What is so taboo about the PC anyway?

[DoctorObviously]

When I checked out: 'Most Anticipated Games of 2010' on GameSpot, Red Dead Redemption caught my eye. When I checked the title out, I had to discover to my dismay that it's console-exclusive. Now, this console thing is really starting to bothering me. I have a PS3, but I still won't buy it. Why? Just because I enjoy my games more on the PC. Sure, I enjoy a PS3 games every now and then, but that's not the point. I know the whole thing of keeping the PC out of buisness is because of this pirating problem, but is that really the only reason?

 

[Danny Ocean]

It's because the console market makes more money for them.

That's it. As much as I might hate it.

Actually, you know what? I'm going to use this privileged position of first post to address the inevitable misconceptions that will come up.

The main reason is that people don't like upgrading their PCs for High end games every year... Possibly more due to the Pointlessness to upgrade the hardware.

One doesn't upgrade one's hardware every year unless you really, really want to show off or spend money. I got my first PC for games in.. oh, about 2004. I got a new graphics card in 2006, and 2008. I only just got a new core system this year. That's one upgrade every two years, and I'm one of those people who likes to stay up-to date rather than turn the graphics down.

What makes it pointless? The point of upgrading is to increase the power of your PC so it can play more games on higher settings.

it's more effort to make it compatible with different types of hardware, I think that's it.

yup that is the only reason.Developers for consololes have a way easyer time than PC developers

I don't think so. When you design a game for a PC you're really designing it for an OS. That OS is almost always Windows with DirectX. It is said that the problem comes from the differences in performance from PC to PC, but there are a few very easy solutions to this problem:

1. Beta-Testing- Free stress testing by a wide variety of people. I just can't imagine many console players volunteering for it unless it comes with some benefit.

2. In-Game Options- If the game is running sluggishly on your PC, turn the settings down yourself. They don't need to make a separate configuration for every PC spec out there, instead they put the trust in the gamers to set it to best suit their system.

3. 3rd-Party Drivers- The hardware companies actually do a very good job of supplying patches to the hardware in order to help games be more compatible. Less work for the game devs.

I will concede that these are extra costs, but it's not that big a deal. A few dozen thousand on top of several million isn't so much to ask, is it?

It's called an exclusive man. I don't see what your problem is. This is like a ps3 owner whining because they can't play halo or an xbox owner whining because they can't play metal gear solid. Either buy the game on the ps3 or get over it. I see these threads quite often actually. It's weird to me that PC owners think they're entitled to be able to play every game on the planet.

Don't generalise so aggressively. We're noticing a downward trend. Hell, in my short decade of playing games on PC even I've seen the difference. There used to be a whole wall for PC games in the game stores. Now you're lucky if you get a single shelving unit. I don't whine that I can't play Halo or Resistance 2 or whatever because I don't care about individual games, just the general trend of fewer releases of PC games per year.

It's an expression of concern at a declining market in which we are involved. It's conveyable completely separately from the success of consoles. If there were no consoles and the PC market was declining anyway we'd be just as worried as we are now, but the cause of the decline would be different.

 

[Daveman]

it's more effort to make it compatible with different types of hardware, I think that's it.

 

[Buleet]

Its becouse consoles are sold a lot more then pc's for games.

I think.Not sure.

 

[thethingthatlurks]

it's more effort to make it compatible with different types of hardware, I think that's it.

That's the one thing, the other is that PCs are far more powerful than consoles, and hence PC gamers expect more in the visuals department.
Also, just look at what games are selling so well on consoles: stupid FPSs, that take next to no effort to make. It really is a shame that PC gaming is in decline though..

 

[Jack and Calumon]

The main reason is that people don't like upgrading their PCs for High end games every year, and with a console, it serves approximately a 5 year life span. Possibly more due to the Pointlessness to upgrade the hardware.

 

[Latinidiot]

because it's easier to make sure noone hacks yor game and starts putting it on the net for free. Also the market is bigger.

 

[300lb. Samoan]

It's because the console market makes more money.

That's it. As much as I might hate it.

The number one reason.

it's more effort to make it compatible with different types of hardware, I think that's it.

The number two reason. Also, the biggest reason you are more likely to see a game on XBox and PC, rather than PS3 and PC, because the PC and XBox have the DirectX API in common. By the time you take a PS3 game and port it to XBox, you'd have much less trouble taking the next step to PCs.

