Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer

A post on Ecto-Web analyzes the Ghostbusters: The Video Game specs, pointing out that Windows is the only one of the game's platforms other than the DS that's not getting multiplayer co-op, a shortcoming that's also highlighted on Co-Optimus. Thanks Gary.

View
77 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >

57. Re: No Ghostbusters PC MP Jun 15, 2009, 15:11 Z9000
 
As far as competative multiplayer PC shooters, I would agree. I never made a claim otherwise.

Funny thing, friend just called, told me Dan Akroyd called him to tell him his Ghostbuster's game he had reserved will be in tomarrow at Gamestop. Nice touch.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 15:13.
 
PS3 resurgance by GOW3 - Check! Mass Effect for PS3 - Check! Diablo 3 for consoles? I say "For sure"!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
56. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 15:06 Cutter
 
No one prefers a gamepad to a mouse/keyboard setup...no one. And if anyone is that foolish they'll always get owned by a mouse/keyboard user...always.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
55. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 14:49 Z9000
 
Yeah, Sims 3 is microtransaction heavy. Then again, the series has always been about milking customers for every last penny, hence all the expansions. Now we just have microtransactions instead of expansions.

You are skipping the most disturbing part of PC software, all the crazy newfangled ideas and obstructionware that gets used! While DRM is going out of style in some places after wreaking crazy damage to many PC gamer's desire to play PC games, they are moving on to either full force Steam, DUCk or both! That's Downloaded Unlocked Content. The newest schtick to get you to buy a half burned game and download the other half, or at least unlock it. WHY would I want to pay 1k-3k for a rig to put up with crap like that? So I can see my in game characters shrink when I crank up the res. They look real good I am sure, if they were not the size of ants! Crazy

Re: Ease of use and speed of updates without needing an account for everything on a console.

That depends on which consoles you own.

You missed the entire point of that paragraph. On PC's now, everyone has a service, set of hoops, and log in crap to subject to the end user just so they can use the play the damn game. Consoles are the most painless and speedy to get updates.

Why would I want to part with 1k-3k worth of cash for a PC just to subject myself to that kind of scrutiny just for games that are majorly console ports? I mean seriously? I know good shooters and some of the Steam stuff is good times for PC gamers that like the community there, and that's great if you are in to that. I out grew FPS shooter marathons 10 years ago. I just had done it for so long it became repetitive no matter what the new flavor of the year was (i.e. burnout on the whole concept). But many still like it, more power to them. Other than that, you got MMOS and well. more console ports!

Until the average MMO and RTS sells a lot more copies on consoles, they will remain PC-centric. One big reason why they haven't been successful is because they are really designed to be played with mouse and keyboard. If you design one to work with a gamepad, it inevitably gets dumbed down. And of course, I'd never in a thousand years want to play either with a gamepad.

You are thinking last years styles, not the stuff coming down the pipe. Watch FF14, DC Universe, Champion's Online when they come out. Going to be better sub rate than any MMO besides WoW I bet, atleast one of them will.

I just remembered back to a dude when I was playing EQ, he was using a game pad for everything. He would run in circles until he could turn autorun off when you would say something to him. Pretty damn funny.

I expect RTS games to catch on eventually. It's a large change in control method. A lot like getting people to play shooters with a pad instead of a mouse. Hell even I didn't want to do it for the longest, but now it's second nature. Just like shooters, it will happen for RTS.

I hope Aspyr keeps promoting no DRM disc based games because I will keep grabbing them. Anything else other than SC2 and D3 will need to go console to grab my cash if they are using DRM, DUC, or other shennanigans.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 14:57.
 
PS3 resurgance by GOW3 - Check! Mass Effect for PS3 - Check! Diablo 3 for consoles? I say "For sure"!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
54. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 12:17 Jerykk
 
Things like control layout failures, console interfaces not really being modified for PC, being stuck with games that work better with a game pad, or ones that may not even support the high end details that you bought a good rig to play with.

