Console machines holding up game development :(

[reallyxxxxxxloud]

I like to game PC and am sic of game designers aiming at console sales only because of the money to be made there. I understand that they are a business and to make a huge game programming wise isn't necessarily good business. But come on Crysis was released in 2007 FFS and there really hasn't been any further games pushing beyond what PCs can do at this point.

(no offence to consoles but you suck compared to what a PC can do, its only natural :) ).

Even still games like L4D etc have chopped feet in parts etc just to get the console to accommodate the game lol

What gets me is PC sales isn't even a small part of there sales so what gives designers!!!!

[stealthee]

Supply and demand. Demand is lower on the PC crowd so why put out the effort?

[IPD]

actually, designers have fed into that, stealthee. not offering anything of "must have" value for pc's has turned into self-fulfilling prophecy for pc game sales. so it's both developers and users which share the blame.

my prediction:

prepare for graphic stagnation in gaming. the same rhetoric used to decry the wii's graphical capabilities will come back to haunt the xbox/playstation fans. console gaming will force innovation to grind to a halt. heck, it's already started. what happens next is that pc sales for the enthusiast sector drop off precipitiously. granted, the cost of pc's has dropped sharply in recent years, but it still hasn't helped to keep the enthusiast sector growing. this has been both as a result of increases in console sales and an unwillingness by developers to make pc-primary games. why shell out $500 for a graphics card when all it will do is "slightly pretty up" an xbox game?

it will come back to haunt each and every one of you "console messaiahs". no enthusiast sector = no one to initially purchase bleeding-edge tech. this means that trickle-down tech will grind to the pace of frozen molasses. two things will result. first, it will drastically slow down the improvements in the graphic side of gaming--as producers now only have to churn out what's "good enough"--not what will actually push the envelope. second, the cost of your beloved consoles will skyrocket. with no pc gamers to buffer you from the high initial cost of good technology, consoles will be forced to bear the cost of the enthusiast sector. if you thought $600 was an expensive console, you haven't seen anything yet.

and don't even get me started on 1080p. i fucking despise that resolution with a goddamn passion. it's one more area where TV's and consoles have f'd up pc sales. 4-6 years ago, i could buy a laptop with a 1920x1200 resolution; today, you're stuck with 1920x1080. why? because people have been duped into believing that 1080p was an improvement in resolutoin, when in fact, it was a reduction in it--mostly thanks to an unimaginative aspect ratio. and what gets worse? the whole BS idea that 16:9 would eliminate letterboxing is total hogwash, thanks to even WIDER resolutions that movies are now shot in.

the "naysayers" who claim with a bloodthirsty passion that wuxga+ resolutions are impractical and "hurt the eyes" are the same moronic idiots who are happily thumbing around on their beloved iphone4's; A DEVICE WITH >2X THE DPI OF ANY LAPTOP CURRENTLY ON THE MARKET. seriously.

i really do believe that intelligence, sanity and reason are dead to the USA.

[reallyxxxxxxloud]

Many of us know that our PC's are often times 5-10 times faster than even the PS3. It's actual graphics solution is based off of the Nvidia 7800 series GPU. Take (2) GTX280's and you could easily be 10 X faster on any current game on the market compared to the PS3.


Recent articles involving the makers of Crysis, Titan's Quest, and now even John Carmack and ID software express they are switching their focus to consoles primarily because PC games just aren’t selling any more. THE makers of Grand Theft Auto 4 and Mass Effect were within a hairs thickness of not releasing their games for PC this time around until the PC Enthusiasts spoke up. Console sales and gaming is wiping the floor with PC's and all the evidence supports this.

BS what you and many others are getting confused about is simply that the PC game retail presence is no longer what it used to be. The tech savvy gaming crowd are often PC gamers. Tech savvy individuals are also more likely to do their purchasing online and possibly over steam or Impulse. Steam and Impulse do not publish their sales numbers.

Valve has actually stated in no uncertain terms that PC gaming is not doing badly, in fact they are seeing sales that beat any individual console handily. It is just that a lot of executives are paying more attention to third party numbers like NPD and such and not to the sales numbers they get internally.

PC gaming is doing great. Just some game companies are run by idiots. That is no real surprise.

PC games are losing their retail presence but their online presence is a true force to be reckoned with.

But... the fact that Microsoft is still developing PC based OS's based around the Windows platform, and the reality that companies such as Blizzard ( immensely, immensely buoyant from all of their WOW profit ), Valve and Activision are making increasing profits annually just proves this.

To boot online distribution sites are getting more hits than ever and are raking in large profit margins. Steam is making a killing by offering deals on older software on a large scale due to the mass audience interesting in momentarily reliving older classics for cheap. This is an entirely different, if not better market as it just couldn't be achieved in store and on a tangible level. Also keep in mind overheads from these online ventures are substantially decreased due to the whole transaction happening via cyberspace. No shipping, printing,packing or packaging costs - no middle man vendors and shippers. A great marketplace if you ask me - which inevitably makes things cheaper for you and me the PC gaming consumer.

Piracy is a huge problem - but if you also took that as a item/sold played...well...