I'm thinking the big reason behind this one, though, is that the mass of sales will occur on consoles. Later, there might be a PC release as an afterthought, to scoop up sales from people like the OP.

 

[omega 616]

Are you not buying it out of principles? I know I am kind of missing the point, your annoyed you can't get it on pc but you have a ps3 that you wont get it on?

So you bought a £200+ system to play on "every now and again"? Your better off then I am then.

The games company aren't going to be at all bothered you don't buy the game, only you are missing out on the fun 'cos you refuse to buy it on a console you have.

On topic, I'm not an expert on anything computer wise so I don't know why.

 

[TPiddy]

Pick and choose from any number of the following:

1. Consoles make more money.
2. Consoles reach a wider demographic.
3. No worries about varying system specs.
4. Less piracy.
5. Console market has lower hardware requirements to sell well.
6. Less hacks, cracks and mods.
7. Microsoft will pay money for exclusive titles .

 

[fix-the-spade]

but is that really the only reason?

It's not even the main reason.

The main 'problems' are.

1. PC gamers are expensive to please/develop for. It's two pieces of hardware versus an infinite number of possible hardware/software permutations, that gets expensive to do the optimisation/bug fixing for.

2. We play games for a long time. Get a 'classic' PC game and a developer/publisher can have large player numbers, solid sales and be raking in stacks of money for up to or even over a decade (see Starcraft, Counter Strike, Battlefield 1942/2, WoW etc).

Get it wrong and games die extremely fast, generally PC players are both older and less swayed by hype, there's more risk associated with a new release on PC.

Console games can bust a million copies almost on hype alone (See Borderlands, Far Cry 2) but even the good ones die out quickly. Halo 2 is one of (possibly the) the longest lived online console games out there. Yet it will be killed off before it's sixth birthday along with the whole Xbox 1 catalogue, although most XBL and PS2online titles did well to see three years of online support. Console gamers don't seem to mind being constantly pushed onto the next game whether it's an improvement or not.

Console games are easier to sell to consistently, they offer less risk so developers and publishers are running with them. At least until the next market crash comes along.

Personally, I look forward to either the console market imploding, or eastern european/far eastern developers noticing the enormous gap opening in the market to PC gamers in the west, then promptly plugging it to drive our disloyal western capitalist whore developers out of business for the glory of... erm... soryy, where was I?

 

[Seydaman]

Uh tell me about it, I just can't stand using an analog stick for a shooter of any kind...reason I bought a mouse+keyboard adapter for my ps3 >.>

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

One doesn't upgrade one's hardware every year unless you really, really want to show off or spend money. I got my first PC for games in.. oh, about 2004. I got a new graphics card in 2006, and 2008. I only just got a new core system this year. That's one upgrade every two years, and I'm one of those people who likes to stay up-to date rather than turn the graphics down.

What makes it pointless? The point of upgrading is to increase the power of your PC so it can play more games on higher settings.

This is more or less how I operate. That said, I'm fairly certain it costs me more to maintain a gaming PC than either my PS3 or 360. I just had to upgrade my core system at a cost of about a grand six months ago. With the current hardware, a single video card upgrade will do the trick. My last system that went through two upgrade cycles before being replaced cost somewhere between 1700 and 2100 in total (I no longer remember the exact prices). This is hardly a bleeding edge system even now yet it can play all modern games with the graphics turned up to max without issue, thanks to simply making smart purchase decisions. I could have gone for bleeding edge and gotten a system that was 30% faster in all respects for nearly four times the price - thus I made compromises where appropiate (7200 RPM drives versus 10,000/15,000, reasonably priced high performance memory, a few iterations from leading edge video card etc).

That said, in my job I see people's computers regularly. The average system that comes across my bench is 3 years old with a surprisng number of 5+ year old systems. Even new systems tend to be "budget" models (bought from a major vendor/store, generally the lowest priced item on offer). Much of the time this is the only system the family in question owns which simply demonstrates that most people I deal with do not view the PC as the same sort of entertainment device as a console. The initial investment alone dwarfs the price of any of the consoles, and when one consideres the semi-regular technical issues that must be tackled most simply write off the system for anything more than facebook games and whatnot.

