Which still doesn't address my main point: Can the resources be easily scaled back in order to fit in a smaller memory footprint? Is it possible to make a PC version of a PS4 game, that looks and plays as good or better, without also making it a 64-bit program? It would kill PC game sales if virtually every multi-platform title had worse graphics, smaller maps, dumber AI or something else because programmers had to cut corners to fit in a smaller memory space.
Given that Xbox has been on X86-derived hardware from the beginning, and now the PS4 will be as well, and that's the arch that pcs have been on since the 80s, it's actually cheaper to take the existing 64-bit memory bus that everything has had for about 10 years now, and just use that, rather than re-engineer a "better" 32-bit bus. If talking about costs, off-the-shelf (or close enough) is WAY cheaper than re-engineering your own hardware. If anything, that's the lesson of the PS3, in that even though Cell was a far superior platform from the numbers perspective, the extra costs of engineering it made it more expensive, and as well they didn't make an easy-to-code-for API on top of it. Both reasons are assuredly why they went to X86 for this generation.
Two words: Mandatory installs.
Bullshit. When it comes down to having >4GB of data in RAM vs <4GB of data in RAM that's a significant difference. Remember back in the Xbox/PS2 days when the console ports of PC FPS games had to have the maps carved into smaller chunks because consoles didn't have anywhere near the RAM that PCs did? That's the type of difference that we're going to be looking at between consoles and PCs if the switch to 64-bit programs isn't made on the PC end, only it'll be PCs that get lower detail maps, or dumber AI or more pop-up or something. The only question is if it will happen this generation. Does the PS4 (or the next Xbox) have enough RAM available to programmers that porting to less RAM on a 32-bit PC program will make a significant impact. My guess is that, yes, it will.
Which is exactly my point. What has to be sacrificed to fit into the memory constraints?
Except we're talking main system RAM as well as graphics RAM. Even if the PC can still have enough video memory to cache all the necessary textures, and pixel-shaders and physics calculations, what is being sacrificed out of main system RAM in order to make things run on the PC?
It always comes down to resource constraints of one type or another (granted, sometimes it's money and development time, and not system capability, but always resource constraints). The reason that Wii ports are radically different from 360 and PS3 games is resource constraints. The reason TF2 would be near impossible to update on 360 to match the current PC version is resource constraints. The reason that most multi-platform games don't tax the CPU on modern PCs is because it's too difficult to make a game that both takes advantage of a PC's processing power, and can also be scaled back to run on what little CPU horsepower is available on the 360/PS3.
This has nothing to do with architecture. PCs are already 64-bit, and have been since before dual-core chips became the norm, so that's not the issue. The sole issue is weather this will finally push game makers to adopt 64-bit programs and make a 64-bit OS a requirement to run their game.
We're not talking about the minor differences between a 360 version and a PS3 version. We're not even talking about the minor differences between a game originally made for the 360 and then ported to PC. We're talking differences on the level of a 360 game vs a Wii version of the same game. Whatever data fits into multiple gigabytes of RAM is what will have to be dumped to fit a PS4 game into the memory space of a 32-bit program. We're not talking about a few tweaks here and there, this is massive amounts of data that can be used on a PS4, but can't be used as long as PC games remain compatible with 32-bit operating systems (which not many people are running anymore).
<sigh> Sadly, a lot more people are running 32bit OSes than you'd think. A LOT more. And, while most of these people aren't gamers, a lot of them do have kids young enough that they can't buy their own computers and therefor have to use their parents' computers which are still running Windows XP, or in some cases... WinMe or Win98SE. It's... it's almost enough to make a grown man cry, just thinking about how many times my customers tell me they can't use a data disc I've sent them because their OS won't run IE 8 or higher OR Firefox 17 or higher.[DOUBLEPOST=1361914980][/DOUBLEPOST]On the other hand, this doesn't necessarily mean that we should keep making games accounting for people who refuse to update their computers. That's just silly.
I meant gamers aren't running 32-bit OSes anymore. Seriously, if you've got a PC capable of running a game that needs a 64-bit executable in order to compete with a PS4 game, then you've got a system that should be running a 64-bit version of Windows 7. If you're still running Windows XP, but you've got a $300 graphics card made in the last two years, then something is seriously wrong with your priorities.
I'm not saying it's common overall, but I do know that there are a lot of people who have $300 (or more) graphics cards, more RAM than their OS can actually access, quad core processors, and enough case cooling to run high end games on High graphics without a single worry; and still refuse to upgrade beyond Win98SE - because they're absolute nutcases who're afraid that Microsoft is going to steal their identities and everything else they could ever possibly consider valuable if they put a newer OS on their computers. We laugh at them frequently, when they're trying to get support for something that just doesn't run on that old of an OS and they're bitching about it every chance they get. Thankfully, they will eventually die off and the world will be a better place.
And how many of those are gaming PCs with dual-core processors over 3.0Ghz or better and DX11 graphics cards with at least 2GB of RAM?
I'm looking at YOU, Quicken!
Microsoft tends to keep the previous version of the OS available for only one year after it is discontinued, so if you want to pick up a copy of Win7 you might want to do so before October. I just managed to sneak in my copy of Win7Pro a couple weeks ago. Whew!
For a vast majority of users, this is not a compelling reason. I still don't give a shit about DX10, much less 11.
Not interested in Bioshock Ifinite then? (link)
He's gonna play it on a console, of course.
By "I don't give a shit about," I mean "I don't see any actual advantage delivered by." I don't get excited by the supposed/alleged improvements over DX9. I already have a laptop with 7 on it, so it's not like I'm boycotting later versions of directX, it's just I believe that they were more of a backdoor scheme to force OS upgrades than actually delivering any better graphics APIs.
Crysis 2 with or without DX11 is a huge shift graphics wise. Also, in horsepower required to run said graphics.
Well, you say that, but I have yet to really see the difference. Of course, as far as horsepower, I guess I'm spoiled because my XP box is using an overclocked 8800GTX I bought for 500 bucks back in 07 that's stood me in good stead to this day...
Ah, I must have misunderstood. I thought he was saying with VS without, not regardless of verison.
To clarify, I am referring to the retail version, not the OEM version. The OEM/System Builder version will probably remain available longer.
