![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
PC gaming is not dying so says Valves Doug Lambardi
- Thread starter samduhman
- Start date
phide and silus,
1) Without spending a lot of time going over the history of gaming, which I'm sure you could find anywhere, I think that if you look at how video gaming started, you'll see arcade machines and other single-game console-esque devices. Even if consoles and PC's emerged at the same time, my point was that the market is not the PC's by any right, which was being implied. As far as games go, I think you'll certainly find both similar and dissimilar games through the entire history - you can't pin this down with a blanket "PC games were this and console games were that, and now consoles are just taking our games".
You are also saying why would they buy the PC version, if they've already played it on a console.... well, then you're obviously playing games on multiple platforms, so what do you care?
You're basically trying to say that games that are going cross-platform and/or console-centric are ruining the "PC platform" in general. Yet then Silus says he votes with his wallet and doesn't buy them, which I think is the right thing to do. So, what's the problem? You really wanted that game to not suck? Is that what you're saying? I don't think there are a lot of these games, which is why I asked the question before and no one answered.
2) Regardless of my example, the issue is not a platform issue, and development costs are a console problem moreso or at least just as much as, a PC problem. And to say that console gamers have less expectations for innovation is silly. Where are you getting that? No way.
This sequel argument has no basis, either. I'm waiting eagerly for my fifth or sixth Half Life title.
I disagree this theoretical GTA5 thing, but if that did happen, why? Because the game has such universal appeal and is a great game? Why do YOU think?
1) Without spending a lot of time going over the history of gaming, which I'm sure you could find anywhere, I think that if you look at how video gaming started, you'll see arcade machines and other single-game console-esque devices. Even if consoles and PC's emerged at the same time, my point was that the market is not the PC's by any right, which was being implied. As far as games go, I think you'll certainly find both similar and dissimilar games through the entire history - you can't pin this down with a blanket "PC games were this and console games were that, and now consoles are just taking our games".
You are also saying why would they buy the PC version, if they've already played it on a console.... well, then you're obviously playing games on multiple platforms, so what do you care?
You're basically trying to say that games that are going cross-platform and/or console-centric are ruining the "PC platform" in general. Yet then Silus says he votes with his wallet and doesn't buy them, which I think is the right thing to do. So, what's the problem? You really wanted that game to not suck? Is that what you're saying? I don't think there are a lot of these games, which is why I asked the question before and no one answered.
2) Regardless of my example, the issue is not a platform issue, and development costs are a console problem moreso or at least just as much as, a PC problem. And to say that console gamers have less expectations for innovation is silly. Where are you getting that? No way.
This sequel argument has no basis, either. I'm waiting eagerly for my fifth or sixth Half Life title.
I disagree this theoretical GTA5 thing, but if that did happen, why? Because the game has such universal appeal and is a great game? Why do YOU think?
Hah. Well ya but those graphically intenstive mmo's aren't as successful as lower requirment games are (WoW, Guildwars, Lineage)
the 360 version looked as good as the PC version and still holds up to many of today's MMOs. Just saying.
I do know that NCsoft is working on MMOs for the PS3.
damonposey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,320
the fact that you ARE running it on your 18 month old hardware at 2560x1600 shows you how slow video card technology has been progressing over the past 2 years. Which is in direct correlation to the smaller amount of cutting edge graphic games coming out for the PC.
people wonder what ATI/nvidia are doing, why the 8800gtx is still high-end, well they don't need to make any leaps and bounds right now because cutting edge graphics in PC games is slowing down as mmorpgs become the preferred genre in PC gaming and as Sony and MS secure exclusive rights to future games by paying developers to make games for them.
people wonder what ATI/nvidia are doing, why the 8800gtx is still high-end, well they don't need to make any leaps and bounds right now because cutting edge graphics in PC games is slowing down as mmorpgs become the preferred genre in PC gaming and as Sony and MS secure exclusive rights to future games by paying developers to make games for them.
Yeah, and the people who do all of those things first will get the $ for doing it, so that's I'm saying who cares what the console copies. The console will bring those innovations to a different market. Which is why the whole "war" is irrelevant.
Sorry in advance about the quote soup, but it's necessary here...
Not true at all. Look at Portal, for instance, which was probably the most innovative PC release in the last year. Extremely popular and well-received by PC gamers, being critized mainly only because of its length. You can expect the same response with Spore, another innovative PC game, only magnified by a factor of (probably) ten.
