Doesn't it fell like PC gamers are getting the shaft?

[Xyliss]

Your not looking at the right places.
The Witcher 2 and Skyrim are shining examples of the game being ALOT better on PC.
Even fable 3 got a PC version with VAST improvements ( namely a difficulty setting).
The big games on PC don't come as frequently as console games.
Think about it in the terms fine dining(pc gamers) and MCdonalds(console gamers) even people who fine dine like to eat Mcdonalds sometimes but ALOT of people who have eaten Mcdonalds will NEVER fine dine.

Now I must agree with you on the first part...Some games are a lot better for PC. But I must disagree with the second part...but as a console gamer I have recently bought a gaming laptop because I wanted to play these better games and think your metaphor doesn't hold. Also if you take the literal meaning it's not true either

 

[newwiseman]

Piracy isn't a real issue, your still selling copies regardless of if everyone playing bought one. This argument carries no weight in my mind ever since a study found most people play games borrowed from their friends or purchase used. There most definitely are less PC sales but there are less PC gamers, my hypothesis is sales are probably proportional.

As for hacking, it happens on the consoles too. If they didn't program their game so badly a lot of hacking could be prevented (I'm looking at you Treyarch and Activision), namely increasing of damage and life or straight immortality. Also, if Cheat Engine can "Hack" your game, then you obviously don't really care if people are hacking it.

As for PC gamers getting the shaft ya that's true. The simple fact is it's easier to develop for a console, you know all its specs and what components are there, allowing programing directly for that hardware. On the PC they depend on Direct X, and can still end up with major driver and system conflicts. This is why gaming moved to consoles, there is less hardware and configuration to be aware of allowing for easier developments and faster, more stable builds. Though the accessibility of the internet and the ability to patch console games has obviously had an effect on how well companies feel they should debug games...

Still PC gaming will never die, there will always be developers willing to cater to us, and experiences better suited for us.

 

[Simeon Ivanov]

The problem is that devs don't realize that piracy and hacks also exist on consoles. It's just that it's more famous on the PC.

But yeah, I do feel like some games are getting half-assed because it easier to make a console port.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Developers are too lazy to code for PC's , because it's a lot harder to cater for the clearly superior gaming platform. Too many hardware configurations.

Ah, but it's not a 'superior gaming platform' ;p

It's a million different slightly different systems, some of which are vastly superior to consoles, some of which are much worse.

Thus the difficulty is that to succeed at creating a PC game you either have to be an unbelievably demanding snob (Eg. Crysis or going way back, Quake 3, and even Half=life 2), or you have to put in a tremendous effort to ensure that your game makes the most of EVERYONE's hardware, no matter how good or bad it is.

(The worst part being that the gap between 'best' and 'worst' PC's is that the best is about 100 times more powerful than the worst. - and that's ignoring stuff that's more than 4-5 years old entirely.)

 

[Xyliss]

No. Just because every game isn't catering to a PC market doesn't mean that PC is getting the shaft it means that other areas has ceased getting the shaft.

Well Said.
It's just more attention to other platforms as opposed to less to PC's

 

[Soviet Heavy]

*Sigh*
Someone get that "PC gaming is dying" picture, could you? I'm lazy.

You rang?

Heart of the Swarm is coming next year, and TOR is almost upon us. Plus we just got Skyrim, and I can happily beat the snot out of Jarl Balgruuf's son for being a little shit because I'm on PC and I have mods.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Developers are too lazy to code for PC's , because it's a lot harder to cater for the clearly superior gaming platform. Too many hardware configurations.

Ah, but it's not a 'superior gaming platform' ;p

It's a million different slightly different systems, some of which are vastly superior to consoles, some of which are much worse.

Thus the difficulty is that to succeed at creating a PC game you either have to be an unbelievably demanding snob (Eg. Crysis or going way back, Quake 3, and even Half=life 2), or you have to put in a tremendous effort to ensure that your game makes the most of EVERYONE's hardware, no matter how good or bad it is.

(The worst part being that the gap between 'best' and 'worst' PC's is that the best is about 100 times more powerful than the worst. - and that's ignoring stuff that's more than 4-5 years old entirely.)

