Cliffy B and Epic claim they are done with the PC, consoles primary focus from here

I really coudn't care less about Epic leaving the PC. What have they released for PC lately? A port of an XBox 360 game and a rubbish FPS that's hated by almost everyone. Pfft.
 
Don't know why everyone is hating on UT3. It's a definite improvement on the series, IMO. The vehicles are some of the best I've ever seen in any game.

Also, the price difference between PC and console games is generally a moot point. I buy my consoles to play console exclusives games. I buy PC hardware to play shooters and RTS mostly.

I cannot play Uncharted, Ratchet, Gran Turismo 5, Super Mario Galaxy, Smash Brothers Brawl, Halo 3, or Mass Effect (until May) on the PC. The reverse is true as well...I cannot play STALKER, WoW, StarCraft 2 on the consoles (and will not play shooters or RTS on the console given an alternative PC version). Buy the systems to play the games you want, not for financial reasons.

Also, consoles nowadays generally have a much larger amount of AAA titles as opposed to the PC.

Myself, I can't live without either. I own a Wii, PS3, DS, PSP, and gaming rig, and use all of them extensively.
 
I am sure the PC gamign will never die compeltely. Even the cheapest computer today has the capacity to play quake, but even if you are a smart and savy computyer user, you're ignorant if you think that the vast capabilities of the PC and the users that take advantage of that are nothing but a small fraction of consumers.

This isn't an attribute of the PC itself but the people who use it, functionally the PC is no different because of it.
Click to expand...

My point exactly, people who put a PC under their TV are using it more for movies, music, and games than the bulk of other features available to them. Maybe instead of a $2000 HTPC, a console that integrates many of the media features they want for 1/4 of the price will look more attractive.

The PC isn't dumbed down, it's ever more complex, it's just that more of the features are becoming automated by windows, driver installations and IRQ assignments are all automatic now a days, but the back end is still largely the same, and you can still tweak this stuff manually if you know what you're doing.
Click to expand...

It requires less effort for the user to learn and operate. that was my point. So I will change my phrasing, they are making comsumer electronics and PCs more idiot proof because, in general, consumers don't care about the nuances of tweaking their electronics. they just want it to work.

Whether you stop using your PC for watching media is entirely up to you, I expect some people would prefer to move towards consoles for viewing their multimedia and thats fair enough, but you'll always be able to do it on a PC.

I have my doubts about console hardware cycles shortening, the console business model needs to make the hardware attractive to buyers and as such is sold at a loss, usualy quite a big loss. There needs to be a certain amount of return from game sales before an overall profit is made, this puts a hard cap on the minimum life cycle of consoles, unless the business model changes, in which case you're going to be paying a fair bit more for your console.

I don't see PC upgrades slowing, technology drives technology, it grows at an exponential rate, I find it hard to see it slowing down.
Click to expand...

I agree, that the capability to stream media will be available to PC owners and the ability to play games will be there too, but if the consumers are dumping more money into consoles, the market is going to accomodate them more. It's exactly what is going on right now.

As it stands, consoles cycles are already starting to show signs of shortening. Granted, the core hardware has not changed, as the greatest benefit on consoles is the unified platform shared by all owners, but better revisions of the same consoles are quickly coming out and add-ons being developed. Granted these are just rumors, but predictions have been maed of a new xbox console in the next 2 years or, at the very least, an HD Wii.

The PC is the platform of for developing new technology because it's the most modular. in the past consoles were extremely inflexible, but we have already seen the inclusion of expandable storage in this generation of consoles. Now I doubt consoles are going to add modular GPUs or CPUs, but we are fast approaching the the point where games are not going to push GPU and CPUs to the breaking point, not at 1080p at least.

I dont need a set top box, an audio system, cable, entertainment centre, console, TV, and all that rubbish, i just buy a decent PC and eliminate the rest. It's a much better thing to do in my opinion, but it's not as easily accessible for the average joe, thats why microsoft are coming out with all the new entertainment centre software to make it easier, if people catch on it maybe enough to kill all the other individual components off. Who wants to pay a load of money for a dedicated blu-ray player when you can just grab a blu-ray optical drive for a fraction of the price and whack it in your PC
Click to expand...

