Why so console, son?

[Socken]

I guess having a console is just a lot more convenient, since you don't have to check system requirements and fiddle with graphics settings to get a game to run.
That means most people rely on consoles for gaming, hence porting a game to the PC would potentially mean a loss to most companies.

The only one complaint I don't understand is the one about controllers being more comfortable than keyboard and mouse. First of all, they aren't (at least I think so, but whatever floats your boat), and second of all, I got a 360 controller for Windows for around 20?. That's like 25$. Really not that much of an investment.
I never owned a console other than the Sega Master System and N64 (my sister has a Wii but that doesn't count) and I've been happy with a PC for the last couple of years, but even I can understand the appeal of buying something for 300 bucks and not having to shove another 200 up its rear every other year.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I think it's because not every company wants their games on PCs. It's not like PCs are gods of gaming.

You would need a legitimate reason to not want more money. If a game was coming on the 360 and PC, people would be questioning why it's not on the PS3, when it's mostly really just contractual.

 

[Woodsey]

PC's are harder to develop for because of the varying specs people have. It's not the same to say "we're going to develop for Dell PC's" in the same way it is to say "we're going to develop for the 360". PC's are so varied in capability, etc. most developers can't be bothered.

And technically the PC isn't an official gaming platform if you see what I mean, so no company can pay for exclusives in the same way they can for the consoles (maybe Microsoft can because of Windows, I'm not sure).

It does seem to go in waves though, a few years ago I was seriously concerned as PC's were being shunned, now it seems to developers are looking into exploring the more powerful capabilities of PC's and including better graphical options, etc. that the consoles can't offer (ie. they're not porting crappy versions of games to PC for a quick buck as much any more).

 

[Cerrax]

Not a direct answer to the question but, my TV is a hell of a lot bigger than my computer screen. I'd rather have a game on my 32" TV than a 17" screen.

But with HDTV's having VGA inputs and computer monitors now regularly available in sizes well above 20", this is not a viable argument anymore.

 

[Low Key]

Because the vast majority would rather buy one thing that is easy to move around and doesn't cause any hassle. PCs need to have their parts replaced constantly to keep up with it's games, are more expensive, are more complicated to set up, and once you've dealt with those problems, it might not even play the brand new game you just bought because of a small compatability issue.

For all the downsides you just mentioned, consoles keep everything simple, which is what people want.

you are wayyyyyyyy off. You do NOT need to upgrade as much you claim you have to. You can get a decent computer that'll run for a good 5 years before you have to do anything with it.

The 3 main things you need to play a game on the PC are a video card, a processor, and RAM. Just those 3 alone exceed the price of the PS3 if you buy the ones that will actually last. Before the gaming boom, the price difference used to be much, MUCH more, and that was for games with shittier graphics.

 

[MLS]

What sucks is that when a good platformer actually does get ported to PC, it doesn't have freaking gamepad support (cough BRAID). I know the guy was working on a budget but come on that couldn't have been much time to add.

The 3 main things you need to play a game on the PC are a video card, a processor, and RAM. Just those 3 alone exceed the price of the PS3 if you buy the ones that will actually last. Before the gaming boom, the price difference used to be much, MUCH more, and that was for games with shittier graphics.

Yeah, but pretty much everyone owns a PC of some sort. Take the money you'd spend on your PS3, add it to what you'd normally spend on a computer, and you can easily construct a respectable gaming PC that will be able to play new games for at least two graphics card generations (maybe 3-5 years), plus the backlog of all the older games your budget Dell can't play.

The other plus of PC is that you can generally demo games for free without renting or even leaving the house. Though, they seem to have finally begun to address this with the current generation which is nice to see.

In the end though it all comes down to money, as usual. Studios generally think consoles offer a better ROI.

 

[Danzaivar]

If you make a game for a console, you can just make sure it runs fine on that console.