Even if a game doesn't have good mouse and keyboard support, you can still use a gamepad which is exactly what you'd use if you play the game on a console. As for not supporting high end details, I can't really think of any ports with that issue. Some movie tie-ins have been ports of lower tier (PS2) versions but those are the exception rather than the rule.

There are many other reasons including the new "delay the PC version" trend, why should anyone wait?

Better framerates, graphics and controls?

That's hundreds of dollars per title in hardware cost just to play them.

To be fair, you went a bit overboard with your rig. You really don't need SLI these days. However, with that rig, you can also play most of the console games that came out, with better graphics, framerate and controls.

You saw that happen in DoW 2 where you got something like 5 maps, and if you wanted more, you had to be connected to steam, and take advantage of that with your account and download it.

The extra maps are bonus content for multiplayer. Granted, DoW2 should have shipped with more maps but it looks like the new maps were not ready by the game's release.

Sims 3 for example requires you to make an account, and register to unlock a good portion of the games content. Then in order to get anything else, it's microtransactioned to death and back.

Yeah, Sims 3 is microtransaction heavy. Then again, the series has always been about milking customers for every last penny, hence all the expansions. Now we just have microtransactions instead of expansions.

If there is DLC later, then I have the option to pick it up. You know, like consoles.

That depends on which consoles you own. If you have a 360, you'll get almost all of it, though only the PS3 is getting the Joker DLC for Arkham Asylum. On the PC, you'll get most of it, though there's usually a delay. Thankfully, I don't really care about delays. Sometimes the DLC is even released for free on the PC, ala the CoD map packs.

MMOs are starting inflitration of consoles. You have DC Universe, Champions Online, AoC (supposedly), The Agency, Free Realms (free browser even going console), and others. Strategy games have been doing very good on consoles, and will only get better. Red Alert 3 was amazing on a console. Universe at War, Halo RTS (very basic game) were both really good and easily controlled too. I wish the Total War series, Diablo 3, DOW 2 would all go console too.

Until the average MMO and RTS sells a lot more copies on consoles, they will remain PC-centric. One big reason why they haven't been successful is because they are really designed to be played with mouse and keyboard. If you design one to work with a gamepad, it inevitably gets dumbed down. And of course, I'd never in a thousand years want to play either with a gamepad.

It's sad but I got the PC version of Sacred 2 way back when it first came out. Then I got it for PS3. The console version blew away my PC version! I couldn't believe it! Maybe it was more dev time, or that the game is just better with a game pad, or it's the feel of playing that kind of game in the living room.

I guess? From the reviews I've read, the PC version still looks better and runs smoother than the console versions. The controls are naturally more precise as well. Considering that you actually enjoyed playing RA3 with a gamepad, it's fairly likely that you prefer playing a hack 'n slash game with a gamepad too.

 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
53. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 11:32 Mostly_Harmless
 
I'm finding it hard to believe so many people actually cared about Ghostbusters PC multiplayer

I'm finding it hard to believe that so many people are interested in the game at all, it's a movie tie-in budget game cross developed for several different platforms FFS. It hasn't got a hope of being halfway decent anyway. Besides, the PC version still needs an internet connection to install, which probably means Securom, so most people here would be refusing to buy it for that reason anyway, making the lack of multiplayer a moot point.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 11:44.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
52. Re: No Ghostbusters PC MP Jun 15, 2009, 11:11 MindStalkerReturned
 
I was thinking about this, and the reason is obvious.
360: Played on xBox Live
PS3: Played on Sonys network (forgot the name)
Wii: Two local players no online support
PC: Requires a server.
The idiots behind the helms here simply didn't want to bother setting up a master server. Maybe if enough code is left in from the 360 it will be patchable for a private network.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
51. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 08:46 Verno
 
I'm finding it hard to believe so many people actually cared about Ghostbusters PC multiplayer  
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Divinity Original Sin, Infamous Second Son, Madden
Watching: Spartan, Possible Worlds, The Changeling
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
50. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 08:19 Dr. D. Schreber
 
...Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 are worth hundreds of dollars per title in hardware cost?

This big long rant is relying on the assumption that every single PC port is shoddy. I don't know why this idea gets so much attention, I've never had a tenth as many problems as one would think there are from all the whining. I think Silent Hill 5 had a weird graphical glitch, new videocard drivers fixed it. HAWX had some crazy-ass DirectX 10 problems for two weeks until a patch. I actually can't remember any other problems I've had with ports in ten years. I remember wondering why everyone was complaining about Assassin's Creed being unplayable until I read about the build being pirated having an intentional bug to make it unstable for everyone pirating it, if that counts.

And you don't need specific effort put into graphics for a PC port to look better: even if absolutely no effort is put into graphical quality, any worthwhile port these days will at least let you crank up the resolution, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering, all of which make a pretty big difference. It doesn't turn Prototype's PS2-era textures into something worthy of Cryengine 2, but it does look a whole lot better than the console versions. Say what you will about the PC port of GTA4, but if you've got the processor and videocard to crunch it, you can nearly double the draw distance. These are small things that don't seem like much on paper, but they produce pretty substantial results in practice (unless you're an absolute prude about graphics who only cares about normal maps and claims to have never noticed subtle problems like jaggies, a bilinear filtering line or shimmering effects. In which case, you're either lying or blind.) In my wildest dreams, there would be a port of inFAMOUS that would make me ecstatic by doing nothing more than letting me crank up the resolution beyond 720p and increasing draw distance.

As a final note, it's not like there are so many console exclusives (or decent console games, for that matter) that the game to hardware price comparison is magically invalid with them. Yes, it's less, since a console is about half the price of a decent gaming rig, but by this logic the eight PS3 games and the six 360 games I own should be considered vastly overpriced as well. Granted, I'd own more if I didn't rent quite a few I end up disliking, but it's still a pretty low number of must-haves. I don't care about how much hardware I'm paying for compared to the software because gaming is a hobby I enjoy with disposable income, not a financial commitment I feel a need to police.
 
Avatar 51686
 
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES AARRGRHGHGGAFHGHFGHFG!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
49. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 07:21 Mashiki Amiketo
 
Just to go any peer 2 peer site
P2P sites are a poor indicator of console piracy. You'll find that there are other ways of distribution. Much like the early days of the PC.
 
--
"For every human problem,
there is a neat, simple solution;
and it is always wrong."
--H.L. Mencken
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
48. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 07:12 Z9000
 
Most console games come out on the PC. With a rig like that, the experience of playing those games is significantly improved over playing them on a console.

You would think since logic dictates that, it would be the case (I wish it were true). But since a major portion of PC games now days are console ports, you run in to many issues that actually detract from the experience. Ones that negate having faster frames or better resolution. Things like control layout failures, console interfaces not really being modified for PC, being stuck with games that work better with a game pad, or ones that may not even support the high end details that you bought a good rig to play with. There are many other reasons including the new "delay the PC version" trend, why should anyone wait? The bottom line is pay big money for a rig, only to have a big portion of your games be crippled, results in a big let down. Might as well just play those on the systems they were really designed for, consoles.

What is it I am really missing by choosing to buy games for a console? PC hardware builds only last for so long before they are outmoded. In the time since I built this machine to present, I have gotten Men of War, Demigod, Spore, L4D (could have bought on xbox!), The Witcher Enhanced, Red Alert 3, Kings Bounty, Sacred 2, Crysis expansion, and Hired Guns: Jagged Edge. That's 11 PC titles (9 exclusive titles) over almost a years time. That's hundreds of dollars per title in hardware cost just to play them. I could have added 2 more if I wasn't refusing to buy Steam stuff, and it would still be hundreds of dollars per title in hardware costs to play. It's simply not worth it even if I add in all those console ports. The only hope I have for justifying a big game rig purchase is Diablo 3, Starcraft 2, and a very few other titles. I would have been better off getting a moderate machine. PC gaming is still worth it when the right game comes out, but man, that's practically a new PC for each super title in time.

I made lists of 360 and PS3 games and how many of those also appear on the PC.

