What exactly is it about PC ports?!

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

One thing you are forgetting about is that with PC games, especially new ones, people may not be able to run the game even with min requirements. With that in mind it makes getting a console version more attractive since it is a one size fit all scenario.

And... My point is more people buy games on the console vs PC. I don't really care why that's the case but it is the case. The console version is prioritized because it sells more, the why doesn't matter.

---

Again, it's one game. Many games show the exact opposite. XCOM:EU sold poorly on consoles according to Firaxis, so that's one game to refute your "fact". Also, those numbers still don't include GOG sales. Only retail and Steam. This game sold like hotcakes on GOG and resellers who offered GOG keys.

Those Witcher sales numbers did include GOG... Why do I even have to do the research to prove common sense? More people buy COD, BF, Tomb Raider, Hitman, Deus Ex, the Souls games, Skyrim, Fallout, now Witcher, GTA, etc, etc, etc on consoles. Do I even need to keep going on? So a sequel to a PC-only series that most gamers have very little knowledge of sold more on PC, how is that any proof that PC games sell more? Anyways, I think XCOM did pretty decent (on consoles) for a game rather unknown to most gamers and I think the next XCOM would sell well on consoles, sorta like what Demon's Souls did for Dark Souls, people became aware of it and the sequel sold probably a good deal more.

If PC games had the most sales, the PC wouldn't get shitty outsourced ports. Why would you prioritize versions of the game that will sell less vs the version that will sell the most?

There are several reasons for that. See my first reply in this thread.

Your reasons:
1) the code is given to a contractor developer to port the game with minimal cost and at a timely fashion.

2) sometimes the original developer of the game does the porting, but that specific developer has little to no experience with PC game development - such was the case with Dark Souls.

3) the vast difference in CPU architecture

-

1) The PC port is outsourced to be done cheap and fast because the PC version sells less so it's less of a priority.

2) Valid point but not valid anymore due to PS4/Xbone having the same architecture.

3) The reason a game's lead platform is the console is because, again, it fucking sells more on a console. If the game sold more on PC, the PC would be the lead platform and the console would get the shitty port and have to deal with different architecture. The difference in architecture is no longer a thing and the PC still gets shitty ports of games like Batman, which is only available for platforms with the same fucking architecture.

It all comes down to the fact PC games sell less, thus get less priority, money, time, and resources.

 

[Doom972]

Again, it's one game. Many games show the exact opposite. XCOM:EU sold poorly on consoles according to Firaxis, so that's one game to refute your "fact". Also, those numbers still don't include GOG sales. Only retail and Steam. This game sold like hotcakes on GOG and resellers who offered GOG keys.

Those Witcher sales numbers did include GOG... Why do I even have to do the research to prove common sense? More people buy COD, BF, Tomb Raider, Hitman, Deus Ex, the Souls games, Skyrim, Fallout, now Witcher, GTA, etc, etc, etc on consoles. Do I even need to keep going on? So a sequel to a PC-only series that most gamers have very little knowledge of sold more on PC, how is that any proof that PC games sell more? Anyways, I think XCOM did pretty decent (on consoles) for a game rather unknown to most gamers and I think the next XCOM would sell well on consoles, sorta like what Demon's Souls did for Dark Souls, people became aware of it and the sequel sold probably a good deal more.

I never said that PC games sell more or less. You, or rather the person I originally replied to, claimed that the console market is more lucrative, and then you claimed that console games sell more and that is a fact. I provided evidence to the contrary, and it seems that your "fact", or "common sense" as you now describe it lacks any evidence other than one recent game that still keeps selling a lot of copies. In other words, your "fact", or "common sense", doesn't seem to be based on anything concrete.

Your reasons:
1) the code is given to a contractor developer to port the game with minimal cost and at a timely fashion.

2) sometimes the original developer of the game does the porting, but that specific developer has little to no experience with PC game development - such was the case with Dark Souls.

3) the vast difference in CPU architecture

-

1) The PC port is outsourced to be done cheap and fast because the PC version sells less so it's less of a priority.

2) Valid point but not valid anymore due to PS4/Xbone having the same architecture.

3) The reason a game's lead platform is the console is because, again, it fucking sells more on a console. If the game sold more on PC, the PC would be the lead platform and the console would get the shitty port and have to deal with different architecture. The difference in architecture is no longer a thing and the PC still gets shitty ports of games like Batman, which is only available for platforms with the same fucking architecture.

It all comes down to the fact PC games sell less, thus get less priority, money, time, and resources.

You have the cause and consequence backwards.

 

[RedDeadFred]

You have the cause and consequence backwards.