So you buy a pc tuner card, computer speakers, a desk, and a monitor. It's all in how you package it. Just because most consumer electronics work by themselves doesn't mean they aren't as a la carte as a computer. While it may be slightly cheaper to buy a blu-ray drive, when you look at DVD players vs. DVD drives the cost differecne becomes negligable. Once player prices taper off the argument may not hold as much water. Also, there is a bit more to a blu-ray player and out of the box it will play movies, not need for software to buy, install, etc.

I really don't argue that the PC is more capable than a console and to whoever mention felt like putting their two cents in, yes I did compare the two. If you the point of your remark was to incinuate that I'm stupid for thinking they share features, then I might compare you to a two year old. Yes, you may share similar reading comprehension and endowments, but you are capabale of much more. My compaison is not so much based on features (even though they do share a couple), but the fact they are indictative of a trend. In reality a HTPC is just a PC in a different case, I understand that, but people want it under their TV for the same reasons they want a console down there. That was really my point. If they could buy a console they included the features they want from a HTPC, then buying an expensive HTPC is kind of moot.

Again, my origianl argument was neither in favor of the PC or the conles, because in the future I don't see either one suceeding without changing. The console is too limited, while the PC goes in too many directions. It really depends on how you want to use it. Right now you buy a PC with all the basic features, the you customize it to your needs, but consumers want to buy the device they can take out of the box and have it do what they want. Granted, maybe everyone will be tech savy enough in the future to eliminate the need for this, but if Best Buy/Geek Sqaud can charge the prices they do for even the most basic computer service, I think that we will see consoles overtaking the PC role as a gaming/media platform. While the PC will remain a platform for productivity and the test bed for technology.

I can't see PC gaming completely dying ever. I agree with this 100%, if the capabiltiy is there, people will still take advantage of it. It's just going to be the enthusiast who takes advantage of all these features. The bulk of comsumers are going to buy the easiest device to use. It's like that right now, but that has not stopped them from continuing to make $600 GPUs for the few that buy them.
 
Noncommittal said:
My point exactly, people who put a PC under their TV are using it more for movies, music, and games than the bulk of other features available to them. Maybe instead of a $2000 HTPC, a console that integrates many of the media features they want for 1/4 of the price will look more attractive.
Click to expand...

You do realize that you can build a truly great HTPC with 100% of the features of a traditional system easily for $500? a good ole quad core version for not much more? I really do wish that people would stop overstating the costs involved with building a computer.

This isn't about being "slightly cheaper"; this is about being not only significantly cheaper, but also vastly more effective to someone that would actually notice the difference (i.e. those willing to put a little time in building the machine to their own specs).

Lets be realistic here: you're exhibiting extremely poor grammar, atrocious spelling, and what appears to be a penchant for overstating facts. Ignoring the entire point of this thread: I'm annoyed that people like you with as little respect for the discussion bother to post.
 
Well, with the recent news, I guess MS is going to be running the PC side of Epic things. I don't think they will let anything show up on 360 that doesn't also go PC.
 
We could debate what a truly great htpc is, but I'll admit $2000 is steep. It's more than the average consumer would pay. However, it's not an uncommon price tag to see attached to pre-built htpc's. Most people don't shop s-mart and build their pc. When htpc are readily available from Dell or at a big box store for $500, then people might see it as a more viable option. Even at that, I assume that $500 price tag does not include peripherals, operating system, or any other software.

Tech savy people and, in this case, pc gamers have trouble understanding why people don't take advantage of pc for gaming or other applications. I wish people did, but it's not the case and I don't see it changing. I deal with a support call just about everyday and it's usually something simple that people are too scared or confused to handle themselves. These are what I assume the average consumer is like.

I thought the point of this thread was developers switching their focus from pc to console. My point being that while consoles games are often lack compared to many pc games, eventually we may see consoles approach the pc in power and their ability to support a better gaming experience. I think we are starting to see this with UT3 for the PS3, which has mod support and the add-on content that has become common for consoles.

Realistically, I'm exhibiting poor grammar, atrocious typing, and terrible spelling. This is a message board though.
 
My gaming PC cost about $500. It can run just about any game at 640x480 (like the Wii) at far more than 60fps. It can run most games at 1280x720 (PS3/360) around that much. But what really makes it appealing to me is that I can run games at 1920x1080 at whatever speed my video card can handle... and it is upgradable.
 
