27 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
 |
| 27. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 29, 2008, 21:10 |
Jerykk |
|
|
As for "if they didn't exist people would only play PC", sure, but there'd also be no incentive for PC devs to make the same quality games then (lack of competition).
Unfortunately, there's no incentive to make quality PC games now. Why make a great PC game when you can make a mediocre/crappy console game and still sell more units?
But again, one has to ask why that's the case, is it because there is something inherently anti-PC about consoles, or is it because devs simply haven't found a way to produce the same kinds of revenue on the PC side and thus decide to make their games more "console-friendly".
A little bit of both. Yes, it's ultimately up to developers (or in many cases, publishers) as to what platform they design for. However, were it not for existence of consoles, PC's would still be the primary platform for game development.
At any rate, even in the current world, it is very possible to make a game for both, which caters to the strengths of both.
It is possible to a degree. Even then, most publishers and developers aren't willing to spend the time to make a game that takes full advantage of each platform it's on. It simply isn't a practical time and resource investment.
Ideally, games would only be developed for a single platform, as it used to be in the 90's and early 2000. No developer likes multiplatform development. It's always a publisher's decision. This results in a game being designed for one platform, then haphazardly being ported to other platforms during development. It's something of a vicious cycle, really. Publishers want to sell as many units as possible so they try to cater to the mainstream. This means games have to have high production values, which requires more time and money. Budgets get bigger and more units need to be sold to make a profit. Putting a game out on multiple platforms requires a minimal investment and reaps much greater profits. It all comes down to money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 26. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 29, 2008, 16:18 |
Pedle Zelnip |
|
|
This is true. It's also true that Microsoft created the Xbox, bought PC developers and bribed other PC developers to make Xbox exclusives. Multiplatform development also hurts the PC, as the average gamer is more likely to buy a console version of a game instead of the PC version. There's simply far less risk involved. You know the game will work and you know it will closely resemble the screenshots with a playable framerate. So yes, I do think consoles are hurting PC gaming, for if they didn't exist, people would only play games on the PC.
But you've simply proven my point, that it's the devs that have made the choice to move to consoles. Sure MS made that decision easier, but still it was ultimately up to the devs to make the switch.
As for "if they didn't exist people would only play PC", sure, but there'd also be no incentive for PC devs to make the same quality games then (lack of competition).
I'd love for PC's to be hurting the consoles. I'd also love to see casual/mainstream gamers get filtered out of the gaming demographic, resulting in games that are longer, deeper, more innovative and more challenging. That would seriously make my day. Unfortunately, that's not the way it is. You don't see genres that are traditionally console-only being developed primarily for the PC, nor do you see console franchises being butchered for the PC.
But again, one has to ask why that's the case, is it because there is something inherently anti-PC about consoles, or is it because devs simply haven't found a way to produce the same kinds of revenue on the PC side and thus decide to make their games more "console-friendly".
At any rate, even in the current world, it is very possible to make a game for both, which caters to the strengths of both. The Orange Box is an excellent example of this, it's a huge success on the PC, and for good reason, and it's also a huge success on the consoles. And furthermore, playing it on a PC has certain advantages over playing it on the console (mouse/keyboard, more sophisticated UI) and playing it on a console has advantages over playing it on the PC (no worries about hardware incompatibilities, simplified UI, achievements, etc).
What I still don't quite understand is why more devs don't successfully do this "dual-platform" targetting well. There are a fair number of PC to console and console to PC ports, but very few of them are successful, largely I think because the ports tend to try and recreate the experience of the original platform on the second platform rather than try to change the original to take advantage of the strengths of the new platform.
Even in the console world this is seen with multi-console games. Very few games that appear on all 3 of the big consoles (Wii, 360, PS3) take advantage of the perks of each. Examples: very few games that are available for the Wii and others make good use of the Wiimote, very few games available for the PS3 and others take advantage of the extra storage space of blu-ray, etc.
This comment was edited on Jun 29, 16:20. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 25. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 29, 2008, 03:44 |
Jerykk |
|
|
Presuming your claim is even true, then devs are ruining the landscape of PC gaming. Nobody's putting a gun to their head and saying "dumb down your game so that it can work on the 360", they are choosing to do so.
