153 réponses à ce sujet

[Mikka-chan]

They never should have released the game on the older console's in the first place.  They did because when they originally planned for this game to come out, the old console's were still being used and the new gen had just come out... but as the delays popped up, it may have been smart of them to do a "Wait, we can't keep supporting these ridiculously old consoles, we need to move on".  Though I suppose they already had preorders for the old ones out, but... ugh.

 

Having said that, those old console's and DAI are buggy as heck.  We all know that.  Read the bug reports, the slowdown complaints, more bug reports... yeah, every platform has bugs, but the PS3/XBOX360 seem to have the majority, while having the smallest playerbase (if we go by the multiplayer goals).

 

They would have had to drop them eventually.  To me, it's sort of a relief that they no longer have to worry about trying to work with outdated hardware and can push things to the limit.

 

I can sympathize with people using the old consoles who don't have money for an upgrade (I still use a PSX3 myself (and a Wii rather then the Wii U or whatever it is, plus the PSP rather then the Vita)- and I never got anything beyond the original Xbox).  Of course, I do most of my gaming on the PC and the 3DS, which I do keep upgraded.  In the end, I find keeping my computer good and upgraded cheaper then playing console race.  But no matter what, saving up for new systems suck.

 

...But players on the PS3/Xbox360 did get DAI, and the first two DLCs.  They are not obliged to get anything more.  There was no gaurentee they would get anything more (or that any of us would, for that matter- if EA wants to, they could pull the plug on all DLC, just like they did with the Exalted March for DA2, and there's nothing any of us can do with it).  This was a decision made by the studio to allow them to put out a higher quality prodect rather then fighting with old hardware, and while it may suck for those on the old consoles, it's probably the best decision for the franchise.  Bioware will have to spend a lot less money testing/fighting with the old code, and be able to spend more on content for the DLC's themselves.

[exboomer]

They never should have released the game on the older console's in the first place.  They did because when they originally planned for this game to come out, the old console's were still being used and the new gen had just come out... but as the delays popped up, it may have been smart of them to do a "Wait, we can't keep supporting these ridiculously old consoles, we need to move on".  Though I suppose they already had preorders for the old ones out, but... ugh.

 

Having said that, those old console's and DAI are buggy as heck.  We all know that.  Read the bug reports, the slowdown complaints, more bug reports... yeah, every platform has bugs, but the PS3/XBOX360 seem to have the majority, while having the smallest playerbase (if we go by the multiplayer goals).

 

They would have had to drop them eventually.  To me, it's sort of a relief that they no longer have to worry about trying to work with outdated hardware and can push things to the limit.

 

I can sympathize with people using the old consoles who don't have money for an upgrade (I still use a PSX3 myself (and a Wii rather then the Wii U or whatever it is, plus the PSP rather then the Vita)- and I never got anything beyond the original Xbox).  Of course, I do most of my gaming on the PC and the 3DS, which I do keep upgraded.  In the end, I find keeping my computer good and upgraded cheaper then playing console race.  But no matter what, saving up for new systems suck.

 

...But players on the PS3/Xbox360 did get DAI, and the first two DLCs.  They are not obliged to get anything more.  There was no gaurentee they would get anything more (or that any of us would, for that matter- if EA wants to, they could pull the plug on all DLC, just like they did with the Exalted March for DA2, and there's nothing any of us can do with it).  This was a decision made by the studio to allow them to put out a higher quality prodect rather then fighting with old hardware, and while it may suck for those on the old consoles, it's probably the best decision for the franchise.  Bioware will have to spend a lot less money testing/fighting with the old code, and be able to spend more on content for the DLC's themselves.

I have to disagree with some of your points.  While you are correct that the delays probably factored into the console decision by the time a firm release date was announced Bioware had already invested a lot of time and money into developing for the older consoles and it would of made no economic sense to just junk those versions in favor of the current gen consoles.They did say the older consoles would have problems running the game however.

 

And I dont believe there is a console race. The Xbox One and PS 4 have sold roughly the same number of consoles now and they could be the final generation of consoles IMO, at least as far as MS is concerned. I can't see them investing in another console with all the problems they have had selling the Xbox One. Sony may come out with a PS 5 at some point but I'm not betting on it if there is no competition for them.