Cliffy B. is indeed a whiny bitch, but truth be told, there's definitely a lot to be said for why so many are switching to consoles. The technology is increasing, and PC's are becoming more of a pain to deal with as time goes on.

Here's a post I just dropped on the very issue: http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1032090073&postcount=12.

I'll included it below as well (for convenience, not to spam), in case any intelligent folks with open minds want to have a read in this thread, since it's relevant to both:

There are some seriously skewed perspectives on both sides of the fence.

Here's a "rant" that some intelligent folks should agree with. As for the rest... eh...

1) I agree that, if devs would start putting a little more effort into actually creating more quality games (for PC, specifically) that they'd see better sales figures.

2) I disagree that it's all that easy to pirate console games, as I've known people to attempt it in the past, and no, it's not that easy. It's not easy by any means to crack a console game and upload it onto the net (w/o getting caught as well) in a format that others can download, burn to a disc and be able to play on their console. Or to crack it and burn it for someone else. The whole process is very difficult, takes a lot of work, different programs and a lot of know-how, and I doubt that those who claim that it's "easy" and that the frequency will "increase" as PC gaming "dies out" have ever attempted it themselves or known anyone who has, hence have no basis for this ridiculous continuing argument.

I, for one, have never attempted it, nor have I ever pirated anything ever, period. But I've known quite a few highly intelligent and very "technically advanced" people in the past who have, and it's neither "easy", nor convenient to do so.

3) I disagree that piracy, while becoming more prevalent around the world, is hurting game sales for the PC to the point that so many seem to be "jumping ship", but has more to do with the fact that devs and publishers believe there is more money in consoles at this point. The whole piracy thing seems to be almost more of a "saving face" tactic, in order to cover up the "sheep mentality" of people following in the footsteps of those they believe are making more money that they themselves might be missing out on.

4) I agree that problems with compatibility with OS's, third-party software etc. is becoming a pain in the ass for devs who have multiple OS's to contend with, namely XP and Vista. I've seen more complaints and problems with Vista then I've ever seen with XP, and I've never had a problem running any game (or any software) on XP, though I know of far too many people who have had issues with a far too many things with Vista. I believe that this is a major issue for devs, especially considering that no one knows where the future of OS's is going, and while Microsoft is pushing away from XP in the near future, that I believe they also realize how much of a pain in the ass Vista has been for a lot of people. Hence, who knows what changes will be made in the future? That's something I feel devs are starting to really consider, I feel, the uncertainly of the future of OS's, where as with consoles, for every generation, they know with what they're contending. As opposed to the continual OS and software compatibility problems in general, updates that change things etc.

5) I agree that the console market is definitely getting bigger, and that perhaps people who frequent enthusiast websites and forums such as these, need to start looking outside the little box they tend to limit their vision to. While most people own some form (laptop or desktop) of a PC these days, the truth be told, there are not nearly the number of people building PC's as are buying and gaming on consoles.

Over the last decade, I most certainly shifted my attention to PC gaming, especially being primarily into FPS, and taught myself how to build gaming rigs, "gut" Windows in order to run better etc. etc. and as many little intricacies of computers as I can continue to learn. However, there are not as many people as it might seem in the world who can or are even able to do such things. That leads to them being unhappy with their gaming experience on PC. That leads to people moving towards consoles.

Many people buy pre-built systems with Vista installed etc. etc. (no, I'm not bashing it, but Vista has indeed been a major problem --thus far-- for far too many people) and have difficulties getting things to run properly. They don't know how, if there's even a way, to fix the issues. Again, another scenario of why PC gaming is indeed declining.

6) Both piracy and the shift to consoles is also growing due to the pain-in-ass anti-piracy measures that most devs/publishers have really begun hammering down with in recent times. No one wants that bullshit invasive garbage software on their systems, and it's caused more fucking problems and headaches then anything. All the DRM/SecuROM bullshit has fucked with more people than can even be mentioned, and is really turning people off to PC gaming.

And yes, piracy IS fucking stealing. I'm sick of that bullshit childish and ignorant argument as well. Someone else created it, named it, packaged it and released it. They own the IP, the technology and the game's content. If they wanted to give it away for free, they would. If they put it up for sale, and have Copyrighted all aspects of the creation, they fucking own it. If you pirate it, you're stealing. Maybe it's just because I'm a rational adult with a family that I see things this way... ... or maybe it's because we live in a world of selfish, deceitful, cheap and far-too-ballsy hairless apes, that so many degenerates don't see piracy as stealing.

