GTA V for PC Petition

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

So, your opinion is that when a game sells well on one platform, there's no need to release it on another, and when a game doesn't sell well on one platform, it's well worth the time and effort to port it to another platform?

I'll try this again since you're struggling to figure it out on your own.

R* didn't know how well their PC port of IV would sell. How could they know? And it obviously didn't sell well enough, otherwise they would have devoted the resources into developing RDR for PC as well. They said that PC version of RDR isn't viable. And how did they come to that conclusion? They took a peak at GTA IV sales on PC and the resources they would have to devote to porting it over to PC. Combine that with the fact that they had a lot of issues porting their last game on PC, and the fact that they already have people working on Max Payne 3 for 3 systems simultaneously and GTA V for consoles, and the fact that RDR already sold more than they thought it would and it's getting quite obvious that PC port of RDR really isn't viable. And let's not forget that R* is still working on Agent as well. Which is most likely going to be their first next gen title.
L.A. Noire on the other hand sold well below their expectations, so they made a shoddy port to try to squeeze a few more bucks from it.

 

[distortedreality]

R* didn't know how well their PC port of IV would sell. How could they know?

Sales figures from their previous GTA ports would of been a good indicator, as would sales from the console versions, as would the absolute love the PC community has/had for the GTA series. They couldn't of known for sure - but they would of known with much more certainty than they could of with any other game/IP.

And it obviously didn't sell well enough, otherwise they would have devoted the resources into developing RDR for PC as well. They said that PC version of RDR isn't viable. And how did they come to that conclusion? They took a peak at GTA IV sales on PC and the resources they would have to devote to porting it over to PC.

Ok....as long as that's all your opinion, and you're not trying to pass it off as fact, i'll leave you to it. I must say though that if GTA IV didn't sell well enough for them to worry about porting RDR, why did they bother with the two GTA IV expansions?

Combine that with the fact that they had a lot of issues porting their last game on PC, and the fact that they already have people working on Max Payne 3 for 3 systems simultaneously and GTA V for consoles, and the fact that RDR already sold more than they thought it would and it's getting quite obvious that PC port of RDR really isn't viable. And let's not forget that R* is still working on Agent as well. Which is most likely going to be their first next gen title. L.A. Noire on the other hand sold well below their expectations, so they made a shoddy port to try to squeeze a few more bucks from it.

Here's where you lose me. Surely porting a game that uses the same engine as a previous port, and has sold ridiculously well on other platforms, makes more sense than porting a game with a new engine that hasn't sold well? I'm talking about time, money and resources here, whereas you seem to be focusing on the resource side.

To me, it would be like Call of Battle Honor 12 only being made for a single platform because the sales are good enough on that, and there's no need to try to maximise sales from other platforms.

I also tend to think the popularity of RDR surprised them. IMO, the comment on the viability of a port has more to do with resources than anything else, as you touched on above. With all the other projects going on, and the popularity of RDR being a surprise, it seemed to me that they simply don't have the man power to do a RDR port. I tend to think it would be a completely different story with GTA, and I think LA Noire was always going to get a PC version. Just my opinion though.

All this aside, as I said before, you're comparing one of the most loved franchises in recent history to two new IP's, that, as far as Rockstar would of been concerned, could of gone either way.

 

[Laughing Man]

Did you play GTA4 on pc without patches? That had awful performance. I was lucky to get 10fps.... on minimum.... with lowered res. And this was a machine that ended up running Skyrim a bit under high at 1600x900 and at 40+ fps. So yeah, that port was pretty damn terrible.

Right, you do know that Skyrim and GTA4 run on very different game engines, that one was totally brand new to it's series at release and the other was an updated of a many year old game engine, that one is CPU bound and the other is GPU bound and that using one to compared it against the other makes no sense what so ever because their is no factor that you can use to compare them?