This is true. It's also true that Microsoft created the Xbox, bought PC developers and bribed other PC developers to make Xbox exclusives. Multiplatform development also hurts the PC, as the average gamer is more likely to buy a console version of a game instead of the PC version. There's simply far less risk involved. You know the game will work and you know it will closely resemble the screenshots with a playable framerate. So yes, I do think consoles are hurting PC gaming, for if they didn't exist, people would only play games on the PC.
Let's flip your reasoning: "PC's are continually overcomplicating interfaces to the point where games become inaccessible to the average gamer, thus PC's are hurting the console".
I'd love for PC's to be hurting the consoles. I'd also love to see casual/mainstream gamers get filtered out of the gaming demographic, resulting in games that are longer, deeper, more innovative and more challenging. That would seriously make my day. Unfortunately, that's not the way it is. You don't see genres that are traditionally console-only being developed primarily for the PC, nor do you see console franchises being butchered for the PC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 24. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 29, 2008, 01:57 |
Pedle Zelnip |
|
|
Consoles are now usurping genres that should be PC-specific and dumbing them down to ridiculous levels. Genres that don't work on consoles are either dying or dead. Simply put, consoles are ruining the landscape of PC gaming.
Presuming your claim is even true, then devs are ruining the landscape of PC gaming. Nobody's putting a gun to their head and saying "dumb down your game so that it can work on the 360", they are choosing to do so.
Let's flip your reasoning: "PC's are continually overcomplicating interfaces to the point where games become inaccessible to the average gamer, thus PC's are hurting the console".
This comment was edited on Jun 29, 01:58. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 23. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 28, 2008, 17:19 |
Jerykk |
|
|
Both are great platforms which have different strengths and weaknesses, can't we just leave it at that?
There was a time when we could just leave it at that. PC's and consoles were once their own distinct platforms with their own unique games. Unfortunately, that time is gone. Consoles are now usurping genres that should be PC-specific and dumbing them down to ridiculous levels. Genres that don't work on consoles are either dying or dead. Simply put, consoles are ruining the landscape of PC gaming.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 22. |
No subject |
Jun 28, 2008, 17:07 |
xXBatmanXx |
|
|
I love seeing these 2 stories right next to eachother. Someone who has a clue (Gabe) vs someone who does not. Crytek is just a bunch of wankers. You couldn't plan these 2 articles this well....
You got a great body, but your record collection sucks....
BN 360 Scoreboard:
http://www.mygamercard.net/clboard.php?id=GW57kfq7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. / Few men have virtue enough to withstand the highest bidder.
Playing: RL |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 21. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 28, 2008, 16:55 |
Pedle Zelnip |
|
|
How about instead phrasing the current situation in terms of divisive and polarizing terms (ie - "which is going to win: console or PC?"), we focus on putting out the best products for reasonable prices for both to make both experiences as good as possible, and leaving it to the consumer to decide which one is better for him/her.
Valve's great in that they're so committed to doing quality games on the PC (although The Orange Box is on the console too!), but I'm so tired of console people saying "PC gaming is dead" and PC people saying "consoles are for id10ts". Both are great platforms which have different strengths and weaknesses, can't we just leave it at that? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 20. |
No subject |
Jun 28, 2008, 10:19 |
Donkey_Punch |
|
|
I heart Valve/Steam. Proudly PC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 18. |
Re: Yay Gabe |
Jun 28, 2008, 02:39 |
Flo |
|
|
PC gaming will thrive again when Joe Average buys a new laptop (and let's face it, he WILL buy a laptop) and it already includes a decent graphics card to play current games. On the other hand, developers/publishers have to make sure that these games actually RUN on that hardware and don't require an expensive desktop graphics card.
Good example: Source Engine Games run great and look great on my 8600m GS based laptop (hardly cutting edge)
Bad example: Neverwinter Nights 2, Crysis: Run choppy even on lower settings and look ugly.