Anyway...

I don't believe these methods were implemented so much because devs/publishers were losing quite as much money as they've claimed (though they've definitely lost money), but more as a "prophylactic" and "moral" measure with which to "strike back" at those who do indeed pirate games. I believe some money has definitely been lost due to piracy, as well as the measures they then began implementing, as well as due to the fact that less and less people are willing or able to fork out the kind of cash it takes to build a good gaming rig.

I've built a plethora of gaming rigs over the years, and at minimum, you're talking around $1,200/$1,500 for a decent mid-range gaming rig. I've been through it a million times, and I've gotten some of the best deals around, and for something to run decent, that's really the bottom dollar. Doing this shit is a little more expensive than some people tend to argue. You figure (rough low estimates) around $150-$200 for a decent mobo, $200-$400+ for a decent GPU, $120+ for a decent case, $100+ for decent RAM, $190+ for a decent monitor, $150+ for a decent PSU, plus all the misc shit like coolers, drives etc. etc. you're already up to $1,000+. Again, these are low, low estimates.

The system I'm running cost me around $2,000+ to build, and it's not even the "highest-end" possible, though it is high-end. Not many people can/are willing to fork out that kind of money to build a system, and learn all the intricacies of building such, just to be able to game at such quality. However, anything lower can seriously impair said gaming experience. Again, another strike against PC gaming at this point, especially vs consoles.

With consoles, it's a few hundred bucks for everything you need, and you're set to go. Plus, no software/hardware compatibility issues. No bullshit DRM's fucking with your system. Etc. etc. ad-fucking-nauseum.

I love building and gaming on PC's, absolutely. There are definitely more advantages in terms of visuals and performance. No arguments on that here.

But the bottom line is that, at this point, PC gaming has more going against it than for it at this point. Plain and simple. I don't like it, but hey, reality is reality.

Sure, console games cost more to buy, but you don't have to worry about it working (generally speaking, not considering the 659 red rings of death I've gotten on my X360) right out of the box. Pop it in and go, and that's it. And if you've a nice LCD or plasma TV to go with that, you're all set.

I'm not defending this guy's, or anyone else's, "pounding" on PC games, gamers and the whole piracy issue. But truth be told, it makes sense why so many are pushing hardcore towards consoles now. While there might be some "resurgence" of PC gaming in the future, with as far as consoles have and are coming, truthfully, it's doubtful.

There's already a very noticeable decline in the number of PC games beginning, and even decent ones at that (with a few exceptions), and I wouldn't expect it to get any better.

Personally, with all the bullshit involved with OS's, software, hardware etc. these days, and the cost of keeping up with the high-end gaming I prefer to do on PC, I'm starting to get sick of it all, and almost welcome a push forward in console technology and usability.
Click to expand...
 
I think desktops are dead, lapops, mids and phones like xperia are the way forward, fuck pc gaming, bring a decent browser/office app/photoshop to the ps3 and 360 and lets say goodbye to windows/apple desktops!
 
fuckum. PC have been around longer and will be around alot longer then any of these consoles for starters there is a MASSIVE industry behind PC (how many mobo makers, how many sndcard makers....) then look at how makes a PS3 or an Xbox-360 and how much they can be extended...

Sure gaming on the PC "may" take a dive BUT that dive has come about due to piss-poor management of game developement (I mean take EA pushing out severly buggy games...) or no realy evolvement in games (again take EA... how many sim's are they gonna roll out)

every now and again some fresh comes along (spore should be good) as well as dev's taking pride over getting their product done (quakewars was very playable on release)


IF Epic leave PC's and go fully console they are not suddenly going to change their ways and they will do what they do and when console gamers finally get hacked off with Epic (or EA... how many maddens of Fifa and how many bugs) what are they going todo

"console gaming is dead, we are going to PC's" question is are pc ppl gonna take them back


fuck-um
 
Rash said:
I think desktops are dead, lapops, mids and phones like xperia are the way forward, fuck pc gaming, bring a decent browser/office app/photoshop to the ps3 and 360 and lets say goodbye to windows/apple desktops!
Click to expand...

HAH!