[Kantr]

Bioware aren't the only developers not doing anymore DLC for Xbox 360 and PS3

 

http://arstechnica.c...ng-dlc-support/

[Serenade]

 

Honestly they should've never released the game on those platforms to begin with. But then someone would start a petition for that too I bet.

[Dabrikishaw]

 

Honestly they should've never released the game on those platforms to begin with. But then someone would start a petition for that too I bet.

Sadly, you'd be right. I say that as a PS3 player. 

[beccatoria]

    While the only real argument being made by next gen players is "stop holding us back because I deserve...more."

 

 

 

No, the next-gen players didn't start a petition demanding that BioWare drop support for last-gen platforms. The studio made a decision.

The next-gen players are simply saying, "Thank you!" (and, "About time!")

 

Dude, you're not here thanking BioWare, you're here laughing at people who aren't as lucky as you and telling them to shut up. 

 

Also, "About time"?  As in, "About time they stopped supporting old gen so that I can have fancier DLC"?  As in "About time I got...more"? 

 

*glances at original post*

 

Yeah, I got nothing.

[Eterna]

Nah not signing it. This game could have been so much better if not for the last gen consoles holding it back. Too late for that, but at least my dlc won't be negatively effected anymore. 

[MelissaGT]

Yeah it is. PC is always stronger than console, consoles can never keep up. How would it be different for them to say:

"we're releasing story centric DLC for the PC version only. The PS4 and XB1 don't have the technical capability or power to run the DLC, so they don't get it."

Looks like the exact same excuse to me.

 

 

Wrong. This gen is different from last gens, the console architecture is as simple and close to PC as they can get. This isn't like last ones where it takes years to get the most out if a console. The graphical ability they're outputting? It's already as good as it's going to get, they're already maxed out.

 

 

It is true that "next gen" consoles are closer to PC technology-wise as ever before, but I wouldn't agree that they're always going to be behind. Only if you're willing to spend a pretty nice chunk of change would you be able to purchase a computer that can do more than what "next gen" consoles can do now. If I remember correctly, the new consoles have what is comparable to ~8GB RAM (system and VRAM combined), which will keep them viable with games for quite some time because game makers can push out games that require 5, 6 or 7GB of VRAM. I'd wager to say that most PC-gamers are gaming on machines that have less than that. In fact, I'd say that most folks have GPU's that are 2GB VRAM or less. A year ago 3GB cards were "all we needed" to play top-end titles at Ultra. It was the new consoles (coupled with the advent of 4K) that pushed the need for bigger cards...which is why the new flagship cards are being released with 6GB VRAM...and which is why I just traded up my 3GB 780 Ti (which was 'da bomb a year ago) for a 6GB 980 Ti. There goes $700 flying out the window...I could have bought 3 new consoles for that. Stupid me, lol. But I do love my mods and shinies, which is why I keep playing on PC.

 

To put it short, "next gen" consoles are a huge factor that lead to a massive shift in the PC gaming community...so it is the PC community that is needing to "keep up." It will be quite some time before the majority of PC gamers are using machines that leave the new consoles in the dirt. 

 

Gaming PC's also cost crazy amount of money. I just got from mail new PC to replace my old one. It's much more powerful than what I got now. But does it run DAI? Not even in mininum requirements. My sister's gaming PC doesn't run it either nor my friends couple years old gaming laptop. It's crazily demanding game for PC what to me makes it more suitable on affordable consoles.

 

Gaming in general shouldn't be some elitist hobby where you need 1000 €+ hardware to be order to play games that you need also to buy in top of that. If it were amount of players would drop quite much. Cause not every gamer in the world is well-off.

 

I'd actually like to see gaming companies starting to develop games so that normal computers can run them. Or even budget gaming computer scan run them. Or then drop PC's completely, because they have most problems running the games anyway. Like with DAI, there were so many PC complains about everything and problems with graphic cards and hardware and software and Bioware had to do tons of patches for them (they did none for old gen for comparison, no wonder it's not working well). It would be so much easier just to focus on consoles, that are purely meant for playing games and that don't have so much differences in hardware and software -> less problems. Not saying that they should actually drop PC people, but just saying that it would make making games more easier than dropping old gen.