...on the PC? I don't know what you mean.
In order of dwindling popularity on the PC side, though naturally that has a lot to do with each being successively 'worse' as the series gets stale due to lack of innovation. They're id games with great graphics, so they sell well.
Doom 3 sold well, but critical response was average. The game was solid but boringly uninnovative (there's that word again). I think that, today, more Doom/Doom 2 WADs are released than Doom 3 maps, so that's something
I for one can't explain that. I've always though the CoD series was generally average.
I'm probably the biggest Fallout fan here, and I never really wanted a Fallout 3. I was content with the series after FO2. I'm more pissed at the fact that Troika isn't making FO3 than I am that it's being made primarily as a console game.
I think this has to do more with publishers wanting sequels for proven IPs than PC gamers wanting sequels, as I said before. I frankly don't give a shit about "a new Doom game" as much as I give a shit about "a new id game", which is why Rage is very much more on my radar than Doom 4. I like certain developers, and I prefer that developers keep things fresh with new IPs, not sequels.
Yes and no.
Yes, I wanted a certain game not to suck, because I wanted to buy it. And as a PC Gamer, I wanted to buy it because 1) It's a sequel for a game I liked 2) The game showed potential in demo tech videos and/or the demo itself.
No, because even if I didn't want the game, a pattern is showing and as more developers start to shift interests, more will follow if nothing is done to show how wrong they are. And my hobby will certainly be restricted to just a couple of good games in a very short time frame, if this keeps up. Console ports are the TRUE reason why PC Gaming is suffering so much. As you said, the PC Gaming market is not decreasing, but I say the quality of the games is.
I'll say it again. PC Gamers are ONLY asking for the same quality standards they had before "next-gen" consoles appeared, which is really not much to ask. Developers can continue catering to console gamers as much as they want. We only want games designed for PCs and NOT games designed for consoles and then ported to the PC. That makes no sense and is hurting PC Gaming.
OK, first, what game? Second, if it's only ONE game, we're not talking about an epidemic here.
Understand that developers don't get paid by how much people LIKE their games, they get paid by how many people BUY their games. Cross-platformization for broadly appealing genres may be inevitable, but the crappy console port syndrome is not something I'm worried about, because NO ONE IS PAYING FOR IT. The games I want are on the PC, and why would publishers stop making those games available when there is most certainly a market for them? That's bad business.
I won't touch on your other points, as we just have some differences of opinion, but I'll tackle your question:
I honestly don't think the hype and popularity of the series is proportionate to the degree of innovation (or lack thereof), or even the overall quality. The popularity at this point is like a katamari: Rockstar has this ball rolling and it's just getting bigger because it's getting bigger, not because what they're building upon is all that great or all that interesting in my opinion.
For whatever reason, GTA4's popularity just gives me this "hey, it's cool to like this game, and you suck if you aren't into it" sort of vibe, and that just bothers me.
Of course sequels are just as prevalent on PCs as they are on consoles, but that isn't the point I was making.
GTA4's a solid game. I think the same of the entire series save for San Andreas, which I thought was a pointless departure from what the series had established with the first few games (and not an interesting departure), but you have to admit the series is getting pretty stale. Sequels are being released; landmasses are getting bigger; graphics are getting better, but are we doing anything differently? Sure, we can fly planes now (GTA3), and we couldn't do that before (GTA2); we can fly helicopters and ride motorcycles now (Vice City), and we couldn't do that before (GTA3); we can go to the gym and work out now (San Andreas), and we couldn't do that before (Vice City), but are these games really advancing in any meaningful direction? Rockstar's slapping a fresh coat of paint on a tired old foundation and everyone is absolutely psyched about it.
I honestly don't think the hype and popularity of the series is proportionate to the degree of innovation (or lack thereof), or even the overall quality. The popularity at this point is like a katamari: Rockstar has this ball rolling and it's just getting bigger because it's getting bigger, not because what they're building upon is all that great or all that interesting in my opinion.
For whatever reason, GTA4's popularity just gives me this "hey, it's cool to like this game, and you suck if you aren't into it" sort of vibe, and that just bothers me.
I didn't try to and discount the reason why they were made, no. They were made because sequels tend to be safe bets for publishers and PC gamers generally have an interest in the continuation of good IPs. That's obvious. That says nothing about PC gamers being more receptive to new IPs from major developers (which I stated was just my thought, so you can't really say it 'holds no weight'), which was my original point.
