Video Game News and Miscellany
- Thread starter figmentPez
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
Ahh, that's right, you've had me on ignore until recently.
Basically, what it boils down to is consoles are one of the largest detrimental forces to PC gaming, heck, video gaming in general.
90% of games have to be on one or more consoles (they've even screwed up the definition of "exclusive," as in I posted a promotional image of a video game that said "EXCLUSIVELY ON XBOX ONE, PS4, AND PC!") in addition to PC, and since console hardware is always weaker than PC hardware (after all, console gaming means no new hardware for ~8 years), generally the effect on the development cycle is that the game is developed first with consoles in mind, then ported to PC toward the end of development - right when stress is highest and budgets are thinnest. This hurts performance, makes the control schemes gamepad-centric (which often doesn't translate well to KB/M), and there have even been instances of chicanery to avoid making the PC version look or play better than the console version, assumedly at the behest of MS/Sony. For example, games "locked" at 30fps to ensure players get the "intended, cinematic experience." Plus, in addition to catering to obsolete hardware, the games themselves get what can only generously be called "simplified for a more casual consumer," or as Yahtzee put it, "Dumbed down for the console tards."
A lot of this is the fault of Japanese devs that simply don't "get" the PC market, which is rather small in Japan where personal computers aren't a huge thing. Their narrow focus on the domestic market (where consoles are king) has basically kept them from fully exploiting their IPs... though at least Capcom seems more than happy to do PC ports of their titles now and is moving closer into simultaneous release on PC. Then again, most Japanese devs are throwing up their hands in defeat and making shitty mobile games so who cares what they are doing.
And broadens the market considerably, resulting in more developers creating games because it is very much worth it, financially.
GasBandit
Staff member
The american dev houses have been just as guilty of this as Japan. Pretty much the only dev with any credibility for not giving PC the short end of the stick is Polish, and even the extent of that credit is debatable.[DOUBLEPOST=1432691587,1432691471][/DOUBLEPOST]
Not all that many indie devs on consoles, especially not compared to PC. No, if anything, consoles are dominated by risk-averse AAA megacorp sequel-mills devoid of inspiration, originality, or even love of the medium.
Tomb Raider sold 3.4 million copies and they called it a financial failure.
And that's my thought as well. Most of those games which are 'dumbed down' to work on the consoles wouldn't be made for PC because the development costs would be way too high for a mediocre market when compared to the market including consoles.
To me it's a fair trade off. Besides, how many games are being made for the high end PC's before consoles became so important?
I can't believe I haven't been able to actually say this until now, months after getting my gaming rig:
Filthy casual.[DOUBLEPOST=1432691843,1432691765][/DOUBLEPOST]
What's even stranger about its upcoming sequel is that it's Xbox One exclusive (and from the sounds of it, it's a timed exclusive). If 3.4 million copies across multiple systems is a disappointment, what do they hope to get releasing it on one?
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually, the PC Gaming market now exceeds that of consoles.
... are you asking what the PC gaming market was like in 1984? That's a pretty apples-to-oranges comparison there. But still, the PC gaming market was faring better than consoles in the years between the death of Atari and the rise of Nintendo. But it's not really an applicable comparison, given how much the technology gap between the two platforms has widened ever since.
Move the goal posts much? If the indie games are your benchmark, then the consoles aren't even a concern. Like, at all. If you want big AAA future, you need a broad market. You literally can't have AAA titles with no consoles to drive the sales up because, as you alluded to, there needs to be a big payoff for all the work that goes into making those very impressive games.
Well, no. What I was thinking was it would mean more if developers were complaining, not just people with high end PC's, about being held back by consoles. Is that a common thing?
And really, from what I'm seeing, the sales are VERY close.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, I thought that's what you meant by "encouraging more people to make games," because the horror stories of employee abuse coming out of the megacorp developer/publishers isn't doing that. Sorry if I misunderstood.
We don't need what is currently defined as a "AAA" title. It's pretty much become an epithet, really. They're literally some of the least impressive games out there. Big disappointments like Titanfall, Destiny and Watchdogs.
The Witcher? Dragon Age? Skyrim? They all needed consoles.