Crysis isn't that good. One of the key reasons why it's got such a high sysreq is due to the fact that it leaks memory like nothing else.

 

[ph0b0s123]

One of the main things that annoys me currently is companies that delay the PC versions of multi-format games (Arkham city, Assassin?s Creed, etc) so that they can get as many consoles sales as possible. This mean that the amount of PC sale will obviously be less than the console sales for that title. Then this deficiency in sales is used as the reason why less effort is put into future PC games. Sound a little rigged to you?

 

[Frost27]

I think the overall problem is, consoles have finally entered the ballpark of PCs (or rather, they had 6 years ago when the current gen hit shelves). Once that happened game developers began to realize that to make a product for only a single market, the PC, was limiting their potential income to a fraction of what it could be with a widespread release.

Thus game companies began to develop cross platform. When doing this, they essentially have two viable choices.

The first being to spend far more capital on the development process to release each individual game tailored to each platform separately, thus making a product that while it better fits the capabilities of each platform, it costs more to make, may not translate well in cases, and cuts down overall profits (Force Unleashed and CoD World at War come to mind).

The other choice, design your product with the capabilities lowest common denominator in mind when it comes to platforms and max out what that system can handle, then tweak the cross platform incarnations a bit to keep each version viable. What comes to mind here is Skyrim. While the Ps3 and 360 have nothing on a good gaming PC, a version for these systems must still take the 360's use of DVDs vs. Blue-Ray into account. Thus installation tweaks and texture bugs etc. as well as the game's interface feeling lackluster on the PC due to the core being designed around the more constraining console capabilities.

Do I think this is all bad? Overall, no. What I think this has lead to is the current aged generation of consoles holding back PC gaming to a large degree because the consoles are incapable of evolving until a new generation emerges. What I hope to see is the eventual introduction of modular upgradeable consoles with changing capabilities that keep them much more viable much longer and allow the entirety of software development to progress at a smoother pace.

Since consoles have been becoming more and more PC like with each generation, it seems like natural progression. It seems like as we near the limits of the current generation we are just seeing a rough patch in gaming evolution that will lead to good things down the road.

 

[hazabaza1]

*Sigh*
Someone get that "PC gaming is dying" picture, could you? I'm lazy.

You rang?

Thanks man, I appreciate it. I should probably favourite that picture, I imagine I'll be using it a bit.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Developers are too lazy to code for PC's , because it's a lot harder to cater for the clearly superior gaming platform. Too many hardware configurations.

Ah, but it's not a 'superior gaming platform' ;p

It's a million different slightly different systems, some of which are vastly superior to consoles, some of which are much worse.

Thus the difficulty is that to succeed at creating a PC game you either have to be an unbelievably demanding snob (Eg. Crysis or going way back, Quake 3, and even Half=life 2), or you have to put in a tremendous effort to ensure that your game makes the most of EVERYONE's hardware, no matter how good or bad it is.

(The worst part being that the gap between 'best' and 'worst' PC's is that the best is about 100 times more powerful than the worst. - and that's ignoring stuff that's more than 4-5 years old entirely.)

Crysis isn't that good. One of the key reasons why it's got such a high sysreq is due to the fact that it leaks memory like nothing else.

Lol. That's somewhat beside the point. It may not be the way it is because it actually needs to be, but in terms of marketing, it's developers chose to release something that struggled even on high-end systems of the day, let alone low-end ones.

It's a choice some companies make. (Even if Crysis specifically didn't really need to be quite that bad.)

 

[thejackyl]

Consoles are easier to develop for since the only specs that change between models is (usually) Hard drive space.

PC developers have to create games compatible with different graphics cards, single, dual and quad-core processors and such.

Besides, anyone with a stable job can easily afford a decent gaming PC (~$500) and a XBOX/PS3 (~$200-$300 I think), because, honestly, I feel that some games control better on consoles. Yes I know I could get a gamepad and call it a day but there are also console exclusive games.

 

[thom_cat_]

Your not looking at the right places.
The Witcher 2 and Skyrim are shining examples of the game being ALOT better on PC.

And yet they still leave it up to us to mod ourselves a functional UI? Seriously, that menu system was built for a console, and it's depressing.

