It's probably pc gamers own fault games are becoming console oriented.

[Saulkar]

You might ask why i made this thread so let me be clear.
I am no troll i dont want to insult pc gamers or say consoles are better these are things i think Pc gamers whine about.

All the hate and shock about the skyrim being console oriented made me make this thread because in my opinion Pc gamer's are complaining about things that are mostly their fault.

These are my opinion's why i think pc gamers are complaining about nothing.

1: Why are games like skyrim becoming more console oriented?!
Because Pc gamers ask for the best graphics increasing production costs.And Thus forcing them to make them console oriented So developers can earn the money they need to make the production worthwile.
that Isnt Activision's dumbing down for money.
That is being forced to dumb it down so they dont lose alot of money.
Maybe if you'd pay triple they'd make it pc oriented.

2:Why are they being dumbed down for consoles players.
Well sorry mister i need to use all my keyboard buttons or its dumbed down for consoles.
Making two versions of an entire game for 2 different platforms has to be done for you or they are lazy and its for console tards.
Again too expensive to be justified.
So man up.

3:Why do they make the graphics so bad?!
First of all You need more then graphics to make a game good. i.e Okami TF2
But No you want first grade realistic graphics.
Again Many pc gamers might not be able to run Skyrim causing fewer copies to sell and less money.That bethesda needs to make it justified you could accept lower quality graphics that just have good aesthetics like the The witcher 2 a 2008 computer can run it.
But NO! you need the latest which costs money and you dont understand why they find ways to sell more.

This is all i can think of .
Again im not a troll i just want to know why you pc gamers think developers should serve your every whim and throw away money by making a high budget game for a niche group. I.E Deep rpg's
I just dont understand it It may be because i have ATSS but even i can see that is just too much to ask for.
Please say what justifies bethesda risking alot of money. to make games tailored for you.
I.e Nearly Unaccsesible for non fans.
Please tell me ifyou find something i missed to say.

Good old article I wrote with evidence that consoles are actually an economic bubble on the verge of popping.

Spoiler: Argument for the death of consoles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983

Read up on it. Source? look around you. Consoles are fundamentally flawed in the idea. Sony, and the xbox are choking financially (basically they worked themselves into a corner). Look at how the generation of these consoles were lengthened due to high production costs of unleashing a new console. What does this mean? They need to adopt more PC ideas to increase longevity like selling upgrades, and other attachments. The high cost, and longer generation will spell out the death of consoles on the loss leader method of business. The death of consoles isn't by lack of players, its choking on costs. If selling consoles themselves can't make a profit they rely on games. On the developer's side however its absolute hell. Console tax, second hand market, and high development costs on top of that. If you want I can get the statistics to show the drop of the number of console games from the last generation to this one.

Here is the graph of games courtesy of Metacritic's game database.

Sixth Generation (1999-2006):
Ps2: 792 (out of 1609)
Xbox: 471 (out of 856)
Gamecube: 263 (out of 502)
Total Games: 2967.
Total games over 70%: 1526.

Seventh Generation (2005-present):
Ps3: 341 (out of 579)
Xbox 360: 479 (out of 924)
Wii: 242 (out of 649)
Total Games: 2152.
Total games over 70%: 1062.

See this graph? We are in year 6 of the console generation. The time frame for the last generation was 7 years, and yet the current generation is off by 856 games. Now you could say "higher complexity" of games, and that is the problem. You see when the Xbox and PS3 were first released they were sold at a loss, relying on console games to make up the difference. The Nintendo's wii however was the only console making a profit at that time. The reason? The Wii was cheaper to make, and has been known to be less advanced than its cousins. In short, the new tech doesn't fit into a small box like it used to. Standardization does not work anymore. The tech gets more complex, the cost becomes higher, and the profits decrease. You could say "oh but the console makes more money" but it isn't that way in the eyes of Activision, who makes 70% of their money from the PC, and portable PCs. Keep in mind this is the same "PC hating publisher" that was responsible for modern Warfare 2.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/148982/xbox_delivers_a_profit.html
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/01/forbes-nintendo-making-6-profit-on-every-wii-sold/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.203926-Kotick-Only-30-of-Activisions-Profits-Come-from-Consoles