[IPD]

it's much easier to pirate console games than pc games, imho. maybe if developers were more concerned with pushing the envelope, rather than cashing in...they could sell more games. it's pretty hard to justify $60 a game when it's simply rahashed shit from last year.

[KeithMac]

From my point of view, just being able to turn on the Xbox360 and play F1 2010 and the like on my Samsung LED TV in 1080p is great, no fucking around with upgrading video cards or updates to Windows etc. My computer is for the internet/ tuning the car and my Xbox is for gaming.

I see where you`re all coming from but quite a lot of people don`t enjoy building a PC from scratch every year just to play the latest games.. Consoles have a good 7 year run with nothing more to pay for than games after the intial outlay.

[Jeremy C]

From my point of view, just being able to turn on the Xbox360 and play F1 2010 and the like on my Samsung LED TV in 1080p is great, no fucking around with upgrading video cards or updates to Windows etc. My computer is for the internet/ tuning the car and my Xbox is for gaming.

I see where you`re all coming from but quite a lot of people don`t enjoy building a PC from scratch every year just to play the latest games.. Consoles have a good 7 year run with nothing more to pay for than games after the intial outlay.

And that mindset right there is what is making it to where I'm playing shitty console ports on my system. My computer isn't high end by any means any longer, but because of the stagnation of graphics improvements I haven't had need to make any drastic changes to my machine. My little 24" monitor has a higher resolution that your big LED TV. I intend to replace my monitor with a 30" that has 2560X1600 resolution as soon as I can afford it. The physical size of the monitor isn't important - it's the resolution and 1920X1080 is too small for me. I enjoy sitting down in front of my pc and playing F1 2010 with eye candy you could never get on your Xbox360 because I have DX11 capable software/hardware.

(not picking on you, per say - just pointing out that your mindset is why this thread exists) Thankfully there are a handful of games and publishers that know that the pc world for gaming is still there. STALKER, Metro 2033, any MMO, and the countless indie developer games that are exclusive to the PC realm. As more console ports get ignored by the PC gamers in favor of games that better use their hardware, I think you'll see a shift back to offering more for the PC than a PS3 re-hash.

[DocWalt]

My PC is over three years old. I've changed two things: added a second hard drive, and replaced/upgraded a faulty graphics card. The old setup before those changes ran Crysis maxed out at a steady 25-30 FPS, minimum. Console games are holding up PC games.

[KeithMac]

And that mindset right there is what is making it to where I'm playing shitty console ports on my system. My computer isn't high end by any means any longer, but because of the stagnation of graphics improvements I haven't had need to make any drastic changes to my machine. My little 24" monitor has a higher resolution that your big LED TV. I intend to replace my monitor with a 30" that has 2560X1600 resolution as soon as I can afford it. The physical size of the monitor isn't important - it's the resolution and 1920X1080 is too small for me. I enjoy sitting down in front of my pc and playing F1 2010 with eye candy you could never get on your Xbox360 because I have DX11 capable software/hardware.

(not picking on you, per say - just pointing out that your mindset is why this thread exists) Thankfully there are a handful of games and publishers that know that the pc world for gaming is still there. STALKER, Metro 2033, any MMO, and the countless indie developer games that are exclusive to the PC realm. As more console ports get ignored by the PC gamers in favor of games that better use their hardware, I think you'll see a shift back to offering more for the PC than a PS3 re-hash.

That`s fair enough, I have my mates round sometimes and we`ll do time attack etc with a few beers in the living room. My TV isn`t massive by any means, 37" but you can see it clearly from any part of the room. Huddling round a computer has no attraction to me personally and I wouldn`t play games at all if that were my only option.

[IPD]

That`s fair enough, I have my mates round sometimes and we`ll do time attack etc with a few beers in the living room. My TV isn`t massive by any means, 37" but you can see it clearly from any part of the room. Huddling round a computer has no attraction to me personally and I wouldn`t play games at all if that were my only option.

spoken like someone who has never been to a LAN party. EVER.

[KeithMac]

Too true!.

[IPD]

probably the most fun i've ever had multiplayer was a UT99 LAN party. we had at least 12 people on each side; each team having a separate computer lab. team coordination was done via shouting. :D

[Jeremy C]

probably the most fun i've ever had multiplayer was a UT99 LAN party. we had at least 12 people on each side; each team having a separate computer lab. team coordination was done via shouting. :D

I've done the yelling coms before. Real blast. :D The wife and I play a few games together, and we regularly do the same when playing. There's nothing quite like LAN'ing to have massive fun.

[reallyxxxxxxloud]

it's much easier to pirate console games than pc games, imho. maybe if developers were more concerned with pushing the envelope, rather than cashing in...they could sell more games. it's pretty hard to justify $60 a game when it's simply rahashed shit from last year.

Quote taken from the Torrentfreak.


Not only is Call of Duty: Black Ops one of the fastest selling video games of all time, racking up more than a billion dollars in sales in 2010, it's also impressively enough one of the most illegally downloaded.

According to a report from BitTorrent news site TorrentFreak, the PC version of Black Ops has been pirated an impressive 4.2 million times. The newest Call of Duty bested Battlefield: Bad Company 2 (3.96 million downloads), Mafia II and Mass Effect 2 to take home the most-stolen crown.

