The Myth That PC Gets Poor Quality Ports

[spoffle]

Good post and sometimes I feel people just claim "port" purely because they don't know what is what or they use the word loosely. Mind you, Batman Arkham Knight was a **** poor port

This is the problem. Most people who use the term "port" have no idea of the process, and literally think that game x is finished on, say, PS4 then they take the completed game and fudge it to work on PC.

 

[Ravenger]

This is the problem. Most people who use the term "port" have no idea of the process, and literally think that game x is finished on, say, PS4 then they take the completed game and fudge it to work on PC.

Actually, that does happen, at least with the controls and UI side.

It's not actually that easy to translate a gamepad control scheme and UI into a fully optimised keyboard and mouse setup, especially if it's a really complex control scheme.

Many multiplatform games are designed and developed for the gamepad controls, and PC controls added later on in the development process. This can cause some big issues as gamepad controls and UI can't always be directly translated to mouse and keyboard - if you do a direct 1:1 conversion you end up with unituitive and unoptimised controls.

So when PC versions of multiplatform games get a decent, sensible configurable keyboard and mouse control scheme, and also allow things like seamless switching between gamepad and keyboard and mouse that means the developer put a lot of time, effort, thought and above all care into the conversion.

And of course the opposite is true - if the PC keyboard and mouse controls are not decent, don't properly support remapping, then that means the developer doesn't really care about the PC version, or at the very least does not understand the fundamental differences between the two control methods and wasn't prepared to put the effort in to find out.

 

[spoffle]

It doesn't actually happen insofar as it's "ported". In its simplest terms, the UI is just a collection of graphics assets like textures or model meshes.

As for everything else you said, I'm not disputing any of that. My point is always that those things are because of lazy or rushed development, not "porting".

 

[Rroff]

I still see:

Games with clunky menus that might be optimal when using a controller but far far from optimal with a keyboard and mouse.

Games with clunky mechanics that again are the best solution for consoles but just horrendous when you have freelook input, etc.

Poor mouse input handling - with sensitivity scaling with framerate, horizontal and vertical sensitivity mis-match, etc. etc. that is mostly due to developers having more experience with console platforms than traditional PC development.

Poor support for controls overall remapping, etc.

Limited level design with over use of boxy clipping i.e. some games almost feel "on a rail" on PC as you are so limited where you can and can't go because they game world has been designed so that controller players don't get stuck/have to do complex navigation, suppressed vertical gameplay elements.

Watered down RPG type elements and stuff like that due to being too complex for a controller interface.

I still contest that we get poorer quality of games because of a console focus on development regardless of any rushed/lazy development or "poor porting".

 

[Seanspeed]

care to give a tldr? or do you really want me to read through all that with a cup o tea

No, I dont care to. If you cant read it, you've likely got nothing worthy to contribute to the discussion. It's not a simple subject and requires some actual thought processes and challenging of existing paradigms.

Sorry if that is harsh, but I think it's the truth. The topic just aint for you my friend. Not that I think less of you for it, I think it's cool if you just dont think about it much and just want to discuss something else, but I also dont understand what you're doing here in the first place, then. Happy hunting, though! Play some Witcher 3!

 

[Seanspeed]

I think people's main bone of contention is games like Batman AK which are very broken and were farmed out by Rock Steady which leads to accusations of not caring about PC versions.

Given that the game had an extra 4-5 months dev time with the game not even available to buy(meaning they didn't have any pressure to release working updates), I'd say the problems with Arkham Knight were more than just outsourcing, but general game engine issues with PC architectures.

Basically, this is one of the true examples of a game developed with consoles in mind and it totally destroying the ability to run well on PC. I just think this is a rare exception, not the norm.

 

[Strife212]

g) Many games have development *led* on PC. Not just started, like with my first point, but started, led and finished on PC. Consoles might still get a good amount of attention, but not necessarily the lion's share.

ok

 

[drunkenmaster]

Point A is so painfully incorrect, daft and most importantly so frequently used in incorrect arguments the rest is really rather pointless(though largely incorrect also).

The majority of software is written on PCs(or macs/linux with same hardware), you obviously know nothing about it. If I write code for an API that doesn't run on a PC, for hardware not available on PC, to get it to work on a PC regardless of the fact it is written on it, it must be ported. If you don't understand that stop posting on the subject because you are wrong.

Code written on a PC doesn't just automatically work on the hardware it's written on. The majority of AAA titles are designed for consoles with their specific hardware in mind when determining available performance and how to delegate that.

As for games running poorly, you've quite badly ignored the different ways performance can be 'bad'. Watchdogs had significantly more stuttering on the PC version for a huge portion of users than the game had on consoles. You may have been running 60fps vs 30fps on a console, but with varying frame times to a degree it felt less smooth and worse.

Software designed from the ground up to work on a specific architecture generally needs more work than you are suggesting to run efficiently and well. When you know the single hardware configuration things like using timing and frame targets becomes much easier, this is why you get less stuttering. Also DX11 is a huge reason, it's black box and pretty much decides when to batch process a bunch of stuff in an unreliable manor so while on a console you can literally tell it, do this batch of commands now, measure how long it takes and precisely optimise your game to never go over x ms for a specific frame on a PC you can try to tell it to do it but DX11 may decide to delay, do something else first, then run a bunch of crap together causing a delay which leads to a stutter or dropped frames.

DX12 should significantly help with that kind of thing, also getting far higher efficiency out of hardware.

Unified memory on the consoles also helps with reduction in latency and more predictable.

None of your "look it has higher frame rates therefore definitely runs better" comparisons are valid for the reasons above. Watchdogs, AC Unity, in fact most of the games you've mentioned are stuttering messes on the PC and either not, or not as bad on the consoles.

 

[rubberduck]

Can anyone port the OP to a platform other than unnecessary waffle?

 

[Ravenger]

I still see:
I still contest that we get poorer quality of games because of a console focus on development regardless of any rushed/lazy development or "poor porting".

That's absolutely the case.

Even supposedly PC centric games like the Witcher 3 have compromised keyboard and mouse controls because the gameplay was designed for controllers ( and by definition consoles).

Graphically and engine wise it's an amazing PC version, but let down by the UI and controls. The keymapping is still very dodgy with loads of conflicts that just shouldn't be there.

And don't get me started on Fallout 4!

The best games are those which either are PC led, or developed with both gamepad and keyboard and mouse controls in parallel, by developers who know how to do it properly.

Part of the issue with poor PC controls is is a right-handed/WASD centric bias which causes no end of issues for left-handers like me or other people who like to use completely custom controls.

 

[mid_gen]

One thing to note, when a developer is looking to weight up the pros and cons of a PC release...they have to take into account that they are going to get significantly lower revenue per unit shifted because of the grey market in steam keys.

 

[arc@css]

That's absolutely the case.

+1

 

[Mockingbird]

Why Is Every Word In The Title Capitalised? Do You Work For Buzzfeed?

 

[Seanspeed]

I still see:

Games with clunky menus that might be optimal when using a controller but far far from optimal with a keyboard and mouse.

Games with clunky mechanics that again are the best solution for consoles but just horrendous when you have freelook input, etc.

Poor mouse input handling - with sensitivity scaling with framerate, horizontal and vertical sensitivity mis-match, etc. etc. that is mostly due to developers having more experience with console platforms than traditional PC development.

Poor support for controls overall remapping, etc.

Limited level design with over use of boxy clipping i.e. some games almost feel "on a rail" on PC as you are so limited where you can and can't go because they game world has been designed so that controller players don't get stuck/have to do complex navigation, suppressed vertical gameplay elements.

Watered down RPG type elements and stuff like that due to being too complex for a controller interface.

I still contest that we get poorer quality of games because of a console focus on development regardless of any rushed/lazy development or "poor porting".

Most of these are not symptoms of 'poor ports', though. Just generally different design decisions of the mechanics and UI. For something to be a 'poor port', it necessarily implies that the console versions are relatively better.

You're complaining about watering down of games, which is a different topic, really.

Point A is so painfully incorrect, daft and most importantly so frequently used in incorrect arguments the rest is really rather pointless(though largely incorrect also).

The majority of software is written on PCs(or macs/linux with same hardware), you obviously know nothing about it. If I write code for an API that doesn't run on a PC, for hardware not available on PC, to get it to work on a PC regardless of the fact it is written on it, it must be ported. If you don't understand that stop posting on the subject because you are wrong.

Code written on a PC doesn't just automatically work on the hardware it's written on. The majority of AAA titles are designed for consoles with their specific hardware in mind when determining available performance and how to delegate that.

As for games running poorly, you've quite badly ignored the different ways performance can be 'bad'. Watchdogs had significantly more stuttering on the PC version for a huge portion of users than the game had on consoles. You may have been running 60fps vs 30fps on a console, but with varying frame times to a degree it felt less smooth and worse.

Software designed from the ground up to work on a specific architecture generally needs more work than you are suggesting to run efficiently and well. When you know the single hardware configuration things like using timing and frame targets becomes much easier, this is why you get less stuttering. Also DX11 is a huge reason, it's black box and pretty much decides when to batch process a bunch of stuff in an unreliable manor so while on a console you can literally tell it, do this batch of commands now, measure how long it takes and precisely optimise your game to never go over x ms for a specific frame on a PC you can try to tell it to do it but DX11 may decide to delay, do something else first, then run a bunch of crap together causing a delay which leads to a stutter or dropped frames.