 

Top-end gaming machines do cost an insane amount of money. I'm gaming on 16GB of RAM with a 6GB VRAM GTX 980 Ti (just released about a month ago), which would put the cost of my setup at just about the $2,000 mark. And the sad thing is that's still in the "minor leagues" compared to what some folks are using (who must have unlimited funds for sure). 

 

I don't agree with you about PC being the source of all the problems. Every platform has bugs. Skyrim on PS3 was COMPLETELY UNPLAYABLE when it came out...which is why I bought it for PC (yes, I bought the game twice). That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me with consoles. I went to PC and I never looked back. Oh, and as far as DA:I bugs go...I haven't had a single issue with it on my setup. So there ya go. From what I've read, it's actually poorly done console porting that causes most of the problems that people have on PC.

[Jaron Oberyn]

Lol please, my current rig outperforms next gen consoles right now. DAI on ps4 and xbox run at 30fps with a mix of medium and high settings. One of them can't even render up to 1080p. I'm running everything on max and getting a smooth 60 fps. Console hardware is always and will always be significant steps behind pcs. A gtx 980 ti is overkill for what's on the gaming market right now. You reach a point in graphics or any hardware where higher specifications does not improve performance in any noticeable way. A gtx 970 is more than sufficient to run games like DAI or tw3 at max with smooth 60fps. It's also nearly have the price of the 980.

[Panda]

Top-end gaming machines do cost an insane amount of money. I'm gaming on 16GB of RAM with a 6GB VRAM GTX 980 Ti (just released about a month ago), which would put the cost of my setup at just about the $2,000 mark. And the sad thing is that's still in the "minor leagues" compared to what some folks are using (who must have unlimited funds for sure). 

 

I don't agree with you about PC being the source of all the problems. Every platform has bugs. Skyrim on PS3 was COMPLETELY UNPLAYABLE when it came out...which is why I bought it for PC (yes, I bought the game twice). That was the straw that broke the camel's back for me with consoles. I went to PC and I never looked back. Oh, and as far as DA:I bugs go...I haven't had a single issue with it on my setup. So there ya go. From what I've read, it's actually poorly done console porting that causes most of the problems that people have on PC.

 

 

Yep they are costly and sth that many can't afford. So there is no point for developers to make ultra-quality games only for PC's when that would limit their playerbase a lot.

 

I don't think PC is source of problems, but it's porting is something that required tons of patches and fixes later on. Or required and required, old gen requires same, but just has to do without. The point is that PC porting was sth that takes lot of resources from Bioware to patch and fix.

 

Lol please, my current rig outperforms next gen consoles right now. DAI on ps4 and xbox run at 30fps with a mix of medium and high settings. One of them can't even render up to 1080p. I'm running everything on max and getting a smooth 60 fps. Console hardware is always and will always be significant steps behind pcs. A gtx 980 ti is overkill for what's on the gaming market right now. You reach a point in graphics or any hardware where higher specifications does not improve performance in any noticeable way. A gtx 970 is more than sufficient to run games like DAI or tw3 at max with smooth 60fps. It's also nearly have the price of the 980.

 

I don't think it matters what outperforms what. It matters what majority of gamers are willing to pay for. I really doubt majority has money for 980 dollars graphic cards. I bought new PC recently for 400 euros and that's pretty much my budget when I buy new PC's that I expect to run some games as well.

[MelissaGT]

Lol please, my current rig outperforms next gen consoles right now. DAI on ps4 and xbox run at 30fps with a mix of medium and high settings. One of them can't even render up to 1080p. I'm running everything on max and getting a smooth 60 fps. Console hardware is always and will always be significant steps behind pcs. A gtx 980 ti is overkill for what's on the gaming market right now. You reach a point in graphics or any hardware where higher specifications does not improve performance in any noticeable way. A gtx 970 is more than sufficient to run games like DAI or tw3 at max with smooth 60fps. It's also nearly have the price of the 980.