Thieves who own an Xbox 360 did their share in Black Ops stealing, downloading that console version 930,000 times, according to TorrentFreak's numbers. Dante's Inferno wound up being the most downloaded Xbox 360 game, with Super Mario Galaxy 2 sitting atop the most pirated list on for Wii owners. Congratulations all around!

[DocWalt]

How are they counting completed downloads of torrents? Just because someone initiated a download doesn't mean they finished it. Also, if they can't provide a decent demo, there's no other way to try it. That said, it's just rehashed shit anyway, so who cares?

[reallyxxxxxxloud]

If you look at any tracking site. It totally tracks what who when and how much you have downloaded... Believe me they know!!!

[DocWalt]

4.2 million times though? That's INCREDIBLY hard to believe.

[IPD]

all "illegal download" numbers are badly fudged. that's been the case for a while now. it's an underhanded way of drumming up support for DRM and a whole slew of other cockamamied shit. i would divide that number by 5-10 at least.

[Jeremy C]

all "illegal download" numbers are badly fudged. that's been the case for a while now. it's an underhanded way of drumming up support for DRM and a whole slew of other cockamamied shit. i would divide that number by 5-10 at least.

I love the pirating numbers the MAFIAA put out. If their numbers were true, the cost of pirating would have put the entire world into The Great Depression II. I feel that the term "Pirated" is wrong as well, as pirating is akin to stealing. If nothing is ever taken from someone, who is it theft? A digital copy is made and disbursed to others who in turn copy and keep sending it out. It's cassette and VHS tapes and floppy discs and any other type of hard media that has been copied and passed around, just on a much greater scale. I have taken software before (usually games). After playing it and enjoying it, I buy it. A demo would have given me the same option, but if you don't give me that option, I'll make that option. The size and value of my Steam account will tell you I'm not afraid to buy games, but to hell if you think I'm going to buy it on blind faith (Valve excluded).

[IPD]

precisely. long gone are the days of shareware. the industry should seriously take a look at bringing it back.

[UTRacerX9]

Two things. One, most people would rather play a game on a 50+ inch tv or even a projector set up, with 1080p resolution, and the cost to do this is dropping all the time. All they need is to buy a console, and suddenly they've got a massive gaming experience with say, a 120" screen, 5.1 home theater connected, and if they bought a PS3, can play movies right out of the box as well. Compare that to spending $2k plus for a high end gaming computer, and a monitor that is much smaller (regardless of what resolution the VC can put out) and it's just not as attractive a choice.

Two, the majority of people have learned that it doesn't make sense to buy the latest and greatest PC anymore... because in a year or two, there will be computers much better, much faster, and available for less money. Buying a console like a PS3 ensures that you will be enjoying it for 5-10 years. For this same reason, developers are not eager to spend millions on game design if the technology available keeps increasing, so that a newly released game can be technologically obsolete only a year later.

The future of gaming today will be dependent upon advances in hardware, IE, when UltraHD resolutions come out, Sony will probably release a new gaming console that can take advantage of it. 1440p will possibly be next, but since 1080p hasn't even reached full saturation yet, the next thing we may see is the 4k standard (which is basically IMAX resolution.)

[CoreyB]

I have never really been one for sitting in front of a computer playing games. I am more of a simple hand held controler type of person who wants to sit on the couch with a beer a play IMO great quality games. Therefore I love my PS3.

[Turbs3000]

Personally I've felt for the last 4 years (as both a pc and 360 gamer) that the hang up is and never will be a hardware issue. Even today the graphics engines inside both a 360 and ps3 go largely untapped. But outside of that building consoles that can handle it for the right price isn't even a question. The problem comes when you connect them together. What happens when you try to connect 60inch tvs with 2ms refresh at 1080p with better graphics then we currently see... now put 20 of them in one game... now say 10million of them are online at the same time. Networking is the issue here. Pc gaming is specific and elite, dedicated servers, viewable pings, constant kicking and booting, selections, on top of the fact it takes $1000 in hardware to get to that point. Consoles don't have dedicated servers and they use cable lines that are over 20 years old connecting everything from cities to bump f*** no where in one game.

All of that and everyone profits too much to be the guy to change things. Look at game quality now a days, it's all shit, companies push out whatever they can to meet deadlines of finance companies that will kill the project the second it starts to feel costly. Only a handful of real game designers still exist and it's a depressing reality.

[DocWalt]

Personally I've felt for the last 4 years (as both a pc and 360 gamer) that the hang up is and never will be a hardware issue. Even today the graphics engines inside both a 360 and ps3 go largely untapped. But outside of that building consoles that can handle it for the right price isn't even a question. The problem comes when you connect them together. What happens when you try to connect 60inch tvs with 2ms refresh at 1080p with better graphics then we currently see... now put 20 of them in one game... now say 10million of them are online at the same time. Networking is the issue here. Pc gaming is specific and elite, dedicated servers, viewable pings, constant kicking and booting, selections, on top of the fact it takes $1000 in hardware to get to that point. Consoles don't have dedicated servers and they use cable lines that are over 20 years old connecting everything from cities to bump f*** no where in one game.

