Does devs ignoring the PC for the last few years, look shortsighted in light of next gen hardware?

[Vault101]

Wait, what? That's why you think PCs are getting treated like second-class citizens? You are the first person I have ever encountered who is bothered by this, and a good portion of my friends are electrical engineering and computer science majors. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of PC gamers are perfectly fine with ports, and are more excited that they exist than whether or not they use Direct-X. Are you sure this is actually a problem on the minds of most PC gamers, or is it something that mostly bothers you?

everybody already beat me too it but anyway

while I am happy to be able to play the games since 99% of the games I play are multiplatform (so therefor ports) and rarely do I ever play a game that is soley for the PC...

ports can have their own set of probelms as people said, annoying UI, badly optimised, bad controlls and being broken..its not just taking advantage of what the PC can do

I dont mind stright up console ports for certain games if they have no issues (like DMC) if they are poorly done though its really distracting

 

[ph0b0s123]

Of course that was logical while while PC architecture represented 10% of the market. The point is they were short sighted for not getting ahead of the game for when the same architecture becomes 3/4 of the market as it will be now... That's the point.

-snip-

But of course, you asked if the last gen was short-sighted in the light of next gen specs, and that's ridiculous.

Yes, that would have been ridiculous if asked, but it wasn't. It was asked if Dev's should have taken a more long term view and made some games that current gen console may not have been powerful enough for.

As happened with the PS3, while dev's had to learn the Cell CPU, it will now take a while for devs to be able to make games that take full advantage of the new hardware. Since the hardware is the same as have been available for the PC market for a while, they could have gotten ahead of the game by not taking the short term view that any games have to work on current gen consoles.

EDIT: Edited for grammar. Lesson android mobiles are not best for posting in this forum...

 

[Griffolion]

-snip-

Hence why I used the qualifier "conventional", as in, not necessarily 100% technically accurate, but what is used in every day life. PC, as a general rule, refers to a machine running Windows. Talk to anyone about PC, and 99/100 will say you're on about Windows. Sure you can split hairs and bring Linux into it, but I simply stuck to conventional terms for the sake of simplicity of the argument. And, in any case, it certainly doesn't detract from my main point of not developing for "PC" (whatever we're going to define this as) as being short sighted.

An "IBM PC" is actually something that can be used for general purpose computing, the OS actually comes into it very little in the first place, so long as the machine's operational scope isn't limited in any way. So even mentioning Linux seemed a bit moot. Which is why naming the PS4 a "PC" is technically wrong, as the scope of the machines use is limited to gaming, and perhaps a few choice applications. You certainly don't have the scope of use Windows, Linux, FreeBSD (including Mac OS in there, since that's just a child's version of freeBSD) affords.

 

[Atmos Duality]

And in return, if Sony aren't knobs about it, PS4 games could start being able to utilise the output of numerous PC modding communities.

That will never happen.
Unless Sony gets a complete restructuring of their business model and philosophy, that just will not happen.

Sony loves control. They love proprietary coding, even if it has to run on top of something else.
They love control so much they held future PS3 games hostage unless users agreed to remove Other OS.

Modders (games, not system) are the antithesis of Sony at this point.