Basically, the profits are being drained by many factors including manufacturing, tech level, mounting development costs, etc. Want a "source" on the mounting development costs too?

http://www.next-gen.biz/news/ubisoft-development-costs-to-double-next-gen
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.52799-News-Report-Says-Rising-Development-Costs-A-Nightmare
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9823945-7.html?tag=mncol;title
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/02/04/more-wii-games-from-ea-thanks-to-low-development-costs/
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/4226/thq-studio-dev-costs-biggest-industry-issue

This isn't some prediction out of hate, it?s a prediction using the data available. It?s not due to the lack of players as there are plenty, but it?s the cost that goes into the consoles that are beginning to take their toll. Consoles are not sustainable in their current business model and if continued it will mean the death of the console entirely, especially now that the PC and the casual market (much like the wii) have shown to be very profitable with less risk. You have to remember businesses don't make games as a fun hobby, they make them to make money. If another method proves more profitable and safe, then businesses will change sides without a second thought. Businesses have no "brand loyalty" to a platform, nor do they stay in one sector for long. The dynamics of the economy doesn't stay still. It?s a cycle, businesses crowd in one newly found market until it? no longer worth it and move on which causes an economic crash. Sure there will be businesses to pick up the slack due to the newfound vacancy of the market but it?s not the same as the clamoring before the economic crash.

Most (actually, all of it) of the stuff you posted have no actual statistical evidence, while I provide actual statistics that disprove everything you say. Niche group? Consoles haven't made a single profit for anyone NOT using a well known franchise. Consoles rely on its AAA life support, which is dying. PC gaming makes much more money, cheaper, and faster.

Interesting read, if true I wonder how it will all play out in the end. Will things like ONLive and Cloud take over the console market?

 

[Saulkar]

The console market would most likely be absorbed by PC gaming, as more PCs are becoming common and easier casual games take over the internet. Steam and virtual platforms would be a huge boon for anyone.

In the end, consoles will inevitably return to make the same mistakes and repeat the cycle that has been done before.

Interesting, would there be any chance of recovery any time down the road with a different development strategy?

 

[dantoddd]

Ugh, the way PC eletists act when they find out somethings bieng dsigned for consoles it disgusting, I almost wish PC gaming would die when the act like that, and I am a pc gamer :/
Just look at the rections to Skyrim and minecraft for the 360.

I cannot agree with you anymore. I am also a PC gamer

While some people DO take it a bit far, I'd say there are valid concerns as a PC gamer when a dev says that a game will be made accessible or streamlined.

In the case of Skyrim I don't care much that the game is being developed with consoles as the main platform. I do however care about the UI stuff they keep talking about. Eversince Oblivion Bethesda has made terrible UIs on the PC games. When I have a mouse it's simply a pain to have things presented in a long list that I need to scroll in. See the ultro-terro-UI Mk. VII Bioware implemented in DA2 for another example.

The problems (and rage) for me begins when it's obvious that the dev has made an UI that is suited for console resolutions and a controller. I really don't want the font in the UI to be extra large. It limits the amount of information that can be conveyed at once. In fact that is a symptom of "dumbing down" to use a silly term. I don't seem to get very much information from my games any more.

And then there's the ever present hand holding. I'm playing through LA Noire at the moment, and damn, but does that game insist on letting me know how to turn over an object. Personally I like a challenge.

I recently was getting my ass handed to me in The Witcher 2. So I took the time and read the manual. Crazy, I know! But suddenly I knew what I was messing up. Afterwards I was both shocked and very happy that I had to read a manual.
I also love the start of STALKER and Far Cry 2. The game dumps you with a gun and a map and a rough objective (Kill Strelok/The Jackal) and leaves you to your own devices. What awesome shit I experienced because of that. I kinda wish I could forget STALKER so I could get that first time feeling again.