All of that and everyone profits too much to be the guy to change things. Look at game quality now a days, it's all shit, companies push out whatever they can to meet deadlines of finance companies that will kill the project the second it starts to feel costly. Only a handful of real game designers still exist and it's a depressing reality.

Bingo. I can't really say too much about what we do here at work, but let's just say we haven't optimized our software to the extent that we used to in at least 5 years. There's no need, hardware is so far ahead of anything that we can sell and make money on it's ridiculous. Making money and making a quality product don't really go hand in hand, nobody is willing to pay the extra development costs.

[IPD]

...and that's why there's stagnation. 1080p has been talked up so goddamn much that people don't want to move past it. never mind that pc's had surpassed that resolution over a decade ago; people want to regress and be happy with it.

again, it will take pc games to provide incentive for pc sales--which will provide impetus for new developments. you can knock online pc gaming all you want, but i don't have to subscribe to xbox-live to play fps's online. i also don't have to settle for mediocre controllers (although if you REALLY wanted to use them, you can--but you'll get pwnd).

it doesn't take 2k to build a top end gaming rig. it barely takes 1k. and if you're wanting to surpass the combined power of an xbox 360 and a ps3; it costs ~$500. any of them can do a better job. the key difference being support and playability at higher resolutions. 2560x1600 is where games should be aimed; but instead they're aimed at half the resolution.

for well over 10 years, game programmers have known and understood that playing in a higher resolution > playing in a lower resolution with AA and AF. get the resolution high enough, and it becomes virtually seamless. increasing the size of the display (but not the resolution) does the opposite. it amplifies the size of each pixel, thereby amplifying any flaws. so while i'm all for a 120" projection display, it would be a significantly better experience as wqxga.

p.s.

a properly built gaming pc can double as a HTPC; thereby giving you much more versatility than any console. and you don't have to "crack" it open to get at the hardware.

[UTRacerX9]

...and that's why there's stagnation. 1080p has been talked up so goddamn much that people don't want to move past it. never mind that pc's had surpassed that resolution over a decade ago; people want to regress and be happy with it.

it doesn't take 2k to build a top end gaming rig. it barely takes 1k. and if you're wanting to surpass the combined power of an xbox 360 and a ps3; it costs ~$500. any of them can do a better job. the key difference being support and playability at higher resolutions. 2560x1600 is where games should be aimed; but instead they're aimed at half the resolution.

for well over 10 years, game programmers have known and understood that playing in a higher resolution > playing in a lower resolution with AA and AF. get the resolution high enough, and it becomes virtually seamless. increasing the size of the display (but not the resolution) does the opposite. it amplifies the size of each pixel, thereby amplifying any flaws. so while i'm all for a 120" projection display, it would be a significantly better experience as wqxga.

p.s.

a properly built gaming pc can double as a HTPC; thereby giving you much more versatility than any console. and you don't have to "crack" it open to get at the hardware.

Again, stagnation has very little to do with people who just picked up a 1080p set. I for one, would love a TV and projector that can output at a higher resolution... problem is, there's nothing to watch on it. The fact of the matter is, 1080p is a VERY good resolution, even with large displays. So much so, that most people are content with it. Going back to the early/mid 80's with computers, it was a big deal to get a monitor that could do 4 colors, then it was 16 colors, then 256... and those were huge advances that anyone could see plain as day. Now, on a 50" tv, most people can't tell the difference between 720p/1080i and 1080p. If they can't tell a difference at that level, they're not going to be complaining about not having 1440 or higher at all.

You've also got Bluray discs (which is a fairly new technology at this point) maxing out at 1080p. But you've still got millions of people who are happy with DVD resolution. Until extremely large displays become the norm (and we're talking like 80" and above) then the majority of people will be satisfied with 1080p.

As far as the HTPC argument goes, it's only a small percentage of people who use one for that purpose. Most computers in a home are not used for that, rather for internet browsing or work. So the cost aspect is moot, because those people already have shelled out money for a primary computer in a home office or for their family to use.

I'm what you would call an early adopter when it comes to most tech stuff, but I'm a very small minority of the population who cares about having the latest and greatest. The bottom line is, most people are happy with their 1080p sets, which they only got in the past 2-3 years or so, and have no intention or need to upgrade any time soon. Game designers and retailers know this, and have very little financial incentive to push the tech envelope.

[IPD]

then it's true. the pinnacle of gaming development occurred in the 80's-90's. we're headed for another atari-esque meltdown. damn it all to hell!

[reallyxxxxxxloud]

And then Wii thought lets dumb it down graphically to match the IQ of the general public...:)

We are at the same place we were when CD first came out. Everyone had Vinyl and Tape (why change to CD) the transition was slow. Hence why Mini disc and SACD (super CDs) died. They like other things were released at the wrong time. Now solid state music storage should be the retail king as it could/should be the newest thing, but it wont. Reasons why is its too soon for us to change and we wont buy!!!

It will only take one game to take the plunge and all others will then be forced to follow.

