheaper than they have ever been in history.
For fucks sake, even without adjusting for that it used to be normal for a console to cost closer to 400-600 dollars in it's first year in the 80s and 90s.
Inflation and other devaluing factors has since then seen the US dollar experience a full half-life cycle of it's value decay.
Minimum wage has more than doubled since then. The cost of college attendance has multiplied ten-fold. The general cost of living has an exponential growth in almost every sector.
Except video games.
And what happens when consoles are relatively cheap? Their hardware is as well. Get a gaming laptop from like 5 years ago: congrats you have the capabilities of an Xbone right there.
For fucks sake the expression is pants on head retarded.
Except its not really false advertising. Ubisoft never claimed "this is how the game will look like in the final stage". It was only to get traction and preorders (as with 90% of first showings of games lately). And if people cannot see that the E3 graphics were absolutely unreasonable, then I don´t know what to say...
>So why does everyone get their panties in a bunch when the E3 alpha footage that was not the final product an obviously way over the console possibilities gets downgraded?
Because this board is full of underaged fags.
This anon is quite right >>324362781
It's all about fucking kids. Older gamers learnt the lesson long ago, but the new kids don't. It generally takes the time between E3 and release (about two years) for them to learn and realize their mistake. But by then, a new wave of toddlers picks up gaming as a hobby and the same mistakes are made, again.
I haven't been excited about graphics in forever myself, and the only thing I expected last year was MGSV, and even then I was disappointed.
It's just as unreasonable to expect people to tell the difference. Most will just be fooled.
The real responsibility is on the publisher side. The fact that they are legally in their right doesn't make it acceptable.
>Want proof, see witcher 3.
People always bring up Witcher 3 as an example, but it's not really a comparable one. Why? Because CDPR actually released trailers, months before release, showing the downgrade. Should people be made about it happening in the first place? Absolutely, but there was no deception there because videos featuring new visual were made available publicly before release.
No. Criticizing does fuckall.
If you want to stop this shit, then money needs to stop flowing as a direct consequence of this shit. People need to stop preordering games based on pre-rendered "gameplay" videos 4 years before release. We have a generation of gamers on our hands that are too stupid to realize when companies are blatantly lying and will throw money at the screen first chance they get. Marketing campaigns for games nowadays make up a bigger portion of the game´s budget than actual development. Think about it for a second. It is more profitable for a company to throw money at marketing, than it is to make an actually good game for it to sell.
>look at this trailer for our new game!
>if you don't immediately think it's not gonna look like what we're showing you we don't know what to say...
It's honestly ridiculous that fanboys are here defending this shit
The real and only problem with the Witcher 3 on PC in that department is a "on/off" version of Anti Aliasing and a questionable color filter.
Simple mods came out shortly after the game was released to get the E3 look in camera angles and color. Otherwise, the other post-processing effects work rather well.
Of fucking course though it was going to be downgraded for consoles.
The real problem though with The Witcher 3 is the absolutely retarded and broken alchemy system, the uselessness of potions because of how fucking short they last, the spit-ball launcher they call a crossbow, and the fact that runes are just things to sell because no one gives a shit about adding a rune to a sword they aren't sure they will still be using in a few hours that adds "2% intensity to Igni" when they can sell it for 100 crowns.
>It's just as unreasonable to expect people to tell the difference. Most will just be fooled.
Yup and that is why it is working. Stupid people falling for stupid shit, even though they get a big ALPHA FOOTAGE sign shoved right in their face.
>The real responsibility is on the publisher side. The fact that they are legally in their right doesn't make it acceptable.
The fact that they are legally right makes them not care. As long as they are getting money, nothing will change. The only thing that can show publishers "this is not acceptable" is not buying.
>Stupid people falling for stupid shit, even though they get a big ALPHA FOOTAGE sign shoved right in their face.
Yeah they really are stupid to think that a game in rough stages of development would look inferior to the final product.
I mean last time I made a cake, I started with a really nice chocolate dough and fresh strawberries, only to end with a huge steaming pile of vomit sprinkled with turds.
HAHAHA YOU REALLY ARE AN IDIOT IF YOU EXPECTED A DELICIOUS CAKE, PLEASE PAY $60 SO I CAN SHIT IN YOUR MOUTH YOU FUCKING RETARD
>Stock market companies
>Caring about morality more than about money
Oh I wish I was this naive...
I never said it was moral, but they have their asses covered legally, and that is all that counts for them. They are covered, they make money. That is why the companies wont change. What can change however is people being more educated to avoid falling for obvious scams.
