Dead Rising 3 - leaked on Steam DB

AWPC · 12 Jun 2014 at 14:46

MS make me laugh :rolleyes:

they are supporting this on PC as they obviously cannot break even on XB1 sales alone & MS fully funded this game Capcom just provided their own developers/IP.

HazardO · 12 Jun 2014 at 19:23

I don't think the issue will be that it's *locked* to 30fps, but rather that the whole game is taking it's timing from the draw rate meaning that if you run it faster it will be a mess.

AWPC · 16 Jun 2014 at 14:07

Seen the pre-order RRP for PC retail £44.84 its now on a popular website :eek:

Garfo · 16 Jun 2014 at 14:19

AWPC said:
Seen the pre-order RRP for PC retail £44.84 its now on a popular website

like the look of the game but aint paying 44 sheets for it lol

AWPC · 16 Jun 2014 at 14:21

Garfo said:
like the look of the game but aint paying 44 sheets for it lol

I will if I have to as a massive DR fan but hopefully somewhere else sells the retail version cheaper I think as its an XB1 port the RRP reflects that somehow as MS want to recoup their loses from PC gamers :rolleyes:

Steam price when its announced will be interesting as its always much higher!

AWPC · 16 Jun 2014 at 19:39

One of the devs talking off the record about optional 30FPS cap :eek:

but sounds like its unfixable due to physics being linked to it & the code complexity.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=116640290&postcount=675

30 mins of ingame PC footgae from E3
http://www.twitch.tv/capcomunity/b/537545864

HAz · 16 Jun 2014 at 20:58

When you build a slow game for a slow console what do you expect.

AWPC · 23 Jul 2014 at 15:07

http://www.pcgamer.com/2014/07/23/d...ition-on-pc-will-include-untold-stories-dlcs/

PC getting all 4 XB1 DLC packs for free on all versions now.

Rofflay · 23 Jul 2014 at 15:14

AWPC said:
Seen the pre-order RRP for PC retail £44.84 its now on a popular website

One of the devs talking off the record about optional 30FPS cap but sounds like its unfixable due to physics being linked to it & the code complexity.

console trash for £44? Whoever pays for this needs found and lynched.

hyperseven · 23 Jul 2014 at 15:31

£44, £13.50 off one of my Russian friends, thats for the apocalypse edition.

AWPC · 23 Jul 2014 at 16:02

Rofflay said:
console trash for £44? Whoever pays for this needs found and lynched.

Console trash is a little bit bit harsh its a complex open world zombie co-op + sp slaying experience with what are supposed to be next gen gfx :rolleyes:

I think its worth buying for around £30 Steam have it @ £35.99 pre-order price about the same as most games now they reduced it a bit price wise.

If Steam are selling for £35.99 the retail should turn up soon for around £30-32ish methinks. That £44 is a price for the digital download from the rainforest but they list it as a retail PC-DVD when it states on the cover digital download only :rolleyes:

JulioH · 23 Jul 2014 at 17:38

Fair play for the included DLC, not usually something Capcom does. Fully expect the rest of the DLC to be charged after release though, such as the Super Hyper Ultra thingy.

FoxEye · 23 Jul 2014 at 20:34

Boomstick777 said:
Disagree with this, this is a new 2014 title. The 7970 / 670 are now midrange cards, can be picked up cheap second hand or bought brand new in re-brand form 280X etc.. Which are still cheap for the performance these cards give.

I would be more concerned if they said this game could run best setting on an HD 6970.. Do we not want to see any progress?

It could be way worse, people would lose their minds if they recommended a GTX 780Ti or R9 290X..

A current midrange card being recommend for the best gaming experience is a good thing.

How can you call a 7970 mid-range? That's virtually the same card as the 280X. A 280X retails for £210 to £240.

Are those mid-range prices?

Jono · 24 Jul 2014 at 10:00

I really want to play this, because I don't own an xb1, but still wanted to play the game.

spoffle · 24 Jul 2014 at 10:06

Martini1991 said:
This.
Bearing in mind the Xbox one is like a 7770!

And a 7970 isn't mid range. If we'd had a die shrink, then maybe, but we haven't, so performance hasn't moved on much more than what a 1150MHZ 7970 can achieve (In terms on stock performance of the current GPU's)

A 7970 certainly isn't top of the range though. There are cards out that are a fair bit faster, and overclocked editions don't count as they won't have taken that in to consideration when specifying it.

spoffle · 24 Jul 2014 at 10:07

Kainz said:
MO someone at Capcom messed up with the required specs unless we really are getting a very badly performing port.

This is basically the new king of Steam with regards to hardware requirements and it'll be just a basic port at best...until Witcher 3 arrives.

Games aren't ported.

spoffle · 24 Jul 2014 at 10:08

Garfo said:
like the look of the game but aint paying 44 sheets for it lol

We have £1 notes now?!

cheesyboy · 24 Jul 2014 at 11:44

spoffle said:
Games aren't ported.

From my understanding, they are. But I don't know much about such things: what's the reasoning against them being "ported"?

spoffle · 24 Jul 2014 at 11:55

There isn't reasoning against it in as much as it doesn't exist. As in it's not that I'm reasoning against them being "ported" it's that because porting isn't actually a "thing" in the way people state, then games aren't ported.

Games are compiled specifically for the platforms they are on. To bring them out on a new platform they need to then be specifically compiled for that new one from the source code.

Porting suggests that one version of the game is taken and then made to run on another platform, which isn't the case at all. You can't typically make a game run on another platform without the source code, and the source code isn't a "version" of the game. Ergo porting doesn't actually exist.

Some of the people would have you think the only things that you need to make a game work on certain hardware are the instruction sets (ie X86/64). This was one of the things people latched on to with regards to the PS4 and Xbox One. They believed "porting" would be "easier" because it shared the same instruction set as a regular PC.

Except that so do Linux and OSX and we know that games made for WIndows don't just natively run on either without having a build specifically made for each platform.

Very few developers even use the term "port" if you notice, it's nearly always games journos that make claims of things being ported (if you follow the sources) and talk about ports and porting.

hyperseven · 24 Jul 2014 at 12:08

spoffle said:
There isn't reasoning against it in as much as it doesn't exist. As in it's not that I'm reasoning against them being "ported" it's that because porting isn't actually a "thing" in the way people state, then games aren't ported.

Games are compiled specifically for the platforms they are on. To bring them out on a new platform they need to then be specifically compiled for that new one from the source code.

Porting suggests that one version of the game is taken and then made to run on another platform, which isn't the case at all. You can't typically make a game run on another platform without the source code, and the source code isn't a "version" of the game. Ergo porting doesn't actually exist.

Some of the people would have you think the only things that you need to make a game work on certain hardware are the instruction sets (ie X86/64). This was one of the things people latched on to with regards to the PS4 and Xbox One. They believed "porting" would be "easier" because it shared the same instruction set as a regular PC.

Except that so do Linux and OSX and we know that games made for WIndows don't just natively run on either without having a build specifically made for each platform.

Very few developers even use the term "port" if you notice, it's nearly always games journos that make claims of things being ported (if you follow the sources) and talk about ports and porting.

So its not using the same game engine and assets as the xbone version, they are all made form scratch?