John Carmack: PC Is Not the "Leading Platform" for Games

[Shadow-Phoenix]

You know what the funny thing is making a super high end game for super high end rigs would send you out of business a lot quick because you limit your target audience to some silly low figure like .5% but you know common sense is lost on people who buy such machines

Actually you'd be suprised as to how many people have high end machines specially since you don't know everyone on the planet and quite a lot of my friends have high end machines that cost them as little as £900-800 and that build can manage today's games and the amount of people that can afford those parts.

I am a console and PC gamer and i'm not going to pull an imaginary figure out of my ass no offense to you but i wouldn't try doing that again unless you go out and check to make sure your data is right before making an assumption.

OT: I do like Rage quite a bit having played it on the 360 and i do indeed feel for the PC players suffering the launch release fiasco but id claiming PC is no longer important is an obvious statement from a company that has clearly failed even achieving a simple goal that many before them have at least accomplished.

Since it's now proven that id cannot live up to even making a decent PC port they should just honestly own up that they can't finish or do the job to their expectations and just focus on console gaming instead and let other decent companies tend to PC gaming.

 

[theonecookie]

You know what the funny thing is making a super high end game for super high end rigs would send you out of business a lot quick because you limit your target audience to some silly low figure like .5% but you know common sense is lost on people who buy such machines

Yeah, they'd go out of business if they make quality games. Last time I checked Battlefield 3 wasn't a PC exclusive and yet it's oozing with quality. Same thing with a lot of other multiplatform games.

Well that is true but that wasn't my argument was it battlefield 3 looks gorgeous on the xbox never mind the pc. I want quality as much as the next person but my argument was that making a game only a few people can play is pointless

A high-end PC is nearly ten times as powerful as a console and we could unquestionably provide a better experience if we chose that as our design point and we were able to expend the same amount of resources on it.

This basically translates to

we know PC's are the best, but PC gamers want high quality products that we choose not to make. We would rather be lazy and make games for inferior systems because people who play on those systems don't seem to care. And we're also ignoring Valve's business practice because they make money on PC by creating high quality games, that we, as I said before, don't intend to make. Long live mediocrity!

Guess who's going out of business soon.

You know what the funny thing is making a super high end game for super high end rigs would send you out of business a lot quick because you limit your target audience to some silly low figure like .5% but you know common sense is lost on people who buy such machines

I love that everyone only focuses on the high end with these discussions. Fact is if the highend is more powerfull so is the mainstream of PC's as well. That is the mainstream of pc's are powerfull enough that they could support AI and other game mechanics that console could notn So it is not just the top 5% as everone tries to make out and therefore the lack of market is rubbish.

Calling bullshit right there. While it is true that even a mid-range pc out strips consoles the fact is that the average mainstream PC at the moment I'm willing to bet is a bout 3-4 years old and wasn't top of the range when it was new so the power gap you talk about is over played to the extreme

If you cut these people out as well as both primary consoles you limit your target audience to about 10% at best of the total player base so you have increased cost and lower sales from a business point of view that's a bit dumb when your putting millions on the line

Also what AI and game mechanics do you have in mind the AI is fairly light weight as the needs for processing go and game mechanics tend to be limited by controls not power (the only thing i can think of is maybe someting to do with time travel that renders multiple time lines at once)

 

[Michael Hirst]

If PC's aren't a prime platform then you wouldn't release games for PC. It's a huge investment to release anything on any platform, by choosing to release Rage on PC id clearly knew they could sell enough copies to make it worthwhile.

I understand why consoles are considered a better market overall, just comes down to sheer numbers but a lot of silly people write off the PC as a platform without considering that it still makes plenty of money and if you market your game correctly can rake in huge interest and profits.

P.S I'm not anal frustrated but do really do think there's a general oversight when people say PC gaming is dying/dead etc

 

[v3n0mat3]

As much as I hate to say it (PC gamer first), but, he's got a point. The people that want the PCs high-end gaming, have the money and time to make a rig powerful enough to reach such capabilities. These guys make up a small percent of the total market. Whereas, the majority of the gaming market wants a game. A game where they don't have to take out a mortgage on their house to afford the rig to do it. Why do you think that there are so many people on WoW? You can play it on most rigs, even low-end ones. With that market, the most money is made. And since Carmack is a business man first, he has to make a decision that makes the most money. Consoles. A lot of companies focus on consoles because more people buy consoles over high-end gaming rigs. Do I agree with a shitty port? Absolutely not.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Deleted by author.

 

[lovest harding]

"Nowadays most of the quality of a game comes from the development effort put into it, not the technology it runs on," he continued. "A game built with a tenth of the resources on a platform ten times as powerful would be an inferior product in almost all cases."

This here, is a reasonable standing... though I doubt some PC enthusiasts will likely let their pedestal be taken away from them.

Must quote this in hopes that more people will read it.

Also, he said that the PC is no longer the lead, not that it isn't important at all. >>

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Root: id Is Not the "Leading Developer" for Games. Especially when they seem to think that a product sold as broken is acceptable in any field of business.