Console games don't have a lot of that type of gameplay. At least not the ones I've played. Well, Far Cry 2 and that's not really a popular game on consoles.

Then take Crysis 2. My main problem with that game is the damn FOV. It's lazy as all hell to make such a tiny FOV and it makes the bloody gun take up a lot of real estate. That's a console thing as far as I'm concerned. The first Crysis had a lot better FOV. Mind, it may be changeable. Same problem, with huge guns in my face is in L4D2.

There is also COD6:MW2. It had such ground breaking bad PC support that it's a joke.

In short, the problem with console games is not graphics or what not. It's that the devs don't make the PC versions good games. They forget stuff like interface, resolutions, FOV, mouse sensitivity, remapping, mouse acceleration and cap the framerates at a terrible 30 FPS. 30 FPS might be good enough on console but it sure as shit is not good enough on PC. Just as match making simply isn't very good. Dedicated servers is the only real option.

So, I think there are valid reasons to be somewhat apprehensive of the effects of console games.

You're criticism is sensible. If people present their views like this no one is going to call you a poop face. And i completely agree with everything you've said in the last para.

 

[Saulkar]

The console market would most likely be absorbed by PC gaming, as more PCs are becoming common and easier casual games take over the internet. Steam and virtual platforms would be a huge boon for anyone.

In the end, consoles will inevitably return to make the same mistakes and repeat the cycle that has been done before.

Interesting, would there be any chance of recovery any time down the road with a different development strategy?

I doubt it. They created an environment where AAA games survive, and the middle and indie markets are practically starving. Deviation from this path would result in financial failure. Hell, take away graphics and revert back to the time it was profitable it would look like the wii. Standardizing tech is easy if its simple, but the moment it becomes more complex it becomes less and less viable over the years. Look at microsoft and sony, both are dead set in remaining in this generation because the costs of the next generation will lower their profits. Its a big hit after they JUST started making a profit. If they take too long, tech stagnates and tech companies could look at a collapse leading to a recession the likes of which the world has never seen. Look up Moore's law. If there is no new tech to meet our growing needs our economy ultimately collapses.

For more consoles, it would require a retcon of 1980s proportions. It will have to try again, and hope to learn from the mistakes of the past when and IF the tech can be standardized again.

Nice, I can honestly say I learned more from you than all my schooling this week.

 

[Dense_Electric]

I'm sorry, no. I don't know (or know of) a single PC gamer who has ever gotten up in arms because some game didn't have the LATEST AND GREATEST GRAPHICS EVVAAAHHHRRRRRRRAAAAGGGEEEE!!!! Frankly, I haven't heard much about "graphics" in games period in the last three or four years. They've hit a paradigm shift in terms of realism recently - crossed a point where the potential output of trying to push the envelope even further with current technology isn't worth the input required to make that happen - and yet here you're claiming we're all begging the developers to cram all sorts of insane high-poly models and bigger and bigger textures into games. I certainly don't mind my games looking nice, but PC gamers are no more guilty of that than console gamers are, and neither of us are particularly guilty to begin with.

As for the point about "dumbing down games for consoles," I really don't know of any PC games that follow that school of thought. It's more about "dumbing down games for the masses," be they PC gamers or console games. There's a hell of a lot more that goes into simplifying (be that simplifying or oversimplifying) than hacking off a few extra controls to fit it on a controller. Frankly not being able to lean in the PC version of MW2 wasn't a huge deal. Not being able to plan out missions in Rainbow Six Vegas, however, not being able to do the very thing that made the original games what they were, was.

And for the record Bethesda has a pretty good track record with ports, at least in my personal experience. Having owned both Oblivion and Morrowind on both the PC and the Xbox/Xbox 360, I can say that the PC versions were in no way inferior to their 'box counterparts.

