Poll: Do major developers hate the PC?

[player3141]

If you are a pc gamer, you understand what I mean.
-The PC platform is usually given the (sometimes poorly coded) ports of console versions of the game.
-Games released on PC are also sometimes released several months later than consoles.
-There is generally little support for PC games from big developers.
-Loyal paying customers get super DRM on their games. I understand the reason there is DRM on the game, piracy rates of some indie games are at 90%, but companies have to realize that the extensive DRM hurts noone but the paying customer and usually don't affect piracy rates in a positive way(Spore anyone?)
-$60 games on consoles cost $60 on PC. Yes, equal pricing is generally a good thing, but every liscenced (legal) console game sold, requires a $10 console liscensing fee. There is no console liscensing on PC, so why should one have to pay that.
-Buggy, in general, PC games have more bugs, since they are usually ports.
-No split screen! A game on a console that has split-screen should also have split-screen on PC. Even valve doesn't include it!(left 4 Dead, which, oddly, they released code to make it split-screen, but didn't include it in game.

It seems the only time a game on a PC is better or equal to the console version, is when it was originally developed for PC, or utilizes the extra resources higher end PCs have to offer(Fallout: New Vegas)

 

[tokae]

No I don't think major developers hate the PC as a platform, it's just not as lucrative as it used to be. The reason that the PC-gaming community is in decline is (at least as I think) that it's expensive to keep up with hardware to be able to play new games. It's much cheaper buying a console and having it for 5 years and getting the same games and MUCH MORE.

This, of course, doesn't go un-noticed by developers. They know that they make more on the consoles, so why shouldn't they make that their prio-nr. 1?



That's just my thoughts, but still, I only have my PC. I spend alot of money on it every year to keep up, but I think it's worth it. I actually also own consoles, many of them too, just not any current gen.-stuff. Last one I bought was the first Xbox.
I dislike the fact that I have a poor choice of games (compared to consoles) but I make due.
Just lighten up.





(edit: stupid typos...)

 

[TheDist]

Nope they don't hate the Pc at all I am quite sure, they just love the money from consoles a lot more, sadly.

 

[Shadu]

I'm in agreement with most of the sentiments above. While I do not game on my PC, I know that the PC games don't get a fair shake. Basically, developers know that the console games are a more worthwhile endeavor, so they focus on that. As far as the price, well, let's face it, if you're a PC gamer, you'll pay the price they choose regardless. I think it's probably one of these "Well, why should we have a difference in price? We make more money this way!"

 

[Dan Steele]

the reason developers hate PC is because its easy to pirate games on it.

 

[DEAD34345]

Major developers focus on consoles because that's where the money is, this isn't going to change any time soon.

PC users still have far superior choice in gaming however, because any random person with a little programming knowledge (sometimes not even that) can make a game for the PC. You might not get too many big-budget games, but you get the most games that are actually worth having. Indie games beat mainstream ones a million times over in terms of originality, game-play and fun, I only wish I had a halfway decent PC that could run them all.

I own a 360 and a PC, yet I spend far more time playing PC games than console ones.

You might have to look harder to find them, but the PC has far more good games than consoles.

 

[Kurokami]

If you are a pc gamer, you understand what I mean.
-The PC platform is usually given the (sometimes poorly coded) ports of console versions of the game.
-Games released on PC are also sometimes released several months later than consoles.
-There is generally little support for PC games from big developers.
-Loyal paying customers get super DRM on their games. I understand the reason there is DRM on the game, piracy rates of some indie games are at 90%, but companies have to realize that the extensive DRM hurts noone but the paying customer and usually don't affect piracy rates in a positive way(Spore anyone?)
-$60 games on consoles cost $60 on PC. Yes, equal pricing is generally a good thing, but every liscenced (legal) console game sold, requires a $10 console liscensing fee. There is no console liscensing on PC, so why should one have to pay that.
-Buggy, in general, PC games have more bugs, since they are usually ports.
-No split screen! A game on a console that has split-screen should also have split-screen on PC. Even valve doesn't include it!(left 4 Dead, which, oddly, they released code to make it split-screen, but didn't include it in game.

It seems the only time a game on a PC is better or equal to the console version, is when it was originally developed for PC, or utilizes the extra resources higher end PCs have to offer(Fallout: New Vegas)

One thing that you have to remember as a difference between PC and consoles is that consoles are more or less one standard where as PCs are pretty individualized/customized by the user. A game that works on my computer might not work on my brothers for some reason despite us both having great video cards (his being perhaps a bit better), or simply working differently. There's a lot more to take into account as I understand it, not to mention the pressure of dealing to the majority instead of just the graphics freaks while still maintaining a high quality.