You do realize that consoles, at the macro level, are just castrated PC parts cobbled together in a box (in other words, they're essentially desktops)? The only difference being that the same old hardware will be used for 5+ years, while a PC will continue to grow and evolve (in other words, become less expensive, grow in feature set and capabilities, and increase in performance).

Could you even imagine how slow it would be to do any kind of 3D/Video/Audio rendering/encoding/decoding on those things? Hell, would there be anything fueling the development of console hardware if desktops aren't continuing to evolve? What would be driving costs downward?
 
Rash said:
I think desktops are dead, lapops, mids and phones like xperia are the way forward, fuck pc gaming, bring a decent browser/office app/photoshop to the ps3 and 360 and lets say goodbye to windows/apple desktops!
Click to expand...

Pr0n shall prevail!!

RAWLR!!!
 
Rash said:
I think desktops are dead, lapops, mids and phones like xperia are the way forward, fuck pc gaming, bring a decent browser/office app/photoshop to the ps3 and 360 and lets say goodbye to windows/apple desktops!
Click to expand...


Nothing says fun like doing spreadsheets and 'chops on the couch! What you are stating is that companies should just continue to push consoles to be what PC's already are. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. Or as in Trekers would say, it's a Horivaccui(sp?)....a question that has no answer.
 
Ugh well gone round in circles with this one, i think put simply my thoughts are:

1) PC gaming isn't going to die because there's always people who are willing to pay more for a better experience. Plus games development is all done on the PC.
2) Consoles would be screwed if PC gaming died, the business model doesn't allow companies like Nvidia and AMD to make enough money from 5-6 year cycles, consoles currently piggy back off the advances made in PC gaming during the years between their development.

In other words PC gaming is desireable no matter what side of the fence you're on.
 
LOL! I got the 360 version of gears, and have to say the pc version is much better. I love both UT3, and Gears on the pc......
 
A few questions.

Why when comparing costs, do people always require the PC to be uber 1337 and run the games at maximum settings on an ungodly resolution with a minimum of 100fps? This is when console games barely can run at 720p (1280x720) at 30 fps with what would be medium settings on the PC title without antialiasing and only bilinear filtering?

Take Call of Duty 4, and we'll assume it runs at 720p. I'll even require the PC to have steeper settings than the console and run @ 1280x1024.

A PC System which can run on max settings @ 30fps:

(Prices by NewEgg)

Intel Core Duo 6600 ($230)
MB ($100)
2 GB RAM ($75)
120 GB HD ($45)
Case w/ 420 Watt Power Supply ($40)
ATI 2600XT 256 MB ($90)

That's $580.

You also have to realize that consoles mostly start off as loss leaders, and make up their money in games (and the XBox and PS3 only recently got passed this stage). Now, the XBox Pro (which has a much smaller HD) costs $350. Let's even forget that if you get a PS3 it's going to be more expensive, and if you want extra controllers, more expensive, or if you want an HDMI cable, even more expensive, and if you throw in XBox Live Gold... Console games cost at least $10 more than their PC counterparts.

And why when people bring up costs do they assume that you'll just happen to already own the 120" LCD with 7.1 Bowers & Wilkins Home Theater system, yet when it comes to computers, you'll have to rebuy a mouse, keyboard, OS, 14" monitor, cheap tinny speakers, plywood computer desk, chair, and the house to play it in (all @ 10x retail cost of course)?

As for computer games, they're only recently going down in popularity from a few years ago, but are way up in popularity over a decade ago. In 1992, Civilization was one of the first computer games that broke a million copies on the PC. Consoles on the other hand? Just a small unknown title called Super Mario Bros. 3 which sold a measly 18 million copies.

And PC's have been going down in price every year while consoles stay the same (after inflation adjustment). A typical PC when it came out in 1984 cost at minimum $5000 (it would become more expensive if you wanted features such as more RAM or an extra floppy drive, a better video card, or a hard drive). That's $10,000 for a low end PC in todays money. That's more than a decent Alienware computer for a non cost bloated machine. Cost use to be a factor, but that's become irrelevant.
 
Nytegard said:
(Prices by NewEgg)

Intel Core Duo 6600 ($230)
MB ($100)
2 GB RAM ($75)
120 GB HD ($45)
Case w/ 420 Watt Power Supply ($40)
ATI 2600XT 256 MB ($90)

That's $580.
Click to expand...