Because I don't think you were complaining too much when Commander Keen first made you thousands.

Of course, that's when you still had all your friends working with you. Lonely up there now?

 

[SonofSeth]

Save us Blizzard! Save us Valve!

 

[Smooth Operator]

"Nowadays most of the quality of a game comes from the development effort put into it, not the technology it runs on," said Carmack.
Nice to see that attitude in a game developer because it's true, but when the technology it runs on doesn't work properly it becomes a hindrance to the finished product. He should have just apologized instead of grandstanding.

It would be nice if this wasn't just the last moment escape goat, RAGE was their game to roll out the brand spanking new shinny engine that will put all others to shame, then comes the "your shit doesn't work" moment of truth and we are back to "well tech isn't everything..."

 

[theonecookie]

You know what the funny thing is making a super high end game for super high end rigs would send you out of business a lot quick because you limit your target audience to some silly low figure like .5% but you know common sense is lost on people who buy such machines

Actually you'd be suprised as to how many people have high end machines specially since you don't know everyone on the planet and quite a lot of my friends have high end machines that cost them as little as £900-800 and that build can manage today's games and the amount of people that can afford those parts.

I am a console and PC gamer and i'm not going to pull an imaginary figure out of my ass no offense to you but i wouldn't try doing that again unless you go out and check to make sure your data is right before making an assumption.

OT: I do like Rage quite a bit having played it on the 360 and i do indeed feel for the PC players suffering the launch release fiasco but id claiming PC is no longer important is an obvious statement from a company that has clearly failed even achieving a simple goal that many before them have at least accomplished.

Since it's now proven that id cannot live up to even making a decent PC port they should just honestly own up that they can't finish or do the job to their expectations and just focus on console gaming instead and let other decent companies tend to PC gaming.

You sir are being called out right this instance. You have the audacity to call me a idiot for pulling figures out of my arse and then go to provide no evidence of any sort to prove me wrong whiles pulling facts out of your own arse you want fact

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

the fact the your average pc has a 2.6 duel core speaks volumes and looking in more detail we can see high end rigs make up about 25% of all pcs now if we assume that the pc hold,s a 33% share of the total market(can't find any hard figures feel free to correct me) your looking at a total of about 9% of the total market which is not a huge amount compared to people who own midrange pc's and consoles

 

[EHKOS]

Well fuck you too John. Expect alot of flaming bags of dog poo in your future. >8(

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

John Carmack, your argument is FLAWED !

http://www.megagames.com/news/nvidia-pc-gaming-revenue-will-surpass-consoles-2014


take that in your Friggin' Face !

 

[Furism]

Carmack used to be (maybe still is) a geek icon. The guy has repeatedly made FPS with state of the art technology, kick-ass music, over the last 20 years. And builds freaking rockets on his spare time. That's why it's kind of a bummer to see him say "PC is not the leading platform for games."

What's sad in this is not saying it. It's the fact that such an iconic programmer is now thinking not in terms of technology, but in terms of money to be made. PC is not the leading platform for games if your goal is to make the most money. It is however the leading platform if you want to be on the cutting edge of technology. I'm not saying it's wrong to make money, I'm saying it's sad to see this particular person moving to that kind of frame of mind.

How the mighty have fallen.

 

[Rad Party God]

-10: Respect

Shit Carmack, then what?, the iOS being the greatest platform ever?.

 

[Catalyst6]

Dismissing and otherwise disingenuously underestimating the power that the PC holds over the market is directly shooting your profits in the proverbial foot.

Why don't you ask Valve how much their PC-centrism is hurting profits, hmm?

Pretty much.

OT: He sounds like he's saying that the game has to be completely remade to run on PC. It just isn't true. I can't imagine that it's that hard to port effectively, and yet they utterly failed at it.

On an aside, let's not forget what hardware system *made* the shooter genre, eh? It sure wasn't the Atari.

 

[Lordmarkus]

I find it extremely ironic that ID, the makers of Doom and Quake (Which was extremely popular on PC, AND, for a while, exclusive for PC) technically says 'You have PC? Well fuck you then, 'cus PS3 and X-box 360 pwns ass.'... Yeah, just lose most of your buyers -_-

They would have fooled me if it weren't for usual delay of the European release. I love Quake 3 too much to think that Rage would become a console port despite all the warning signs. Well, well, I saved 60 bucks.

*Marks checklist*
And so Id joins the ranks of Crytek, Bethesda, Bioware, and most recently of all Blizzard in the modern age and are better for it.

At least we got Dice back into the Dark Ages, Caspian Border without compromises is looking and playing sweet. Valve is always a nice trade-off too.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

You know what the funny thing is making a super high end game for super high end rigs would send you out of business a lot quick because you limit your target audience to some silly low figure like .5% but you know common sense is lost on people who buy such machines

Actually you'd be suprised as to how many people have high end machines specially since you don't know everyone on the planet and quite a lot of my friends have high end machines that cost them as little as £900-800 and that build can manage today's games and the amount of people that can afford those parts.