 

[artanis_neravar]

If you are a pc gamer, you understand what I mean.
-The PC platform is usually given the (sometimes poorly coded) ports of console versions of the game.
-Games released on PC are also sometimes released several months later than consoles.
-There is generally little support for PC games from big developers.
-Loyal paying customers get super DRM on their games. I understand the reason there is DRM on the game, piracy rates of some indie games are at 90%, but companies have to realize that the extensive DRM hurts noone but the paying customer and usually don't affect piracy rates in a positive way(Spore anyone?)
-$60 games on consoles cost $60 on PC. Yes, equal pricing is generally a good thing, but every liscenced (legal) console game sold, requires a $10 console liscensing fee. There is no console liscensing on PC, so why should one have to pay that.
-Buggy, in general, PC games have more bugs, since they are usually ports.
-No split screen! A game on a console that has split-screen should also have split-screen on PC. Even valve doesn't include it!(left 4 Dead, which, oddly, they released code to make it split-screen, but didn't include it in game.

It seems the only time a game on a PC is better or equal to the console version, is when it was originally developed for PC, or utilizes the extra resources higher end PCs have to offer(Fallout: New Vegas)

You want PC games to have split screen? how is that even possible? there are only one set of controls

 

[revolutionaification]

The problem here seems to be that you're looking only at console games released and later ported to the PC. If a game wasn't designed with the definite intention of a PC release then it probably isn't going to transfer perfectly. But I see that this isn't what you really want to talk about, so I'll respond to each of your points:

1. I can't say I've personally come across this problem. All the ports I've played that have transferred well (in terms of the gameplay style not jarring with the PC controls) have had coding at least equal to the original console version, sometimes even improved through integrated patches and the like.

2. Game release dates across platforms can vary massively; Sometimes the PC will be the last to get it, other times a console won't see the game for months, leaving those who only own that platform waiting for their turn. This is just the way things work, everyone's last at some point or another.

3. I find the support for games is generally far greater for PC versions. Big developers often patch all the versions of a game, but, to me at least, it seems that they'll put out a PC update the fastest. Not to mention the possibility of online support from other gamers. Generally, somebody out there is far more likely to create an unofficial mod or patch for the PC as the coding process tends to be easier (I know this isn't always the case).

4. I agree with you about DRM not being as effective on piracy as companies seem to think but it at least makes the job a little harder for those trying to pirate a game on the most easily manipulated platform.

5. To put it frankly, to make an extra buck. The companies, whilst they may care about making good-quality games and providing entertainment, are still businesses and generalising the price gives a little extra boost to their profits. Whilst it might not seem fair to us PC gamers it's a completely legitimate business strategy. Not to mention the whining we'd hear from console players if our prices were lower, and rightly so.

6. Not 'usually' ports. Plenty of games are designed with PC gamers in mind. Also, the bugs are often addressed either by the developers or by the more extensive modding community for the PC.

7. Generally (not always though) a PC screen is going to be smaller than most television screens today. Split screen could make gaming nigh-impossible due to the reduced scale, not to mention the different aspect ratio split screen could cause. It could negatively affect the layout of the HUD or the impare the player's field of vision. Conversely, it may in fact allow the player to see further to the sides, spotting ambushes before they happen, but that would alter the gameplay mechanics, possibly negatively.

Also, split-screen, sadly, seems to be on the way out anyway. Most multiplayer options are online as opposed to split-screen, making it ever harder to play with your real mates who often, in my case at least, don't have the same version of the game. I say, if split-screen is going to vanish then we need more examples of cross-console multiplayer in the same vein as Steamworks.

 

[Erana]

If you are a pc gamer, you understand what I mean.
-The PC platform is usually given the (sometimes poorly coded) ports of console versions of the game.
-Games released on PC are also sometimes released several months later than consoles.
-There is generally little support for PC games from big developers.
-Loyal paying customers get super DRM on their games. I understand the reason there is DRM on the game, piracy rates of some indie games are at 90%, but companies have to realize that the extensive DRM hurts noone but the paying customer and usually don't affect piracy rates in a positive way(Spore anyone?)
-$60 games on consoles cost $60 on PC. Yes, equal pricing is generally a good thing, but every liscenced (legal) console game sold, requires a $10 console liscensing fee. There is no console liscensing on PC, so why should one have to pay that.
-Buggy, in general, PC games have more bugs, since they are usually ports.
-No split screen! A game on a console that has split-screen should also have split-screen on PC. Even valve doesn't include it!(left 4 Dead, which, oddly, they released code to make it split-screen, but didn't include it in game.