Yeah, that analogy is totally relevant to game development, where you can have 4k texures and postprocessing make the game look really beautiful, only to realize you need 2x 980 to run it 40fps and you need to sell it on consoles that would explode with these settings as well.
>buying a ubisoft game that's not mainline Rayman
You do realize a big ass sign saying ALPHA FOOTAGE is not the same as saying FAKE CINEMATIC FOOTAGE right?
It's pretty logical to think if it looks like this in alpha, it would only stay the same or improve when finished
>It's pretty logical to think if it looks like this in alpha, it would only stay the same or improve when finished
Walk me through the logical process please, I want to see the reasoning behind this thought.
Unless they specifically state that the gameplay shown in the trailer doesn't represent the real content they're completely liable to get sued for false advertising.
This is why instead of showing gameplay trailers they show bullshot-level edited gameplay as a "preview" on its own not intended to be a trailer, sometimes even a demo. Since news gets around it may as well be a trailer though. It's a disgusting abuse of loopholes but fair is fair considering if you sued them for it you'd still probably win if you could make a convincing case that the previews were intended to imply the final product was of their quality.
Come on... not another one of these.
EVERY game is downgraded. Every dev tries to make the best looking game, and when it comes to optimisation, they will always take from graphics to add stability and frames. It's nothing out of the ordinary, you are just entitled manchildren.
>start making thing
>in early stages thing looks awesome
>for seemingly no reason thing gets downgraded
Seriously, it shouldn't be hard to get that it's logical to think something will only improve as it's made
>you are just entitled manchildren.
It sounds like the devs are entitled, thinking it's okay to show off something they won't give us.
Why not just show real footage of how the game will look?
It's this mode that the character you play as has, you press a button and he kills some enemies close to you in a cinematic view. You've got to let it charge and it's only on the easiest difficulties though.
Damn, so where are those awesome car concepts that get shown around before the cars are made?
As soon as you have the engine and assets for a game, all you do is tweak for performance. Why the hell do Skyrim mods look 1000% better than the actual game? Why didnt Bethesda put it in right from the start?
Because that is not how it works lads. You can make a game look absolutely stunning for the sole purpose of showing it to the audience, but you would never be able to make it run properly on console/mid PC hardware. "Improvements" are always made in the "gameplay/fps" department. Name one game, that came out stunningly beautiful, only to be mostly unplayable on the majority of HW and the dev said "so what, we improved the graphics, that is what you wanted".
It is not logical to expect a game that is being shown to look "better" in the end, especially if the first time it is show it already looks way above the average console game.
>People actually believed it wouldn't look shit
>even after Watch_Dogs
>Name one game, that came out stunningly beautiful, only to be mostly unplayable on the majority of HW and the dev said "so what, we improved the graphics, that is what you wanted".
Because graphics options exist on PC. There used to be a time when games simply wouldn't be maxed on any existing hardware at release, but devs packed extra options so that people a few years from release would be able to make the game look even more awesome.
Don't try to explain that reason with "it doesn't run!". The truth is that publishers simply make the console version at least as appealing as the PC version, because they make more money from it.
Publishers and console manufacturers came to several agreements to not only downgrade PC versions, but also delay them or even plain claim it's console exclusive only to mysteriously announce a PC version a few weeks after console release.
I know that, I worked for Ubisoft, and if I didn't risk a lawsuit, I could release exchanges with both Microsoft and Sony.
It's not a question of "oh noes it can't be done", because it's been done before and it's still done by some developers. It's just a question of money, as usual.
I still don't think you can ever beat launch date Rome TW 2 in terms of fucked up.
It took more than a year to fix and the AI is fucked forever. Shame it was forgotten.
>Because that is not how it works lads.
That's exactly how it works, naturally one would assume that a finished product would not only look better than the alpha but run better too.
I don't know where you've gotten this twisted logic of every developer should downgrade their game for the sake of selling well but it's the most ridiculous thought process ever to be posted on /v/.
There's only one thing you can really do, show the game footage as it would be on the lowest powered platform so everyone knows the base graphics of what they're getting.
>Damn, so where are those awesome car concepts that get shown around before the cars are made?
It's a rule in carmaking: concepts NEVER get made.
They're technical demonstrators, showing what a company can do or aims to do. And hey we've got that in vidya too, it's called a "tech demo".
The only difference in vidya, is that they made tech demos of things they're actually going to release, and to make things worse, what they release isn't even on par with what they claim they can make.