If you make it for PC, you have to consider all the different hardware configurations people might have, you have to make it playable with a mouse/keyboard (Rather than it needing a joystick and keyboard is unplayable) and so on.

Also - Much easier to pirate games for PC than a 360/PS3. It's doable with the other two but you need to physically change the consoles, with a PC it can be done out of the box as it were.

 

[Ace of Spades]

I prefer console gaming for one reason. For the most part, any problem you encounter can be solved by turning off the console and turning it back on.

 

[Katana314]

Yes, well...that's barring the RROD. =p

But yeah, I would have to agree with the many points expressed here that consoles can be a lot better for certain audiences and certain games.

To the OP, even if they DID port something like BlazBlue to the PC, you would have to provide some Mouse/Keyboard support to those that didn't get the message. It would inevitably be picked up by said people and receive poor reviews for "WHat F is paunch?" Some games just work better on consoles. Plus, developing for a console can often be easier because once it works on the development PS2 you have in your office, you know it'll work on every single one in the country. You can't say the same for PCs.

But conversely, some games just work best on PC. I just came out of a topic that criticized Microsoft (but first wrongly Valve) for not letting TF2 be updated. They've added a lot of content to it for free, something that is disallowed on consoles. It's kind of like the Windows/Linux argument. One is "stable", more "supported", but the other is much more open and not controlled by an overarching company.

 

[TheCameraman]

Just a side argument, I can use my PC to work, do homework on and to surf the internets, I can't do much of that on my consoles. Who knows, this might change though.

Spoiler

The point behind that statement was to show that not everyone buys a computer purely for gaming, however, the consoles are made for gaming.

 

[mklnjbh]

I have grown up seeing the controller as the universal "Make dem shooty guys go shoot" remote. PC gaming fills the RTS and MMORPG roles fantastically well (that said, I hate MMORPG's, whereas I love me my RTS). It seems weird to use a mouse to operate a weapon: the same can be said of pressing a button with your thumb, but with two hands where each finger has a specific role to play, it results in a smoother reaction to a sudden need (a baddy hopping out of nowhere just within stab range) than rushing to press a small button among a hundred others.

 

[CmdrGoob]

Because the vast majority would rather buy one thing that is easy to move around and doesn't cause any hassle. PCs need to have their parts replaced constantly to keep up with it's games, are more expensive, are more complicated to set up, and once you've dealt with those problems, it might not even play the brand new game you just bought because of a small compatability issue.

For all the downsides you just mentioned, consoles keep everything simple, which is what people want.

you are wayyyyyyyy off. You do NOT need to upgrade as much you claim you have to. You can get a decent computer that'll run for a good 5 years before you have to do anything with it.

The 3 main things you need to play a game on the PC are a video card, a processor, and RAM. Just those 3 alone exceed the price of the PS3 if you buy the ones that will actually last. Before the gaming boom, the price difference used to be much, MUCH more, and that was for games with shittier graphics.

Ah, but the trick is that console hardware is very cheap mostly beacuse it's deliberately sold cheaply by console manufacturers to gain market share, and they then make up for the low margins on the hardware by making money off games developers, who then pass that cost on to consumers, which is why console games are noticibly more expensive. So console hardware often only seems much less expensive; you'll make up the difference in cost when you buy games.

 

[obex]

I upgraded my computer back in 07 and except for some more ram which set me back £15 and a £20 keyboard which was not necessary just for comfort i have not spent anything on it and i only expect to spend about £200 in the next year and that should see more good for a while i don't spend allot more than a console player however when i first built my rig it cost more than a console....allot more but if your savvy then you don't need to conform to the spend thousands every year stereotype.

Consoles are good because there just plug in and play there allot easier to use than computers especially if you are not a tech wizard.

The computer wins as my formate because all though we can argue the finer points of which gamers better till the cows come home computers have much more capability than consoles for creative and recreation purposes i mean are you posting on this forum using a 360?

 

[FallenRainbows]

*sigh* I envision the approach of PC fanatics. the WORSE kind of fanboy, they don't think they are.