To me that makes more of a case why you should be getting the console version. Most of them were designed with a console in mind. Why risk interface issues, incompatabilities, and DRM just to pay more per hardware dollar to play them? You can spend just as much that you spent on the computer rig and pour it into a nice home theatre and get better bang for the buck and milage for watching movies and TV too.

Why should any of us go out and buy crazy PC hardware now days? It's a trend that is no longer justified because of lack of quality software and original games. As the developers have jumped ship to consoles, I have simply followed their lead. The industry is heading that direction, what logic can possibly defend the consumer not also doing the same thing in order to get the most value and original titles to play?

As for DRM, it's not that big of an issue anymore. Ubisoft has dropped DRM and EA looks like they're going to, what with Sims 3 and Dragon Age not having any.

They are slick, I have to give them that much. No, there is DRM, it's now called downloaded unlocked content. DUC! You saw that happen in DoW 2 where you got something like 5 maps, and if you wanted more, you had to be connected to steam, and take advantage of that with your account and download it. EA is taking it to the extremes which they certainly like to do. Sims 3 for example requires you to make an account, and register to unlock a good portion of the games content. Then in order to get anything else, it's microtransactioned to death and back. You got to have accounts for everything, PC games are heading more to a service oriented set up. Think of them all as free MMOs (that... you guessed it... you paid for).

I prefer buying a disc with the game on it and playing it from there. If there is DLC later, then I have the option to pick it up. You know, like consoles. The way the PC *used* to be. I get a game, if it needs a patch, it gets downloaded without me logging in to anything other than a patch server (automatic and a hell of a lot faster than Steam).

PC has the largest audience for MMOs, strategy games and casual games. That's why those genres remain PC-centric. However, for action games, sports games, racing games, RPGs and most other popular genres, consoles have a larger audience.

I don't think you can really make that distinction due to the piracy numbers being such an unknown. It remains opinion based. I would wager if there were a way to determine exact numbers that they all had been pirated more than purchased.

I think that paid casual is bigger on console/handheld/phone now, if not it will be soon. Free browser is still PC. MMOs are starting inflitration of consoles. You have DC Universe, Champions Online, AoC (supposedly), The Agency, Free Realms (free browser even going console), and others. Strategy games have been doing very good on consoles, and will only get better. Red Alert 3 was amazing on a console. Universe at War, Halo RTS (very basic game) were both really good and easily controlled too. I wish the Total War series, Diablo 3, DOW 2 would all go console too.

It's sad but I got the PC version of Sacred 2 way back when it first came out. Then I got it for PS3. The console version blew away my PC version! I couldn't believe it! Maybe it was more dev time, or that the game is just better with a game pad, or it's the feel of playing that kind of game in the living room. I don't know, but I do know it just further reinforced my doubt of buying PC games. Even Crysis 2 is going console (one of the few tech reasons to own a PC gaming rig). Now you see why I keep using the word "sad".

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 07:29.
 
PS3 resurgance by GOW3 - Check! Mass Effect for PS3 - Check! Diablo 3 for consoles? I say "For sure"!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
47. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 03:58 Jerykk
 
I have a 4 core 3.2 ghz, 6 gigs high speed ram (2 on vcards), SLI Nvidia 280's, 9 fan computer I built that gets 25k on 3D mark with simply bumping voltage and CPU clock speed .8 ghz. It is SAD I have nothing to really play on this rig in the *volume and quality* consoles are getting.

Most console games come out on the PC. With a rig like that, the experience of playing those games is significantly improved over playing them on a console.

I made lists of 360 and PS3 games and how many of those also appear on the PC.
http://docs.google.com/View?id=d6fdc3v_1hq4jzjgp
http://docs.google.com/View?id=d6fdc3v_0wwpmsft9

If you read those, you'll notice that the genres that tend to be console-only are sports games, rhythm games and Japanese games. Personally, I find the lists of games also appearing on the PC to be much more appealing. Of course, that's just my personal taste. If you do favor the aforementioned genres, then I guess I'd understand your console preference.