Of course sequels are just as prevalent on PCs as they are on consoles, but that isn't the point I was making.
damonposey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,320
If you want to talk about slapping a new coat of paint on an old concept, look no further than PC gaming's most lucrative flagships, the mmorpgs. These have hardly changed in formula since everquest. And people will be eating them up for years to come.
Do you play MMORPG's?
damonposey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,320
Not since ultima online in 99
That about says it
damonposey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,320
'it' being something strange and cryptic only edborden will understand in his strange little mind.
but seriously I know what you're saying. I haven't played an mmorpg since 99 so I can't possibly know all the features in current mmorpgs. well I do because I have friends that have played many mmorpgs up until now, and I do participate in betas they drag me into, but its all the same. when I say I haven't played an mmorpg since 99, I mean I haven't played one for more than a few days.
The main gameplay element that hasn't changed which has diluted the experience for me is the fact that there are different realms/servers for PVP and role playing. Keeping everyone together was what made the gameplay exciting. Now its the same from game to game. That's just one gameplay element, I could go on and on about the rest.
but seriously I know what you're saying. I haven't played an mmorpg since 99 so I can't possibly know all the features in current mmorpgs. well I do because I have friends that have played many mmorpgs up until now, and I do participate in betas they drag me into, but its all the same. when I say I haven't played an mmorpg since 99, I mean I haven't played one for more than a few days.
The main gameplay element that hasn't changed which has diluted the experience for me is the fact that there are different realms/servers for PVP and role playing. Keeping everyone together was what made the gameplay exciting. Now its the same from game to game. That's just one gameplay element, I could go on and on about the rest.
Simpson5774
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2005
- Messages
- 2,937
Well, ill give you a perfect case study of the console market killing the quality of a pc game, I know there is more than one, but it all goes down the same lines profit > quality.
Rainbow six, is a series of books, it is also a series of games. I have played every rainbow six from the first one to rainbow six 3 raven shield, with the exception of the last expansion pack to come from out of rouge spear, and the expantion packs coming out of rainbow six 3.
The game rainbow six, was a first person shooter with a focus on tactics and strategy, it was different from other FPSes because you didn't actually get a picture of a guy holding a gun infront of your monitor, but other aspects of the game made up for this. Later they did add the standard guy holding gun models, but thats not the point.
My point is, it was successful for a pc game, both rainbow six and R6: rouge spear. Yeah sure they rehashed those games multiple times to maximize profit, but the product was good. I used to play it multiplayer all the time, especially with the nato mod.
Rainbow six 3 comes along, its based off the unreal 2 engine. Now I haven't played it since it came out for the pc, and I never finished it, but the game was quality, just like the other installments.
But then they ported it to the xbox.
But they didn't copy + paste port, they changed it around (much like what happened with far cry, which is another example of consoles spawning crap from quality pc games)
First, the game wasn't called rainbow six 3: raven shield like the pc games because it had shifted the content around, and you no longer had control of assembling a team, and you had less control of controlling their movements in game, and the game had a different plot. They also made it much harder for you to die as a result of getting shot in that game.
The whole game was dumbed down for the console user, and downloadable content was added, which made the console version more profitable than the pc version. Thus rainbow six vegas, which just sucked in relation to the previous pc games, and was dumbed down even more.
Rainbow six now is nothing like it was before, the game used to be about tactics, now its about downloadable content, and rehashing the same game over and over again. They took a quality pc game, put it on the console, which killed the level of quality and detail that the pc game once had.
It should be noted the first two rainbow six series, R6 and rouge spear were made my red storm games, where as rainbow six 3 and beyond was made by ubisoft because they took control over red storm.
Rainbow example, just one example of a high quality pc game, selling out to the consoles, and in return has become a different game all together, one not deserving of the rainbow six name.
While Portal was great and very innovative, but we don't know if it would have stood alone since it was bundled. And no you pretty much had to buy the bundle unless you really didn't care about Episode 2 or Team Fortress at all which was pretty unlikely.
I don't know man. I don't see much in the way of innovation for pc gaming either. I mean it's there but it's not like a PC gamer can truly say it's the home of it.
