Anti-Ultimate Wrote:Sure, optimization.
That excuse may for a non x86 Platform, like the WiiU, but not for something like the PS4/Xbone which are totally based on the "most devs are already experienced with this" x86 Platform.
Anyways, I totally bet that the Xbone port will be lower res but higher Framerate and the Ps4 will be higher res and lower framerate, as with all games.
That doesn't make any sense. Devs don't write game engines in assembly. The type of optimization delroth is referring to has nothing to do with the cpu ISA. While the cpu and gpu microarchitectures may be the same the APIs probably aren't.
I predict that most crossplatform games will have similar art assets and engines on both platforms but a lower resolution and/or framerate on the xbone. We've already seen this happen with a few major releases so far. And it's much easier than any of the alternatives.
(02-23-2014, 09:35 AM)NaturalViolence Wrote: [ -> ]Devs don't write game engines in assembly.
Even though they should... The world would be a beautiful place if they did.
For a start, it would be really easy to introduce bugs in the style of the infamous wind waker heat haze glitch if everything was done at such a low level that no-one could tell what was going on. Code is much more reliable when a computer transforms it from easily human readable to human readable, but with paper to step through the code.
I'm PC master race as well, but PC isn't going to get a lot of games. Eventually there will be a PS4/Xbone emulator, like maybe in 20 years after quantum processors are in every home PC? I'll be a grey beard by then.
The point is, if you're gonna pick one system, just get the PS4.
(02-23-2014, 09:46 AM)RachelB Wrote: [ -> ]lol no they shouldn't.
But everything would be so much more optimized! Just think about it! =P
NaturalViolence Wrote:I predict that most crossplatform games will have similar art assets and engines on both platforms but a lower resolution and/or framerate on the xbone. We've already seen this happen with a few major releases so far. And it's much easier than any of the alternatives.
That is certainly an unenviable position for MS to be in. All of the 3rd party games are designed and optimized for the PS4, and then just have the framerate, resolution, texture quality or all of the above cut down to fit the Xbox One.
"Our more expensive system has all the games they do, but they all look and perform worse." Not a great position for MS. Of course we all know how they really respond: "Hey look KINECT!"
chaosblade02 Wrote:like maybe in 20 years after quantum processors are in every home PC?
If you knew what quantum processors are, you'd know just how dumb this sounds. Quantum tech has some very interesting potential for research tasks, but it will never be useful for general purpose computing.
(02-24-2014, 01:53 AM)MaJoR Wrote: [ -> ]chaosblade02 Wrote:like maybe in 20 years after quantum processors are in every home PC?
If you knew what quantum processors are, you'd know just how dumb this sounds. Quantum tech has some very interesting potential for research tasks, but it will never be useful for general purpose computing.
Well,
a) it's likely that, quantum computers or not, in 20 years there'll be a PS4 emu anyway;
b) the main reason for that actually being that in 20 years the hardware would be hacked - not because processing power of PCs would get high enough;
and c) there are still quite a few tasks done by home computers that would benefit from quantum processing. In fact, any task which can be broken up into parallel tasks would be sped up considerably by quantum computers. And those tasks aren't rare - think of modern GPUs with thousands upon thousands of cores. A quantum GPU would probably mean that display technology would be the main bottleneck in graphics quality. And of course, quantum CPUs wouldn't be useless either.
Although emulators don't tend to use too many cores, it seems, so they would probably not benefit from a quantum CPU. And I doubt that quantum computers are going to be so widespread in only 20 years. So, all in all, I'm not sure where the original statement sounds dumb or not. XD
(02-24-2014, 03:14 AM)neobrain Wrote: [ -> ] (02-24-2014, 02:26 AM)teh_speleegn_polease Wrote: [ -> ]In fact, any task which can be broken up into parallel tasks would be sped up considerably by quantum computers.
[citation needed]
[citation not provided]
In 50 years, I'll cite the quantum PC in my office (or not). Let's just wait a bit till then.
I do know, however, that things like prime95 would run considerably faster on quantum computers, and similarly I guess rendering and/or simulations would be sped up considerably. I might have been generalising too much in my statement above though.