Sad Days for PC Gaming

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fire488

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
438
Sad Days for PC Gaming

I have been in the market of building a new gaming rig and have been getting excited about the new processor architecture that is about to come out such as SandyBridge. I would only be doing this to have the best PC gaming experience possible. The sad part when I think about it though is that I really don’t need that kind of hardware to play the current console ports. The best the game can render is what the best console can render.

I have been a PC Gamer since the 90’s. I mostly play first person shooters. They are what I enjoy. I have really enjoyed some of the great military style sims that have come out in the 2000’s. Mainly mid 2000’s to clarify. I miss those games and those days of gaming. Last night I played Battlefield 2 for the first time in years. I had forgotten how much fun that game was. It is a true PC game and yes it has its faults, but it blows away recent console ports like Bad Company 2. The graphics from that 6 year old game still look pretty good amazingly. Today’s releases like CoD; black Ops, BC2, have grown old quickly and are boring. To me, all the games feel the same now just on different battlefields. I miss the days of being able to mod or even in some cases repair a game like BF2. This practice keeps a game alive for many years and offers a game developer the opportunity to sell DLC to us. I know the developers look at this differently, but I miss it. Look back at the true PC games and how many PC gamer community mods have been created. PC Gamers may never see those days again.

What do we have today as PC gamers? How has PC gaming evolved over the years for us? The answers to both those questions are directly related to profits maximized by the current game developers. I understand that it’s just business. But since when does that give them the right to release games that are basically beta‘s and patched mid stream to allow them to work on a PC? Let me clarify. Most of the PC games that we play today are what is called console ports; Games that were designed to run optimally on a console and then ported over for use on a PC. The problems that arise from this money saving practice are that PC gamers get a version of a given game that is not really optimized to run on a PC. Case in point was the recent release of Black Ops. That game would not run on dual core processor PC’s. Why? The answer is because no console uses a dual core processor. The PS3 uses multicore and the Xbox 360 uses a tri-core processor. A patch had to be created and basically the game code had to be re-written to run on dual cores. How could a game developer not know of this prior to the release of this game? After all, according to hardware surveys based on Blizzard’s WOW, almost 70% of all PC Gamers are still using dual core! Was anybody at Activision or Treyarch watching? Did they care? The answer is painful to PC gamers, but obvious. Yes! But they do NOT care. According to their own surveys and sales numbers the console games outsell PC games almost 10 to 1. These numbers are based on retail sales. DLC, D2D are NOT counted in these stats so the accuracy of these numbers is skewed a bit. In the end, these game developers have forgotten the PC gamer. The PC gamer put them where they are today and in the position to make 1 billion dollars in sales.

It is much easier and cheaper for a game developer to design and engineer a game to work on a fixed hardware platform as a console offers compared to the multi-hardware configurations offered by the PC gaming world. This trend is not limited to Activision/ Treyarch either because EA/ DICE and many other developers have gone this route. That is why I have been supporting many games from Valve and games like ArmA. I know that some of the Valve games are console ports, but they have grown tremendously popular on the PC and Valve updates them constantly for us. ArmA is the epitome of a “true” PC game and should be supported by all of us. What an immersive experience this game offers and the game looks amazing if you have good PC hardware. Remember the days when you upgraded your hardware to meet a game’s requirements? All you need today is equal hardware to a console and you can play any ported game; which brings me to my next question…Why upgrade expensive hardware for a console port?

Obviously, the hardware companies have a lot to lose if the future games being released are just console ported games. We PC gamers upgraded our hardware on average of 2 years. The average console uses the same hardware that was installed in it throughout its lifetime. I think that the hardware companies know that. Why don’t the hardware companies both pay the developers to create a true PC game or hire their own PC game developers and create games that will benefit from upgraded PC hardware? I have been writing all of the major hardware companies with that very question and to date have received 1 reply and that was just a form letter.

I would like to see more PC gamers voice their collective opinions on this issue. In the end it comes down to money and it should be interesting to see who has more; the game developers or the hardware companies…

I am not trying to troll I am just very disappointed that’s all.