Unless I'm confused your saying the PC version of GTA 4 will sell well and see a plenty of threads on it too. I could be confused. Just stating it GTA doesn't sell that well on the pc anymore
http://pc.ign.com/articles/871/871415p1.html
lawl, you say your gaming experience is diluted become there are too many realms and people can't be together...newsflash buddie, 1 WoW server can hold 30,000 players. WoW has over 10 million subscribers, it's impossible to fit them all on the same server. You play MMO with your friends, and I don't think you have more than 30,000 friends, if any. Transfering between realms is also easy as hell. You haven't even played a MMO since 99 so don't judge, you just sound like an idiot.
And when you take something like religion into a thread like this, it will offend alot of people.
You just need to stop talking and GTFO.
damonposey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,320
If you think the reason they made separate realms for PVP and roleplaying in games was because of space then its you who is clueless and doesn't know your mmorpg history very well.
These rules, and basically the 'padding' of current mmorpgs is all because the complainers that couldn't play the game without getting killed, or lost their items and cried about it..
Current mmorpgs are a linear, boring journey that protect people from anything thats remotely inconvenient. These people will never experience certain rushes you get only experienced when you put yourself and/or your items or experience at risk. All so that the user can remain happy and keep paying their bill as they grind away in a padded cell. It reminds me of the matrix actually.
I'm not saying mmorpgs are terrible, some people prefer the blue pill, I'm just saying it is watered down.
Also your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired, because if you could read properly, you would see that I've tried many mmorpgs since 99. thanks for playing.
You haven't played an MMO for more than a day or two since 1999, 16 million MMO subscribers disagree, and everything you say is negative and combative. I doubt at this point you're carrying much weight. I swear, you're like a perfect example of the anonymous internet troll in action.
Playing a MMO and trying one is completely different. Endgame is what MMOs are about, and you have not had the chance to experience any of it. So again, don't judge.
It's cute how you make every one of your replies an essay. However, you horribly fail at all of them. The matrix? LOL.
Please show me a server that has enough space to fit 10 million people, and go and actually play an MMO, then come back with your head out of your ass. Until you provide your unbiased opinion, you just continue to offend people.
damonposey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,320
they don't disagree, they are just too sucked into the game to care that its not an exciting or challenging game. they are too busy grinding. like I said, its like the matrix. many people live their lives in this contained world and never give it a second thought because its so addictive.
"PC gaming is like the matrix, people are addicated to games, therefore it is dying. And the matrix is the rox0rz."
Dude, just gtfo.
damonposey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,320
Wrong. Again, I have friends who play them, most of them are at endgame. I know whats there.
I don't know why people keep bringing up server space, when I'm just talking about mmorpg rules. uhh, keep talking about it I suppose, if it makes you happy, its just not relevant to anything.
PVP rules were set in place because of whining players. modern MMORPGS are catered to people who hate risk. so while its a jolly old time, all the time, you miss out on a lot of rushes associated with risk.
And it looks like SoulX just made up a strange quote and told himself to GTFO. this is entertaining at least.
I'm sorry your feeble mind can not comprehend that I pretty much summed up everything you have said in that quote.
You're the one that needs to stay on topic. You start talking about how you hate MMOs because there are different realms, because "we're meant to be together", LOL. You don't know today's MMOs world and admitted yourself you have not played a single MMO since 99' religiously. Having friends that play them doesn't mean shit. Sounds to me the only MMO you have even touched is WoW, because that's all you cry about in your posts. WoW is not the only MMO smart one.
And lastly, I'm pretty sure the comment about religion you foolishly made is a bannable offense.
Sixthsense
I Suck Fat Ones
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2001
- Messages
- 3,262
It's funny that you mention that. I was an avid player of the Rainbow Six series on the Zone. Before Vegas was released, they even asked on the Ubisoft forums what users wanted feature wise. Well the masses spoke and unfortunately the health regen was implemented and the omission of limping when shot was omiited. It's still a good game, but nothing remotely close to what the orginal series was like
A good point. I think Valve probably didn't believe it could really stand well-enough on its own either, hence the Orange Box. It's an adventurous idea, so I can't say I blame them for doing the bundle tactic.
Still, bundle or not, it's impressive to see an innovative, unusual game that's so well received as Portal was. It sort of restored my faith in PC gaming a bit.