It seems the only time a game on a PC is better or equal to the console version, is when it was originally developed for PC, or utilizes the extra resources higher end PCs have to offer(Fallout: New Vegas)

You want PC games to have split screen? how is that even possible? there are only one set of controls

Depends on the genre. If you need only the keyboard and its multiplayer, Split Screen would be great! Even then, if you designate which hardware you're using for primary PC control, why couldn't you use your standard M&K, then have some USB ones attached?

 

[WorldFree55]

As other people have said already, it's much cheaper to own a console then it is to keep up with the tech requirements to play a triple A PC game or most PC games these days. I would know since i paid $2,000+ dollars on the parts to build my gaming PC XD.

There is also a issue with pirating games on the PC as well. Consoles have that issue as well but it's not even close to that issue with the PC. Seriously all i have to do is go to piratebay.org or something and i can get the latest Witcher sequel on the PC.

So add to the fact that as hard as it is to believe, not too many people have the capabilities or have the money to get a more powerful computer and the pirating issue, there's almost no reason to make games for the PC beside MMOs. Nothing new from what anybody else has said, just it's true.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

It's not because they "hate" you, it's because PC gaming isn't as lucrative since it's slowly declining. PC gaming is already more expensive, and more complicated than console gaming, and the availability of console systems which cost less than a gaming rig and are easier to use means that most gamers tend towards the console side of things. Add in all the problems that you mentioned (many of which are a result of this) and the idea of PC gaming becomes even less attractive to someone considering whether to get a console or a gaming rig. And because of this demographic shift in favor of consoles, they provide the biggest prospective market, and as such are the customers that developers tend to focus on.

 

[viranimus]

If you are a pc gamer, you understand what I mean.
-The PC platform is usually given the (sometimes poorly coded) ports of console versions of the game.

I dont know, from what ive seen, its been the other way around. With the PC versions being more complete (thanks in part to being developed there) and the console incarnations being the inferior ones much more often than the other way around. Perfect case in point is Risen

-Games released on PC are also sometimes released several months later than consoles.

Sometimes. Granted Fable 3 is evidence to your claim, but theres plenty of games that get PC release the same day as the console releases 1 out of 50 instances isnt that much to worry about

-There is generally little support for PC games from big developers.

Two things... Piracy and cheaters. Piracy has been talked to death so no point going into it. However I think Devs perfer to go with consoles because its far too easy to cheat on PC games, which can let players breeze through narrative content too quickly and thus have an unrealistic expectation for more content quicker than they can churn it out. By keeping it on the console, they ensure people do not cheat their way through the games and thus loose interest in playing the game sooner.

-Loyal paying customers get super DRM on their games. I understand the reason there is DRM on the game, piracy rates of some indie games are at 90%, but companies have to realize that the extensive DRM hurts noone but the paying customer and usually don't affect piracy rates in a positive way(Spore anyone?)

Ehh, the DRM is there just to make people who are not pirates, stay that way. Devs are not stupid, they know just as well as we do their DRM measures are pointless and inneffectual. However if they did nothing, more people would flock to piracy.

-$60 games on consoles cost $60 on PC. Yes, equal pricing is generally a good thing, but every liscenced (legal) console game sold, requires a $10 console liscensing fee. There is no console liscensing on PC, so why should one have to pay that.

Yet people do. PC incarnations are typically 10$ cheaper than Console versions. I am unaware of any sort of licensing fee that is the explaination of the 10$ mark higher, but not refuting it. Even still, people do pay it for consoles and will continue to do so, because its their platform of choice.

.

-Buggy, in general, PC games have more bugs, since they are usually ports.

Again I dont see the notion of claiming a PC version is ever a "port" because invariably, always the initial development starts on PCs, not on the consoles. However, as it relates to bugs it stands as a throwback to older days when consoles didnt have net access. Once it was shipped, it better be in a playable state. But at the same time, a PC title in the early 90s was able to count on things like patches, so devs would let things like glitches and bugs slide knowing they could fix it after the fact. Again, I am not seeing it personally, Just best educated guess

-No split screen! A game on a console that has split-screen should also have split-screen on PC. Even valve doesn't include it!(left 4 Dead, which, oddly, they released code to make it split-screen, but didn't include it in game.

Why exactly would they include split screen option in a game on a Personal Computer?
Honestly how many people have PCs hooked up in a living room type of environment that is condusive to multiple people watching/interacting with the screen at once? Granted, I do, but I am fairly geeky and I know its not the norm.