As for DRM, it's not that big of an issue anymore. Ubisoft has dropped DRM and EA looks like they're going to, what with Sims 3 and Dragon Age not having any. Atari still uses DRM but they've always been a lousy publisher so that isn't surprising. Activision has never used DRM. Capcom used DRM in Flock and Age of Booty, though I don't know if they'll use it for the big upcoming PC releases. In any case, the growing trend seems to suggest that DRM is being dropped.

Because it has the largest install base, and has been the longest selling platform.

Largest install base != largest audience. PC has the largest audience for MMOs, strategy games and casual games. That's why those genres remain PC-centric. However, for action games, sports games, racing games, RPGs and most other popular genres, consoles have a larger audience.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
46. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 03:53 Z9000
 
Why does this always have to be PC vs Console...

I keep getting mislabled by others on this board... Not saying you are talking to me Exe... Just making that point. I treat Xbox like the PC after many issues that made it clear to me that I would not be happy with Xbox as a main source for gaming. My main purchase habit is for PS3. A rough breakdown:

PS3 - 80%
Xbox - 15%
PC - 5%

I used to get everything for Xbox but that changed for many reasons.

I also buy many hand held games.

What I posted is a strategy for *me*, that works getting good games to play, while not abandoning any other platform (excepts for maybe Wii, because I am pretty tired of the low res novelty).

I didn't sell my 3 PCs on Ebay, my kids still play tons of old stuff with the occasional new title here and there. My 2 Xboxs still get some play time but very little the last 6 months (that will change on the 17th with MTG coming out). Wii I don't even look at anymore. But my main stream of purchases are for 2 PS3s (which accepts 1 purchase of DLC and work on both!). At no time am I saying abandon these platforms even though I personally am abandoning the Wii, just open your mind and pick up a console/HDTV and try it for yourself. Find what works best for you. It will make you happier and you won't be constantly disappointed with PC only solutions. Mixing platforms is the only way to get any real satisfaction if you have a large gaming appetite and crave a *large volume of quality titles*. If you are happy with what PC offers now then you really don't have a stake in the conversation, and are pretty much saying you are content with what you can get. Then you should basically ignore the thread in general.

I own them all, have played them all, and this is what works best for me.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 03:54.
 
PS3 resurgance by GOW3 - Check! Mass Effect for PS3 - Check! Diablo 3 for consoles? I say "For sure"!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
45. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 03:44 Jerykk
 
The PC is by far the most successful gaming platform. This however includes casual gaming (web games, etc).

That's all well and good but I don't care about those games. It's like citing WoW and The Sims as evidence of the PC's dominance. I don't like MMOs and I don't like The Sims so it's pretty irrelevant to me. I do like fast-paced shooters, real CRPGs, space sims, etc, and those aren't really made anymore, for PC or console. In addition, games like WoW and The Sims are exceptions to the rule. Most PC-exclusives don't sell more than a million copies.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
44. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 03:42 Lokust
 
What rock do you live under that you can't find pc games in stores?  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
43. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 03:17 Exe
 
Yeah, whatever.. I don't ever have an issue getting the games I want in most major retailers.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
42. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 03:14 PHJF
 
PC games have shelf space? Not in any store I've been in in the last five years.  
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
41. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 03:10 Exe
 
Why does this always have to be PC vs Console... PC is a platform, X-box is a platform, PS3 is a platform. They should actually be looked at separately and compared separately. Consoles vs. PC is retarded because it pits 1 platform against all the rest of the platforms. Of course it loses. But separate everything as equal platforms, and you get the real picture. Notice game makers in the advertisements don't write released for consoles and PC... They name each console separately because they are separate platforms. The same with stores. Each platform has it's own shelf space.

And quit making PC gaming out to be this awful trouble prone experience. I'm sorry, but it's not that bad. The majority of games work well out of box and if they don't are patched within a day or two of release.The PC platform experience is still better than consoles. And with the quality game ports, they shine over the other platforms.

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 03:15.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
40. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 03:08 Z9000
 
But to say you aren't happy with PC gaming and then praise console gaming makes no sense whatsoever.