Swap the E6600 for an E6750 (faster and cheaper) $189 which saves $40 (you could easily drop down to a $124 E4500 for this level system and not notice a difference in gaming). Swap $75 RAM for $41 DDR2-800 (which allows for quite a bit of overclocking headroom). Grab the Gigabyte DS3L for $90. Take that spare ~$80-$145 and spread it between the PSU/Case and videocard. No reason that system shouldn't have something like a 3850/70 or 8800GT.

The system I just made in that paragraph will easily run COD4 @ 1680x1050 at high settings with AA/AF.
 
This thread wins my "most misleading twist on a quote, ever, in the history of the internets" award. Now I don't just hand this out lightly, so grats to you good sir.

In related news, Epic joined the PC Gaming Alliance ripped shamelessly from Blues News.

I dunno why gamers feel the need to split into factions anyway. Who cares? Aren't we all on the same side here? I like to play good games and I don't care what they are on. People can troll about "teh hal0z is besester!" or "MOUZE & KAYBOARD 4 LYFE!", but I personally just like to have fun with my games.

Should games in the future end up only being released to a far off frozen mountaintop arcade, you won't find me on the web complaining. My ass will be tracking down a Sherpa and the world's biggest bag of quarters :)
 
Nytegard said:
A few questions.

Why when comparing costs, do people always require the PC to be uber 1337 and run the games at maximum settings on an ungodly resolution with a minimum of 100fps? This is when console games barely can run at 720p (1280x720) at 30 fps with what would be medium settings on the PC title without antialiasing and only bilinear filtering?

Take Call of Duty 4, and we'll assume it runs at 720p. I'll even require the PC to have steeper settings than the console and run @ 1280x1024.

A PC System which can run on max settings @ 30fps:

(Prices by NewEgg)

Intel Core Duo 6600 ($230)
MB ($100)
2 GB RAM ($75)
120 GB HD ($45)
Case w/ 420 Watt Power Supply ($40)
ATI 2600XT 256 MB ($90)

That's $580.

You also have to realize that consoles mostly start off as loss leaders, and make up their money in games (and the XBox and PS3 only recently got passed this stage). Now, the XBox Pro (which has a much smaller HD) costs $350. Let's even forget that if you get a PS3 it's going to be more expensive, and if you want extra controllers, more expensive, or if you want an HDMI cable, even more expensive, and if you throw in XBox Live Gold... Console games cost at least $10 more than their PC counterparts.

And why when people bring up costs do they assume that you'll just happen to already own the 120" LCD with 7.1 Bowers & Wilkins Home Theater system, yet when it comes to computers, you'll have to rebuy a mouse, keyboard, OS, 14" monitor, cheap tinny speakers, plywood computer desk, chair, and the house to play it in (all @ 10x retail cost of course)?

As for computer games, they're only recently going down in popularity from a few years ago, but are way up in popularity over a decade ago. In 1992, Civilization was one of the first computer games that broke a million copies on the PC. Consoles on the other hand? Just a small unknown title called Super Mario Bros. 3 which sold a measly 18 million copies.

And PC's have been going down in price every year while consoles stay the same (after inflation adjustment). A typical PC when it came out in 1984 cost at minimum $5000 (it would become more expensive if you wanted features such as more RAM or an extra floppy drive, a better video card, or a hard drive). That's $10,000 for a low end PC in todays money. That's more than a decent Alienware computer for a non cost bloated machine. Cost use to be a factor, but that's become irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Even if they assume you already have the TV, your computer will probably be able to use that and probably better.
 
MattyC said:
.....
Should games in the future end up only being released to a far off frozen mountaintop arcade, you won't find me on the web complaining. My ass will be tracking down a Sherpa and the world's biggest bag of quarters :)
Click to expand...

Dude that sounds like the beginning of an awesome RPG!

Inventory:
Ice Pick
Quarter Bag(500)
Map
 
Only now I read the piece of news, about the "PC Gaming Alliance", which Epic seems to be part of...

http://techreport.com/discussions.x/14185

Is this Cliffy B just retarded or is Epic as a whole retarded ?
I'm betting on the latter, but still saying that they will prioritize consoles nd at the same be a part of the PC Gaming Alliance, is laughable at best. So what will they do ? Even more console ports ?

This is very, very sad...
 