What I meant was that GTA4 probably won't have much of a reception on the PC, and we'll see very little hype about it. I don't know what exactly that says, especially considering we see the PC ports around six months after the console launch, but I think it says something about the PC audience versus the console audience. GTA PC ports tend to be fairly good as far as ports go, but there tends to be very little excitement about the PC releases. Just something I find curious given how much hype surrounds their releases on the consoles.
8800GTX isn't high end, it hasn't been for a while, the 9800GX2 is about 30% faster, and thats before we touch on SLI and Crossfire. We have new cards arriving in about a month which puts this full cycle at approx 18 months which is more or less what the major development cycles have been for as long as I can remember. There are still plenty of gaming (inc AoC, an MMO) which I cannot play at max settings with max AA/AF at 2560x1600, or even 1920x1200 for that matter.
AoC specifically is very system intensive, I couldn't run in high settings at 2560x1600 I had to drop 1-2 things down, and thats before we consider running at settings that are higher than "high". Besides MMOs typically had low graphical expectations because they render an unusualy large number of players in one area at one time, so they have to scale well.
I'm sorry but I just dont see any real evidence that advancement is slowing down, the rumoured power of the new Nvidia cards is 2x the speed of last gen which is a big leap, the 8800 range was 2x the speed of the 7800 range and that was an unusualy big jump.
They will bring to the market AFTER the PC has done all the R&D and developed it and they can just copy it. My point still remains that they're just trailing behind feeding off of the innovations that PC gamers pay for. If PC gaming just upped and dissapeared tomorrow consoles would have to bear the costs of the development of the hardware, all the R&D costs over the 5-6 years they're not selling hardware, that is a LOT of cash they simply dont have.
The problem is they hijack our decent and well loved franchises and cheapen them, consoles can do whatever the fuck they want with their own IP that they've dreamed up, but can they please stay away from the PC intelectual property, it's just a crying shame to see franchises like Deus Ex, Theif, System Shock (Bioshock), Fallout, Elder scrolls, Unreal Tournament, all drop in quality because the console newbs wanted a slice of the delicious well made PC pie.
They tailored the game for the masses to make it more sucessful, why must a game be inconvenient to be good? This is just elitsm shining through again as it so frequently does. If you want harsh game rules why dont you just artifically impose your own, give away 1/2 your gold to a random person if you die, or something like that.
Most people play for fun, to relax and spend a few hours escaping from real life, thats why servers are broken down to begin with, not everyone wants the harsh challenge of PvP, new players and those who want a more relaxed experience just shouldn't have to put up with the lame ganking that goes on with PvP.
It seems like maybe you have a hard time seeing things from other peoples point of view, the below demonstrates this well
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean others dont. You even admit that they're happy doing that, why isn't that enough? Some people just want a nice relaxed experience.
I've lost track of your point at this stage, it just seems like boasting to me, "hay guise i've taken the red pill, i'm free and somehow better" I dunno, we're sorta getting off track here.
I didn't specify any game, because I was generalizing. I apply this line of reasoning to any game that sparks any interest in me. And yes, it's an epidemic alright. Except for Crysis, STALKER and MMORPGs, name me more than a couple of games since 2007, that didn't start on the console first and then ported to the PC, despite the fact they are/were long term PC franchises ?
Liking a game and buying a game has direct correlation with each other, even if not @ 100%. Obviously we are not pirates, so let's put them aside for this discussion. The fact that developers underestimate the target public for their game i.e. public that LIKE their game, is EXACTLY why they are underwhelmed with sales and blame piracy for it. UT3 is the perfect example of Epic's total failure on the PC, which is extremely ironic, since they started on the PC and should know exactly what we wanted. And they still failed miserably. We weren't expecting something "new" from UT3, but we did expect refinement from what was given to us in past titles. UT 2004 with a few additional game modes and better graphics was not asking for much I guess. When they fail to meet that, why would they expect UT3 to sell well ? The answer is they are retarded! Further indication of how retarded they are, came with their comments about PCs not being suited for games and how they would prioritize consoles from now on, going as far as saying that even if an hypothetical Nintendo next-gen console shows up, they would prioritize it over PCs.
I am worried about the console port epidemic, because I have no answer for the question I placed above. With the exception of a few games, ALL the games in the past year and a half, started on consoles first and were then directly ported to the PC.