Yeah, sure, they eventually got their shit together and fixed it. That was months after release. So yeah, you can't blame us for being pissed that they gave us an awful port in the first place

You seem to be missing the point, people are still moaning about the GTA 4 conversion like the game only came out yesterday, it didn't, it got fixed, it got patched, it got support and the result was a game that ran, looked and played better than it's console brethen, yet people still moan about GTA 4 even though Rockstar fixed it a good few years ago, and then they sit there wondering why Rockstar are not chomping at the bit to announce GTA 5. The fact they haven't announced it and their are still people stupidly saying things like 'well if it's anything like the GTA 4 port then they can stick it'

You really think the PC gaming community is owed anything by Rockstar?

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I tend to think it would be a completely different story with GTA

I'm not saying that GTA V won't be released on the PC. I'm saying that we can't know for sure because of so many factors that go into Rockstar's decision concerning PC as a viable market.

 

[predatorpulse7]

How dare people want a game that's a part of a series they enjoy to be released on their platform of choice. How dare they want their $60 games to work as advertised, rather than having bugs littered throughout. How dare they want the game to run on their hardware, when it easily runs on less powerful hardware.

Really, did you even think this through?

Did you? If the port of GTA4 was as bad as PC gamers try to make it, if Rockstar had abandoned the game and released no patches then your stupidly under thought comment would be valid. Shame that the PC version of GTA4, the version I own alongside my PS3 version plays better, looks better and is overall a better game to play than the PS3 version and what's more it was cheaper.

My post was a subtle stab at the pathetic PC gamers who will moan about any old shit in a port then ***** and moan some more when the developer they were beating on 3 years ago isn't chomping at the bit to announce that they will be porting their latest console title.

Next time you want to ask if someone has 'thought' about their post perhaps it would be better to stop and think about weather or not you had applied any thought first?

Here's the thing, that wasn't moaning, it was valid criticism pointed at a developer that seems to have forgotten how to properly port for PC. If I pay 60 bucks for GTA IV on release day, I want a freaking good PC game now, not weeks later after they fix it. GTA IV was absolute crap from a technical POV at release, I had a high end machine and the damn game had performance and stability issues coming out of the ass. It's obviously very easy to say "hey it will be fixed a couple of weeks later" but people that pay full price expected a good game from day 1.

I was appalled at how terrible the port was on releasee because I had no problems with previous GTA ports.

PC gamers want good titles but why should they accept half-assed ports at full price? Either give us a proper PC game or don't release for PC. Stop the half measures.

 

[In Search of Username]

I still can't get GTA IV working properly. I have no confidence in Rockstar's ability to make PC games.

I'd honestly say that's more than likely a problem on your end than on the developers. I had GTA IV working day one out of the box on my old rig (from memory a mid range C2D and a 8800GTX), and it's only gotten better since.

The GTA IV release was messy, but nowhere near as bad as people make out. I do hope they do a better job this time around though, just so my favorite forums aren't littered with "omg rockstar failed", and we can actually talk about the game.

It's weird, I'd be inclined to think so too if my PC couldn't run Battlefield 3 just fine while still struggling with GTA IV. If it's a problem on my end, it's a problem that only applies to this game.

 

[getoffmycloud]

I'm starting to get sick of Rockstar's attitude towards their PC customers. Ever since Vice City they have hinted that they may not make PC ports of the series, and the ports have usually been late with mediocre quality.

If they really think they can express themselves better on consoles they should do that. Come on Rockstar stick to your words and leave us alone. You can keep your watered down physics, your QTEs, your DRMs and your linear gameplay.

But if you want to make quality PC games again, I'll be the first to buy them.

I am sorry I had to laugh at this. Linear gameplay? All rockstar games are open world that I can think of apart from max payne I think you should look up the definition of the word linear.

 

[goose4291]

Didn't you hear? They announced that "they have no plans for PC"

Don't forget that they also said this about GTA3, Vice City, San Andreas, and GTA4.
But they all got PC versions eventually anyway.