It seems the only time a game on a PC is better or equal to the console version, is when it was originally developed for PC, or utilizes the extra resources higher end PCs have to offer(Fallout: New Vegas

 

[player3141]

Major developers focus on consoles because that's where the money is, this isn't going to change any time soon.

PC users still have far superior choice in gaming however, because any random person with a little programming knowledge (sometimes not even that) can make a game for the PC. You might not get too many big-budget games, but you get the most games that are actually worth having. Indie games beat mainstream ones a million times over in terms of originality, game-play and fun, I only wish I had a halfway decent PC that could run them all.

I own a 360 and a PC, yet I spend far more time playing PC games than console ones.

You might have to look harder to find them, but the PC has far more good games than consoles.

There are the big budget console games that I wish I had the console version for. (Crysis 2, Call of Duty Black Ops, etc.), but that pales in comparision to what I get with the indie games and older games.

The reason I have a PC instead of a console is that PC users do have a superior choice thanks to indie games and steam sales. I got assasins creed, rainbox six vegas, and far cry 2 for $10, and the potato sack for < $40.
You can also do a lot more on the PC, mods, multitasking(I am typing this in the steam browser, while playing a game and listening to a podcast), etc.

The crappy ports just get annoying sometimes.

 

[Katana314]

Yup. Many of them say it's because of the piracy numbers. Mainly, PC gamers just seem to be a smaller audience. Keep in mind this is one of the big decisions left up to the board of directors, who may not have all the nitty-gritty data of low-level details.

 

[lukeyk]

If you are a pc gamer, you understand what I mean.
-The PC platform is usually given the (sometimes poorly coded) ports of console versions of the game.

And yet pc has a whole genre which only seems to be good for pc. (Rts and perhaps mmorpg) Also while not in majority consoles do have some poorly ported games from pc (Looking at you tf2)

-$60 games on consoles cost $60 on PC. Yes, equal pricing is generally a good thing, but every liscenced (legal) console game sold, requires a $10 console liscensing fee. There is no console liscensing on PC, so why should one have to pay that.

I'm not quite sure where your buying your pc games from... but where I got them they are normally around £10 cheaper than their console counter parts (I live in the u.k)

-Buggy, in general, PC games have more bugs, since they are usually ports.
-No split screen! A game on a console that has split-screen should also have split-screen on PC. Even valve doesn't include it!(left 4 Dead, which, oddly, they released code to make it split-screen, but didn't include it in game.

While not quite disagreeing with your point, for the bugs their are normally mods which can fix it to a very high standard, and while that may not seem acceptable as you having to track down these mods and bare the arduous task of pressing download its still a solution although it certainly is not from big game developers but from people themselves so this point may seem obsolete. Also some valve games(Left 4 dead 1 and 2, portal 2) do have split screen...
you can enable it in console....

So while some big game developers may seem as if they ignore or hate pc it is normally due to the game not quite working as well on pc or due to the financial reasons. So no major developers do not quite hate the pc its more of a... bridge between consoles and pc which some developers have problems crossing. (And yes I am what is considered a pc gamer)

 

[artanis_neravar]

If you are a pc gamer, you understand what I mean.
-The PC platform is usually given the (sometimes poorly coded) ports of console versions of the game.
-Games released on PC are also sometimes released several months later than consoles.
-There is generally little support for PC games from big developers.
-Loyal paying customers get super DRM on their games. I understand the reason there is DRM on the game, piracy rates of some indie games are at 90%, but companies have to realize that the extensive DRM hurts noone but the paying customer and usually don't affect piracy rates in a positive way(Spore anyone?)
-$60 games on consoles cost $60 on PC. Yes, equal pricing is generally a good thing, but every liscenced (legal) console game sold, requires a $10 console liscensing fee. There is no console liscensing on PC, so why should one have to pay that.
-Buggy, in general, PC games have more bugs, since they are usually ports.
-No split screen! A game on a console that has split-screen should also have split-screen on PC. Even valve doesn't include it!(left 4 Dead, which, oddly, they released code to make it split-screen, but didn't include it in game.

It seems the only time a game on a PC is better or equal to the console version, is when it was originally developed for PC, or utilizes the extra resources higher end PCs have to offer(Fallout: New Vegas)

You want PC games to have split screen? how is that even possible? there are only one set of controls

Depends on the genre. If you need only the keyboard and its multiplayer, Split Screen would be great! Even then, if you designate which hardware you're using for primary PC control, why couldn't you use your standard M&K, then have some USB ones attached?

I would assume one would override the other, but I could be wrong never tried it myself, but I see your point, although how many games just use the keyboard[footnote]actual question[/footnote]?