Note- This post is based on many of my opinions. The statistical data is from various sites that acquire such data.
 

scaarbelly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
4,462
jared-dead-horse.jpg
 

Elledan

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2010
Joined
Oct 18, 2001
Messages
15,913
It is much easier and cheaper for a game developer to design and engineer a game to work on a fixed hardware platform as a console offers compared to the multi-hardware configurations offered by the PC gaming world.
If you can afford the SDKs, that is, and then there's the limited functionality of the by now ancient hardware. There's no DX10 or OpenGL 3.x-level graphics, everything has to be made to work using graphics hardware which was modern back in 2006 and a minuscule amount of VRAM and system RAM.

My company is currently developing a title for Windows, and I couldn't imagine limiting ourselves to the capabilities of a console, although the online features are nice :)
 

Fire488

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
438
If you can afford the SDKs, that is, and then there's the limited functionality of the by now ancient hardware. There's no DX10 or OpenGL 3.x-level graphics, everything has to be made to work using graphics hardware which was modern back in 2006 and a minuscule amount of VRAM and system RAM.

My company is currently developing a title for Windows, and I couldn't imagine limiting ourselves to the capabilities of a console, although the online features are nice :)

That makes me very happy to hear that...:)
 

jonneymendoza

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
6,380
Also, check out Arma 2. another great example of a proper PC game with proper support.
 

martinje

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 12, 2004
Messages
1,348
I remember reading on PC-Gamer at last year E3, the editor was running around all the gaming booths waving a huge PC flag saying we are still here. I wish I was there to see that in person. LoL
 

Nytegard

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
3,603
OK, a few things.

The best the game can render is what the best console can render.

This is false. The best PC game can render significantly better than the best console. Lack of RAM, DirectX 10/11 (or OpenGL with extentions), etc. Yes, the games don't appear to look better, but often times, this is because of the little things. I've compared Bad Company 2, Black Ops, and Medal of Honor. Even if you lower the resolution to match that of a console, they still look better, although not with just a quick glance. You need to pay attention to fine details. So who cares if a reticle was made slightly better, or the water shines better, etc., if you don't pay attention to it during a fast moving game? Even little things cost rendering time.

But since when does that give them the right to release games that are basically beta‘s and patched mid stream to allow them to work on a PC?

This has been going on for a long time, longer than just the 2000's. I remember people mentioning why NES games were superior to PC games, because PC games were riddled with bugs and you had to log onto your favorite BBS to download a patch, where NES games just work. We're talking the 1980's here.

It is much easier and cheaper for a game developer to design and engineer a game to work on a fixed hardware platform as a console offers compared to the multi-hardware configurations offered by the PC gaming world.

Much easier? Yes. Much cheaper? No. the licensing cost and dev kits cost a fortune. Just for one dev kit, I could buy a huge range of different computers to test on. Now, throw in multiple people needing the dev kit...

Is it a sad day to be a PC gamer? No. Genre's get born and die in cycles. It might be a sad day for games you like, but for many of us it's a great day. Back in the 1990's, it was a sad day for RPG fans. In the 2000's, it was a sad day for Adventure Game fans. Personally, for me, being primarily an adventure gamer, the past 15 years ******** *******.

But even if big companies aren't around, there are still plenty of indie developers. And even if they're not developing a shiny new interface, they can still use plenty of recently developed technologies for graphics cards. And you know what? Many of them are just plain fun, and you won't ever see those games on any console. Let the console gamers keep their Black Ops. It was a piece of **** game anyway.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
If you can afford the SDKs, that is, and then there's the limited functionality of the by now ancient hardware. There's no DX10 or OpenGL 3.x-level graphics, everything has to be made to work using graphics hardware which was modern back in 2006 and a minuscule amount of VRAM and system RAM.

My company is currently developing a title for Windows, and I couldn't imagine limiting ourselves to the capabilities of a console, although the online features are nice :)

The hardware limitation seems more like a problem for the consumers rather than the developers. The only people who care about games pushing the hardware and graphics beyond what consoles are capable of are PC gamers.
 

Fire488

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
438
OK, a few things.