It would be very stupid of Rockstar to abandon the platform that this entire franchise began on.

And LA Noire... Rockstar even told a barefaced lie and said it would be impossible to port it over to PC and therefore they weren't going to bother.

 

[Something Amyss]

The reason I call it unplayable is because is was literally the console version on the PC. Control symbols and the like were always Xbox buttons, even if you had no controller plugged in.

And here we go: Not unplayable.

 

[Something Amyss]

If you're a PC gamer, allow me to ask you why you do this to yourself.

Probably for the same reason PS3 owners keep buying Bethesda games.

That doesn't make any sense, either. But at least it's a limited scope of titles.

 

[hazabaza1]

The reason I call it unplayable is because is was literally the console version on the PC. Control symbols and the like were always Xbox buttons, even if you had no controller plugged in.

And here we go: Not unplayable.

You're fucking kidding me, right?
Needing someone to use another product in order to functionally play your game and not providing it yourself is just shitty design, as well as shitty customer relations.
Of course, my response is only valid if you were attempting to say "well, it's playable with a controller, so it's not unplayable" because your response was so vague and gave me so little work with.

Captcha: better call saul
Can Saul provide me with a decent Dark Souls PC port?

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

If you're a PC gamer, allow me to ask you why you do this to yourself.

Probably for the same reason PS3 owners keep buying Bethesda games.

That doesn't make any sense, either. But at least it's a limited scope of titles.

Not really... Bethesda games are the most obvious/consistent example for the PS3 but they're far from the only ones.


Anyway, to get back to you question of why PC gamers keep supporting devs and publishers that put little to no effort into their PC titles/versions/ports or other bullshit... well, I can't really say because I don't support them. I either refuse to buy the game (if I have an issue with the company's behaviour) or I wait for the major problems to be fixed before ponying up the cash (for technical problems).

The problem is that it's a lose-lose situation... support the half-arsed approach to PC gaming and you contribute to it's continuance... don't support it and devs and publishers start crying about piracy and the death of PC gaming, encouraging them to either half-arse it even more, pull more anti-consumer bullshit (increasingly intrusive DRM, etc) or pull out of PC game dev entirely.

Well, okay, it's not entirely lose-lose if/where PC gamers support the devs and publishers that don't treat PC gaming as an after thought. They're the section(s) of the industry we should be supporting, not the shitheels who pretend as if they're doing us a great favour by selling us some 2nd rate port... although we should also remember that they ARE businesses not our best mates.

 

[Rawne1980]

After the state of GTA4 ... no spankyou.

It's quite simple for me, much in the same way Ubisoft made it easy for me.

They stick 2 fingers up at PC gamers and expect us to like it, so I stick 2 fingers up back at them and don't buy their products.

I was, almost, tempted with Far Cry 3 but then the whole Steam debacle reminded me why I avoid Ubisoft like i'd avoid masturbating with a right hand riddled with leprosy.

This isn't the first, and won't be last, time Rockstar has "considered" PC while it wants to focus on console. I don't have the time nor the patience to deal with people that want to be dicks about it.

EA gets a lot of flack but at least we know where we stand with them. Rockstar and Ubisoft can fuck right off.

 

[Laughing Man]

After the state of GTA4 ... no spankyou.

Yeah if only they released several performance enhancing and stability patches for... oh wait a minute they did.

I was, almost, tempted with Far Cry 3 but then the whole Steam debacle reminded me why I avoid Ubisoft like i'd avoid masturbating with a right hand riddled with leprosy.