I am a console and PC gamer and i'm not going to pull an imaginary figure out of my ass no offense to you but i wouldn't try doing that again unless you go out and check to make sure your data is right before making an assumption.

OT: I do like Rage quite a bit having played it on the 360 and i do indeed feel for the PC players suffering the launch release fiasco but id claiming PC is no longer important is an obvious statement from a company that has clearly failed even achieving a simple goal that many before them have at least accomplished.

Since it's now proven that id cannot live up to even making a decent PC port they should just honestly own up that they can't finish or do the job to their expectations and just focus on console gaming instead and let other decent companies tend to PC gaming.

You sir are being called out right this instance. You have the audacity to call me a idiot for pulling figures out of my arse and then go to provide no evidence of any sort to prove me wrong whiles pulling facts out of your own arse you want fact

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

the fact the your average pc has a 2.6 duel core speaks volumes and looking in more detail we can see high end rigs make up about 25% of all pcs now if we assume that the pc hold,s a 33% share of the total market(can't find any hard figures feel free to correct me) your looking at a total of about 9% of the total market which is not a huge amount compared to people who own midrange pc's and consoles

You missed my point didn't you and i also said no offense so thank you for reading everything and just checking only with Valve and no i'm not in this little data figures battle you wish to start for a debate just an fyi

 

[ph0b0s123]

You know what the funny thing is making a super high end game for super high end rigs would send you out of business a lot quick because you limit your target audience to some silly low figure like .5% but you know common sense is lost on people who buy such machines

Yeah, they'd go out of business if they make quality games. Last time I checked Battlefield 3 wasn't a PC exclusive and yet it's oozing with quality. Same thing with a lot of other multiplatform games.

Well that is true but that wasn't my argument was it battlefield 3 looks gorgeous on the xbox never mind the pc. I want quality as much as the next person but my argument was that making a game only a few people can play is pointless

A high-end PC is nearly ten times as powerful as a console and we could unquestionably provide a better experience if we chose that as our design point and we were able to expend the same amount of resources on it.

This basically translates to

we know PC's are the best, but PC gamers want high quality products that we choose not to make. We would rather be lazy and make games for inferior systems because people who play on those systems don't seem to care. And we're also ignoring Valve's business practice because they make money on PC by creating high quality games, that we, as I said before, don't intend to make. Long live mediocrity!

Guess who's going out of business soon.

You know what the funny thing is making a super high end game for super high end rigs would send you out of business a lot quick because you limit your target audience to some silly low figure like .5% but you know common sense is lost on people who buy such machines

I love that everyone only focuses on the high end with these discussions. Fact is if the highend is more powerfull so is the mainstream of PC's as well. That is the mainstream of pc's are powerfull enough that they could support AI and other game mechanics that console could notn So it is not just the top 5% as everone tries to make out and therefore the lack of market is rubbish.

Calling bullshit right there. While it is true that even a mid-range pc out strips consoles the fact is that the average mainstream PC at the moment I'm willing to bet is a bout 3-4 years old and wasn't top of the range when it was new so the power gap you talk about is over played to the extreme

If you cut these people out as well as both primary consoles you limit your target audience to about 10% at best of the total player base so you have increased cost and lower sales from a business point of view that's a bit dumb when your putting millions on the line

Also what AI and game mechanics do you have in mind the AI is fairly light weight as the needs for processing go and game mechanics tend to be limited by controls not power (the only thing i can think of is maybe someting to do with time travel that renders multiple time lines at once)

Right where to start. First on your statement about 'average PC's' vs consoles in power. The 'average PC's' you are talking about are not PC's that are being used to run the games we are talking about here, like Rage. So they were never part of the PC gaming market in the first place, so losing them makes no difference. The average gaming PC, which is what we are really interested in, is a couple of times more powerful that consoles.

About the idea that excluding current consoles owners and very low end PC's is a bad idea. I disagree, in the short term it is not great for your bottom line. In the long term though it is great as you already have titles for the next gen of console to play. You also have driven desire / interest (or whatever the economic term is) for the next generation of console with killer apps that are ready to go at launch. Rather than having new hardware being launched followed by a period of people not know what to do with it and a lack of killer titles. This is what happened in previous generations where PC titles that could initially only be run on PC's, enthused console owners into getting the next gen as it could finally run those titles only PC's owners could play at that point.

Next is the idea that AI does not need much processing power. I think you have got the cart before the horse here. AI takes up little processing power at the moment as it cannot use more due to, certainly on consoles, that power being needed to run graphics etc... Hence why most games are generally seen to have very ropey AI. For better AI, more processing power is needed.

As for the idea that better game mechanics are not helped by more processing power. All you need to do is take the example of Battlefield 3, if not all Battlefield games that have been multi-format. Why do you think it is that the PC versions can always accommodate more players in on-line matches (64 vs 24)? Also going back to your first point, this mechanic of allowing more players to play together is open to all PC's that can run the game, i.e the whole PC gaming market can use a mechanic that consoles cannot, not just the top 10% of the market. QED......