I'm torn between being sad that major developers are abandoning the PC and being thrilled that guys who only make console junk are abandoning the PC.

If we want a game on rails, we will play Roller Coaster Tycoon.

*badum pssshh!*

Also, Roller Coaster Tycoon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any shit ever released by cliffyb.

Creston

So when more and more major developers and publishers remove their blockbuster titles from being brought to the pc, port or not, it's a BAD THING for the pc gaming market to a point where it will be a very, very niche market not worth supporting by companies with development teams larger than 30 people.

So what? Seriously man, when was the last time that a BIG DEVELOPER/PUBLISHER actually made a good PC game? I personally liked Crysis, but it could have been a lot better, and anyways, future games by Crytek (after Warhead) will be ports anyways.

Most of the big titles nowadays are ports or at least co-developed for both systems. That's simply the reality. Another asshat developer who whines and moans and makes up shit about piracy leaving for consoles only isn't really going to make a real big difference.

And the idea that "eventually nobody will create games for the PC anymore!" is crazy. It's a simple case of supply and demand. There is a lot of demand for PC Games. Therefore, someone will supply them.

If the big developers won't do it (Please! Don't do it! Go away!), then smaller devs will. And guess what? Most of those guys make far better games anyways.

If the trend continues, and it has, the scope of PC games will be equivalent to those found on the Nintendo DS.

The Nintendo DS has approximately 99 billion games that are far more fun than anything to be found on the PC. Also, Final Fantasy Tactics (for example) made it to the DS. I'm not really sure where the idea that "DS games are not complicated and boringly stupid!" (paraphrasing) comes from.

For every one of the old time devs that fucks off and leaves the PC scene, two new devs will show up. They'll make one or two games, whine about not making 200 million dollars in three years, and fuck off to the consoles. Then new devs will come. Rinse, repeat, etc.

The PC will ALWAYS be an attractive platform for small devs, because they don't have to pay that ridiculous licensing fee to MS and Sony.

And finally, at some point, MS and Sony are going to realize that losing 300 bucks per console is not a sustainable business system, and they'll release crappier consoles, at which point anyone who wants to make a more complex game will have no choice BUT to go to the PC.

Seriously, I've been hearing this same "the PC is dying! Devs are going to consoles! We'll never have anymore good games!" for over ten years now. It's still here. It's making more money than ever. Complex PC games are still being made.

Don't worry. Play some of those "niche" titles you seem to have such a problem with, and you'll find that they're far better than the shit that EA and its ilk release.

Happy supporter of Stardock, IronClad and Egosoft.

Creston

So frankly, you should care. PC gaming IS NOT PROFITABLE.

Valve and Blizzard would beg to differ.

you might want to actually think before you type.

Crysis sold about 200,000 units

You insult PC gamers with comments like this. Crysis' game play was a total joke. But game play matters not to the console crowd. All they care about is graphics.

-----
http://www.gamemusicjukebox.com/
Game p/reviewer for http://www.gameindustry.com/

WE don't want more console crap.

-----
http://www.gamemusicjukebox.com/
Game p/reviewer for http://www.gameindustry.com/

So frankly, you should care. PC gaming IS NOT PROFITABLE. For whatever reason, that's the truth. Crysis sold about 200,000 units.

Really? I wonder why Valve, Blizzard, Relic, Stardock, CD Projekt, GSC Gameworld, etc, still make PC games. Hell, why do all those other companies even bother with PC ports if they don't make any money?

Oh yeah, Crysis sold over a million units according to EA and Crytek.

Remember, just because consoles are more profitable doesn't mean that PC's aren't profitable at all.

There is a certain mentality for console games. They don't translate to the PC very well. A lot of jap crap kicking and button mashing games, which is what Gears of War is.

I thank Cliffy B for keeping this button masher on the consoles where it belongs. Good riddance. I just hope that they don't even think of porting GoW 3 to the PC. Please keep console crap where it belongs.

So frankly, you should care. PC gaming IS NOT PROFITABLE. For whatever reason, that's the truth. Crysis sold about 200,000 units. Gears sold much less. If the trend continues, and it has, the scope of PC games will be equivalent to those found on the Nintendo DS.

I really can't make myself care that crappy console games don't get ported to the PC. Good riddance. As for those sales numbers, where did you get those from. Doesn't sound right at all.