ITT: Pcucks complaining about shit no one even cares about
While we're enjoying The Division, you guys will be whining like little babies. It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Peace, fellas, I'll be taking back the city with my friends next month on my PS4.
>It's completely logical to expect a game to at least look the way it's presented to you.
Except what has been presented was a "demo", not the final game. That is the whole point. If you expect games to look like heavily modified first showing demos, that are made to look better for the sake of performance, boy are you in for a life full of disappointments. It is logical to use common sense, not to believe in advertising.
>never be able to make it run properly on console/mid PC hardware
Hardware improves over time.
As some other anon said above, games used to be released with a level of graphical fidelity that couldn't be matched by contemporary hardware.
There's nothing wrong with that on PC, because you have a graphical options menu and you can adjust that. Gimping the console version isn't an excuse to downgrade the PC version, it's basically a preset of graphical options.
>Looks better on low minus the aa
Seriously hope vidya false advertising gets banned just so these chucklefucks run around like chickens without a head not knowing how to sell their games
the other difference is that concept cars have different names than production models
video games are shown in one state (bullshots and scripted gameplay) under the same name and trademark as the release state.
>Except what has been presented was a "demo", not the final game.
And you would expect the demonstration to look worse than the finished game because it's not the finished game.
Needless to say they shouldn't show something that's obviously not in the final game.
>this happens every time
>we still have 588 posts and 200 image replies omitted anyways
And the game didn't even looked that interesting to begin with, this is all complaining for the sake of complaining.
Well maybe we should. Maybe we should just fucking pull a body hammer out and crack bitches across the face every time they fuck up our burgers and be like "Shit the blood looks nothing like it did in my videogame."
Maybe then we'd solve obesity, video games and advertising all at once.
>game in development
Also it's natural that games will adapt to console first and foremost since they're the biggest market.
No idea why this is so difficult for you people to understand.
I don't quite get it either. False advertising is otherwise illegal, so I don't know why it isn't in games.
That said, it looks like a decent game. Not great, but I'll pick it up for a tenner. Which is all I would have done with it if it actually looked like the original e3.
>I don't know where you've gotten this twisted logic of every developer should downgrade their game for the sake of selling well but it's the most ridiculous thought process ever to be posted on /v/.
I never said this. I said, that developers are deliberately showing demos that look better than the final product is going to, because of HW limitations, this >>324366051 and because it is a way to get more people to buy it. The problem is, that you can tell this right away (or at least you could with Division). but people still act surprised.
>There's only one thing you can really do, show the game footage as it would be on the lowest powered platform so everyone knows the base graphics of what they're getting.
Completely agree. But then again, development costs money, so most of the time we get the actual "lowest powered" version of the game with some minor improvement possibilities.
Common sense tells you that a game that has had additional development time would sort out those flaws within the demo and retain the graphics and stability.
Of course due to the hardware it has to run on that can't happen, the developers however knew this but instead chose to make said demo in a way to grasp people that were initially interested by playing it on more powerful hardware.
Then the game gets visually downgraded due to performance issues they knew they would run into.
Well. The downgrade sucks.
But then again I can still use my 8 year old rig, in which I never put anything besides a new gpu for 150 bucks 2 years ago, and get solid fps in a decent resolution.
>I don't know why it isn't in games
because of the disclaimer
>alpha footage; final product subject to change
>I'll pick it up for a tenner. Which is all I would have done with it if it actually looked like the original e3.
So even though it looks worse, you're willing to value it equally?
>I never said this. I said, that developers are deliberately showing demos that look better than the final product is going to
When the game is still in development and running on their high end PC dev hardware years before release you think it's crazy that they start out very ambitiously with the graphics?
You think it's better to start low and repeatedly have to work your way up over simlply toning stuff down?
Think for fucks sake.
>thinking that the finished product won't retain all of those details due to additional development time and the devs actually trying to make a good product isn't common sense
We're talking about those dumb consumers that buy into it anon, not us. We've seen it way too many times now.
>way above playable level on consoles
no reason why they shouldn't have the options for PC
but that's just graphics bullshit, the real downgrade is the fact that they're only including a portion of midtown manhattan instead of all of New York as they originally stated
>you think it's crazy that they start out very ambitiously with the graphics?
If they did this once maybe I'd agree with you. This has been a common practice for years though, showing amazing "gameplay" footage, and then downgrading the hell out of it after they get those sweet preorders
Yeah. Still looks like something that is going to be fun for 10 hours. The more gameplay based video looks more interesting than the graphics based one that was released two years ago. Who gives a fuck about graphics anyway. Modern games look like shit. High res textures are worth fuck all when it's a shitty run down city.