 

[Waaghpowa]

Spoiler: Argument for the death of consoles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_video_game_crash_of_1983

Read up on it. Source? look around you. Consoles are fundamentally flawed in the idea. Sony, and the xbox are choking financially (basically they worked themselves into a corner). Look at how the generation of these consoles were lengthened due to high production costs of unleashing a new console. What does this mean? They need to adopt more PC ideas to increase longevity like selling upgrades, and other attachments. The high cost, and longer generation will spell out the death of consoles on the loss leader method of business. The death of consoles isn't by lack of players, its choking on costs. If selling consoles themselves can't make a profit they rely on games. On the developer's side however its absolute hell. Console tax, second hand market, and high development costs on top of that. If you want I can get the statistics to show the drop of the number of console games from the last generation to this one.

Here is the graph of games courtesy of Metacritic's game database.

Sixth Generation (1999-2006):
Ps2: 792 (out of 1609)
Xbox: 471 (out of 856)
Gamecube: 263 (out of 502)
Total Games: 2967.
Total games over 70%: 1526.

Seventh Generation (2005-present):
Ps3: 341 (out of 579)
Xbox 360: 479 (out of 924)
Wii: 242 (out of 649)
Total Games: 2152.
Total games over 70%: 1062.

See this graph? We are in year 6 of the console generation. The time frame for the last generation was 7 years, and yet the current generation is off by 856 games. Now you could say "higher complexity" of games, and that is the problem. You see when the Xbox and PS3 were first released they were sold at a loss, relying on console games to make up the difference. The Nintendo's wii however was the only console making a profit at that time. The reason? The Wii was cheaper to make, and has been known to be less advanced than its cousins. In short, the new tech doesn't fit into a small box like it used to. Standardization does not work anymore. The tech gets more complex, the cost becomes higher, and the profits decrease. You could say "oh but the console makes more money" but it isn't that way in the eyes of Activision, who makes 70% of their money from the PC, and portable PCs. Keep in mind this is the same "PC hating publisher" that was responsible for modern Warfare 2.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/148982/xbox_delivers_a_profit.html
http://www.joystiq.com/2008/12/01/forbes-nintendo-making-6-profit-on-every-wii-sold/
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.203926-Kotick-Only-30-of-Activisions-Profits-Come-from-Consoles

Basically, the profits are being drained by many factors including manufacturing, tech level, mounting development costs, etc. Want a "source" on the mounting development costs too?

http://www.next-gen.biz/news/ubisoft-development-costs-to-double-next-gen
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.52799-News-Report-Says-Rising-Development-Costs-A-Nightmare
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9823945-7.html?tag=mncol;title
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/02/04/more-wii-games-from-ea-thanks-to-low-development-costs/
http://www.nowgamer.com/news/4226/thq-studio-dev-costs-biggest-industry-issue

This isn't some prediction out of hate, it?s a prediction using the data available. It?s not due to the lack of players as there are plenty, but it?s the cost that goes into the consoles that are beginning to take their toll. Consoles are not sustainable in their current business model and if continued it will mean the death of the console entirely, especially now that the PC and the casual market (much like the wii) have shown to be very profitable with less risk. You have to remember businesses don't make games as a fun hobby, they make them to make money. If another method proves more profitable and safe, then businesses will change sides without a second thought. Businesses have no "brand loyalty" to a platform, nor do they stay in one sector for long. The dynamics of the economy doesn't stay still. It?s a cycle, businesses crowd in one newly found market until it? no longer worth it and move on which causes an economic crash. Sure there will be businesses to pick up the slack due to the newfound vacancy of the market but it?s not the same as the clamoring before the economic crash.

Most (actually, all of it) of the stuff you posted have no actual statistical evidence, while I provide actual statistics that disprove everything you say. Niche group? Consoles haven't made a single profit for anyone NOT using a well known franchise. Consoles rely on its AAA life support, which is dying. PC gaming makes much more money, cheaper, and faster.

By the way, Bookmarking this for referencing purposes, you should probably know as well as I that there are tons of ignorant people saying "Pc gaming is dying because sales numbers aren't as high as console sales hur hur".

 

[Mr. Gency]

1: Why are games like skyrim becoming more console oriented?!
Because Pc gamers ask for the best graphics increasing production costs.And Thus forcing them to make them console oriented So developers can earn the money they need to make the production worthwile.
that Isnt Activision's dumbing down for money.
That is being forced to dumb it down so they dont lose alot of money.
Maybe if you'd pay triple they'd make it pc oriented.

I play PC games on a laptop, so as long as a game runs well enough for me, I don't give two damns if looks like it belongs on the PS1.

2:Why are they being dumbed down for consoles players.
Well sorry mister i need to use all my keyboard buttons or its dumbed down for consoles.
Making two versions of an entire game for 2 different platforms has to be done for you or they are lazy and its for console tards.
Again too expensive to be justified.
So man up.

Who the hell want's to use every key?

Seriously, what is this, I don't even.

3:Why do they make the graphics so bad?!
First of all You need more then graphics to make a game good. i.e Okami TF2
But No you want first grade realistic graphics.
Again Many pc gamers might not be able to run Skyrim causing fewer copies to sell and less money.That bethesda needs to make it justified you could accept lower quality graphics that just have good aesthetics like the The witcher 2 a 2008 computer can run it.
But NO! you need the latest which costs money and you dont understand why they find ways to sell more.

Not even gonna bother...

Wait, you said we complained about graphics twice.

 

[remedyX]

In which crazy universe do Okami and tf2 have bad graphics? Just becuase they are artistic or cartoony doesn't make them bad. Perhaps Sir would prefer everything in gun metal grey? *rolls eyes*

I worry about them trying to make games 'more accessible' becuase to me that means 'shallow and oversimplified' gaming is my hobby I don't want to see it be ruined by people who might want 5 minutes in between x factor and britains got talent. That's what games like bejeweled are for not rpgs.

I'm worried about them dumbing gameplay down. Not so much consoles.

Who said anything about TF2 and Okami being ugly?

I think you should re-read the OP.

 

[Bat Vader]

you forgot the whole pc gamers being elitist assholes. refusing to help out others because they dont know whats the best of what part. and since each one has their own opinion on what is the best, they refuse to help you if you guess wrong. its as if being a pc gamer is like being a stonecutter

in my eyes, pc gamers have noone to blame but themselves when people say pc gaming is dead

That is an unfair generalization. I play games on a PC and I do not act like that at all.

On Topic: I don't care how good or bad the graphics in a game are. As long as the story and the characters are well written and the gameplay is fun I am fine with a game.

 

[gbemery]

the same age old hypocrisy comes to mind when I think of this problem.

People have a problem with a website, product or something else. They say,"It's their site, product etc they can do what they want with it. If you don't like it don't buy/use it."

Yet when it comes to games or something that effects what above person would have said to other people they complain and whine. "Why didn't they make it better for me, or why did they do this they SHOULD have done this and pleased me by doing so!"

Not everyone falls into this hypocrisy but I see it a lot. I know, I know, welcome to the internet.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

In which crazy universe do Okami and tf2 have bad graphics? Just becuase they are artistic or cartoony doesn't make them bad. Perhaps Sir would prefer everything in gun metal grey? *rolls eyes*

I worry about them trying to make games 'more accessible' becuase to me that means 'shallow and oversimplified' gaming is my hobby I don't want to see it be ruined by people who might want 5 minutes in between x factor and britains got talent. That's what games like bejeweled are for not rpgs.

I'm worried about them dumbing gameplay down. Not so much consoles.

Who said anything about TF2 and Okami being ugly?

I think you should re-read the OP.

'3:Why do they make the graphics so bad?!
First of all You need more then graphics to make a game good. i.e Okami TF2'

Huh? Maybe I misunderstood what he meant but that seems like he's saying they are bad to me (yet have good gameplay)

 

[EternalFacepalm]

This thread is so filled with generalization I don't even want to know what you are thinking.
I play primarily on the PC. Do I care about graphics? No. Do I care about them focusing on developing for the console? Not really.
You blame everyone using a PC to play games for a few issues? REALLY?
Okay, then I blame every PS3-gamer for Call of Duty. Does it make sense? No. Neither did your post.