As far as why games are being made for consoles versus PC, one reasonable theory is that there is a much higher install base of consoles with respect to PC's capable of running modern games. Add into this a wider incidence rate of bugs thanks to various hardware/software configurations and you start to see a better picture. Tack piracy on top of that, which is generally more widespread on the PC than consoles and you really begin to understand why games are drifting towards a console. In spite of the fact that my PC has far more power than all the other devices in my home combined, you gain surprisngly little when this immense power is tapped. Yes, games tend to look a hair better as a result, but the difference is no longer shocking as it was a decade ago.

Personally, I prefer PC games to console simply because I like the interface better. I'm forced to purchase multiplayer games on a console since only one of my friends who regularly plays games has a PC capable of doing the job. As such, the only multi-player games I get for PC are ones that cannot be found on console (or who I know friends aren't interested in playing0 - such as Dawn of War II or Team Fortress II.

 

[fix-the-spade]

The main reason is that people don't like upgrading their PCs for High end games every year, and with a console, it serves approximately a 5 year life span. Possibly more due to the Pointlessness to upgrade the hardware.

This assertion is, as they say, a load of crap.

My gaming Pc cost £650 in 2004, plus £100 for a new graphics card in 2007 (mechanical failure). £750.

Add together the cost of: buying an Xbox at the time (£200), then a 360pro at release (£300, more for a base+hdd+Live kit), plus six years of Live at £40 a year (£240). You land at a grand total of £740.

For a Sonyfile, a 2004 PS2 (also £200), and an on release PS3 (£425, at the time this translated to $870!). £625, better but £125 over six years still isn't exactly a great deal of money saved.

It becomes even less of a solid argument when you factor in games and compatability costs. You want to play the latest game? You need to own the latest console, so far no new releases have beaten my six year old machine. It can also play games from the 80's and nineties without trouble, on one machine. You may also like to note that console game srp is £10-20 more than PC releases, even with on release discounts it stacks against the consoles.

The cost argument isn't thought through enough.
It's a fair enough placed against the bleeding edge obsessives who must have the latest everything, but the majority of players aren't like that.

 

[Ganthrinor]

There's more money in console gaming (because there's less Pirating).

It's also easier to make a game with "Cutting-edge whatever" for a console that pushes that consoles specs, because every console is the same so the target audience is bigger. Not every PC is the same. A really good gaming rig is far more expensive than a console. Those "Cutting Edge" games on the PC tend to sell fewer copies because the target audience is smaller; not only are you only targeting people with XY system specs, you also have to hope that those people that own good enough systems are even interested in the type of game your making in the first place.

 

[Wolfram23]

I don't think it's because of the cost of a PC. A lot of games come out on all 3 systems, some are only PC and Xbox or PS3 and PC or Xbox and PS3 or simply exclusive to one. It all depends on who buys the rights. If it were strictly up to a publisher they would probably go with all 3 as it means better opportunity to sell. I can't see it being that much easier to program for consoles over PC since PCs can play any programming language you want while you're restricted all over the place to console hardware and software limitations. The point is, if Sony or MS decide to buy rights to a game, then they get it.

 

[geon106]

I have a Playstation 3 and PS2 and a Mid-range gamer PC... want to know which I have most games for and get most fun from? Yep, PC.

I enjoy PS3 games for like Guitar Hero/Band Hero at partys and stuff, but for an immersive experience and gripping story, PC. Mouse and Keyboard are also better for FPS/RTS and most RPG games anyways

 

[paasi]

Pick and choose from any number of the following:

1. Consoles make more money.
2. Consoles reach a wider demographic.
3. No worries about varying system specs.
4. Less piracy.
5. Console market has lower hardware requirements to sell well.
6. Less hacks, cracks and mods.
7. Microsoft will pay money for exclusive titles .

Thou hast forgotten thine most olde of reasons, for yon list is naught but the effect of the cause.
Cause being as thus:
8. People doth be greedy fools

For why else wouldst they aquire such a large spectrum of specialized thinking machinae that hath naught way of interaction betweene machinae of different make and as such, a restricted variety of entertainmente modulus?
Mine wouldst be this thought, a single universal thinking machinus or as people here do call it a personal computer.
But not one of thine vile Macs, for they are the epiphany of a mans greed and the Devil's mill that doth spinnet gold from that which be misery of the misguided.
Be though that it is so that this shall upset many a misguided for whom the devil's gold mill is so dear, I do wisheth to hear none of it. Saveth thine breath and fingers.