[DocWalt]

Crysis tried to push the limits, and suffered. They had to force that out as well, even after delays. It could have used a lot of optimization and graphical tweaks to improve performance and looks. How many people couldn't even play Crysis? I built my rig to be able to run Crysis, and it wasn't an extreme budget build. I spent about $1600 on the initial build, already had a monitor though.

It's not like any game out there really pushes the limits of development. There's far too much optimization work needed for most developers to even consider. With proper optimization techniques, I think it would be possible to make a game as pretty as Crysis run on a bottom of the line current PC as well as it runs on my current PC.

[IPD]

anyone can make a game that crushes a GPU. proper optimization is the mark of good development. people complained about unreal 2 the same way when it came out.

i play a LOT of fps's, but i've been voting for pc fps's with my $$$.

[DocWalt]

I don't have time to dedicate to gaming anymore, so it's pointless for me to vote with my wallet. I haven't played TF2 in ages, and that's pretty much the only FPS I play anymore :(

[DrkZide]

I only play 1 game on my laptop (take a guess) and the rest are on the XBox. I don't want to bother with fiddling with crap to play a game. I want to go to the store, come home, open the box, plug the two plugs in the back and start killing some shit.

Look at it this way, I can fire up, play two good rounds of COD and shutdown all in the time it takes the woman to do her makeup.

[reallyxxxxxxloud]

You must be really shit at COD or your missus takes a FKN long time to pretty up lol... I see your point but my computer is always on, its always running torrents and its my full entertainment centre... Its running through a single 47" screen (was two 47" screens). I think my $5000 was very well spent considering its 5 years old and still annihilates most of my friends comps...

[DrkZide]

I guess we all have our priorities. Where one spends $5000 on an entertainment center, my 40" LCDTV, Blu Ray, Wii and Xbox all cost me $1000 (Black Friday). I'm not great at COD but I'm also never at the bottom, normally between 2nd and 4th place. 1st if I have more than 20min to "get in the groove".

[IPD]

i would rather remove and eat my testicles with my teeth...than deal with black friday bullshit.

[reallyxxxxxxloud]

I guess we all have our priorities. Where one spends $5000 on an entertainment center, my 40" LCDTV, Blu Ray, Wii and Xbox all cost me $1000 (Black Friday). I'm not great at COD but I'm also never at the bottom, normally between 2nd and 4th place. 1st if I have more than 20min to "get in the groove".

P.S bare in mind that $5000 is only the comp case and internals (in AUD). Yes AUD is equal to the USD now but back then it was half... Plus I was just teasing bud!!!

[marshallh]

How many of you people bitching about "inefficient games" are game developers?

Just curious.

[Zaroth]

i would rather remove and eat my testicles with my teeth...than deal with black friday bullshit.


^^^^ This. Those of you who sit through black friday bullshit are crazy. There are much more constructive things I could be doing with my time at 1 in the morning. Like sleeping off a turkey induced coma.

[IPD]

How many of you people bitching about "inefficient games" are game developers?

Just curious.

i can promise you that developing for DX11, 12, 9756, or whatever is INFINITELY simpler and less cosmic than developing for a "cell-processor" or whatever other "console-specific" hoops you'd have to jump through to develop for consoles.

the reason why developers decided to make for consoles > pc's, is because it saves them time "watering-down" their offerings for consoles. to put in laymans terms:

the old way:
build a vr4 for pc gamers; sell a base stealth for console gamers.

the new way:
build a dsm for console gamers; throw a bunch of superfluous letters, plastic trim, and other assorted garbage on a dsm, call it "uber-special-limited-special-rare-ultra-special-edition-special" and hawk it to the pc gamers.

p.s.

yes. just like with laptop display resolutions, you are now being sold LESS for MORE money.

[Jeremy C]

In The Games Of Madness: Four months after Amnesia's release (http://frictionalgames.blogspot.com/2011/01/four-months-after-amnesias-release.html)

at least there are a few devs out there that still feel the pc is the place to be.

(I don't own the game, but I bought their library for my wife)

[DocWalt]

How many of you people bitching about "inefficient games" are game developers?

Just curious.

I've dabbled with it. I know you're way more in depth than I am. "Professional" game developers are seriously stressed for time because of the publishers pushing them so hard. We have a couple ex-game devs at work that left the field because they were never satisfied with anything they made because they couldn't do things correctly, they just had to bash and make stuff work.

[IPD]

depends on who you work for. blizzard (historically) and nintendo tend to say "fuck the release date" with regards to their products and being polished.

[DocWalt]

That's because Blizzard (and Valve) can get away with it, to some extent. Nintendo... well, I'm just going to forget you said that, considering we're in a thread talking about consoles holding back PCs ;)

[Hammer]

I do not know about you guys but I have yet to find a console game that I liked better than the computer version. I would rather play computer games every time.

[CoreyB]

Personal preference I guess. I would rather play the console game everytime. Just not much of a keyboard and mouse gaming kinda guy. But thats me. I totaly get that theres much more to the games on the PC.

[IPD]

That's because Blizzard (and Valve) can get away with it, to some extent. Nintendo... well, I'm just going to forget you said that, considering we're in a thread talking about consoles holding back PCs ;)

nintendo has NEVER held back pc gaming. even now. and that's reason number 47 why i own one, and neither of the other two systems. reason number 46 is because it has games which are not available on pc's.