Seems more like a vicious cycle. Although, given the difference in architecture in the past, it's quite possible that incompetent ports came before the lesser sales. That was around the time when all the articles were coming out about PC gaming was dying. Seeing as it's stronger than ever now, I'm sure the cycle of suck will eventually be broken.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I never said that PC games sell more or less. You, or rather the person I originally replied to, claimed that the console market is more lucrative, and then you claimed that console games sell more and that is a fact. I provided evidence to the contrary, and it seems that your "fact", or "common sense" as you now describe it lacks any evidence other than one recent game that still keeps selling a lot of copies. In other words, your "fact", or "common sense", doesn't seem to be based on anything concrete.

All those games I listed with many of those game series originating on PC (like Witcher, Hitman, BF, Deus Ex, Elder Scrolls, etc.) sold more on consoles, look up the numbers if you want. The vast vast majority of multiplatform games sell more on consoles, with a single console platform usually beating the PC version. Where's your proof claiming I'm wrong and your right. You ask for proof but provide none yourself.

You have the cause and consequence backwards.

Could be, it doesn't matter. The publishers see the sale numbers and prioritize based on that regardless of the reasons why the numbers are like that. PC versions could sell more with good versions or they could not. I still doubt the big releases like the Batmans, GTAs, CODs, etc. would sell more on PC with good versions just because most gamers buying these games like playing on their couch/recliner on their big screen TV vs their computer desk, I know I sure as hell do.

 

[Doom972]

I never said that PC games sell more or less. You, or rather the person I originally replied to, claimed that the console market is more lucrative, and then you claimed that console games sell more and that is a fact. I provided evidence to the contrary, and it seems that your "fact", or "common sense" as you now describe it lacks any evidence other than one recent game that still keeps selling a lot of copies. In other words, your "fact", or "common sense", doesn't seem to be based on anything concrete.

All those games I listed with many of those game series originating on PC (like Witcher, Hitman, BF, Deus Ex, Elder Scrolls, etc.) sold more on consoles, look up the numbers if you want. The vast vast majority of multiplatform games sell more on consoles, with a single console platform usually beating the PC version. Where's your proof claiming I'm wrong and your right. You ask for proof but provide none yourself.

You're the one who's claiming a fact here. I'm not claiming a fact of my own - I'm refuting yours, so all I need to do is show your that your "fact", only works for selected cases, and not all of them. I have done that already in previous posts.

You have the cause and consequence backwards.

Could be, it doesn't matter. The publishers see the sale numbers and prioritize based on that regardless of the reasons why the numbers are like that. PC versions could sell more with good versions or they could not. I still doubt the big releases like the Batmans, GTAs, CODs, etc. would sell more on PC with good versions just because most gamers buying these games like playing on their couch/recliner on their big screen TV vs their computer desk, I know I sure as hell do.

Actually, it does matter, that's the whole point. And just because you prefer playing in your living room, doesn't mean anything about the rest of us, and it's irrelevant to the discussion.

 

[CrystalShadow]

PC's are hard work to develop for. Always have been.

You can write a game that works perfectly well on your development system, only to have it fail 300 different ways when you release it because it interacts badly and unpredictably on various hardware configurations, or even just specific combinations of software and hardware.

PC's are highly unpredictable like that.

Of course, this is no excuse, and a dev that knows what they are doing would try to test against as many configurations as they can. (obviously though, this can be difficult, and things can slip through anyway.)

The problem with ports specifically is that you take all these problems PC development has anyway, then decide to try and start a project based on something that already exists and was carefully optimised for a specific hardware platform.

So... Not only do you have to contend with the unpredictability of PC's... You have to contend with existing code that likely makes a whole bunch of simplifications and assumptions tied to the nature of it's original hardware platform...

And sometimes, it's easier to force the PC game to try and match some elements of the behaviour of the console the game started on than it is to locate, rip out, and replace all the code that makes assumptions that simply aren't valid on PC.

In fact, from a logistics point of view, it is probably easier to port a PC game to console than the other way around.

A PC game already has to run on a wide variety of hardware, and a console is just another hardware variation, which should be possible to account for.
(Though you may wish to optimise the console code due to relatively restrictive performance issues)

But on the whole it's probably just a money thing. They don't allocate enough resources to the port itself, and the result suffers.

 

[jklinders]

Cross platform development is hard that's why.

Consoles have a singular control input method in relation to the several possible for PC. The hardware architecture is vastly different between not only PC and console, but also within PCs themselves. There are often multiple supported OSs to look at for PC, though rapidly Vista and earlier is being left behind. The PC market often represents a minority share in the projected sales but it's the hardest to develop for. Sometimes it gets handled well, being developed as a cross platform title from the start and runs well, sometimes it get shunted off to a third party dev to port well after initial development is over and runs and plays shitty. Most of the time it's somewhere in the middle.