But even without cutting edge 3D graphics we have so much unused potential. I recently ran through my dusty games collection and found Baldur's Gate and Jagged Alliance 2. The visuals of those games are just great and don't require a 3D card. The PC has such a large back catalogue of great games which is not at all exploited. I mean do some advertising for those games and sell them digitally for 10 bucks.
I could go on and on, so much potential left untapped...
This comment was edited on Jun 28, 02:40. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Supporter of the "Chewbacca Defense" |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 17. |
Yay Gabe |
Jun 28, 2008, 02:00 |
Creston |
|
|
our hero!
Creston
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 16. |
Re: Great Article |
Jun 28, 2008, 01:34 |
AcidDrone |
|
|
I for one welcome our new gordon freeman online overlord.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 15. |
Re: Great Article |
Jun 28, 2008, 01:18 |
Fion |
|
|
Like I've said before, once this 'console madness' craze wears off and people realize how shallow their games are besides the graphics, they'll crave and demand more depth and better gameplay. The market will eventually supply that demand. Games will get better and better, just not as fast as I expected and now hoped.
Exactly. The 'console craze' will ebb, as it always does, and PC gaming will become big again.
Really the 'console craze' is dominant in the US and parts of asia, but is much weaker in most of the rest of the world.
That and they need to stop adding in every form of gaming besides the PC and throwing it into a category together called 'consoles.' Hand-Helds really are their own form of gaming device, and they should be in their own category.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 14. |
Great Article |
Jun 28, 2008, 01:12 |
CreamyBlood |
|
|
I think what he's saying is that PC gaming isn't dead. Ignore WOW and casual games.
Like music and movies, the business model is in transition. The PC market, including the World and not just US brick and mortar sales is massive with tons of potential.
Consoles are rigid systems condemned to death from the moment they are built. PC's evolve and are connected.
By selling PC games (or software in general) as a service you can apply multiple patches, making the product better and the customers happy. Consoles are throw-away units.
I don't know, but I've never thought that PC gaming was dead. To me it seems like someone in a position to know, (ie Blizzard, Valve, Stardock) see massive potential, and they seem to be making money for themselves, big titles and little ones alike.
Like I've said before, once this 'console madness' craze wears off and people realize how shallow their games are besides the graphics, they'll crave and demand more depth and better gameplay. The market will eventually supply that demand. Games will get better and better, just not as fast as I expected and now hoped.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 13. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 28, 2008, 00:15 |
Prez |
|
|
| It sounds like he's actually saying PC MMO's are the future. That's n ot a future I'm interested in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 12. |
No subject |
Jun 27, 2008, 20:20 |
Okibi |
|
|
LittleMe: Ah, I see now. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 11. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 27, 2008, 19:25 |
Caveman |
|
|
I think Valve is the future of gaming altogether.
I like how they created games that last years rather than the typical console game which lasts a few weeks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10. |
Re: No subject |
Jun 27, 2008, 19:14 |
LittleMe |
|
|
I think Gabe is using the word -invisible- from a standpoint of investors and how the market is viewed from people who have no clue or inspiration except to invest money.
Everyone knows Blizzard is making a killing on WoW but how is that counted when projecting sales figures? Or is that even done? Until recently, apparently it wasn't, often enough for Gabe to mention that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 9. |
No subject |
Jun 27, 2008, 18:54 |
Okibi |
|
|
It's nice that Valve is into PC gaming, but if the future is casual games and MMOs, it still indicates that PC gaming is in a very sorry state. It's not the sort of claim that counters the doom and gloom in a satisfying way for most of us. I want to play the triple A titles. I want to use a mouse and keyboard and mods.
Also, is Gabe Newell saying that WoW's success has been "invisible"? Everyone knows they make an unbelievable amount of money. I still don't see how it's a good thing for PC gaming in general, because everyone I know who plays it plays MMOs exclusively on the PC. If they play something else besides WoW, it's a new MMO of some sort. These days if you say "I'm a PC gamer" your response will probably be "Oh yeah, I play WoW too."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 8. |
CRYtek... |
Jun 27, 2008, 18:51 |
Sir Graves |
|
|
Valve is SO cooler than Crytek.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
27 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >
|
|
Twitter 
