Dys said:
DaedalusIcarus said:
"Console gaming sucks" -- Ok, funny that PC gaming is such a minority that without consoles, it probably wouldn't get that many titles.
I'm sorry but that ones going straight up there, you think that there are more games developed for all the consoles combined annually than there are for PCs? Because reality disagrees. I love my consoles (well, other than the xbox 360, that's in the naughty corner for melting a solder right now), but there are far, far more exclusive PC games than console games. Hell, there have probably been more PC exclusives produced in the past month than current gen console games. One can speculate that without consoles there would be less massive budget PC games released, but then again without the console market the game devs would have to develop for
something, so it's equally sensible to propose that there would be just as many, if not more, high budget PC games (actual games too, not xbox 360 ports with a .exe tacked on).
I'm not so much discussing the number of "titles" because the PC naturally lends itself to a lot of low-cost development of simplistic games. Namely because there's no Microsoft or Sony to please and acquire development/distribution licenses from.
But when we're talking *big* titles, the PC has but a precious few outside of a few genres still entrenched on the PC (RTS, I'm looking at you!).
When you think about it, almost all the popular games are on the console too - where the developers get most of their money.
(Examples: Mass Effect 2, Dragon Age, Bioshock 1&2, Fable II, Fallout 3, CoD 4/5/6, Battlefield BC/BC2, Left 4 Dead, Half-Life 2/Team Fortress 2)
Numerous development firms have admitted that while the games also arrive for PC, the real money is in the console releases without which, it's hard to see how game developers could survive.
The only great exception to this is, not surprisingly, the MMORPG genre which is huge in its own right and almost exclusively situated on the PC.
As it is, between the extra pain of developing for various hardware setups on PC's, the rampant piracy as well as the problem of a lowest common denominator for hardware makes it hard to see how PC gaming should be profitable, especially when console gamers seem more accepting when asked to pay for on-line gaming, which could easily turn into a huge profit (Xbox Live).
Ars Technica has a nice article up on how DeLL cut their XPS line because the market just weren't profitable. (That is, XPS desktops are meant as high-end gaming workstations).
I'm not going to argue against enthusiasts building their own system, but look at the graph in the article detailing the decline of the PC market followed by the huge rise of the consoles.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2008/05/dell-xps-phase-out-symptomatic-of-declining-pc-gaming-sector.ars
There's a joke/rumor around the 'net that John Carmack (of ID software) was once asked why ID bothered porting their PC games to Linux seeing as the market was so small that it couldn't be profitable to which he allegedly replied "because Linux gives me a woody".
In my view, that seems to be the driving force behind PC publications still. It seems that developers publish games that could run and sell well exclusively on the consoles for that very same reason - love of a platform on which they grew up and where they first cut their teeth as programmers and game developers.
But do not under any circumstances fool yourself into thinking the PC market alone is profitable for the big and costly titles.