So? At least the PC version can be altered. If you have a problem with something in the console version, tough shit, you have to live with it.

This is not a talking point. You do not release something that is broken and then give us the ability to fix it ourselves and then go "it's fine, we ceebs doing our work because you can do it for us"

 

[Waaghpowa]

This is not a talking point. You do not release something that is broken and then give us the ability to fix it ourselves and then go "it's fine, we ceebs doing our work because you can do it for us"

Speaking strictly of broke ui's as that's what I was responding to, give an example. They only one I can think of that terrible was Bulletstorm which basically intended you to navigate the menus via arrows on the keyboard, which in my opinion was ass.

 

[WhatHityou]

Developers are too lazy to code for PC's , because it's a lot harder to cater for the clearly superior gaming platform. Too many hardware configurations.

Heh that's a matter of perspective, not fact.

There are pro's and cons to both and as far as console, vs pc go's. There capabilities have never been as close.

There is a very good reason why there are more console games vs pc games. Security, while not every pc gamer is a malicious hacker. The ones who are can do faaaaaaar more damage than if they were on a console, especially now since they all have a form of monitored service.

You may notices that SR:The third has a multi-player component, If they wan't there multiplayer to be secure on a pc they have to keep there security measures updated to adapt to the people cracking there security. This takes people away from there next project and takes money and resources that can be very valuable.

Secondly you can predict the hardware a console user is using because it's the same on any one console, If there are people complaining of a bug you can more easily predict if it's not just a hardware related glich. Making troubleshooting for the most part easier.

That being said some company's can get incredibly deep single-player experiences out of a pc because of the wider range of tools you have not to mention those non-malicious hackers can develop very deep content for them. The recentish elder scrolls games are perfect examples.

 

[xxcloud417xx]

Go play Metro 2033 for the Xbox.

Now when you're done, go play Metro 2033 for the PC (a good PC, try to run it at max or as close as you can).

Now when you're done that, retract initial statement and my work will have been done.

It's not getting the shaft if your platform gets better games less frequently. I mean yeah okay, some titles are ported horribly, but I've honestly started saying straight-up "no" to console exclusives and terrible ports and playing the games that are PC exclusive, indie or just had devs that took the time to optimize them, and honestly, though there are maybe not as many games to play in total by doing this, there are still enough out there to last a while man, and they are generally amazing enough to play them again and again.

In case you were wondering at what games I'm currently getting at, here's a small list :

Amnesia: The Dark Descent;
Skyrim;
Oblivion (mods, that's all I need to say);
Battlefield 3;
Crysis;
Crysis 2 (ONLY if you get the DX11 and new texture patches);
Half-Life 2 (or ANY Source game);
Dragon Age: Origins (had a great PC release I thought and fantastic PC gameplay, idk how ppl play this with a controller);
Mass Effect 1 & 2;
Killing Floor;
X3;
Minecraft;
Almost any MMO if you're into that;
Brink (had a better PC release than Console did);
ARMA II (if you're into uber realistic military simulators);
Civilization V(again a simulator);
Metro 2033 of course;

and that's just a small list. There are many more out there and Steam is having an Autumn Sale right now so go check it out. I guarantee you that PC gamers are not getting the shaft. Never mistake Quality over Quantity.

 

[Matt King]

i'm sick of pc gamers complaining that the pc is getting the shaft (btw before you rant the fuck out of me, i do play pc games alot) if you don't like how games are on the pc, get a console tbh, "oh no this game was originally written for consoles so it is rubbish on the pc" so get it on the console no one is forcing you to play on the pc

 

[Von Strimmer]

I dont know why some people think that devs (with the exception of ubisoft) are trying to stick it to PC's. Its all business! Its hella expensive paying for all those fancy graphics (as I'm sure you all know) and if you keep having to upgrade them every time a new graphics card comes out you would never have any new games or they would be as over priced as New Zealand games

Also I am supposing (wild accusation/finger pointing opinion incoming) that it is mainly PC gamers with high end rigs that do most of the questioning when it comes to game shortcomings in regards to PC gaming :/. Plus (according to some devs, too lazy to sauce it) thats its easier to build for consoles, which makes it cheaper in the long run.

Summary: Games cost money, business wants to save money.