 

Yet there are games out there that require much more if you want to play with "big boy" graphics...like Shadows of Mordor. DA:I was designed around needing less VRAM because it was built to run on all platforms including the past generations. As the year progresses and goes into 2016, you will see games needing more and more VRAM because "next gen" consoles can do it. I'll be curious to see what the system requirements for Fallout 4 will be. I'm willing to bet it will need more horsepower than DA:I. And ME:A? Well, that's a year and a half away....I'm betting on needing 3GB VRAM minimum for that game. 

 

And I did say "coupled with the advent of 4K." You aren't playing anything at 4K with much less than a 4GB card...and even that is stretching it. I'm a screenarcher, so I want to be able to capture as high a resolution as I can. A 980 Ti is not overkill for some people. 

 

And I'd like to see a GTX 970 run TW3 at max with hairworks and still get a smooth 60fps. If you say "max" to me that has to include hairworks. In my opinion, there's no point in playing the game if you don't see all that pretty, silky, billowing in the breeze hair. 

[MelissaGT]

Yep they are costly and sth that many can't afford. So there is no point for developers to make ultra-quality games only for PC's when that would limit their playerbase a lot.

 

I don't think PC is source of problems, but it's porting is something that required tons of patches and fixes later on. Or required and required, old gen requires same, but just has to do without. The point is that PC porting was sth that takes lot of resources from Bioware to patch and fix.

 

That argument is a catch-22. I could argue that there would be less bugs and problems if game makers made games soley for PC and cut consoles out of the equation. There would be no porting and then no problems that result from poor porting. If game makers made games for just PC they could make them optimized to run better on cheaper systems that don't require top-end GPU's. 

 

But, game makers have to make games for console and PC in order to make money. So there's no point in fighting that fight. 

[Jaron Oberyn]

Yep they are costly and sth that many can't afford. So there is no point for developers to make ultra-quality games only for PC's when that would limit their playerbase a lot.

I don't think PC is source of problems, but it's porting is something that required tons of patches and fixes later on. Or required and required, old gen requires same, but just has to do without. The point is that PC porting was sth that takes lot of resources from Bioware to patch and fix.



I don't think it matters what outperforms what. It matters what majority of gamers are willing to pay for. I really doubt majority has money for 980 dollars graphic cards. I bought new PC recently for 400 euros and that's pretty much my budget when I buy new PC's that I expect to run some games as well.

A 980 isn't necessary to run the game at max, 970 is enough and is nearly half the price. Keep in mind too, we are talking about running the game at maximum settings not simply running it. If you want maximum graphics, you have to pay for maximum graphics. If you want to simply run it on low/medium graphics you can do that at a much more affordable price.

Yet there are games out there that require much more if you want to play with "big boy" graphics...like Shadows of Mordor. DA:I was designed around needing less VRAM because it was built to run on all platforms including the past generations. As the year progresses and goes into 2016, you will see games needing more and more VRAM because "next gen" consoles can do it. I'll be curious to see what the system requirements for Fallout 4 will be. I'm willing to bet it will need more horsepower than DA:I. And ME:A? Well, that's a year and a half away....I'm betting on needing 3GB VRAM minimum for that game.

And I did say "coupled with the advent of 4K." You aren't playing anything at 4K with much less than a 4GB card...and even that is stretching it. I'm a screenarcher, so I want to be able to capture as high a resolution as I can. A 980 Ti is not overkill for some people.

And I'd like to see a GTX 970 run TW3 at max with hairworks and still get a smooth 60fps. If you say "max" to me that has to include hairworks. In my opinion, there's no point in playing the game if you don't see all that pretty, silky, billowing in the breeze hair.

The VRAM of DAI is dependent on your settings, particularly textures. You keep throwing around 8gb VRAM for Xbox one. That is incorrect, the xbox one has 8gb SHARED ram between both system and graphics. Not only is it shared it isn't even ddr5, it's ddr3. Max settings tends to include hair works, yes. Fully set to on, not isolated to geralt. We aren't talking about 4k here, maybe 1% of the population has migrated to 4k monitors or displays. 1080p is the standard we are going on right now, and for that purpose pcs hit it out of the ballpark. Next gen can't even get 1080p. Ps4 up scales which isn't native 1080p, and xbox runs at like 900p. 4k gaming is only available on pcs at the moment, and it's relatively new so it will take time before it becomes the norm.