And great games like Skyrim. I'm not saying there aren't stinker big titles, but you do seem really focused on the negative to support your position. From what I can tell consoles still help double the market for gaming, which to me says it's still a big help in getting great games produced.
Honestly, there are only two games I've played recently as far as video gaming goes. For the most part, I'd rather get together and play a good board game over playing a video game any day
Honestly, there are only two games I've played recently as far as video gaming goes. For the most part, I'd rather get together and play a good board game over playing a video game any day
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, nobody wants to publicly badmouth 40% of the goose they want to lay their golden egg. But it's well documented, especially since were talking about E3 - there have been multiple times where "in game footage" has been shown at E3 which was then scaled back for release because what was shown couldn't possibly work on consoles - but it was scaled back for PC, too, because Sony/MS (and the publishers) would be unhappy if the PC version was manifestly superior to the console versions.
That's still far from describing the PC market as "mediocre," which is what led to what I pointed out.And really, from what I'm seeing, the sales are VERY close.
One is forced to wonder how much of that is politics, and is one of the things that undermines their previously abundant PC cred.[DOUBLEPOST=1432692782,1432692686][/DOUBLEPOST]
Skyrim is one of the best examples of how consoles hold PC games back. Even vanilla skyrim gagged to unplayability over time on PS3... but on PC, it continues to vibrantly shine and improve under the enthusiastic ministrations of the PC modders.
Really guys, the "couldn't have happened if not for consoles" point speaks more to what I'm saying - it's not an enabler, it's mandatory baggage.
Ran just fine on the 360. Maybe your complaint is with Sony? And really, I'm happy not having to go through tons of mods to find a good one. There are benefits to both systems.
Except those games are becoming such a huge investment that they need a big return in order to be successful at all (like the above mentioned Tomb Raider). That's why so many big name studios are going under, because the demands for the highest of highest quality games with the biggest budgets means they're becoming a huge risk. Then you look at the rise in indie developers and see a lot of them not only successful, but thriving. My favourite example is Hello Games. They made a pair of small indie games in Joe Danger & Joe Danger 2. And they sold well, making back their investment on the very first day it was available on PSN. And now, they're releasing what I believe is considered an AAA game: No Man's Sky. Admittedly, not PC exclusive (I think PS4 and PC), but still.
These indie developers aren't held back by giant corporate heads who have no idea about video games themselves, focusing only on the numbers (which is why you see so many clones of the most successful games). They can take risks with games that you might not expect (like Papers, Please or FTL) that wouldn't stand a chance on consoles. As a result, I think those developers will be the future of gaming as these big studios slowly dwindle more and more because of ridiculous financial decisions. For all we know, Hello Games might be the next EA or something. Those big companies started small themselves, after all.
And really, there ARE exclusive games on PC that are AAA quality: Pillars of Eternity, Star Citizen, Starcraft 2, Mount & Blade, Grey Goo, Homeworld Remastered, Skylines: Cities, SimCity, Sims 4, Shadowrun, Civilzation V. To name a few.
Last edited:
GasBandit
Staff member
"Less to choose from" is a benefit, is it? Would you also be happier not having to pick from a multitude of cars, deciding which one is a good one? Not having to worry about having so many restaurants to choose from because you might waste time discovering one isn't to your liking? Just one of mediocre quality, safely, blandly "OK" because then you don't have to worry about any being better or worse?
And even the 360 one had (like all consoles) low resolution textures, low poly models, and lower framerate. But of course, the PC version suffered in the control scheme because it had to be designed with controllers with thumbsticks in mind first and foremost.
Again, you move the goal posts (or more like change the channel entirely). The modding community might offer an incentive to get PC but that doesn't reflect on the developers efforts when designing a game. DLC might but not modding.
GasBandit
Staff member
The mods came in a different argument - about the effect of being simultaneously delivered on both consoles and PC. In fact, the high resolution texture "mod" was actually put out by the developer, and there were numerous DLC/mod packs put out by the developer full of things they wanted to make but had to cut for consoles. And the user-modders demonstrate what could have been technically possible if the development didn't have to be shackled to the obsolete consoles.