 

[wizzy555]

Console hardware is strictly defined and unchanging. You can optimize to your hearts content with the understanding it will never change and screw up that hack that only seems to work when this architecture is plugged into this RAM etc and you can tune fill rates to the exact rate of the console.

Almost no two PCs are alike, you need to develop in a good practice generic way that will work now and hopefully forever on any hardware that gets plugged in. I mean even now the game is out there's no clear idea what went wrong, if it was only developed for Maxwell architecture or something, because it's not like everyone has 3 years of AMD and NVidia hardware in their draws.

 

[Scarim Coral]

It isn't a simple direct port, Xbox and PS got 1 spec only while for pc, they all come in different colours (different graphic card, cpu etc) so trying to make a port for the pc means trying to it suitable for the many pc spec.

 

[Las7]

Publishers hate to make money

Sentences like this is why consumers and producers will simply never get along, ever.

Nope it's ports like Batman that makes producers not get along with consumers.
We get along just fine with Rockstar and CD Projekt RED you know companies that treat us with respect. Instead of rushing out a broken game so they can meet some imaginary deadline.

 

[lacktheknack]

Publishers hate to make money

Sentences like this is why consumers and producers will simply never get along, ever.

Nope it's ports like Batman that makes producers not get along with consumers.
We get along just fine with Rockstar and CD Projekt RED you know companies that treat us with respect. Instead of rushing out a broken game so they can meet some imaginary deadline.

HAH.

Rockstar = good ports.

selective <link=http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1786131>memory <link=http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2817209>you <link=http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2968315>have, <link=http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1865848>there.

EDIT: Aaaaaaaand right on time, the Escapist itself <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/video-games/features/galleryoftheday/14224-8-of-the-Worst-PC-Ports-of-All-Time>agrees with me by putting TWO awful Rockstar ports on the list.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You're the one who's claiming a fact here. I'm not claiming a fact of my own - I'm refuting yours, so all I need to do is show your that your "fact", only works for selected cases, and not all of them. I have done that already in previous posts.

All the games I listed sold way more on consoles (numbers don't lie), I even used lots of game series that originated on PC to prove my point vs saying like FF7 sold more on consoles (well, duh!) much like XCOM selling more on PC (well, duh!). I purposefully used Witcher 3 because a large amount of console gamers didn't have access to the first 2 Witchers so the fact that Witcher 3 sold more on consoles shows more people game on consoles. My fact is that most multiplatform games sell better on a console, not that all of them do.

Actually, it does matter, that's the whole point. And just because you prefer playing in your living room, doesn't mean anything about the rest of us, and it's irrelevant to the discussion.

It doesn't matter how console games got to selling more, all that matters is that they do. Even good PC ports don't sell more like Witcher 3. Why the hell would an executive prioritize a PC version of a game when most of the revenue will be from the console versions? It's quite obvious most gamers prefer sitting in their living room and playing on their TV. Gamers do know the PC version is usually superior, why the hell would most gamers purposefully play an inferior version of a game if sitting at a computer desk vs couch was indeed a moot point? And gamers did grow up playing games on their TVs as kids. It's just common sense as to the reasons behind everything being discussed in this thread.

 

[WeepingAngels]

1) Console market is more lucrative for game developers. If you want some profit, you gotta go console.

Tell that to Valve, Blizzard, CD Projekt Red, Firaxis and Riot Games. This claim has been debunked several times.

LMAO, Consoles Made Witcher 3 Possible [http://gamingbolt.com/cd-projekt-red-consoles-made-witcher-3-possible].

That's not saying you can't make a PC game and turn a profit but the fact is most multiplatform games sell more on a console so why wouldn't you as a businessman want to sell more of your product? And Witcher 3 has sold more PS4 copies than PC copies...

If you're claiming this to be an absolute fact, I expect to see some reliable data backing it. Witcher 3 sold more on consoles and XCOM:Enemy Unknown sold more on PC. Neither of them represent all games out there. Each market can be lucrative if you know how to cater to its needs.

It's golden that you are asking for proof after claiming that something had been debunked many times and failed to drop a link for us to see.

 

[Doom972]

You're the one who's claiming a fact here. I'm not claiming a fact of my own - I'm refuting yours, so all I need to do is show your that your "fact", only works for selected cases, and not all of them. I have done that already in previous posts.

All the games I listed sold way more on consoles (numbers don't lie), I even used lots of game series that originated on PC to prove my point vs saying like FF7 sold more on consoles (well, duh!) much like XCOM selling more on PC (well, duh!). I purposefully used Witcher 3 because a large amount of console gamers didn't have access to the first 2 Witchers so the fact that Witcher 3 sold more on consoles shows more people game on consoles. My fact is that most multiplatform games sell better on a console, not that all of them do.