Shadow of mordor runs fine with 4gb VRAM, however lets not forget that game was horribly optimized for performance. That developer has a bad reputation for little to no use of lods, which is going to negatively impact any machine.

[GreatBlueHeron]

this is brilliant!

Actually, its not.  You could play with more than eight abilities on consoles with dao and daii.  Maybe you'd know that if you actually played those games.  

 

I'm tired of elitist, entitled PC whiners thinking that everything should cater to them. Why are you so entitled?

[MelissaGT]

The VRAM of DAI is dependent on your settings, particularly textures. You keep throwing around 8gb VRAM for Xbox one. That is incorrect, the xbox one has 8gb SHARED ram between both system and graphics. Not only is it shared it isn't even ddr5, it's ddr3. Max settings tends to include hair works, yes. Fully set to on, not isolated to geralt. We aren't talking about 4k here, maybe 1% of the population has migrated to 4k monitors or displays. 1080p is the standard we are going on right now, and for that purpose pcs hit it out of the ballpark. Next gen can't even get 1080p. Ps4 up scales which isn't native 1080p, and xbox runs at like 900p. 4k gaming is only available on pcs at the moment, and it's relatively new so it will take time before it becomes the norm.

Shadow of mordor runs fine with 4gb VRAM, however lets not forget that game was horribly optimized for performance. That developer has a bad reputation for little to no use of lods, which is going to negatively impact any machine.

 

I'm not throwing around anything. This is what I said above...verbatim:

 

comparable to ~8GB RAM (system and VRAM combined)

 

Believe me, I'm not a console supporter. I'm neutral and am clearly a PC gamer myself. But when the systems have 8GB unified RAM, that means that game makers can manufacture games that require much more VRAM than most PC gamers currently have available (if the average user only has 2GB). This is because the system can use whatever RAM is left for the game after it uses whatever it needs for core processing. I'm too lazy to post up the zillion articles that I easily found but this pretty much sums it up:

 

Welcome to the VRAM Apocalypse

 

And from what I just read, the PS4's memory is DDR5...and I think I remember hearing that it is 4k ready (for when the time comes). Unless they cut that pre-release?

 

All I've been trying to say is that down the road (and not too far down the road) we will be seeing much higher requirements to run these new games on PC...simply because they are all console ports. This will cause people to either abandon PC entirely and get a console...or chunk over change to upgrade. Either way...that costs $$$.

[Morroian]

This is not what you should be petitioning for. You should be asking for a free next gen copy as compensation.

[Iakus]

This is not what you should be petitioning for. You should be asking for a free next gen copy as compensation.

Sadly, this is true.  Much as I sympathize with the cause, the decision has already been made. 

 

But you shouldn't be forced to buy brand new copies of the game on top of a new console.

[Jaron Oberyn]

I'm not throwing around anything. This is what I said above...verbatim:

 

comparable to ~8GB RAM (system and VRAM combined)

 

Believe me, I'm not a console supporter. I'm neutral and am clearly a PC gamer myself. But when the systems have 8GB unified RAM, that means that game makers can manufacture games that require much more VRAM than most PC gamers currently have available (if the average user only has 2GB). This is because the system can use whatever RAM is left for the game after it uses whatever it needs for core processing. I'm too lazy to post up the zillion articles that I easily found but this pretty much sums it up:

 

Welcome to the VRAM Apocalypse

 

And from what I just read, the PS4's memory is DDR5...and I think I remember hearing that it is 4k ready (for when the time comes). Unless they cut that pre-release?

 

All I've been trying to say is that down the road (and not too far down the road) we will be seeing much higher requirements to run these new games on PC...simply because they are all console ports. This will cause people to either abandon PC entirely and get a console...or chunk over change to upgrade. Either way...that costs $$$.