Why does it not make sense? But it's less of a praise of console gaming and more of an acceptance of where I can get games, built on a solid budget, that have to pass a real performance evaluation, and actually work most of the time. It's putting my money in something that actually delivers while shedding all the heartache and headache that PC gaming has become. I can cherry pick PC games and get most my titles from consoles. This is more of a hobby survival strategy more than anything else. There are some amazing moments and a lot of enjoyment to be had on consoles as well.

I said, "I will play cool stuff when it's available, sadly most the time that's on a console.". Let me explain this more. I have a 4 core 3.2 ghz, 6 gigs high speed ram (2 on vcards), SLI Nvidia 280's, 9 fan computer I built that gets 25k on 3D mark with simply bumping voltage and CPU clock speed .8 ghz. It is SAD I have nothing to really play on this rig in the *volume and quality* consoles are getting. Especially if it requires backing DRM just to get a few games.

On a console I don't mind DRM on DLC because:

1) The companies who forked over the cash to develop the hardware made the platform. It's their baby.
2) Most the DLC is low dollar amounts (that do add up).
3) Sony's DRM is like Apple's Ipod and I am OK with that when it's backed by a large corporation. I tolerate Xbox's on some titles but they have to be exclusive and something I really want. I CAN CALL THEM BOTH ON THE PHONE.

If I went out and built a PC with my own 2 hands, and some schmos want to put crap on *my* system that I don't want, they can GTFO!

Re: PC having more gamers than any other platform.

What makes you think that? If that were indeed the case, PC would be the most successful platform.

Because it has the largest install base, and has been the longest selling platform. World wide, there are without a doubt more PC gamers (defined by playing just 1 pc game ever) than console gamers (defined by just playing 1 console game ever per console build). The problem is the industry never caught on to what Blizzard has been doing all along and wants to pump out half baked crap for the most part, and we are now all paying for what is the end result of that. Piracy is also a huge factor in this but some of that piracy is a direct result of what I just said.

Don't get me wrong Jerykk, I think the PC has the best potential, but just like many games we see, it's not being realized for the most part anymore. Why stake your happiness on something that is by design majority, aiming to disappoint you? People are constantly complaining about it and have been for 20 years. It's gotten worse. Why invest completely when you can cherry pick those who deserve support and game on consoles too?

This comment was edited on Jun 15, 2009, 06:24.
 
PS3 resurgance by GOW3 - Check! Mass Effect for PS3 - Check! Diablo 3 for consoles? I say "For sure"!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 02:58 LittleMe
 
What makes you think that? If that were indeed the case, PC would be the most successful platform.

Go look it up. The PC is by far the most successful gaming platform. This however includes casual gaming (web games, etc). Sure many games sold now sell most copies on the consoles but those games are a fraction of gaming as a whole. PC is the most prolific gaming platform on the Earth right now. No need to think that is changing either. I'm not saying it is the most profitable though. Sure, I'd concede that most games sold in retail are console games. Thats just a piece of the pie though.
 
Avatar 23321
 
Political freedom can only be preceded by economic freedom which is preceded by monetary freedom.
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
38. Re: No Ghostbusters PC Multiplayer Jun 15, 2009, 02:46 Jerykk
 
Buy a console (Since most PC games are console ports now, I find it a lot better on the console)

Yeah, I still don't understand that logic. Most 360/PS3 games come out on the PC and the majority of ports are solid. Even if no extra features are added or redesigned, the basic console port still has better graphics (higher resolution, AA and AF), better framerates and better controls on the PC. If you aren't happy with the state of PC gaming, that's fine. But to say you aren't happy with PC gaming and then praise console gaming makes no sense whatsoever. It's like saying you're sick of fast food and then saying you love McDonald's. I'm unhappy with the state of PC gaming because most of the big games are console ports and I generally don't like console games. But if you do like console games, there's no reason why you shouldn't like them even more on the PC.

I think there are more PC gamers in the world than any other platform.

What makes you think that? If that were indeed the case, PC would be the most successful platform. Consoles are more popular because they are convenient and accessible. Convenience and accessibility always draw a bigger audience than quality.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
77 Replies. 4 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo