Console Issues

[AOI_Tifa_Lockhart]

Hi all,

It's old news. But so many console fan boys will deny the truth till their blue in the face, hopefully then dying from asphyxiation.

http://www.ripten.com/2010/11/25/crytek-pc-is-a-generation-ahead-of-consoles-sam-n/

Tifa

[joefro]

Why are you posting this? To start a flame war?

Also, nice misleading thread title.

[AOI_Tifa_Lockhart]

Don't even know what a flame war is. I'm just an PC elitist. I've got all the consoles and enjoy them enough, but I share in the annoyance that game designers fixate on consoles when the stuff coming out on consoles was always pioneered by previous PC titles.

If people want to contsantly push the boundaries of gaming why not use the most powerful advanced platform instead of fixating on what makes money and releasing countles COD's Assassin's Creed and other typical games that aren't pushing anything other than the designers sale figures or gimmicks such as kinnect etc, interactive gaming is a nice idea but how practical is it to play a game for long periods of time flailing your arms around like a retard.

I mean Crysis came out in 2007, was in production for goodness knows how long, so utilizing technology over 3 years old to release a game which graphically has very very few competitors even 3 years later is impressive.

Anyways I just posted it because I agree with the statement and thought people might enjoy reading it, plus i've enocuntered a lot of people who convince themselves PC is inferior and it infuriates me xD And the title isn't misleading, consoles are an issue with the development of games, depends how you read the title I guess.

Tifa

[Sinue_v2]

PC is the superior platform, and yes - the popularity of gaming consoles is holding progress back... temporarily. Problem being that console hardware is sold at a loss, meaning that extending the lifespan of the hardware out at the time when production costs are lowest secures the greatest profit on royalties. There is no incentive this generation for console manufacturers to gamble on the release new hardware since 360 and PS3 are both doing quite well (in different markets) - and the Wii doing it's thing way out in the lead, but not really eating into the previously established market.

Here's the thing though. If consoles stay stagnant for too long, the graphics capabilities on PCs will eventually outstrip them to the point where a few developers will really push those capabilities with games that catch more and more people's attention. Especially as the price of graphics hardware comes down. A lot of gamers who see PCs as a viable platform, but who are still waiting for something substantial enough to overcome the ease of use in consoles, will drift back over to the PC market.

Yes, the growth will be stymied. Yes, consoles will be responsible. But that doesn't mean that consoles will be an insurmountable regulator for the graphical quality of PC games from here on out. It'll just be a slower than usual recovery. This may be reduced if the popularity of "casual games" on the Wii spurs the other console makers to loosen their quality control standards, using the Move/Kinect to get their foot in the door on that market. Those games are easy money, being cheap and (typically) of poor graphical quality. Though counting on a glut of shovelware to poison the well and push more hardcore gamers to the PC will likely result in little else but wishful thinking, and I wouldn't wish that fate on the poor masses of console-only gamers.

I'd say it's also depends on how the PC market adapts to genre platform preferences. If consoles have taken over as the traditional home of western RPGs, First Person Shooters, etc... then the PC market needs to innovate and find new genres and games which offer unique experiences that take advantage of the PC's strengths. MMORPGs have been one area in which PC's have stood out as the premier platform, but their long lifespans are more of a compound to the problem - rather than a solution to it. Not to mention the tendency is to sacrifice overall graphics in meshes and textures in favor of larger model counts (representing more players).

Another area in which PCs shine in their modability, but as easy as it is, it still remains beyond the desire and grasp of many console users. A problem that may be expiated a bit if more companies were to release and encourage modding, offering more powerful tools which satisfy both for the creatively inept and the semi-professional... not to mention easing the mod install process. Then perhaps offering a centralized cataloging and downloading service for the fan creations, including perhaps some standardization of the "best of the best" - especially in the case of multiplayer maps for competitive games.

Such a move would cut the throats of many development houses who have quickly learned the profit of selling DLC over a unified network in controlled conditions where installation is easy. Those people don't want to subscribe to a file-hosting site just to download a mix bag of good and broken mods which they can't even figure out how to install. The system has to be less obtuse. Though a few companies, like Bethesda, already encourage modding via the release of watered down development kits as a means to extend the life of their games, and use that as a marketing point, it probably wouldn't be a major consideration for most studios to adopt it as a standard to the development process. At least not until the market is already trending in that direction, the and risk of losing out on DLC revenue is less than the risk of losing sales by not allowing modding. (Though, even here, consoles are starting to encroach... mostly with games like Pariah, Halo 3/Reach, etc.. that have low-level map modding components)

You're never going to sell PC gaming to people who don't want to learn how to use a PC. If it's going to be a viable market, it's going to have either innovate to create a new drawing factor to the market, or it's going to have to adopt console strategies and produce middleware "shells" that can exploit the power and flexibility of a PC - and translate it into console ease of use and comfort. ... and that's either going to require a third party startup with good connections among PC game developers, or an established name like Microsoft that already does similar work and has broad market penetration. (Though MS has no incentive to do so, since they don't make royalties on PC games)


In the end, it's probably far easier to try to tip the scales in the console end of the market into a situation to either Microsoft or Sony's overwhelming advantage, thus prompting their competitor to release a new hardware generation. This doesn't fix the fundamental problem, but it does keep the graphics arm's race going (and retains the PC's stronghold in that field). That is... providing the cost of actual game development for such graphically intensive titles stays viable. Considering that was the major impetus for cross-platform development (and the PC's losing of many of it's strongest genres), the resolution to that issue will likely make or break any attempt to re-establish PC's as the premier gaming platform again.

[Volcompat321]

If PC's weren't so damn expensive for a GOOD gaming one, I'm sure more people would get one, therefore selling a higher amount of games to the people...

PC is holding itself back.

[Akaimizu]

That and all those F2P MMOs. Those do a great job of stifling PC game sales in comparison to consoles. There's a marketting reason why so few MMO-like games are allowed on consoles.

[Outrider]

Okay, first off - for some reason all this talk about computer hardware is really just revolving around graphics. The graphics arms race (while still very important) is less important than it's ever been, and that's damn good for everybody.

We live in a world where graphical fidelity is yielding diminishing returns. Developers will have to start focusing on actual gameplay and design rather than how pretty their game looks. Quite frankly, I don't particularly care whether or not Crytek is able to render every molecule in their game world.

Maybe they should make a good Crysis game and then they can start complaining about the incidentals.

[Astarin]

Graphically, consoles have always been behind PC's. There's nothing new there, so I'm not sure why this is "news".

I agree with Outrider, the silly graphics war is less important now, and actual gameplay matters more, in my opinion, anyway.

With that said, PC's will always have their market - if you want cutting edge graphics, PC is the way to go. You have to understand that there's more upgrading and hardware required, and frankly, that's what people like about consoles. There's the ease of use associated with buying one piece of hardware, and having it be more or less all you need.

[Akaimizu]

Definitely. While it may be impressive on how a game may make you feel like you're in the middle of WWII, in full gritty detail; there's a reason why games like Minecraft, Donkey Kong Country, Torchlight, and Super Meatboy can still rule. In many cases, the most innovative or most artistic aspects of gaming still go to those who aren't on the top of the graphical spectrum. Even on PCs.

But that's besides the point. The presence of so many Free to play timesinks on the PC are much more of a cause for issues of popularity on big name titles. Consoles are just easier to get cutting edge graphics and not have to upgrade them for years. Sure, you wont get the current PC graphics, especially as time goes by; but at least all the stuff that releases on it will be more-or-less tweaked to run respectively on them. Plus no typical computer file system management and/or maintenance to deal with.

Still, when you have like 100 totally Free-to-Play (and subscription) games of all kinds of genres, generally keeps many folks from actually going out to buy their PC games. To a degree, conveniences like Steam has helped. However, there's still the vast majority too involved in their timesinks to care about buying stuff. Things like WoW, or ingame purchases take all their game-commited money.

[amtalx]

I'm just an PC elitist.
/thread

I'm a PC gamer too, but the console vs. PC cockbagery needs to stop. Why can't everyone just STFU and play games?

[Split]

Yeah PC has prettier graphics, but I don't have the price of all three current-gen consoles combined just lyin' around waiting to be dropped on a state-of- the-art gaming rig, and I don't make enough money on a regular basis to be updating my GPU every goddamn week, so an Xbox 360 is just fine, thank you. Plus, I like being able to play on a TV, split-screen with friends, which I'm sure you can theoretically do with PC games, but that type of couch multiplayer has only trended on consoles.

Every platform has its merits, and "loyalty" to just one is stupid because the businesses behind them don't really care. The fact that you prefer one of them doesn't legally bind you to shit on all the others, they're allowed to exist too. Except for the Wii.

[AOI_Tifa_Lockhart]

Except the Wii? :o I think Nintendo did best out of all the consoles and is the best one at present. I mean over-all sales figures are through the roof for their console which hardware wise is simply Gamcube hardware overclocked. Cost wise they must have saved so much yet they've made so much profit, which is very impressive, it can use any cube games, cube controllers, free net play, no massive issues with console failures compared to Xbox or PS3. It's a solid console, the least powerful out of all of them but the best selling console.

I think PS3 over-cooked their consoles. They had amazing features to begin with, linux options, touch sensitive on/off button, backwards compatability etc etc then they just decided to curb production costs and release a half arsed second gen of consoles, oh and Linux being removed due to possible security issues...and news nowadays about PS3 being hacked.....yeah that's just hilariously ironic.

Buut I'm not just graphics geared, if I was I wouldn't own any of the next gen consoles but i've got all of them and I wouldnt' consider the Wii to be the best console but I do becuase it's a lot of fun...but not suited for seriious gaming cos it just hurts after a while hah.

I think the Wii is the most fun, sure its gimmicky but they're taking interactiveness a step further, just the games seem to lack a lot of substance imo, reminds me of 3DO titles lmao. I guess Nintendo nowadays is directed more towards casual gaming and fun which is fine as they've made their nieche, and I leave the serious gaming to my PC and the relaxing....usually stress free gaming to the Wii. I think it was the SNES and Cube which were the only consoles which were on par or better than their counterparts at the time in terms of power.

True, upgrading PC's is an expensive affair and that's the major turn off for console gamers I suppose, but with competing companies they'll always be trying to push the boundaries of new hardware and as for optomisation...well consoles can have that opportunity a lot better than PC. PC seems to have new games geared towards newer hardware, whereas consoles will be optomised for what it can handle. Which annoys me because there's many games which shouldn't take much to run but end up playing horrifically. Then again every PC is different so you could encounter a problem along the road even if your friend with the same PC doesn't...another turn off for console gamers. but I love how much you can do with a PC, sure consoles are now media centres, but being able to mod games, download games for free without getting removed from internet gaming, playing emulators of consoles from NES to Dreamcast or PS2, I just love it :D

Best example for console optimisation imo would be Half Life 2 on the original Xbox that game was almost on par with PC. But maybe the future of consoles could be upgradable components, I mean N64 had it with the memory slot, then the mega drive/gensis well...i'd call it a travesty. The consoles ended up looking like some overly large mushroom headed...thing. But maybe it'd be seen as gimmicks to the console market and not take off, buiding a new consoel with the sole intention of upgrading hardware later could just create a bit of a profit minefield.

But consoles rely on game sales to make profit and I think on profit margins Sony and Microsoft tanked a bit, but both companies can just throw obscene amounts of money at their consoles to keep it all going.

Multi-player is what I use consoles for mainly, and console exclusive titles, which is another annoyance that many titles will just be bypassed on PC formats, or are subject to really cheap and poorly made ports, some not even taking the time to remove the xbox button symbols on menu's... I wait for Fable 3 but I can't say I trust the release date as Fable 2 was highly mis-leading/non-existant too..

Tifa

[Split]

Except the Wii? :o I think Nintendo did best out of all the consoles and is the best one at present. I mean over-all sales figures are through the roof for their console which hardware wise is simply Gamcube hardware overclocked. Cost wise they must have saved so much yet they've made so much profit, which is very impressive, it can use any cube games, cube controllers, free net play, no massive issues with console failures compared to Xbox or PS3. It's a solid console, the least powerful out of all of them but the best selling console.Well, I was mostly kidding with my post (Get it? The old 'preach about equality, then deem something not equal' schtick? Roflmao. Maybe I should've thrown a :wacko: in there for good measure). I have a Wii and essentially use it as a GCN/N64/SNES surrogate. But now that you've decided to respond so fervently and with the above statement in particular, let me tell you something: best sales almost NEVER means best quality or most fun or whatever other superlative you could come up with as a motivation for buying something. This is especially true in the video games industry, which is young and therefore very prone to selling out to the mainstream crowd.

You just wrote a paragraph about how the Wii is the best console of this generation because Nintendo profited a bunch from it without putting a lot of effort into the quality of their hardware and instead relied on gimmicks like a high level of backwards compatibility (which isn't at all preferable in the face of actual advancements and new content) and a free online service that NO ONE USES because it sucks and is utterly lacking in support from the company as well as any games that are actually fun to play online. Also, no one wants to memorize a twelve digit friend code.

This is exactly the mindset I was talking about in my earlier post. People need to realize they have absolutely zero stake in how any of these companies fare business-wise (unless you're some big-shot shareholder, in which case, the stake you have is on how much money the companies make, not whether they're putting out good products or not), and therefore they have no reason to be their knight in shining armor that defends them in online forums. Just buy the games you like on whatever systems have them and be quiet about it .

[BIG OLAF]

If I had a computer that could actually play games, I'm sure I'd spend a lot more time playing PC games. But, my laptop is not meant for gaming at all, and I won't have the money any time in the foreseeable future to get a new one. I'm not biased towards any console (or PC), but I like the 360 better, as it has more games that suits my interests.

Hopefully I'll be able to get even a mediocre gaming PC before PSO2 comes out, as it's probably not going to be on any other platform.

[Kent]

While it's true that computer graphics hardware is constantly evolving, to say that consoles are "holding back" games as a whole is just insane - the only thing they're "holding back" would be in the graphics department. However, anyone who has a real appreciation for games will understand that graphics don't make the game, they're merely one part of a whole, and they're far from the most important part of that whole.

Considering that restrictions are what breed innovation in the first place, one could argue that the fact that consoles are, on a graphical level, "holding back" what we see in games, in general, is actually a good thing. If it weren't for developers having to find real and feasible ways of working within their boundaries, we'd be constantly finding outselves without innovation. In a way, it's kind of like thinking of a business as having no competition in its field.

That's not to say that consoles are the sole factor here, but they certainly are a substantial one.

Of course, one can't ignore the impact of piracy on the gaming industry. As game publishers come to terms with the fact that DRM on PC games simply doesn't work with regards to preventing pirates from stealing software, they're becoming less inclined to make PC versions of games, when they could instead make console versions and have a significantly-lesser threat of piracy removing potential sales. It's an ugly truth, but the fact of the matter is that it's very much there, and it is a huge problem.

[Kyrith_Ranger_Pso]

controllers, that's one of the main reasons i prefer consoles over PC, I can't stand to use keyboard controls for most rpgs and adventures (which are my favorite kind of game and therefore the kind i play the most), they're just less comfortable to me, so i generally play consoles for adventure games and RPGs, but on the other hand, when playing an FPS i find it almost impossible to maneuver well without playing with a mouse, and then there's RTSes which , in my opinion, really can't be fun except on PC, they just weren't made for consoles. So i guess what I'm trying to get across, is that different types of games play better on either PC or console, and most people find consoles more comfortable to play so they do, and not everyone has a computer that can play all these new PC games. I have to put my graphics down to the lowest detail possible along with the lowest resolution just to play starcraft 2 without too much lag, and i have no near-future plans to buy another PC.

[Akaimizu]

Right now. I actually have a respectable Mac running both OSX and Windows 7. It handles Starcraft 2 quite well. On the other hand, the only reason why I even have one with specs to handle this is for 1 main game. Sure there's PSO2, but before there was a PSO2 announcement, there was Diablo III looming in the wings. And yes. I'll get a machine (which I did) for Diablo III. Dungeon Hackers are my favorite things in the world.

So I normally don't have a push to get a machine with a good video card. But a good Dungeon Hacker with some requirements will push me to do so.

[Outrider]

controllers, that's one of the main reasons i prefer consoles over PC, I can't stand to use keyboard controls for most rpgs and adventures (which are my favorite kind of game and therefore the kind i play the most), they're just less comfortable to me, so i generally play consoles for adventure games and RPGs, but on the other hand, when playing an FPS i find it almost impossible to maneuver well without playing with a mouse, and then there's RTSes which , in my opinion, really can't be fun except on PC, they just weren't made for consoles. So i guess what I'm trying to get across, is that different types of games play better on either PC or console, and most people find consoles more comfortable to play so they do, and not everyone has a computer that can play all these new PC games. I have to put my graphics down to the lowest detail possible along with the lowest resolution just to play starcraft 2 without too much lag, and i have no near-future plans to buy another PC.