One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that a game can't work on a higher standard platform (PC), when the game is developed thinking of the lower standard platform first (console). A game that starts on the higher standard platform however, can be adjusted to fit the lower standard platform easily, but developers fail to grasp this simple concept and still think it's perfectly ok to do the opposite. And if everything fails, blame piracy.
damonposey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,320
flaming. now that's a bannable offense. If you think saying that something reminds me of religion is bannable, you should read the rules again, son.
Anyways, I know how mmorpgs work, I've played them, played my friends characters at some points even. and its all the same. obviously you play one and are offended and are now crying about it. boo hoo.
and If it still sounds to you that the only mmo I've ever touched is WoW, than your reading comprehension is MUCH worse than I previously thought, seeing as I've said in multiple posts I've said I started UO in 99. to drive the knife further in, I'll elaborate on the mmorpgs i have tried.
UO, everquest, anarcy online, shadowbane, final fantasy, and WoW. I'm sure I've played more but didn't know the damn difference because they were so similar.
Now lets see, in your next post, you're going to say something along the lines of, 'uhh you've only played UO, and uhhh, you suck!'. its so stimulating replying to you, takes me back to my childhood.
damonposey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,320
the 8800gtx is still a high-end SINGLE-card solution. no card has made the 8800gtx appear to be slow compared to the rest, thus its still high-end. all these mini-refreshes just mean it isn't the highest of high end. 30% more on a good day, yes, but thats still not much to me. After these new cards arrive, and if they aren't terrible, yeah 8800gtx will be approaching mid-range, but not yet.
I'm hoping id Tech 5 is at least part of the solution and that developers start shying away from other engines/middleware. Obviously, Tech 5 doesn't solve the issue of bad GUIs, poor menu systems and many of the other chief complaints about most console ports, but it should at least make it relatively easy to implement these things differently on a per-platform basis. Hopefully id has a sort of "basic interaction architecture" that's different on each platform by default and basically ready to rock right out of the box, but that's kind of a pipe dream, I admit.
The thing about id is that they tend to be much more selective with engine licensing than Epic or Emergent, so assumably some developers may end up attempting to license Tech 5 but end up being refused the opportunity.
Yeah, it's just blatantly counter-intuitive from pretty much every perspective.
damonposey
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2006
- Messages
- 2,320
you mean, all YOU do is go around the city killing people. the freedom the game allows is refreshing compared to other games, and it has a good storyline too. with a good imagination theres plenty of stuff to do, not to mention multiplayer.
Yeah, id pretty much said so, when they showed id Tech 5. That they are much more selective with licenses of their engines. Unfortunately, I don't think that will help much, but we'll see.
phide said:
Exactly. As a developer myself, I can't understand the logic behind working on consoles first and then port that version to the PC, unless it's cheaper. Someone mentioned it's not cheaper to produce content for consoles, due to license fees, so if that's entirely true, it's definitely not the money factor that influences developers to create console content first, so I'm definitely in the dark in what the real reason is concerned.
But you need to take in advice that MMOs are for people that not play much games, gamers that look for withdrawing from gaming world, and social apathics..
This is not a good indicator when we talk about pc games.
Both of you are saying the same thing, but the problem is that you're saying "they" are doing it, as if the "consoles" or "console users" are somehow screwing up the games. Epic made all of the UT games, including the ones that suck. The same developer made all of the Rainbow Six's (doesn't matter that Ubi bought them), including the ones that the previous poster didn't like. The fact is that it's not the console that's making the crappy game. There are great games for consoles. The developers just are trying different things, they aren't making the exact same game that they did the first time, and sometimes they can't pull it off.
C'mon...
I put together a list:
http://www.edbordenblog.com/2008/05/pc-exclusive-games-list-2007-2008.html
There are actually way more PC exclusives than console exclusives, as far as I can tell. Also, as I'm looking, there aren't that many crappy ports either. UT3, Assassin's Creed aside were crap, I'm sure there are a few more -- but the key games : Bioshock, Gears, COD4, Orange Box are all great on the PC.
C'mon...
I put together a list:
http://www.edbordenblog.com/2008/05/pc-exclusive-games-list-2007-2008.html
There are actually way more PC exclusives than console exclusives, as far as I can tell. Also, as I'm looking, there aren't that many crappy ports either. UT3, Assassin's Creed aside were crap, I'm sure there are a few more -- but the key games : Bioshock, Gears, COD4, Orange Box are all great on the PC.
Wow, that's an amazing blanket statement to make about 16M people. I assume you did a pretty incredible mound of independent research to come up with that.