im buying the xbox 360 version of ro:hos
- Thread starter ForgottenHero
- Start date
But it's going to have great custom stuff like mouse support and adjustable key configurations! They are highly modable variables but it's still not balanced for mouse aiming so just to keep everyone fair RO:HoS PC version ships with a gamepad and they must buy additional DLC in order to use mouse and keyboard, extra discount if you bought the "adjustable visual settings" DLC first.
Snarf snarf.
Upvote
0
I get HoS for the commodore 64.
The gaybox of Microshredd is no good for RO and the PS3 is not much better. Console and pc games developed at the same time mostly see one being the loser. RO should stay on the pc.
The gaybox of Microshredd is no good for RO and the PS3 is not much better. Console and pc games developed at the same time mostly see one being the loser. RO should stay on the pc.
Upvote
0
Don't forget the bonus DLC of lean and prone being included in the game for only 9.99! Too bad it isn't packaged with the dedicated servers DLC which is 14.99. Oh well I guess we can't have everything!
Upvote
0
The problem with cross-platform games (as far as I know) is they end up "accommodating" the weaknesses of the console's hardware/input devices.
I really don't care what anybody says, consoles are outdated and inferior technology to what is available currently to PC users. What happens is that the games are made generally the same (see OFP
R) so there is less work involved as making individual games for each platform is costly.
This means that although the PC can handle much more, they only receive as much as the console can handle (+ higher textures and some other tid-bits thrown together at the last minute).
Try the following: go out and take a photo. Now let's pretend that (this is not literal!!) the consoles can handle a resolution of 1280x768 and the PC's can handle 1920x1200. Cross platform is like making an image at 1280x768 and then scaling it up to 1920x1200. That is NOT a HD image (what the "PC" can handle). This means the PC version of that image is vastly inferior to what could have been achieved if it was first created for the PC and scaled back for the console. (Again, this isn't literal, just trying to explain something).
Now, regardless of whether this happens in the beginning or not, I'm almost 100% sure it will inevitably end up being the case, as it is more profitable. Eventually the bean-counters (and after all, it's them who control the money -> have the say in the matter) will decide that's the better option.
The end result? PC gamers get to spend thousands of dollars on a gaming PC that ends up running a game that could easily be run by an obsolete piece of hardware from many years back. Not to mention a huge limit placed on innovation. It probably also ends up catering to the "majority" (the new IL2 anyone?) which results in a more "easy" style of play (COD). Cross platform is bad for everyone except the people making the money.
I really don't care what anybody says, consoles are outdated and inferior technology to what is available currently to PC users. What happens is that the games are made generally the same (see OFP
R) so there is less work involved as making individual games for each platform is costly.This means that although the PC can handle much more, they only receive as much as the console can handle (+ higher textures and some other tid-bits thrown together at the last minute).
Try the following: go out and take a photo. Now let's pretend that (this is not literal!!) the consoles can handle a resolution of 1280x768 and the PC's can handle 1920x1200. Cross platform is like making an image at 1280x768 and then scaling it up to 1920x1200. That is NOT a HD image (what the "PC" can handle). This means the PC version of that image is vastly inferior to what could have been achieved if it was first created for the PC and scaled back for the console. (Again, this isn't literal, just trying to explain something).
Now, regardless of whether this happens in the beginning or not, I'm almost 100% sure it will inevitably end up being the case, as it is more profitable. Eventually the bean-counters (and after all, it's them who control the money -> have the say in the matter) will decide that's the better option.
The end result? PC gamers get to spend thousands of dollars on a gaming PC that ends up running a game that could easily be run by an obsolete piece of hardware from many years back. Not to mention a huge limit placed on innovation. It probably also ends up catering to the "majority" (the new IL2 anyone?) which results in a more "easy" style of play (COD). Cross platform is bad for everyone except the people making the money.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Correct in everything you say there mate, except for one thing.The problem with cross-platform games (as far as I know) is they end up "accommodating" the weaknesses of the console's hardware/input devices.
I really don't care what anybody says, consoles are outdated and inferior technology to what is available currently to PC users. What happens is that the games are made generally the same (see OFP
This means that although the PC can handle much more, they only receive as much as the console can handle (+ higher textures and some other tid-bits thrown together at the last minute).
Try the following: go out and take a photo. Now let's pretend that (this is not literal!!) the consoles can handle a resolution of 1280x768 and the PC's can handle 1920x1200. Cross platform is like making an image at 1280x768 and then scaling it up to 1920x1200. That is NOT a HD image (what the "PC" can handle). This means the PC version of that image is vastly inferior to what could have been achieved if it was first created for the PC and scaled back for the console. (Again, this isn't literal, just trying to explain something).
Now, regardless of whether this happens in the beginning or not, I'm almost 100% sure it will inevitably end up being the case, as it is more profitable. Eventually the bean-counters (and after all, it's them who control the money -> have the say in the matter) will decide that's the better option.
The end result? PC gamers get to spend thousands of dollars on a gaming PC that ends up running a game that could easily be run by an obsolete piece of hardware from many years back. Not to mention a huge limit placed on innovation. It probably also ends up catering to the "majority" (the new IL2 anyone?) which results in a more "easy" style of play (COD). Cross platform is bad for everyone except the people making the money.
That new IL-2 is not really IL-2, it has the IL-2 sturmovik name but its a different game, the real sequel to the the first IL-2 is Storm of War battle of britain, made by the same people who made the first one, Oleg Maddox.
The Birds of prey one was complete rubbish.
I thought the system of making a great game on the pc and making console gamers look at it knowing they ain't getting it was a good idea.
Take Crysis for instance, Pc people were exited for it and console people were annoyed and jealous that it was only pc, By releasing a great game first (Crysis), Crytek don't have to bother as much with this one (Crysis 2) because they know they console people will buy it for the graphics and pc people will buy it not knowing that its is a port.
Also what was wrong with the system of releasing a great pc game, eg. Deus Ex, and then releasing it about 1 - 2 years later on consoles (ps2).
It works well because both parties are happy, Pc gets a game that was made for it and then ps2 got a game that was great for them too, because the graphics were better in that 2 year period and it was not done in a rush.
If red orchestra came out for Pc and then Consoles months to years later, that would be acceptable and fine, but if they all came out at once I am sure based on every other game I have played that it would be a disaster(ish) experience. Although I still want to see it stay on PC, because if PC's don't have exclusives, what is the point in paying all that money for them, plus if it stayed on PC I am sure a lot of people would skip over and make their own pc and get hooked. yeah.
Upvote
0
Haha true true, I never knew that about the new IL-2 though, any good? I loved the old ones.
I think it'd be far cheaper and certainly faster to just make one game that fits into all 3 platforms Regardless of what the devs want it's the publishers who get the final say in the matter right?
I think it'd be far cheaper and certainly faster to just make one game that fits into all 3 platforms
Regardless of what the devs want it's the publishers who get the final say in the matter right?
Upvote
0
Well, if the developer is desperate for money, then the publisher will have much more of a say. If they are not, they can negotiate a bit more...and besides, the publishers can't FORCE a developer to publish a game in a certain way, only encourage it. Unless the developer is in a contract with them that lasts for a rediculously long period of time, where the publisher can change the terms of the contract and agreements while they are active and the developer is powerless to switch publishers (if that was even an option).
Upvote
0
Yeah mate, Its basically the same but with insanely good graphics, Its not out until later this year. If you go to the 1c forum, then storm of war, and you will see screenshots in there. They release new screenshots every friday, I wish I could see the same from tripwire.
Upvote
0
Then I guarantee you you don't need Red Orchestra.
Go play Call of Duty, it's basically Red Orchestra console edition anyway.
Upvote
0
Controllers have something a mouse does not have, which is a large dead zone. That is, the center of the analog stick does not register any kind of movement for a short distance.
This is part of why most console shooters do not have recoil....else, recoil jolts the screen and then resettles the sights automatically in roughly the same location. Console shooters also tend to have auto-aim and next to no weapon sway in any position. To simulate any of these effects would cause extreme player fatigue. This would require huge game design compromises or, basically, commercial and press suicide.
All I can say is, as somebody who's owned every Playstation on the market, I fail to see how a player could adequately compensate for effects like weapon sway and recoil.
This is not mentioning the limitations on the control pad as far as button mappings. Many games already have labyrinthine pause-menu systems or shift-click combos in place just to cram more effective buttons on the gamepad.
Xbox Live doesn't host ANY dedicated servers for game server hosting. This is what Xbox Live does. Ready? You log into their servers to confirm your identity and gain access to basic features like VOIP, achievements, stat tracking, and so forth (which are stored on Microsoft's XBL dedicated servers). Then you go into your game, and click "Find me a game," at which point your request is sent to Microsoft's servers which link you together which a bunch of other people that clicked that button. It puts you in a room and designates a "host," that is, a player who acts as the listen server. After that point it's all hosted locally on the players Xbox.
It is POSSIBLE to have dedicated servers hosting your game matches on Xbox Live, as in the case of Bad Company 2 and Left 4 Dead on Xbox 360. But those servers are hosted by EA/Valve, that is, PAID FOR by EA/Valve, at their own expense. As compensation, Microsoft requires the PLAYER to pay a $50/year subscription fee for "Xbox Live Gold" to have access to any online gaming functionality. This is a functionality which, I will remind you, is either hosted locally by the end user or hosted by the publisher. One, or the other. It is an expense NOT incurred by Microsoft for which they obtain revenue regardless.
Further, Microsoft receives royalties on the purchase of all items distributed over Xbox Live, such as map packs and other DLC (costumes and so forth). They have even been known to stonewall the release of free content on Xbox Live Marketplace, as in the case of Unreal Tournament's Black pack or something I think it was called and a planned free map pack for the original Gears of War.
Upvote
0
A large deadzone isn't really an issue though for gamepads. As gamepads aren't based on direct control. Moving the stick in a direction gives the speed and direction the camera will move, aka you give a speed, not a location like with a mouse.
If anything things like recoil are probably easier to manage, as at least in roost recoil is a constant speed upwards. So you would just need to move the stick a bit down and have virtually no recoil at all. And don't forgot that if ROHOS would get a console release the devs would try out what would be the most realistic to use on a gamepad for that release.
Gamepads are harder to aim with generally exactly because it isn't direct control but a control over the speed in a certain direction. But it probably wouldn't be any harder than any of the fps games.
And yes Xbox live is a service, and most hosted servers are of the p2p kind, but having dedicated servers is not impossible. Next to that for a console release it could be opted to slightly modify the maps to a higher focus and aim for lower player amounts so things can be hosted p2p.
Of course a direct port from the PC version won't work well on the consoles, and visa versa. But why would you expect TWI to make it a 100% port if they port it. They probably would change things to make it work optimally on a console.
If anything things like recoil are probably easier to manage, as at least in roost recoil is a constant speed upwards. So you would just need to move the stick a bit down and have virtually no recoil at all. And don't forgot that if ROHOS would get a console release the devs would try out what would be the most realistic to use on a gamepad for that release.
Gamepads are harder to aim with generally exactly because it isn't direct control but a control over the speed in a certain direction. But it probably wouldn't be any harder than any of the fps games.
And yes Xbox live is a service, and most hosted servers are of the p2p kind, but having dedicated servers is not impossible. Next to that for a console release it could be opted to slightly modify the maps to a higher focus and aim for lower player amounts so things can be hosted p2p.
Of course a direct port from the PC version won't work well on the consoles, and visa versa. But why would you expect TWI to make it a 100% port if they port it. They probably would change things to make it work optimally on a console.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
First, It was sarcasm.
Second, to say that "Call of Duty it's basically Red Orchestra console edition", is to give COD too much credit.
Upvote
0
I already mentioned 2 games with dedicated servers on the Xbox 360. Problem is, as I've already mentioned, they are hosted by the publishers. In other words, if Tripwire Interactive wants dedicated servers for Xbox Live, they're going to have to pay for them. There are currently no games on Xbox 360 with player-hosted dedicated servers (aside from Rainbow Six Vegas, which allows you to turn your Xbox into a dedicated server). It is highly unlikely that such a breach of Microsoft's closed (and guarded) network would be allowed.
I'm simply not interested in them butchering the game for the sake of console audiences, particularly if it means incurring additional costs.
As I said, Red Orchestra already exists on consoles...Call of Duty. Red Orchestra console edition will look....something like that.
If anything, just port Killing Floor and don't fool around with RO.
Upvote
0
Its not necessarily butchering the game. Tbh even at the moment I find the 50 player servers a lot more close to butchering the game than the 16 player servers. Without massive additions maps could be altered for lower player amounts.
Beside that TWI could actually rent servers to actual players, so TWI stays in control of the core files but others basically pay for it. Beside that TWI could probably still make a profit if they hosted the servers themselves. The issue with bigger player amounts is more likely that the processor and gpu of current gen consoles would melt.
Of course does adapting RO to work on a console have additional costs, but the console market is simply huge. Loads of companies focus only on the console releases for that one reason. It would make a lot of sense for TWI to look at the benefits and the costs, and based on that decide what to do. I think that RO can offer something to console gamers that no other game can.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I know of no instance of this actually happening on the Xbox 360. Xbox Live is, as I say, a closed network. If they could cut a deal like this, fantastic.
But note this. The Xbox 360 version of Bad Company 2 (along with the PS3 version) both have dedicated servers....all hosted by and maintained by the publisher. Neither have player-hosted or third-party (rental company) servers.
Alternately, on the PC version of BC2, which does not have player hosted servers (dedicated server client has intentionally been withheld), players/clans can rent servers.
Why? Well, I imagine EA doesn't necessarily enjoy paying for servers they could have at the player's expense.
How so? It costs them money month-over-month and they see no monthly returns. The only gain is the revenue from each sale of the game. I do not see spending money on dedicated servers as a potential revenue stream. Explain how that would work.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAG_(video_game)
"The game uses a new server architecture to support online battles with up to 256 players [...]"
I would obviously recommend that also.
If Tripwire finds a rainbow leading to a pot of gold I suggest they follow it.
Upvote
0