This is false. The best PC game can render significantly better than the best console. Lack of RAM, DirectX 10/11 (or OpenGL with extentions), etc. Yes, the games don't appear to look better, but often times, this is because of the little things. I've compared Bad Company 2, Black Ops, and Medal of Honor. Even if you lower the resolution to match that of a console, they still look better, although not with just a quick glance. You need to pay attention to fine details. So who cares if a reticle was made slightly better, or the water shines better, etc., if you don't pay attention to it during a fast moving game? Even little things cost rendering time.



This has been going on for a long time, longer than just the 2000's. I remember people mentioning why NES games were superior to PC games, because PC games were riddled with bugs and you had to log onto your favorite BBS to download a patch, where NES games just work. We're talking the 1980's here.



Much easier? Yes. Much cheaper? No. the licensing cost and dev kits cost a fortune. Just for one dev kit, I could buy a huge range of different computers to test on. Now, throw in multiple people needing the dev kit...

Is it a sad day to be a PC gamer? No. Genre's get born and die in cycles. It might be a sad day for games you like, but for many of us it's a great day. Back in the 1990's, it was a sad day for RPG fans. In the 2000's, it was a sad day for Adventure Game fans. Personally, for me, being primarily an adventure gamer, the past 15 years ******** *******.

But even if big companies aren't around, there are still plenty of indie developers. And even if they're not developing a shiny new interface, they can still use plenty of recently developed technologies for graphics cards. And you know what? Many of them are just plain fun, and you won't ever see those games on any console. Let the console gamers keep their Black Ops. It was a piece of **** game anyway.

I appreciate your opinions, but I will respectfully disagree with you on just about all of your replies. Let me reiterate: I am a First Person shooter style gamer and not an adventure gamer. Totally different format and real life graphics are not a concern on your style game.
My son plays the Xbox 360 and my PC has significantly better hardware and monitor and yet that game plays smoothly and looks amazing on his Xbox. I think that dual core problem that they had makes my point that the game code for the console version was identical to what was released for PC and only altered in the last patch.
Licensing costs affect both console and PC games so that’s a wash there. The cost of development for a console over the PC is significantly cheaper and easier just because the hardware is the same for every unit.
PC games have been buggy back in the 90’s, that is true, but through tweaks and a very educated PC gaming community we could repair the code and make the game work. I think that PC game developers and PC Gamers learned from each other.
 

Fire488

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
438
The hardware limitation seems more like a problem for the consumers rather than the developers. The only people who care about games pushing the hardware and graphics beyond what consoles are capable of are PC gamers.

I agree 100%
 

spindoctor

Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
820
PC gamers have no one to blame but themselves for this situation. It's the honest truth.

PC gamers buy a lot less games than console gamers. And that's why this has happened. I sometimes wonder what happened first. Did PC gamers stop buying games because developers were churning out subpar console ports? Or did developers stop paying attention to the PC version because it wasn't selling well? It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation, and I think a combination of both has brought PC gaming to where it is today. But where did it all start? I think it was the latter.

Consoles have been around forever. As has the PC. 5-7 years ago, we used to get PC centric games. Then the industry started moving towards console centric games. Something happened that made them do this. Do console gamers have more spending power than PC gamers? I don't know, but I don't think so. Do console gamers have lower standards? This is a fairly condescending attitude that PC gamers sometimes take, but the relevant point is, console gamers accept the best that the industry has to offer. This is not true for PC gamers. PC gamers will dwell on how things used to be better in the past, how much worse they are today, how bad this game is, how bad that publisher is, how bad this DRM is, how the games are dumbed down, how they lack AA or how they have horrible textures or they're not complex enough or something or the other. They now have expectations that developers do not care to meet, or cannot meet given the reality of how things work. It just makes no sense for developers to spend more on a version of their product which is necessarily going to sell less. They probably would do it if the increased cost meant the PC version sales would be comparable to the console versions, but that won't happen because it's not even close.

The good news is, there are still tons of choices on the PC. Not all ports are horrible. Just last year, games like Mass Effect 2, Just Cause 2, Assassins Creed 2, Bioshock 2, New Vegas, Bad Company 2 were all good ports, but more importantly, they were fun to play. That's really what it all comes down to... are the games entertaining or not? Apart from ports, you have PC exclusives as well, like ARMA or Stalker or the Eastern European RPGs we get, and then you have a very vibrant indie scene as well creating games like Mount & Blade or Minecraft or Amnesia. And to add to all that, there is gog.com which has all those classics you could go back to or try for the first time. There is just so much choice that there's just no point in wasting time being disappointed with how things are. Were they better years ago? Maybe. Or maybe we're just a bunch of grumpy old men reminiscing :p. The more relevant question is are they bad now? And the answer is no. There are still lots of fun games coming out that you can spend your time with. 2010 was a pretty decent year for games, and if one cannot find even a few good games that came out during it, then I would say that person is not much of a gamer anymore.
 

4LC4PON3

DERP!
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
4,230
My son plays the Xbox 360 and my PC has significantly better hardware and monitor and yet that game plays smoothly and looks amazing on his Xbox

Are you saying that His xbox 360 looks better then your PC? Just correct me I am wrong. I dont think xbox 360 has good graphics at all the Textures are not Clear like a PC & the background building & the sky's always look like they have been Painted on.

We are seeing less & less Developers actually put effort into our games & more into consoles. They found a gold mine is "Under Powered Consoles" Its like my friend asked me. Why do you build a PC that you have to keep updating, Installing games (keeping games updated), Find Tweaks & so fourth.

I love PC the Graphics, The gameplay, I love Tweaks/Mods & everything. Its addicting to say the least. My opinion Developers are just plain and simple Lazy they found an easy way out of doing any actual work to make Profit, Since PC's takes more work then a Console & they pussed out.

Profit + Lazy = Console
Profit + Work = PC ( you can rule this one out)

I did read an article today that stated this:

Battlefield 3 Not PC Exclusive, But PC Version Receiving “Special Effort”
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/ne...clusive_pc_version_receiving_“special_effort”

Now we just need more devs to do this
 
Last edited:

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
I love PC the Graphics, The gameplay, I love Tweaks/Mods & everything. My opinion Developers are just plain and simple Lazy they found an easy way out of doing any actual work to make Profit, Since PC's takes more work then a Console & they pussed out.

Profit + Lazy = Console
Profit + Work = PC ( you can rule this one out)


I did read an article today that stated this:

Battlefield 3 Not PC Exclusive, But PC Version Receiving “Special Effort”
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/ne...clusive_pc_version_receiving_“special_effort”

Now we just need more devs to do this

"Lazy" isn't really the term I'd use. Its not like they're sitting on their hands watching their bank statements. Why spend extra time working on "Special Effort" for PC when you can make more money just putting those same game devs into working on the next game in the series.

Special effort = time for programmers, artists, etc who cost money to employ.

Dont get me wrong, I am a PC gamer. Dont own any current gen consoles and have a PC that cost me $1500AUD to build a year ago (own at least one console for each previous generation though). But it does seem to me if you want to be smart business wise you make games with consoles in mind first, PC in mind second. Can you make money out of PC games? Sure, but it seems like you can make more out of console games unless you're just a small indie developer.
 

piscian18

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
11,021
tl;DR skimmed milk

op = PC DONT GOT GAMES YO

I mean I get what you're saying, but *shrug* this topic has been posted so many times I think it'd be on the top of poll for common topic.

Granted I'm a poor old fuck I'm still doing my part. I've spent something like 10,000 in the past couple years on PC games and hardware and I'll continue to do so until there aren't anymore games to buy.

tumblr_le7fnkPFPY1qcovr1o1_500.jpg


Im mean if you have a petition to sign I'm in, but I just don't think we have anything left contribute to this rant.
 
Last edited:

castun

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 23, 2010
Messages
2,637
Are you saying that His xbox 360 looks better then your PC? Just correct me I am wrong. I dont think xbox 360 has good graphics at all the Textures are not Clear like a PC & the background building & the sky's always look like they have been Painted on.

I think he might mean how smooth some games like CODBLOPS run on the 360. I watched my friend play it for a couple minutes on his 360 & 1080p HDTV (never played the PC version myself) and was quite frankly amazed at how smooth it seemed to run. Yes PC versions tend to look better simply because of better textures, but if the developer actually cares to make it so. But will they always run at a perfect buttery smooth 60FPS at 1080p? If you have a powerful enough rig then of course.
 

4LC4PON3

DERP!
Joined
Jan 18, 2005
Messages
4,230
ill leave it at this cause threads like this get old and are getting more common.

the OP stated this: My son plays the Xbox 360 and my PC has significantly better hardware and monitor and yet that game plays smoothly and looks amazing on his Xbox

If you read this part. The OP stated his PC has Significantly better hardware but goes on to state the 360 looks amazing. Didnt mention the PC at all after that. A console will never be on par with a PC yes the games run smoother sometimes on a Console because its being developed for the console & ported to US. The PC user

Like Kyle said & it seems this is the way the OP wants to go. Get yourself a 360 & PS3 if your that unhappy. Its not going to get any better & It seems like PC are not for you anymore.


Edit: I on the other hand just spent 230.00 on Steam games so Im not going anywhere. I will never leave PC gaming unless you kill me :)
 

singe_101

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
2,153
These are sad days... with Blizzard and EA out of business, Valve/Steam shut down, awful graphics with no mods whatsoever.

OP, I don't understand. What could be less upgradable than a 360 or PS3? You say we don't need hardware to play games like that's bad, but enjoy BF2 (too beefy for the original XBOX to handle).

Imagine if smartphones were limited to 2006 technology. I bet they could get gimped software to be smoother over time, but what then?

Would you like EACH new game to chug enthusiast tech down to 30 FPS? And then don't release them on the consoles, so only WE have fun and the company makes less money?

Pretty much everyone here wants to port the other way, from PC to consoles.
 

NSexton

n00b
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
38
*Looks at his huge steam library after recovering from the steam holiday sale*

Yeah sad day for PC gaming :rolleyes:

This shit gets so old though. Any hobby has these doomsday naysayers. I used to be into muscle cars and we had people trolling the forums saying " oh noes car makers only want to make 4 cyl cars life is over!!!" that was almost 10 years ago. Hey guess what there are more muscle cars in production then there was 10 years ago.

I'll still be on my PC gaming long after all the servers for 360 and ps3 games have long gone offline. And companies will still make games for PC as long as money is to be made
 

Bigbacon

Fully [H]
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
19,930
I think what has changed for PC gaming is just that it isn't moving forward nearly as fast as it used to which makes it seem like it is becoming the third wheel.

The current state has many good points for PC players though. Mid range PC can play the games with good graphics at very acceptable frame rates. Hell, I'd say before the Nvidia 7000 series stuff it was either hi-end or shit. there was very little in between that would give you a good experience on the cheap. Lots of indie development that now has the ability to push their products easily.

We just aren't getting the exclusiveness anymore. Its like being spoiled and then not being spoiled anymore. You'll whine and whine until you realize shit changed and you either go with it or stay behind in your own little world.

EDIT:
I have to add, I have been sporting the same PC for 2 years now and it hasn't failed me yet at playing PC games with MAX graphics. I have lesser machines that do just as well but at low res. They are almost like console in this regard now. You don't need to upgrade every 6 months to be on top like you did years ago. Kind of glad I don't throw down the cash every 8 months for a new machine like I used to.
 

nakedhand

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 21, 2008
Messages
2,127
First of all people need to pay for games and support the developers who actually make quality games.

The last two years have been sort of bland for me as a PC gamer, but still managed to materialize some really great games. One always wants more, better, faster, deeper... at least some do.

Anyway, you chose to share your PC gaming sadness at the brink of 2011, which is looking to be a pretty great year for PC gaming. Let me spell this out:


  • Deus Ex: Human Revolution
  • Rage
  • Brink
  • Crysis 2
  • Diablo III
  • Elder Scrolls V
  • Mass Effect 3
  • Portal 2
  • Witcher 2
  • Batman Arkam City
  • Dead Space 2
  • Shadow of the Damned (40K)
  • Dragon Age 2
  • Fear 3

A lot of sequels... of already proven and great concepts! IMHO

Should keep you busy not being sad about PC gaming for a while.
 