Microsoft is buying Epic. Ofcourse they are jumping ship on pc gaming. Release bad games and blame the market. Gears for pc was a joke. And UT3 was broken out of box and still has its issues.
 
Is anyone at all surprised now by Cliffy B's remarks given they were made shortly before the official announcement of GoW 2?

Uhhh yeah....we arent making enough money with our shitty PC games because of piracy so we are going to focus on consoles, oh by the way GoW 2 will be available on the flop box in 6 months, cha ching!

Its obviously to divert the ire of its PC fanbase (whats left of it).
 
Rash said:
I think desktops are dead, lapops, mids and phones like xperia are the way forward, fuck pc gaming, bring a decent browser/office app/photoshop to the ps3 and 360 and lets say goodbye to windows/apple desktops!
Click to expand...

As soon as I can play a full-featured real-time strategy game on a console, I'll consider jumping ship. Or a FPS with more than a half-dozen actions. Or a real RPG.

And desktops won't be dead until laptops are truly modular and can support all the features a desktop can.

edit: Give me a laptop that will store >1 TB and we'll talk.
 
After taking the time to read the entirety of this thread there is much that I could say concerning this matter. Alas, it has already been said by Hamidxa and those he has quoted. Frosteh, quadnad and others have said it all too well that there's simply no reason for me to chime in now.

No quotes here, but you guys nailed it. +1
 
Fuck Epic and Cliffy B. Their games were never that special IMO anyways.
 
TheToE! said:
Fuck Epic and Cliffy B. Their games were never that special IMO anyways.
Click to expand...
That's a very ignorant statement. They revolutionized the FPS genre with Unreal and Unreal Tournament, which probably a third of the people these days never even touched.
 
rmw[m]arine;1032137152 said:
That's a very ignorant statement. They revolutionized the FPS genre with Unreal and Unreal Tournament, which probably a third of the people these days never even touched.
Click to expand...

Not to disregard the original Unreal and UT, but both were extremely derivative of the Quake series.
 
rmw[m]arine;1032137152 said:
They revolutionized the FPS genre with Unreal
Click to expand...
I recall the original Unreal being a very typical, straightforward shooter not unlike Quake 2, which preceded it by about six months. Graphically, Unreal was very impressive, but it didn't really bring any great technological advances over Quake 2 aside from detail textures, interactive music and lens flares. Speaking of Unreal Tournament, Quake 3 Arena launched a mere 10 days after Unreal Tournament, and both were executions of essentially the same concept (though UT99 was a good deal more complex).

Unreal and UT were about as revolutionary as Q2 and Q3A. In other words: not revolutionary at all, really.
 
OK, so I hear what you're saying and maybe instead of "revolutionized" they more greatly helped evolve the FPS genre.

I still remember reading on the 'net and in magazines like PC Gamer who had the more realistic bots? Q3A or UT? It was a great debate and UT was the prevailing decision amongst mag editors...but close nonetheless.
 
rmw[m]arine;1032137529 said:
OK, so I hear what you're saying and maybe instead of "revolutionized" they more greatly helped evolve the FPS genre.

I still remember reading on the 'net and in magazines like PC Gamer who had the more realistic bots? Q3A or UT? It was a great debate and UT was the prevailing decision amongst mag editors...but close nonetheless.
Click to expand...

To be truthful: who on earth cared who had the most realistic bots when the point of both games was to play online (at least, that was the most important part of the titles)? In my opinion, and I think this is shared with many others, iD's slew of FPSs (ex Q4) revolutionized the genre at the time; both singleplayer and online.
 
quadnad said:
To be truthful: who on earth cared who had the most realistic bots when the point of both games was to play online (at least, that was the most important part of the titles)? In my opinion, and I think this is shared with many others, iD's slew of FPSs (ex Q4) revolutionized the genre at the time; both singleplayer and online.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agreed, but don't forget broadband was not nearly as widespread yet and as capable/fast as it is today. Plenty of people were still dial up. Remember the early CS days? So there was much greater emphasis on bots.

In today's world, of course...nobody cares at all about bots. I'm surprised they're even still there.
 
Steam oh Steam where art thou???

I still like pc gaming, it feels more personal
 
Leepox said:
Steam oh Steam where art thou???

I still like pc gaming, it feels more personal
Click to expand...

Wow.....

ThreadNecromancer.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top