Can somebody please explain the logic of this? I just read a comment a few down this thread that said that it makes perfect sense for companies to make one game that cuts across all platforms.

I just don't get this line of reasoning. Console games have an entirely different feel, play style and immersion than PC games. Not worse per se, but quite different.

Console games are played sitting on a couch, 10 ft from the TV, often with friends, for an hour at a time. They have great driving and fighting games in particular.

PC games are often played solo, 18-24 inches from a high-res monitor, for hours at a time due to immersion. Strategy, RTS, simulations and FPS are the PC hallmark. Complexity of options and controls is another.

Console games don't port well to PCs, and PC games often fail going to consoles. Even KOTOR, the exception to this general rule, suffered considerably from "dumbing down" to fit the X-Box. C'mon - tell me that keeping KOTOR's storyline, graphics, characters, but adding a little more of NWN or BG2's tactical complexity would have made it a worse game?

I think they're fundamentally different markets - in style, consumer base, etc. Why don't the publisher's understand this?

Put another way, DX:IW was made for both X-Box and PC to make more sales, then if it was PC alone. Yet couldn't a case be made that DX:IW would have sold more total copies if it was a quality PC game only, rather than a rushed, botched port?

A Luddite PC gamer,

Istari