>they're only including a portion of midtown manhattan instead of all of New York as they originally stated
What are you talking about? They are including the rest of New York
as DLC :^)
poorfags ruin modern gaming
When people buy shitty inferior hardware gamemakers have to make lesser games... simple as that. Poorfags hinder tech from evolving
Unlike you guys i only buy best hardware ;)
>You think it's better to start low and repeatedly have to work your way up over simlply toning stuff down?
Anon, have you ever made something in your life?
And I'm talking generally not just video games.
You have to work from the ground up, nothing is there for you to downgrade meaning that they already had the downgraded version somewhere prior to the showing of the bullshot.
fuck you OP the game looks still better than Battlefield 4 and Division is open world so it's pretty impressive
>better than Battlefield 4
>If they did this once maybe I'd agree with you. This has been a common practice for years though, showing amazing "gameplay" footage, and then downgrading the hell out of it after they get those sweet preorders
So your idea is as I said to start in the opposite direction and make worse textures you constantly have to upgrade until you get where you want, etc. and basically just doing patchwork when it is far easier to just create a standard and then tone things down?
I can see you have absolutely no understanding of game development.
Besides, graphics don't fucking matter. If they did I wouldn't even touch older games.
Battlefield 4 looks good desu and Division, an open world game, looks even better
>Besides, graphics don't fucking matter
If that's the case why not display the graphics the game will ship with rather than the bullshot?
Oh right, because those graphics that they downgrade gets them a shitload of preorders. Guess graphics do matter huh?
Holy shit. Building a house of cards is not like developing a game.
Your idea is to create shitty textures, shitty models, shitty everything and then CONSTANTLY go back and rework them to make them higher quality again and again and again.
Why? Because if you toned things down your ignorant dumb ass gets his panties in a bunch because "devs lied to me abloo bloo".
>I can see you have absolutely no understanding of game development.
not even him, but character models start as wire skeletons that get surfaces added, then textures added after that
so yeah, you start from a simple, rudimentary outline then add detail afterwards.
It sounds like you're the one who doesn't know how game development works.
Actually, Nintendo's games get significantly BETTER in terms of graphics after their E3 builds. See Splatoon, Star Fox, Mario 3D World, etc.
Just about the only business practice they aren't completely ass backwards and retarded about.
>when it is far easier to just create a standard
The problem is that they aren't creating a standard anon. They're producing something high end and advertising that as the potential product to the idiot masses.
That takes a hell of a lot more time than going with the expected gameplay.
>I give it 10 years before they start getting called out on false advertising.
It's been going on for 10 years and people come to expect it now.
The real question is, why can't we raise our expectations instead of lowering them to where they're already disappointing
A few things wrong here
You're right about batches of kids coming in. Difference is these kids can't afford pc they are just kids. They're lucky their parents let them have a 300-400 system as it is. Once they realize they can only get a console and not a pc, they feel the need to defend it. Only when they get money for a good pc and can afford all things do they realize the pc is superior.
Of course it extends beyond this. Poor people, casuals and minorities make up a large amount of console users too. Couple this with the fact that companies like sony give bullshots and constantly shill for their weak piece of hardware, it's easy to see why they trick a lot of people.
The third problem is knowledge and time. Putting a pc together is easy for those that did it but for these guys that don't want to lift a finger to do simple checks on what they are buying and are easily led like sheep/buy trash like the division because of e3, do you really think they will spare the minute?
So yea I believe both markets are separated. The only way you will get the downgrades to somewhat stop for a while is if both sony and ms made 800 dollar consoles leaving the cancer no option but to get 1 or the other. But they got away with shitboxes this gen so there's no need to.
That was a long long time ago anon. And that is also why we are not getting any demos anymore. Publishers know that releasing demos would make people realize how mediocre games are, and sales would be much lower. Demos nowadays are "tech demos" showcasing how amazing a game might look like, if there were no HW constrains.
Eh, I wouldn't be too sure of that.
They're the only developers that know their limitations.
Even Xenoblade, which was running on PCs, didn't go beyond the graphical quality of the Wii U.
this is just garbage PC elitism
Sony and MS don't need to create an $800 console, they need to cut back on their rhetoric about its capabilities in the first place, and put pressure on publishers to show actual footage of the game currently in development, not bullshots and scripted, choreographed, pre-rendered "gameplay" demos
Other way around anon, going into the next gen people want something with a lot more detail than before and something more immersive.
The developers know this so they create eyecatching bullshots.