Okay, for me, and enough people to matter, the controller is much more comfortable, and for me particularly for me because I have VERY shaky hands. Want proof? without my spell checker there were 20 different spelling mistakes in this sentence. Also A good controller for $10? Umm not where I live but okay. Even so if one guy on here is a PC fanboy I will scream at them.

jsut stfu you halo fanboy! HHAAH!

Joke aside. PC is the best and can only be, if you think about it. 360, PS3, Wii etc. are all stock products, whereas a PC can be customizable. It does not matter what beast of a console you buy, you can ALWAYS get something bigger and better on a PC.

Having said that, consoles are cheaper relative to their hardware, and is a simpler medium that does not demand previous exposure to electronic products.

What makes me tick about PC, is probably the mice and keyboards (tick is used positively). I also do like to use my PC for other things than media, but I could live without it. I just don't get why they don't integrate mice and keyboards into games. I mean, when they've already went the distance to make GTAIV fit for PC, which includes making it acceptable to both mouse and keyboard, why not make a patch for the consoles to handle this as well?

I prefer PC, and probably always will. But I could easily live without it, if console games would be able to use mouse and keyboard.

*insert scream here* Meh, I'm bored.

 

[Accountfailed]

I've always pushed the point that a computer is the way to go, you get gaming capabilities and much more then your usual console for the small taxation of putting the work in to make everything work correctly. IMO computer gamers tend to be a bit more intelligent then console gamers but that has exceptions. and it is true that consoles are easier to play but it's much like getting a radio controlled airplane. you can buy the enthusiast 6-hour assembly for a demon that can fly faster then neo on crack and maneuver like an acrobatic with wings or you can get the kids toy with a user friendly controller, easy-read-instruction manual and family friendly price tag. I love consoles, but I prefer something that I can tinker with. something I can change and modify to suit my needs, and in the end, a console is always just a restricted computer, no matter what angle you view it from.

NOTE: all of this is IMO and I do not need to hear about why you disagree with my two-cents, if you don't like it don't read it if you're offended that easily.

 

[AbuFace]

If you make a game for a console, you can just make sure it runs fine on that console.

If you make it for PC, you have to consider all the different hardware configurations people might have, you have to make it playable with a mouse/keyboard (Rather than it needing a joystick and keyboard is unplayable) and so on.

Eh...it's not that hard to develop games for the PC. Xbox360 and Windows use the same media API (DirectX) as each other so if you made a 360 game, you could easily make it for the PC. Generally PC game developers only have to consider 2 variables:

1) What version of DirectX do we want to have the game playable on?
2) What is the minimum level of hardware strength we want the game to be playable on?

You're right in that console development is more straightforward and simple, but PCs aren't as daunting of a platform as you thought.

 

[Danzaivar]

If you make a game for a console, you can just make sure it runs fine on that console.

If you make it for PC, you have to consider all the different hardware configurations people might have, you have to make it playable with a mouse/keyboard (Rather than it needing a joystick and keyboard is unplayable) and so on.

Eh...it's not that hard to develop games for the PC. Xbox360 and Windows use the same media API (DirectX) as each other so if you made a 360 game, you could easily make it for the PC. Generally PC game developers only have to consider 2 variables:

1) What version of DirectX do we want to have the game playable on?
2) What is the minimum level of hardware strength we want the game to be playable on?

You're right in that console development is more straightforward and simple, but PCs aren't as daunting of a platform as you thought.

That was my minor reason, the big deal is how much harder it is to crack/copy a console game compared to a pc game.

You're also forgetting that there's all fancy hardware quirks you can exploit with the 360 and (especially) PS3's architecture, which you can't guarantee with PC's simply because of the modular design. So you need to account for redundancy in case it isn't supported in the hardware. I know it ain't hard to make PC games, but it's harder to get everything you can out of the hardware.

And some developers don't want to do anything less than 'Everything we can get from the hardware'.