Some companies do just fine with selling PC games. They don't cram shit in a box and try to sell it to us like EA and Ubi do on a regular basis.

Who really cares? Epic do shit PC titles (perhaps good titles if you're willing to accept a console interface, 2nd tier support, bottom tier release schedules....) these days. See ya guys, don't let the door hit you on the way out

If there were any coop PC FPS games out there, I wouldn't have given GoW a second thought. Still, if Epic wants to be that way with GoW2, so be it. I won't be buying any Epic games this time around.

heh - no loss to us PC gamers. Can't compete with true FPS games. If we want a game on rails, we will play Roller Coaster Tycoon.

The cause of all these evils was the lust for power arising from greed and ambition; and from these passions proceeded the violence of parties once engaged in contention.
This comment was edited on Aug 30, 10:06.

They won't port a CRAP game to the PC because few will buy their turd LOL!!
Nothing good has come out of epic in years.


This comment was edited on Aug 30, 10:03.

Gears sold less because it was a badly-ported over-hyped pile of trash... Yes, the Xbox 360/GFW design philosophy means that its easy to technically move a game between platforms, but that's no excuse for the terrible 360-centric controls, bugs and the numerous other shit that Gears did wrong on the PC.
Whoever even conceived that the game needed to store its save games on a flaky online server needed to die, painfully.
Seeing as UT3 also made this mistake, it's clearly Epics fault.

Seeing as they made how-many-millions of the money GoW made on the 360, why did the PC version theoretically even need to make money, short of corporate greed?

TO all those people who "don't f-ing care:"

So when more and more major developers and publishers remove their blockbuster titles from being brought to the pc, port or not, it's a BAD THING for the pc gaming market to a point where it will be a very, very niche market not worth supporting by companies with development teams larger than 30 people.

Do the math. For example, when some game companies start making games, they may buy an engine like Unreal 3. That costs about 1 million. Many high profile pc games sell only about 100-200k units which equates to the cost of the engine. You still have salaries and other project costs to figure in. More than likely you'll not be profitable. If you're not high profile, well.. you'll lose money.

However, this is not true for MMORPGS or Simulators.

So frankly, you should care. PC gaming IS NOT PROFITABLE. For whatever reason, that's the truth. Crysis sold about 200,000 units. Gears sold much less. If the trend continues, and it has, the scope of PC games will be equivalent to those found on the Nintendo DS.

Cover has been an important part of shooters for years. Cover systems just make it easier to pop out and shoot.

More too the point, cover systems just automate it so people can just get on with holding down the trigger to fire...
I was replaying the first two BiA games the other day and it was actually quite cool how bullets were ricocheting off of the mound of earth I was hiding behind. The main thing is, I was to one who chose to use that cover, not the game doing it for me, which seems to be de rigueur now.

Cover has been an important part of shooters for years. Cover systems just make it easier to pop out and shoot.

The idea of cover being an important part of gameplay was innovating

kill.switch did it first. therefore, it was a rip-off.

They could also create an nice 360 expansion pack rather than doing the shitty port. Keep it on the 360 and keep making it fun!

More like try to make it fun this time. GoW was a thoroughly mediocre game. I played it a little on the 360. It got boring pretty quick.

I like the UT games. Played the hell out of the original. UT2004 was fun too and had some good mods. I'm probably in the minority in liking UT3, which I can tell by the fact that it's a bitch to find a server to play on where I have a decent ping. But I don't really give a shit about the GoW franchise. It's a console franchise and it should stay there, as evidenced by their last attempt to port it.

::Sigh::

I enjoyed GoW1. The idea of cover being an important part of gameplay was innovating and none of the half-assed copycat cover systems in a third-person game have yet to match up. It was one of the more atmospheric apocalyptic settings that's been out in awhile, and, moreover, the port had a few more hours of real content to speak of, as well as more intelligent enemies to compensate for the keyboard/mouse watering down the challenge.

This is just retarded, though. Considering the 360 is basically watered-down PC in both construction and what everyone seems to think it's capable of (compare both versions of Mass Effect to each other) there is no reason why this game couldn't get a PC port with minimal effort. When they say "Gears is...first and foremost for Xbox 360, and therefore we're focusing on that platform," what they mean is, "We're too lazy to bother optimizing the game for another platform like we did last time. And also, Microsoft paid us off."