See, that's the thing. I don't feel like it was mediocre. I could play it the way I like, using my controller, on a big screen tv, and without being bogged down by mods and losing interest quickly. I've played games on PC as well as on Console, and to be honest I'm happy being a casual gamer on the console. Not everyone is all hard core about it.
I get it, you're a hard core gamer. But honestly, it would be like me looking down my nose at people playing Monopoly and Apples to Apples. I'm just happy there are people enjoying games.
Sorry, I'm probably making things difficult in the discussion. That's not my intention and I'm not trying to confuse the issues at hand. I just have trouble seeing how the consoles are dragging down the PC gaming. No one is forcing companies to make games for console, and if it wasn't profitable to do so, they wouldn't make them.
You can't have those nice things either way, though. No console market, no fancy stuff on the PC. No fancy stuff if you have consoles as your lowest denominator either. Yay free markets! Don't blame consoles, though, because without them you'd be in the same boat.
I'm not really looking to jump into this argument, because I don't care if people like to play console games, that's fine (filthy casuals) but how is lack of mods a benefit? If you don't want mods, you can just not install any, and have the exact same base game as anyone else, the one you said you liked.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, I can tell you, that I don't look down on anyone playing a tabletop game - because those games don't have an impact on the development of PC games. That's why I don't gripe about mobile games (much) either. If console games were as separated from PC games as board games, or hell, even DS or PSP games, I'd have no complaints.
But because so many developers think they can't make a PC game unless it is also for consoles, that's where the problems start. And it's irritating, given that it's so patently, demonstrably false.
It's more not a deciding factor for me. I don't need them and it doesn't influence me as a (filthy casual) gamer.
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't buy that at all. It's entirely possible to have PC games independent of console games.
Not at the quality you would desire. If you cut the market in half, what do you think would happen? I guys if you don't mind paying twice as much for your games...
You're asking for people making big budget games, like the Witcher 3 for example, to cut their market in half.
Hell, there are entire genres of games that really only work best on PC: RTS, city builders, arguably point and click adventure games. I've seen RTS games tried multiple times on console and it just doesn't work. Or you get really dumbed down versions like Civilzation or The Sims.
And we do, they're just modest budgeted titles like Wasteland 2 or Pillars of Eternity and the insane loads of Eurojank games out there.
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, given that I'm paying roughly 10-20% console price for games right now, I think I could stomach that. Heck, if they actually did come through on the quality, I wouldn't mind paying the $60 price point (which is ridiculous as things stand).
Also, you're not figuring in the added development time and resources needed to "port" games across platforms. After all, the consoles don't run windows, have different control schemes, hardware limitations, etc.
And their development budget would get less demanding. Remember Tomb Raider? 3.4 million sold? Financial flop? When you spend more on development, you have to make more. And it's a no brainer that developing for 2 (or more often 3) platforms is necessarily more expensive than 1, and having to spend time and effort to code such that you milk every last drop out of aging, obsolete hardware also drags development out as well.
BUT MUH GRAFIX GUYS UUUUUUUUUUUUUUNGH
GasBandit
Staff member
Battlefield 1942 and Call of Duty 1 were PC exclusives too, and far from financial failures. Really, those titles' moves into the console realm pretty much coincided with the start of their respective slides into the quality abyss.
The studios would ignore consoles if they would make as much money with purely PC titles. The market has decided otherwise.
GasBandit
Staff member
The market has been manipulated into believing otherwise, as AshburnerX also alluded. But yes, it's no great revelation that people will line up to purchase substandard product en masse so long as the marketing is done right. And the big developers are absolutely terrified of the open platform of the PC and the control it wrests from them - not even talking about piracy. Look how they continually make every effort to stomp the used console game market into the ground, how some even try to lock down their PC products and ban modifications to the software.[DOUBLEPOST=1432694880,1432694755][/DOUBLEPOST]Also, @Krisken, to get back to your board game analogy, you'll note I've not badmouthed nintendo at any point in this - because nintendo largely develops for their console and their console only. I've got no hatred for Smash Brothers, or Legend of Zelda, or the Mario Brothers franchise... because they don't affect/drag down PC gaming. They're excellent console games - not crossplatform games that hobble PC development. If I were to buy a console today, it'd probably be a Wii U.