>Sony and MS don't need to create an $800 console, they need to cut back on their rhetoric about its capabilities in the first place, and put pressure on publishers to show actual footage of the game currently in development, not bullshots and scripted, choreographed, pre-rendered "gameplay" demos
Why would they cut back instead of lying? Lying gets them the most sales and when people find out it's a lie, they will defend them since they are locked into whatever platform they bought.
Sony has mastered lying to a fault which MS hasn't yet.
Putting pressure on publishers will never happen either. Sony and MS get a cut of every game sold on their system.
At least with a 800 dollar console you will get solid 60 fps or at the very least solid 30 with no dips years down the line.
Consider this for a minute
There never was a downgrade The e3 demo never existed as a playable build, but was a vertical slice demo to show off game as good as possible developed completely independently from the actual game by a team that does nothing else but create small demos for e3 that look as good as possible the whole year. By the time they showed thos demo, the game probably wasnt even really running or at least a slideshow with half finished stuff everywhere Stop falling for e3 presentations, they are never meant to represent the game but no one actually goes out of their way to say this
Nah that's not how it works.
Witcher 3 devs admitted how it's done.
They do one build for all 3 starting from the top. Then they scale down all 3 builds until the performance is acceptable on the weakest system. Parity is also written in the contract as seen by destiny.
>going into the next gen people want something with a lot more detail than before and something more immersive.
you say this as if it's not possible; it is, just not to the extant that bullshots imply - thus people's expectations are raised beyond the capabilities of the hardware due to being shown inaccurately portrayed footage
>At least with a 800 dollar console you will get solid 60 fps or at the very least solid 30 with no dips years down the line.
no, it would only exacerbate the situation we're in now, since the expectations would be that much higher.
The e3 demo never existed as a playable build, but was a vertical slice demo to show off game as good as possible developed completely independently from the actual game by a team that does nothing else but create small demos for e3 that look as good as possible the whole year.
then they need to be transparent about this instead of claiming it represents the final product in any way.
They're holding it back graphically, which is why developers are stupid beyond belief.
If you have to make it a multiplat place style over realism to not only cut down on development time and make sure it runs properly but to ensure your game doesn't age like milk.
Thats not how all big Publishers do it.
When you have a game that still takes over 3 years to develop, guess what? You got jack shit to show off.
So they create small demos especially for those public events that are completely closed off from the actual game to show off something finished, because showing a buggy mess, with placeholder animations and over half of the stuff still missing isnt a good idea to do.
Developing is a ongoing progress, stuff gets done over the time, not the first year and then you spend 3 years on downgrading your game.
name a better looking open world game then
>showing a buggy mess, with placeholder animations and over half of the stuff still missing isnt a good idea to do.
I, for one, would actually appreciate a developer/publisher that did this to show how the process is ongoing, rather than looking desperate to show off the false glam of a scripted gameplay demo that will only disappoint in the end.
nigga, this ain't even open city
>I have hopes that it won't be downgraded for PC
Yeah, because Ubisoft of all companies will make sure that the PC version looks that much better compared to the console version.
Stop being hopeful for something you KNOW is not gonna happen. This the same company that purposefully made the PS4 version of Unity 900p instead of 1080p to "avoid debates and stuff".
>why would you purposely waste time working backwards.
Because graphics sell. They need to see what the highest visual quality they can get is. Of course the process is widespread to save time. That's why in witcher 3 the swamp/marshes had areas that dipped into 20 fps for the ps4 which they had to downgrade further by removing fog and other particle effects.
Here's a quote from a witcher 3 dev
>Platform unification exists – we have a single build, which is distributed to each one of them. The game is the same; the draw distance is the same. Minor differences result from the fact that the GPU has different parameters on different consoles, which can result in, e.g., the changes in color temperatures. Therefore, we have one common basis, and then transfer it to other platforms.
Ubi may be changing their stance on the console vs. PC thing. They recently game Siege a 4k texture pack for those with good enough PCs to run it.
>Parity is also written in the contract as seen by destiny.
I dunno with options like:
Enable Wind-affected Snow, Volumetric Fog, Sub-surface Scattering, Parallax Mapping, Spot Shadow Count, Spot Shadow Resolution, and Contact Shadows along with the ability to add sharpening in game and turn off chromatic aberration it seems like some thought was put into the PC port. We'll see when the beta comes out in a week.
even pc games get downgraded.
see arma 3 (that even has a shit engine) and rome 2.
still, it's strange we havent seen a second coming of crysis, and by that i mean something scalable that completely changes the visuals going from low to ultra.