Yeah it really bugged me, I was gagging at the bit to buy Far Cry 3, to have it attached to a service that is slow, buggy, riddled with nonsense and goes tits up when ever their is a hint of a sale. I really feel like a dick for downloading Uplay, buying it direct from their store and then having to run the game through a service that loads in seconds and actually seems to work. I really wanted that opportunity to have to run Steam that chance to wait a minute and a half while it logs on, the opportunity to wait while it runs it's back ground server checks, the opportunity to wait while it decides if my games are available to play just now and then for it then run Uplay as well but I just had to opt for running Uplay by itself damn me for choosing a fast, loads in seconds and does the job service when Steam was just sitting right there as an alternative.... damn I feel awful!

 

[Something Amyss]

Needing someone to use another product in order to functionally play your game and not providing it yourself is just shitty design, as well as shitty customer relations.

Far as I can tell, it's not required. Stop being so dramatic.

I suppose you also hate flight sims.

 

[hazabaza1]

Needing someone to use another product in order to functionally play your game and not providing it yourself is just shitty design, as well as shitty customer relations.

Far as I can tell, it's not required. Stop being so dramatic.

I suppose you also hate flight sims.

Okay, well I can see you're going to keep on going "well it's not actually required so stop being such a whiner, gawd" but it's simply one of those situations where you need to play the game on PC to see how fucking bad the K+M controls are.

Oh, and as for that little snark at the end? No, I don't like flight sims, mainly because I find most simulator games really boring.
However, I have played the odd demo and quite a few seem to have functional K+M controls. Sure, a joystick may be preferred, but I could play it without. That's called a good control scheme, which apparently, you can't wrap your head around.

 

[Something Amyss]

The problem is that it's a lose-lose situation... support the half-arsed approach to PC gaming and you contribute to it's continuance... don't support it and devs and publishers start crying about piracy and the death of PC gaming, encouraging them to either half-arse it even more, pull more anti-consumer bullshit (increasingly intrusive DRM, etc) or pull out of PC game dev entirely.

From what I understand, Dark Souls and GTA are so "horrible" on PC as to be "torture."

I can't imagine how the "lose" options where you spend money and a lot of aggrivation is caused are any better than or equal to the one you don't.

Not you specifically; I know you don't. Just to clarify.

But there are a lot of gamers who describe these games as broken and unplayable. They then go and demand more, buy them, and act all surprised. I'm pretty sure I'd rather have no game than pay for a game if it's likely to be a broken mess.

 

[Shadowstar38]

With this and Dark Souls, I would have thought PC gamers would just go ahead and cough up for a console instead of going through all this.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

I feel bad with my PS3 I should sigh it.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

The problem is that it's a lose-lose situation... support the half-arsed approach to PC gaming and you contribute to it's continuance... don't support it and devs and publishers start crying about piracy and the death of PC gaming, encouraging them to either half-arse it even more, pull more anti-consumer bullshit (increasingly intrusive DRM, etc) or pull out of PC game dev entirely.

From what I understand, Dark Souls and GTA are so "horrible" on PC as to be "torture."

Yeah, well, never let it be said that gamers don't have a penchant for hyperbole.

Although if Dark Soul really can't be played without a controller (and the inverse mouse acceleration is fucking perplexing), I would define that as torture because my hands and controllers really don't get along. Of course, it would be self-inflicted so take that for what it's worth... Not that it would be a problem because after the shitfuckery they pulled with CD Projekt, Bandai-Namco will never see a single cent from me.

I can't imagine how the "lose" options where you spend money and a lot of aggrivation is caused are any better than or equal to the one you don't.

They're the sort of people who, even after the level of 'quality' for the Dark Souls PC port was made public, were saying shit like "you have to buy this game and show Bandai-Namco that there's a viable PC market for their games so next time they'll make a proper effort".

But there are a lot of gamers who describe these games as broken and unplayable. They then go and demand more, buy them, and act all surprised. I'm pretty sure I'd rather have no game than pay for a game if it's likely to be a broken mess.

Yeah it's not like that isn't a common phenomenon all across gaming... people pissing and moaning about some game for months on end, then when the sequel is announced, they get all excited about it. Far too many gamers fall for the same routine of hype and shiny things.