 

You're saying that consoles will require a higher Vram requirement for video games, and that PCs can't keep up with it. That's not true, you keep acting as if all of the 8gb ddr3 ram of a console is being allocated to vram when that simply isn't the case. DAI requires 4gb of system ram to run. That leaves xbox with 4gb left to run it's own OS, and allocate to vram. Guess how much ram Xbox One's OS uses? 3GB. You are now left with 1gb of vram dedicated to graphics. That's worse than affordable graphics cards that are out now, which generally provide 2gb of DDR5 (not DDR3 like consoles). You can begin to see why the game doesn't look as good on consoles as it does on PC. Then we have the issue of it being DDR3, not DDR5 which PC Vram uses. The closest comparison I can give you to illustrate the difference between ddr3 and ddr5 is comparing a dual core processor to a quad core. DDR5 is faster and more efficient.

 

PS4 shares system/graphics ram just like the Xbox One, difference is they use DDR5 rather than Xbox One's DDR3. However, PS4's OS uses 3.5 GB of ram, as opposed to Xbox One's 3 GB. With DAI taking 4gb system ram to run, that's leaving you with 512mb of memory for graphics. (Which is the very least you can have to run DAI.)

 

Furthermore, requirements for vram are entirely dependent on how well optimized a game is. DAI can run off of 512mb vram, because the developers optimized the textures to be able to run at such a low resolution. Games like SoM have not optimized their texture LODs, so people with anything below 4gb Vram will struggle to play due to their oversight. This is especially the case in open world games, with large distances.

 

So this statement of yours makes no sense.

 

 

All I've been trying to say is that down the road (and not too far down the road) we will be seeing much higher requirements to run these new games on PC...simply because they are all console ports. This will cause people to either abandon PC entirely and get a console...or chunk over change to upgrade. Either way...that costs $$$.

 

Next gen consoles are still behind the average gaming rig when it comes to both system and graphics ram. I'm not strictly against consoles, I own both brands as well as PCs. Just laying out the facts such as they are. Feel free to look up the hardware specs and OS usage yourself to verify.

[MelissaGT]

You're saying that consoles will require a higher Vram requirement for video games, and that PCs can't keep up with it. That's not true, you keep acting as if all of the 8gb ddr3 ram of a console is being allocated to vram when that simply isn't the case. DAI requires 4gb of system ram to run. That leaves xbox with 4gb left to run it's own OS, and allocate to vram. Guess how much ram Xbox One's OS uses? 3GB. You are now left with 1gb of vram dedicated to graphics. That's worse than affordable graphics cards that are out now, which generally provide 2gb of DDR5 (not DDR3 like consoles). You can begin to see why the game doesn't look as good on consoles as it does on PC. Then we have the issue of it being DDR3, not DDR5 which PC Vram uses. The closest comparison I can give you to illustrate the difference between ddr3 and ddr5 is comparing a dual core processor to a quad core. DDR5 is faster and more efficient.

 

PS4 shares system/graphics ram just like the Xbox One, difference is they use DDR5 rather than Xbox One's DDR3. However, PS4's OS uses 3.5 GB of ram, as opposed to Xbox One's 3 GB. With DAI taking 4gb system ram to run, that's leaving you with 512mb of memory for graphics. (Which is the very least you can have to run DAI.)

 

Furthermore, requirements for vram are entirely dependent on how well optimized a game is. DAI can run off of 512mb vram, because the developers optimized the textures to be able to run at such a low resolution. Games like SoM have not optimized their texture LODs, so people with anything below 4gb Vram will struggle to play due to their oversight. This is especially the case in open world games, with large distances.

 

So this statement of yours makes no sense.

 

 

No, I'm not. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that the average 2GB GPU won't be able to keep up for much longer. As it is, you can't really run DA:I on max (and I mean with fade-touched textures and 4X MSAA) on 2GB. Heck, my 3GB 780 Ti could only run the game with those settings at ~40fps, which is not playable for a lot of people (it is for me...screenarchers are used to dealing with lower fps). 

 

And again, no I'm not saying that all 8GB goes to graphics. I've stated numerous times that 8GB is shared between graphics and running the system. 

 

I've already said numerous times that PC games today are poorly optimized to run on PC because they are console ports.

 

And I'd love to see where you got that DA:I requires 4GB of system RAM by itself on consoles, not counting their own system. 

 

Either way, I'm done arguing. Have a nice evening. 

[AtalaSirion]

Actually, its not.  You could play with more than eight abilities on consoles with dao and daii.  Maybe you'd know that if you actually played those games.  

 

I'm tired of elitist, entitled PC whiners thinking that everything should cater to them. Why are you so entitled?

i think you understand wrong my "clapping" to this response.

tbh. i am extremly angry how bad Bioware/EA treat old gen console players. Left behind because... reasons.

I even put a journal about this on a site i am the most. 

And i am really sorry new gen players treat old game players like they should just shut up and accept it quietly.

They would feel the same as old gen console players if EA stop supporting them and tell them they will not get 

any new content because... reasons aka MONEY.

[Aren]

 

 

I am completely fine with BioWare finally moving on from older consoles.

I own DAI for the PC,that being said I'm not,by any means fine that Bioware decided to moving on now,is a lame move,especially for the fact that they have sold their game as well as the first Dlc  to grab  money from the folk of older consoles,only to turn around later.

[Jaron Oberyn]

No, I'm not. You're putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that the average 2GB GPU won't be able to keep up for much longer. As it is, you can't really run DA:I on max (and I mean with fade-touched textures and 4X MSAA) on 2GB. Heck, my 3GB 780 Ti could only run the game with those settings at ~40fps, which is not playable for a lot of people (it is for me...screenarchers are used to dealing with lower fps). 

 

And again, no I'm not saying that all 8GB goes to graphics. I've stated numerous times that 8GB is shared between graphics and running the system. 

 

I've already said numerous times that PC games today are poorly optimized to run on PC because they are console ports.

 

And I'd love to see where you got that DA:I requires 4GB of system RAM by itself on consoles, not counting their own system. 

 

Either way, I'm done arguing. Have a nice evening. 

 

I didn't put any words in your mouth, your original statements are still above. 2GB will be more than sufficient provided the developer optimizes their game. We were talking about running the games in general, now you've moved onto ultra settings at 4k. You said that consoles have 8gb ram available to them, and that because of that PCs aren't going to be able to keep up with vram requirements in future games. I then provided detailed information clearly showing why that line of thinking is wrong, in the case of DAI the PS4 can only use 512mb and the xbox 1024mb of vram after you've deducted the OS (3.5 gb PS4, 3 gb Xbox One) and base game system ram requirements. (4gb)

 

8GB is not just shared between graphics, and the console itself. You're forgetting the system ram that goes to running the actual game as well, look up the minimum requirements to run DAI on a pc. It's 4gb system ram, 512 vram. PS4 meets these requirements exactly, while the Xbox One has an extra 512mb of vram to spare. The minimum settings to run the game don't change for each platform. Hardware specification requirements are the same, regardless of the shell that houses them.

 

I wasn't aware that we were arguing, I simply pointed out a flaw in your statement which I have provided again below.

 

To put it short, "next gen" consoles are a huge factor that lead to a massive shift in the PC gaming community...so it is the PC community that is needing to "keep up." It will be quite some time before the majority of PC gamers are using machines that leave the new consoles in the dirt. 

 

The average PC already leaves new consoles in the dirt.

[TheExtreamH]

Screw the DLC for Xbox 360 and PS3, Im still want that DLC for the PS1 and N64, Petition incoming!

[Father_Jerusalem]

Today I learned that disliking the ending to a video game = completely acceptable to make 11,000 threads ranting and raving about how the ending sucks, how Bioware sucks, how people who like the ending suck, sending death threats to the devs, harassing people who disagree with you, voting EA the worst company in the world (even over companies that literally kill people), and STILL ranting and raving about it years later.

 

Whilst disliking that Bioware is pulling the plug on support for consoles that their video game was released on, in the middle of that video game's lifespan = "omg get over it you poor whiney babies go beg your parents for money cuz you live in your mom's basement omg"

 

I will never not be entertained by the elitism and hypocrisy on the BSN. No wait, not entertained. That other one. Disgusted. Yeah, that's it.