This sounds exactly like the previous AC releases on PC, fixed controls. I've sure everyone bitching have never bought an AC game on PC to begin with.
Eh, given how they improved their ports from AC1 to AC2 I don't see why people wouldn't buy an AC game on the PC. It's not the type of action game I would normally play on the PC personally but obviously different strokes for different folks. I own a few and the ports were pretty good despite some niggling problems, the series had humble beginnings but really has come a long way in some regards.
Regarding fixed controls, I'm pretty sure I've seen you argue about games needing rebindable key support. I recall something about binding movement to a mouse and whatnot. I think it's a really fair point because gaming on the PC is all about choice and while I like playing things a certain way I don't think it should be forced on everyone else.
The text from the interview is a bit confusing "huge investment in KB/M" is kind of weird because you just really need to A) support it and B) let people rebind them to do it. There is no logical reason they can't do keybindings, it is a very simple thing to support and it's not time or labor intensive. When people start getting all uppity about needing quad monitor support and whatnot then I just kind of tune out but this is some pretty basic stuff.
Really though, PC gaming enthusiasts (not just you) need to accept the fact that just because the platform has been around longer doesn't mean publishers or developers OWE the market anything extra. They don't need to port these games to pc, at all.
Why does the platform age matter? They're bringing a game to the PC market, logically they would want to make it a good experience for people on that platform. Even moreso when the games are usually delayed months after the console releases. People aren't really asking for anything special here, that's a straw man.
This comment was edited on Mar 28, 2012, 16:11.