I do not know about you guys but I have yet to find a console game that I liked better than the computer version. I would rather play computer games every time.

pretty much. but it's getting worse because pc games are more and more becoming "upscales" of crappy console ones; rather than the source material from which console versions are ported.

[IPD]

Personal preference I guess. I would rather play the console game everytime. Just not much of a keyboard and mouse gaming kinda guy. But thats me. I totaly get that theres much more to the games on the PC.

...you're a pats fan. i expect some brain damage. :p

[DocWalt]

I do not know about you guys but I have yet to find a console game that I liked better than the computer version. I would rather play computer games every time.

Yep, I have. There's plenty of games that are better on console because they don't fix the menu system for PC. A game that has better gameplay on xbox than PC is Madballs in Babo Invasion, it was supposed to be a new version of a top down shooter called Babo Violent 2, except it sucked ass on PC.


nintendo has NEVER held back pc gaming. even now. and that's reason number 47 why i own one, and neither of the other two systems. reason number 46 is because it has games which are not available on pc's.



pretty much. but it's getting worse because pc games are more and more becoming "upscales" of crappy console ones; rather than the source material from which console versions are ported.

#1: Yep, which is why it doesn't apply here. Nintendo can do their own thing. No Wii game interests me as anything beyond a party game.

#2. Sorta like all of the CoD games, removing features from PC versions because they're lazy and don't care about PC players. Oddly, Battlefield players just recently destroyed the console players in a teamwork challenge to unlock a new map first. They had to perform team actions (heal a teammate, etc.) and the console players just didn't care enough about their teammates to bother.

[IPD]

that's funny. i always thought of CoD as a party game. mario galaxy, twilight princess, etc all have much more depth and playability than "omg, yet another console shooter".

[DocWalt]

CoD split screen sucks, big time. There are way more local multiplayer games vs. good singleplayer games on Wii in comparison to 360/PS3. Most games on the 360/PS3 rely on a single player playing through games by themselves, and then playing online by themselves, or with friends. There are very few good split screen co-op campaign games, which is incredibly disappointing.

If I did buy a Wii, it would be for the party aspect, and that's all I'd use it for. Yes, the single player games it does have are "good" even though I have no interest in them.

[stealthee]

I have a Wii and it sucks. Its nothing more than gimmicky. We got is for Christmas last year and I have played it a total of 10 times. Give me a regular controller any day.

[IPD]

that's the reason that you can play goldeneye 007 with any of a variety of controllers.

to be fair, it wasn't until "move" and "kinect" came out that 3rd party developers would be forced to get serious about trying to make QUALITY games for movement-oriented controllers. that's a good thing.

this is what i see as a fundamental distinction between consoles and pc's; control scheme. i firmly believe that consoles should be geared towards platforming, puzzles, adventure-gaming, party-gaming, and rpg's. pc's should be geared towards fps's, rts's, lan-gaming, and action-gaming. these roles actually define themselves quite nicely with the hardware given. blurring the lines between the two has not helped spur any advancements.

many gamers define their console vs. pc tastes, subliminally, based on their own preferences for certain genres; which makes sense. but it does not invalidate any other mediums. as much as i LOVE fps's, i don't hate on all consoles because, frankly, i enjoy adventure-gaming (zelda will always be close to my heart). but....just like how a seasoned fps gamer can easily discern between a quality shooter and a knockoff (quite often pc vs. console); so too can a seasoned adventure-gamer tell the difference between zelda and knockoffs.

a true connoisseur of the genre will seek the best experience. it's the difference between a zenith and mediocrity. take wine drinkers. sure, you can drink boone's farm and franzia; but if you seek the best, you're not going to be drinking $2 bottles of wine. perhaps that's why the wii has been so successful, it doesn't try to be all things to all people (360, ps3) and end up failing. nintendo embraced casual gamers and those with a taste for what nintendo has always done best (adventure-gaming and platforming).

sure, your smartphone can "do it all", but movies are better on your living room tv and standalone blue-ray player. games run better on your pc or console. photos are better on a point & shoot (not to mention a DSLR). it's really all the same principle. dedicated to one purpose, a device will do a better job in that "one area".

p.s.

funny that i say this as a longtime fan of the "does nothing exceedingly well, but does most things good" 3/s. ;)

[Hammer]

I can think of one main reason games are being made for the console first now. Money. A console game sells for what $55 or so. A computer game $29. And computer games the price drops quickly not so for console games. So the game producer is out for the big bucks and builds the game design for the console and a controller. Then if it sells good a port for the computer which does not translate well because of the controller design.

[DocWalt]

All I know is that I'm tired of not having quality PC games to sink my teeth into and run home after class to play. I come home, eat dinner, do homework, and sit around not doing much besides watching old Top Gear stuff, or old WRC/F1 stuff because I have no good games to play :/

[IPD]

I can think of one main reason games are being made for the console first now. Money. A console game sells for what $55 or so. A computer game $29. And computer games the price drops quickly not so for console games. So the game producer is out for the big bucks and builds the game design for the console and a controller. Then if it sells good a port for the computer which does not translate well because of the controller design.

controller design has little to do with it. especially for fps's, designing control scheme for PC is significantly eaiser. no "auto-aim" required.

and while your statement has some merit, pc games to not sell for $29. they start at 50. (60, in the case of starcraft2). i agree that pc game prices drop faster; but that only begs the question of why people like consoles better, if they pay out the nose for software by comparison? even assuming your statement is apt, then people with pc's are saving $20 per game. so that xbox may cost $300, but then what?

xbox: $300
online for 2 years: $100
24 new games (2 per month): $1200
total: $1600 for 2 years of ownership
vs,

pc: (price varies, but let's say $750)
24 new games (2 per month): $720
total: $1470 for 2 years of ownership

....hmmm.....

[CoreyB]

...you're a pats fan. i expect some brain damage. :p
Lol guess I have an excuse at least.

[Hammer]

Hmm I did not buy starcraft2. Is it really $60? Honest all the computer games I have bought in the last 3 years have been $29 at Best Buy.
Neverwinter nights 2
Sword of the Stars series

Now that I think about it that is all I have bought recently.
I have been downloading many free games and playing them in DOSBOX.
Like Xcom
Ascendancy
Eye of the Beholder series.
Heroes of Might and Magic
Master of Magic
Lost Admiral
Masters of Orion
Pacific General
Panzer General
Perfect General 2
Rules of Engagement 2
Steel Panthers 1,2,and3
Warcraft
Warlords2
Aces over Europe
Dawn Patrol
Great Naval battles
Harpoon
Red Baron
Seven Cities of Gold
Silent Service 2
Kings quest series
Ultima series
Wizardry series

All free and I enjoy most of these more than most console games out today.
I do see a lack of new game content for the PC and that does bother me.
I grew up on Avalon Hill war board games. When they ported over to the PC it was perfect.
Sid Meier was the best game designer. I loved all of his titles. He did a lot of war games.
Nothing like that exsists for the console. It is all about flashy graphics that sells games these days.

Well I have a huge game library mostly for free that keeps me happy and that is all that matters in the end.

[Jeremy C]

My wife was joking with me the other day about how we just spent somewhere around $200 on the Steam sales (admittedly, split among 3 accounts, but at least $100 was mine alone) with all these new games, yet I was playing the original Half Life and Team Fortress Classic. Best $2.40 I've spent in a long time. I'm reading about which mods to install before giving Dues Ex a run through (bought it and it's sequel for $5). It's things like this that make PC gaming better for me as you have some truly ground breaking games in the PC world that span the last decade or more, and all easily playable on the latest hardware. Often times, the community has made the original even better with engine updates, better textures, and things that bring a classic into the modern gaming era (well, with limitations). This isn't something you can get in the console world. Just another reason PC > Console.

[Broch]

Same. over the holidays I was playing hl2/tfc/quake2 Although I did get the new need for speed for xmas and loved it.

[am385]

Well, I'm gonna throw my two cents in as a game developer. 1st, consoles do have a big market share and they are easier to code for because the hardware is the same. Let me state that I'm a pc fan not a console fan. That being said the pc market is still huge and I think its about to leap forward in the coming years. With all the pirating currently going on developers are learning ways to go with the flow instead of fight it. They are in the middle of a paradigm shift in delivery. No you wont see tons of games at game stop because the retail market is dead, but the direct download market it really moving and I as well as a lot of other developers I have talked to feel this way too. PC is gonna come back around big soon.

[IPD]

...leading me to the next big issue with gaming today: used games.

the "direct download" market is great for distributors, but sux balls for users. i will tell you in no uncertain terms that my incentive for paying $50 a game is NIL when there is ZERO prospect for me being able to recoup part of the cost of it by selling it after i'm done playing.

...which is why i'm leaning heavily towards never paying more than $10 per game ever again. even if i'm stuck playing games from 10 years ago.

[reallyxxxxxxloud]

I don't mind so much not having the disc... One less thing for my son to scratch. One less thing to cart around and for what the $2 you get trading it in... As far as pirated games go I understand the reasoning for logged on registration before gameplay to stop the theft...

[IPD]

$2 trade in's on $50 games wasn't the norm until gamestop destroyed gaming.

even if i can't get value from a game re-sale, i would like to have the ability to "gift" it to my friends after i'm done playing it. i don't care what the developers/programmers/publishers say; if i want to give a game away--one that i've paid for--that should be MY perogative.

[CoreyB]

I gotta agree with you on that.

[onebadmollafolla]

PS3 is better than a PC for gaming. :)

[IPD]

you're either high, inexperienced in gaming, or stupid. :)

[onebadmollafolla]

PS3 has better graphics and speed.

[IPD]

...than what? a 1991 packard bell?

[onebadmollafolla]

...than what? a 1991 packard bell?

No. Even the best gaming computers have been proven slower than the PS3. Graphics, well, they aren't even in the same ballpark as the PS3.

[Jeremy C]

My 4 year old pc will absolutely trounce the PS3 in graphics performance. Not even on the same level. In all honesty, the fact that both the major consoles are DX9 while the newest pc hardware is sporting DX11 means that neither console will never look as good as a new pc title coded to take advantage of this hardware (and when I say newest, I meant in the last 12 months).