Actually, it does matter, that's the whole point. And just because you prefer playing in your living room, doesn't mean anything about the rest of us, and it's irrelevant to the discussion.

It doesn't matter how console games got to selling more, all that matters is that they do. Even good PC ports don't sell more like Witcher 3. Why the hell would an executive prioritize a PC version of a game when most of the revenue will be from the console versions? It's quite obvious most gamers prefer sitting in their living room and playing on their TV. Gamers do know the PC version is usually superior, why the hell would most gamers purposefully play an inferior version of a game if sitting at a computer desk vs couch was indeed a moot point? And gamers did grow up playing games on their TVs as kids. It's just common sense as to the reasons behind everything being discussed in this thread.

Now you're just going around in circles. Just read my original post again, and the following discussion if necessary. If you're just trying to wear me out by making the same baseless claims, then go ahead. I'm done.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You're the one who's claiming a fact here. I'm not claiming a fact of my own - I'm refuting yours, so all I need to do is show your that your "fact", only works for selected cases, and not all of them. I have done that already in previous posts.

All the games I listed sold way more on consoles (numbers don't lie), I even used lots of game series that originated on PC to prove my point vs saying like FF7 sold more on consoles (well, duh!) much like XCOM selling more on PC (well, duh!). I purposefully used Witcher 3 because a large amount of console gamers didn't have access to the first 2 Witchers so the fact that Witcher 3 sold more on consoles shows more people game on consoles. My fact is that most multiplatform games sell better on a console, not that all of them do.

Actually, it does matter, that's the whole point. And just because you prefer playing in your living room, doesn't mean anything about the rest of us, and it's irrelevant to the discussion.

It doesn't matter how console games got to selling more, all that matters is that they do. Even good PC ports don't sell more like Witcher 3. Why the hell would an executive prioritize a PC version of a game when most of the revenue will be from the console versions? It's quite obvious most gamers prefer sitting in their living room and playing on their TV. Gamers do know the PC version is usually superior, why the hell would most gamers purposefully play an inferior version of a game if sitting at a computer desk vs couch was indeed a moot point? And gamers did grow up playing games on their TVs as kids. It's just common sense as to the reasons behind everything being discussed in this thread.

Now you're just going around in circles. Just read my original post again, and the following discussion if necessary. If you're just trying to wear me out by making the same baseless claims, then go ahead. I'm done.

I broke down each of your points as not being valid points (at least anymore for current gen) already. You just don't seem to get basic logic.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Andzjei Sapkowski made the games possible.

PC made Witcher 1,2 and 3 possible...
That game is easy to play. Dont play it.
Also, no, it has sold more PC copies. The console versions should be treated as two separate markets. As they require two separate teams to make. And are in effect, two platforms against one...

So without the author - No Witcher.

Without PC - No Witcher 1,2 and 3...

Ok... Andzjei Sapkowski and consoles made Witcher 3 possible. Your point?

PS4 version (not PS4 and Xbone) sold more than the PC version:
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/the-witcher-3-out-of-its-4-million-sold-copies-1-3-million-were-from-the-pc-version/

 

[Snotnarok]

Consider this, many definitive editions on console are PC ports...that are still missing some features/functions. So while sometimes they're poor to start with they usually get sorted.

There's been a fair share of broken console games as well, that either took ages to get fixed or never were fixed. Skyrim for PS3 I gathered is broken pretty bad even still (maybe this has changed), Master Chief Collection was entirely screwed and many games get many patches...

Every platform has issues, PC has the major benefit of lacking generations or iterations if not that the open source nature of being able to repair things that were locked to relic hardware. So even if a game is broken at launch, it could be entirely repaired by devs or fans then with the growth of hardware lackluster optimization doesn't matter because the device is so much more powerful.

Games that were crap ports become wildly superior over the span of time. Look at GTA4 AWFUL PC port but an array of mods that makes it incredible looking, expanded the area, etc. Poor optimization entirely irrelevant because of hardware progression.

Note: I'm not defending poor ports, they should bloody work the first time but just saying there's a gold lining to this road and hey why not look on the bright side.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

No no mate

The author made Witcher games possible. Witcher 1 is a PC exclusives. So thank PC for Witcher 3.

I have seen that article. It forgets to mention not yet activated PC sales and Origin sales.

This Witcher 3 that was made and people are playing now wouldn't be possible without consoles. Yeah, there'd probably be a Witcher 3 but not this Witcher 3.

You always say PC sales are more than whatever a source says without a providing a source yourself. I'm forever waiting for you to link to a source backing up anything you say with regards to sales numbers. And, yeah, Origin sales are going to be so huge and make a huge impact because PC gamers totally prefer Origin over Steam or GOG [/sarcasm]