Yeah, despite what PC enthusiasts may try and tell you, keyboard and mouse are embarrassingly bad for all but a handful of genres. Anybody who swears that a keyboard is better than a controller for something like a fighting game or a platformer is out of their minds (as Super Meat Boy so succinctly points out on every boot-up.)

And even then, 9 times out of 10 I'll choose a controller for something like first-person shooters for the simple fact that I'm willing to sacrifice a modicum of performance in exchange for comfort.

But boy oh boy, do they still have RTS games. Unless it's a console-specific RTS (such as Pikmin), there's really no good way of playing them using a controller.

[Randomness]

/thread

I'm a PC gamer too, but the console vs. PC cockbagery needs to stop. Why can't everyone just STFU and play games?

QFT.


Seriously, if you enjoy a game, play it. If not, don't. That is the ONLY criteria that should ever matter.


Yeah, despite what PC enthusiasts may try and tell you, keyboard and mouse are embarrassingly bad for all but a handful of genres. Anybody who swears that a keyboard is better than a controller for something like a fighting game or a platformer is out of their minds (as Super Meat Boy so succinctly points out on every boot-up.)

And even then, 9 times out of 10 I'll choose a controller for something like first-person shooters for the simple fact that I'm willing to sacrifice a modicum of performance in exchange for comfort.

But boy oh boy, do they still have RTS games. Unless it's a console-specific RTS (such as Pikmin), there's really no good way of playing them using a controller.

Yeah, strategy games and MMOs are about the only things where keyboard/mouse is obviously better. The former for all the things you have available to click at a time and the need of speed in selection, the latter because of having like 20 things you want to have on a button. FPS is a toss-up (Both schemes are about the same in the end). Everything else, gimme a controller.

[amtalx]

The controller vs. KB+Mouse debate depends on the game for me. I don't think I could ever play Halo with a KB+Mouse. On the other hand, I don't think I could ever play an Unreal Tournament game with a controller. Some games I prefer having aim assist (let's be honest, almost every console FPS game has a little) and others I can't stand it.

[Akaimizu]

I'm in a similar case. It depends on the game. I think certain FPS games became quite playable with controllers due to the way they work slower than some. So the speed of the FPS has a lot to do with my wants.

Quake and Unreal Tournament are like the fastest FPS games in the planet. It's like (name a popular console FPS) Super Turbo edition. So I favor the mouse and keyboard on those, where the game speed of FPS weapons are ramped up to require a new level of precision.

Still, for the longest time, I mainly used the PC for strategy games. They still tend to keep the best ones on the planet. I also pick it if the gameplay really helps with their interface. One of the reasons I picked to play the PC version of Dragon Age over the console. It was clearly designed with PCs in mind where Mass Effect, the opposite. I don't mind. I give Kudos for Bioware on supporting both fronts of gameplay while still making them multi-platform.

There are also plenty of PC-exclusives. Some casual, some more hardcore. They may not all be big million dollar makers, but that doesn't make them less fun or less likely for folks to play. I still hold to the opinion that MMOs made people buy less commercial software. Tieing people economically to one game, which also enforces the compulsion play just to make sure you get your money's worth, is a dangerous combination when it comes to trying to sell a lot of titles for the same machine.

This is likely the main reason why Microsoft and Sony are not going to be quick to allow those things on their consoles. Microsoft technically has 2. Sony will eventually have 2, but no rush to it. I doubt they'll go past that anytime soon. And woe betides them once they start letting F2P games on their system.

Back to PC stuff. I like Starcraft 2, but I'm not sure I can work in multiplayer. It's not so much that I can't develop the strategy. It's more like I need a Starcraft dictionary of acronyms to be able to speak the Starcraft language. I've seen some good replays, seen some good footage. But outside of 'gg' or something, I can't understand a word that's typed in that game. They even spell out whole sentences with nothing but acronyms. Someone could try to tell me something like a specific location for where I need to put some unit or something, to aid their units and I'll be, whu-what??