And I agree with am about direct download. Steam has single handedly reshaped the pc game market. However, because of the lack of resale, the highest I'll pay for a game is about $15.00 now. I wait for the big Steam sales, spend a huge was of cash, and I have my games until the next sale. So I'm not playing the newest games on the market, but I'm saving a shit ton of cash in the process and enjoying myself. Right now I'm having a blast playing Just Cause 2. Probably the best $13.00 I've spent in a while. I just can't wrap my head around $50-60 without the ability to let others play it.

[IPD]

now i know you're just trying to get a rise out of me. ;) :p

[onebadmollafolla]

My 4 year old pc will absolutely trounce the PS3 in graphics performance. Not even on the same level.

Not true. My PS3 has an HDMI and WiFi.

[IPD]

..."it has the wi-FI, with the bigger GB's". ROFLMFAO!!!

[onebadmollafolla]

..."it has the wi-FI, with the bigger GB's". ROFLMFAO!!!

A computer has more GB of hard drive but that doesn't matter when it comes to gaming.

[Jeremy C]

Here's a better way to put it.

The "RSX" graphics processor in your PS3 is a GeForce 7900GT at 550MHz with 8 of the ROPs disabled, and 256MB of DDR3 ram at 1400 MHz on a 128-bit bus.

Video Card Comparison - GPUReview.com (http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=384&card2=605)

Here's a basic comparison between the PS3's graphics processor and my old video card (2 generations behind current to be exact)

[IPD]

...let's just ignore the fact that you and i (jeremy) were probably playing FPS's before this kid was born...

[onebadmollafolla]

Here's a better way to put it.

The "RSX" graphics processor in your PS3 is a GeForce 7900GT at 550MHz with 8 of the ROPs disabled, and 256MB of DDR3 ram at 1400 MHz on a 128-bit bus.

Video Card Comparison - GPUReview.com (http://www.gpureview.com/show_cards.php?card1=384&card2=605)

Here's a basic comparison between the PS3's graphics processor and my old video card (2 generations behind current to be exact)

I understand that. However, my PS3 is dedicated purely for gaming, thus the reason it has better graphics and is quicker.

[onebadmollafolla]

...let's just ignore the fact that you and i (jeremy) were probably playing FPS's before this kid was born...

I get to be a kid again? Awesome!

[Jeremy C]

I understand that. However, my PS3 is dedicated purely for gaming, thus the reason it has better graphics and is quicker.

You, sir, are a lost cause. To even think that a PS3 holds a candle to any modern gaming PC is ignorance at it's finest.

And yeah, considering the fact I've played every ID game on the correct hardware at the time of it's release should tell you I've been around the block with these things. :D

[IPD]

speaking of "id" i just bought the super-pack on steam. now i just have to figure out how to get it to work with win-7...

[onebadmollafolla]

My 4 year old pc will absolutely trounce the PS3 in graphics performance.

My PS3 is even older. :) And it plays Blu-Ray games.

[IPD]

"iphone4. where is the iphone4"?

[onebadmollafolla]

Thanks for playing, folks. You've been great!









































http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/13/75378-TrollFace.png

[Jeremy C]

speaking of "id" i just bought the super-pack on steam. now i just have to figure out how to get it to work with win-7...

Whenever I buy anything older on Steam my first stop if the Steam forum for that game. If I have a question, it's almost always stickied at the top. My current "What to do with this one?" game is Dues Ex. There's so damned many mods for it I don't know which ones are the best ones to use. My wife is having the same issue as she's going through Oblivion right now. I just got done beating the original Half Life again. Ahhh, the memories. Fortunately, I'm still pretty good at Team Fortress Classic. Give me the sniper rifle on 2Fort and leave me alone. You'll see random members of the other team explode - this is working as intended. :D

[IPD]

i loved grenade-jumping onto the enemy sniper balcony. :)

[Hammer]

No. Even the best gaming computers have been proven slower than the PS3. Graphics, well, they aren't even in the same ballpark as the PS3.

Hey you are making a big mistake there. PS3 was at the time of release better than most PC's of the same era. You had to spend a lot of dollars to build a better PC.
More than 4 times the price of a PS3.

However that was then this is now and even most cheap run of the mill PC's can keep up or even beat the PS3. If you go out and get a top of the line PC for about $2,500 you will blow away the PS3. You can run 3+ monitors even on some of these new rigs. PC's will always be > than a console. It is flexability that does it. It is a strength and a weakness at the same time. Strength for the consumer. Weakness in lots of work for programmers to insure compatability with all the changing tech.

So one would think then that console games as they are fixed platforms and are easier to program for should be cheaper than PC games right? Oh so wrong sir. Propietery rights send the prices sky high! It is the open competition of the PC that holds the price down.

[IPD]

^ fails to read all of thread before posting.

[KeithMac]

Plus why would you compare a $2500 pc to a $400 PS3?..

[onebadmollafolla]

Plus why would you compare a $2500 pc to a $400 PS3?..

*whoosh!*

[thestealth]

Thanks for playing, folks. You've been great!


:lol: