Am I the only one not buying that line? They would have to be nuts. This hardware can't run the game competently at all and is a massively limiting factor. They would have to have like no pride whatsoever to keep developing on this thing well past the PS4 launch window.

So they are worried about player count then? Are they not aware that being on a console like the PS4 with fewer game choices nets you more players, not less? And being free to play is an even bigger attraction on that front?

I simply don't get the logic. Bad business decision. Bad development decision. Bad everything. It does not make sense.


The only other option is that this is a marketing bluff. But if it's a marketing bluff, why the hell would they make one as detrimental as that? Nobody wants to hear that garbage. Give me a version that can support a consistent frame rate on every map in every situation, that's what I want to hear. I am not stupid enough to believe I will ever see that on this hardware. Nobody else is either.

Some overly cautious nonsense going on right here.

Why would it look worse on PS4?

The majority of the physics problems come from the inconsistent frame rate giving server errors. Like when you hit an acorn in the middle of the road and your LAV spazzes out -- that's from frame rate issues, believe it or not. It's a common 3d physics issue with bad graphic cards/low powered system.

CCP has already done a lot of work on future-related graphical effects, and have everything from unreal 4 at their disposal. The only reason the game looks bad to begin with is because all of their art assets are either disabled or scaled down to meet the PS3's requirements. When they are at their full glory, the game looks great. But you never get to see that outside of screenshots.

A lot of the aiming problems also come from the bad frame rate -- which again, would be solved on the PS4. The input delay should be gone as well. If they were to port it over to PS4 now, crank up the frame rate, crank up the texture quality, most of the problems would fix itself.

Most "core" problems this game has is immediately solved on a more stable system. In fact, most of the balance issues are a lot more tolerable when you can actually aim due to a cirsp frame rate. Being able to function makes the game actually fun.

Stop.

I just explained that frame rate effects the gameplay via the physics, ability to aim and input delay, and that this would be fixed on PS4 due to the additional processing power. Hell, it would also effect render distance. That was a gameplay oriented argument.

When I was talking about player count, I was not referring to the number of people logged into the game at once, I was talking about number of players deployed in a single battle. More processing power means more players in the matches themself, and therefore bigger environments. That was the original vision of Dust.

So how does the graphics>gameplay argument ever come into focus as my primary argument? It doesn't. In fact, the only reason its a part of the argument at all is because you said it would look bad compared to other PS4 titles, which it wouldn't for the reasons I already listed.

So your rebuttal is entirely off kilter. You're saying things, but they don't match the context.

Stop.

I just explained that frame rate effects the gameplay via the physics, ability to aim and input delay, and that this would be fixed on PS4 due to the additional processing power. Hell, it would also effect render distance. That was a gameplay oriented argument.

When I was talking about player count, I was not referring to the number of people logged into the game at once, I was talking about number of players deployed in a single battle. More processing power means more players in the matches themself, and therefore bigger environments. That was the original vision of Dust.

So how does the graphics>gameplay argument ever come into focus as my primary argument? It doesn't. In fact, the only reason its a part of the argument at all is because you said it would look bad compared to other PS4 titles, which it wouldn't for the reasons I already listed.

So your rebuttal is entirely off kilter. You're saying things, but they don't match the context.

You understand that both the PS3 and PS4 can maintain their own client simultaneously, right? They've done this before with EVE -- used two completely different clients to both access the same game world. A classic and a premium client. It can be done, as long as certain game-altering effects are disabled to accommodate the PS3 users in "classic" game modes.

And most certainly, PS3 users would probably be barred from the larger player-count style matches, but seriously WHO CARES. They won't be missing anything they don't already have, and they can always play 16 vs 16 lagtastic skirmish mode on their crappy PS3. Anyone who is serious about competition probably falls into the "getting a PS4" demographic.