211
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2024
211 points (99.1% liked)
PC Gaming
8559 readers
605 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If they only released RDR on PS3, this explanation might make sense as the engine would be heavily optimised for PS3. But they also released on Xbox 360, which is the closest console platform to Windows in terms of architecture. It wouldn't have been that expensive to port.
I think there must be a degree of truth to the spaghetti code backstory, otherwise Rockstar would've just ported it already and raked in the cash
The one thing that could cause serious porting pain would be the need to support high/variable frame rates. That could require a whole bunch of code to be refactored.
To windows, sure. But the 360 and PS3 have PowerPC processors while PCs and modern consoles have a very different architecture (x86). And porting to that is more effort.
That applies to all ports from PS3 then, doesn't it?
Of course. But usually you’re not porting 14 y/o spaghetti code