DX12 should significantly help with that kind of thing, also getting far higher efficiency out of hardware.

Unified memory on the consoles also helps with reduction in latency and more predictable.

None of your "look it has higher frame rates therefore definitely runs better" comparisons are valid for the reasons above. Watchdogs, AC Unity, in fact most of the games you've mentioned are stuttering messes on the PC and either not, or not as bad on the consoles.

Actually many devs do get working builds on PC's. Particularly if they want to demo the game before it's in a more playable state on the console hardware. Even for first party titles. There's a reason many trailers and whatnot for games use the opening, "Running on actual PS4/XB1 hardware" or whatever.

And yes, stuttering can be an issue with certain games(like Watch Dogs), but many people also do not have as much a problem with these things. Like in AC Unity, while I haven't played it myself, it apparently can run quite fine nowadays. I still think these games are a small minority, whereas consoles get more frequently poor performing games. And when I say poor performance, I dont just mean the difference between 30fps and 60fps, but genuine, bad feeling, sub-30fps or variable performance while the PC versions run fine.

I also didn't suggest anything about the amount of work required to get something working and optimized for specific hardware targets. If I say 'easier', I dont mean amount of effort, but as you say, the lack of reliance on something like DirectX11, meaning you can work towards a target more reliably and track down/fix issues.

 

[Jarrastafari]

Why Is Every Word In The Title Capitalised? Do You Work For Buzzfeed?

Seems irrelevant. I would capitalise my titles, even A's and I's.

People are always going to complain about ports. When they first hear and understand what people mean the tendancy of people is to repeat it over and over again, to show they know a new word/phrase. Like a child heh!

 

[Haggisman]

Some people seem to be getting overly fixated on the word "port" and it's literal meaning, rather than the meaning usually implied when a game is referred to as a "console port".

I don't think anyone actually believes that games are developed on the actual consoles themselves, but it would be naive to think that they aren't developed FOR consoles, with PCs as an afterthought/sideline. It's understandable - the console markets are much bigger and more mainstream than the PC market, not to mention the higher selling prices for games.

The problem is when the development targeted at consoles means the PC version doesn't reach it's full potential.

It's a fact that consoles are less powerful than all but the lowest end of the PC gaming market, so therefore it's pretty obvious that there's no point in expending a huge amount of development time adding a load of bells and whistles that less than 30% of your market are going to be able to run.

There's also the matter of dumbed-down/simplified game mechanics and controls, because controllers only have a limited number of buttons, and no developer is going to fundamentally change/add a whole load of new mechanics/functionality to the PC version, because a) it would be PR suicide, and b) it would be a huge investment in dev time for a disproportionate return.

As above, people have already mentioned the lack of options and UIs which are designed for navigating with a controller.

Why do a lot of modern games still not support custom resolutions? Why does any PC game not allow you to fully customise your controls? Why do PC games have menus which are easier to navigate with a controller or the arrow keys than a mouse?

You could answer "lazy development", but IMO, the real answer is because none of those things are relevant on console, and since that is the primary market, any addition/modification of those is "wasted" development time.




TL;DR version: when people say "console port" they don't mean "game which was developed on a console and then re-compiled to be PC compatible", they mean "game which is designed for console and so the PC release suffers"

 

[platypus]

I think the biggest issue for the PC vs console debate as I see it is that the user interfaces and controls are often designed with consoles in mind.

Whether rightly or wrongly, it hampers the experience on a PC.

 

[Paul_cz]

Finally someone wrote it. PC gets the best possible version of about 99.9% of multiplatform games released.

 

[Clav]

Some people seem to be getting overly fixated on the word "port" and it's literal meaning, rather than the meaning usually implied when a game is referred to as a "console port".

TL;DR version: when people say "console port" they don't mean "game which was developed on a console and then re-compiled to be PC compatible", they mean "game which is designed for console and so the PC release suffers"

Exactly this. I was going to type this myself

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Exactly this. I was going to type this myself

I thought that was pretty obvious by the way of the discussion and normal discussions on this forum but i got pulled up and corrected on semantics. lol

There is clearly a lower standard in many releases compared to the standard of PC only games, whether it is in optimisation, ui, controls or control over graphical settings.

Argue the definition of port all you want but everyone is aware what people mean by port.

Maybe this thread should be renamed to 'Rant about people who use the word port incorrectly'