Fire488

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
438
Are you saying that His xbox 360 looks better then your PC? Just correct me I am wrong. I dont think xbox 360 has good graphics at all the Textures are not Clear like a PC & the background building & the sky's always look like they have been Painted on.

We are seeing less & less Developers actually put effort into our games & more into consoles. They found a gold mine is "Under Powered Consoles" Its like my friend asked me. Why do you build a PC that you have to keep updating, Installing games (keeping games updated), Find Tweaks & so fourth.

I love PC the Graphics, The gameplay, I love Tweaks/Mods & everything. Its addicting to say the least. My opinion Developers are just plain and simple Lazy they found an easy way out of doing any actual work to make Profit, Since PC's takes more work then a Console & they pussed out.

Profit + Lazy = Console
Profit + Work = PC ( you can rule this one out)

I did read an article today that stated this:

Battlefield 3 Not PC Exclusive, But PC Version Receiving “Special Effort”
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/ne...clusive_pc_version_receiving_“special_effort”

Now we just need more devs to do this

Yes I am saying that with Black Ops maxed out on my PC getting almost 100FPS compared to my son's XBox 360 there is no comparison. The XBox 360 looks and plays much better.
I am not saying that all games look better on XBox 360 because a true PC game that was ported to console from PC (as they ALL used to be) looks far better on PC.
This is what I have been saying all along. The new console ports cannot look better on your PC because the game code and rendering are identical to the console's game coding.
I love the original BF series, but BF3 unfortunately will go the way of Bad Company and MoH and just be a bad console port like the rest of them.
 

singe_101

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
2,153
"I was watching a DVD on my 42" Plasma. It was smooth and looked like HD! Sad days for Blu-Ray."
 

Fire488

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
438
First of all people need to pay for games and support the developers who actually make quality games.

The last two years have been sort of bland for me as a PC gamer, but still managed to materialize some really great games. One always wants more, better, faster, deeper... at least some do.

Anyway, you chose to share your PC gaming sadness at the brink of 2011, which is looking to be a pretty great year for PC gaming. Let me spell this out:


  • Deus Ex: Human Revolution
  • Rage
  • Brink
  • Crysis 2
  • Diablo III
  • Elder Scrolls V
  • Mass Effect 3
  • Portal 2
  • Witcher 2
  • Batman Arkam City
  • Dead Space 2
  • Shadow of the Damned (40K)
  • Dragon Age 2
  • Fear 3

A lot of sequels... of already proven and great concepts! IMHO

Should keep you busy not being sad about PC gaming for a while.

All good titles, but MOST are console ports. They will never be as good as their potential could be. I demand more from a PC game. That is why I pay what I do for my hardware.

Corrected*
 
Last edited:

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,871
Licensing costs affect both console and PC games so that’s a wash there. The cost of development for a console over the PC is significantly cheaper and easier just because the hardware is the same for every unit.

You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The only licencing cost for PC games is purchasing a single DX SDK. After that not one single penny goes to Microsoft and there is never any need to buy more SDKs until the next version of DirectX comes out. If you don't want to pay the fee then you can use OpenGL which is free, but harder to use. With console development you're going to likely need more than one SDK and then you will need to buy Debug units for testers and for anyone else who needs them and you need to make sure you have debug units for each console when you're developing a multiplatform release. No clue what the debug units cost, but I believe I recall hearing that SDKs for the PS3 and 360 can cost something like $20,000, a DX SDK costs significantly less (as do SDKs for the Wii, DS, and PSP).

Actual development costs are kind of a wash since its nearly impossible to compare them simply due to differences in developers, the tools they use, the way they work, and so on. Though its worth noting that Crysis at somewhere around $20 million was considered a high budget PC exclusive while high budget games on consoles run $40-50 million and up.

The real fun part of tearing your argument apart is what happens after the game gets on shelves. Royalties. For every copy of a console game sold the publisher is required to pay a royalty fee to the 1st party. This doesn't exist on the PC at all.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,871
All good titles, but ALL console ports. They will never be as good as their potential could be. I demand more from a PC game. That is why I pay what I do for my hardware.

Huh? The hell are you talking about? Diabo 3 and Witcher 2 are PC exclusives. Portal 2 sure as hell won't be a console port either. Valve's style of development is always PC first, console versions from there,
 

Fire488

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
438
You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. The only licencing cost for PC games is purchasing a single DX SDK. After that not one single penny goes to Microsoft and there is never any need to buy more SDKs until the next version of DirectX comes out. If you don't want to pay the fee then you can use OpenGL which is free, but harder to use. With console development you're going to likely need more than one SDK and then you will need to buy Debug units for testers and for anyone else who needs them and you need to make sure you have debug units for each console when you're developing a multiplatform release. No clue what the debug units cost, but I believe I recall hearing that SDKs for the PS3 and 360 can cost something like $20,000, a DX SDK costs significantly less (as do SDKs for the Wii, DS, and PSP).

Actual development costs are kind of a wash since its nearly impossible to compare them simply due to differences in developers, the tools they use, the way they work, and so on. Though its worth noting that Crysis at somewhere around $20 million was considered a high budget PC exclusive while high budget games on consoles run $40-50 million and up.

The real fun part of tearing your argument apart is what happens after the game gets on shelves. Royalties. For every copy of a console game sold the publisher is required to pay a royalty fee to the 1st party. This doesn't exist on the PC at all.

You got me on this subject. It is not what i was entirely talking about though. Also, no need to curse at me like that. Plz don't go there. I am not the enemy here at all. If I am wrong about what i posted then fine just make your argument and I will say I am wrong.

Just remember that the retail sales for PC are not representing the games downloaded. They only represent he games sold off the shelves.
 

Fire488

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
438
Huh? The hell are you talking about? Diabo 3 and Witcher 2 are PC exclusives. Portal 2 sure as hell won't be a console port either. Valve's style of development is always PC first, console versions from there,

You are right about those games and I am wrong. I agree with you about Valve and I did say that I support them 100% in my original post.
 

NSexton

n00b
Joined
Jun 24, 2008
Messages
38
All good titles, but ALL console ports. They will never be as good as their potential could be. I demand more from a PC game. That is why I pay what I do for my hardware.

Flawed logic. Just because a game is developed strictly for PC doesn't mean its going to be better. You can demand all you want. Your money went to Nvidia, AMD, Intel, etc...they don't make games.
 

Fire488

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
438
Flawed logic. Just because a game is developed strictly for PC doesn't mean its going to be better. You can demand all you want. Your money went to Nvidia, AMD, Intel, etc...they don't make games.

AHHHHH! That is my point! did you read the original post or just the comments?
My logic is not flawed there and I will defend it. A ported game cannot play better on a PC regardless of the hardware because its gamecode is identical to the whatever the console port is using.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,871
AHHHHH! That is my point! did you read the original post or just the comments?
My logic is not flawed there and I will defend it. A ported game cannot play better on a PC regardless of the hardware because its gamecode is identical to the whatever the console port is using.

Uhh...No. The gamecode is in no way identical. The whole concept of a "straight port" is a misnomer. You can't just take a game on a console and slap it onto the PC (no matter how much developers seem to try) you do have to make significant changes. The 360 and PC share similarities and Microsoft designed the SDKs for both to allow easy porting, but there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. A port CAN run better on the PC and in many cases do it just requires the team porting it to give a damn and to have the time and money to get it right. Just Cause 2 is a console port, but Avalanche took the time and care to make the PC version far superior.
 

Fire488

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
438
Holy SHIT! You know what people, enjoy your console ports. I always held a higher regard for [H] but I guess for now on I will post here for what you all know best and that is computer hardware and tech support. I will go to the experts for PC gaming reviews and trends for now on...because none can be found here.

Enjoy paying top dollar for your PC hardware that wont make one bit of difference playing these console ports.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top