.
<Game dev hat on>
Unfortunately, console gaming is here to stay. It represents a single hardware spec to target per-platform, it is consistent, easier to develop for than broad spectrum hardware, the control rig is pretty consistent, and the market less elite; A good PC gaming rig costs three times what a console does currently. Consoles offer more effective DRM than a PC (Or they will until they finally abandon physical media outright, which they may very well at this rate in a few years), they control the user experience to what a developer wants, and in combination with these factors, they're a publisher's wet dream compared to the wild west of the PC and Mac market. Good for them, sorta good for devs (It's hard to do anything new or interesting on a console for exactly the reasons stated above; We've basically hit the limits of what you can do with thumbsticks and waggly baton controllers). Not so good for you. Fortunately for you, the PC gaming market has enough of a niche in oddball things that can't be done on other platforms, it's not dying anytime soon. Minecraft, among a cavalcade of other neat indie ideas, for example. Personally? I despise consoles from a personal gaming standpoint, and love them as an indie developer for their console arcades. That's about it, though.
</Dev hat off>
Just like the debate as to which is console is better, this debate will never die. One week PC gaming is dead, the next, it's consoles. It's a choice, you chose whom you pay for your entertainment. You don't like how the consoles do things? Then fine, be a PC gamer, it's not the end of the world.
<dev hat on>
FYI, games these days, at least the good ones, are targeted to be multiform from the start, with the lead platform being the Xbox 360. (There are a few that are exclusive, but most eventually get ported eventually.) But the vast majority are developed on PCs and targeted for 360 with development-stage support for PS3 from the start because it is easiest and it ends up with a broader customer base in the end. The developers work to make sure their gameplay experience is the same across all the platforms, with the occasional perk to each platform, but ultimately want everyone to play their game. Thus, most titles end up on all the platforms because they are designed to work that way, for the benefit of the developer AND the consumer.
</dev hat off>
It will be a very long time before we see a decline in the console market because for the most part consoles are far more casual friendly, and I'm especially looking at the Wii here for this, although it somewhat applies to the PS3, Xbox360, and even even the mobile consoles like DS and PSP.
PC is not only much more expensive upfront, often costing over a grand for a decent system, they're generally a lot more trouble too with errors and compatibility issues and whatnot. Consoles are attractive because once they're plugged in they're generally trouble free.
: Zen November 05, 2011, 12:24:00 -06:00
<dev hat on>
Thus, most titles end up on all the platforms because they are designed to work that way, for the benefit of the developer AND the consumer.
</dev hat off>
Except ubisoft. They're run by a bunch of asswipes. :)
But on the console vs pc argument: I'll never go back to console gaming just because of Steam. Friendly to developers, friendly to consumers (except where 3rd-party-bad-as-shit-drm is added). But like everybody else has said - developing for consoles is nice, because there's a target system to build towards, instead of the fragmentation that is the PC market.
Steam is not actually very friendly. There have been some very interesting background things that have gone on with devs.
Also, steam isn't too friendly t consumers. If you try and buy something on a sale date, and their system mucks up you account so you cannot make a purchase until after the fact, tough luck. Steam will not in any way help you.
(http://resource.mmgn.com/Gallery/full/7PLLYLB8.jpg)
(http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lvejvk7ppA1qevi9a.jpg)
: Wula December 09, 2011, 05:56:47 -07:00
Why do people post images with other people made and nothing else? I disapprove that they cannot be creative and come up with something original to support or disagree with the subject matter :c
It's called trolling. The whole thread was "tl;dr" thus, IMAGE FIXES EVERYTHING LAWL
Gaming in general for me is dead, most game genres that I actually enjoyed are few and far between or just aren't getting made (ie decent RPG series, Adventure titles that aren't exclusives or rely on motion controls which I hate to no end). I find older games that I used to spend hundreds of hours playing just take too long to commit to; I have a busy life with little time to game anymore...
Would I like to have my former RPG/Adventure stash of games back across all my former consoles (PS2/PS1/Gamecube/XBOX360, with the most games per respective console in that order) just for the heck of having them? Sure. Would investing in (and tracking down) these 'treasured golden year games' be worth my time, money and effort? Probably not.
Frankly the way a lot of companies are going in terms of direction and ideas on consoles, I don't see the point of even digital games (ie Steam) as I was born/raised on consoles and just flail at the idea of keyboard/mouse shenanigans versus controllers.
also the whole trolling part of this thread just makes me groan at how lazy and lax some people have gotten with reading properly arranged English >_>
: Shadow December 11, 2011, 05:47:20 -07:00
Frankly the way a lot of companies are going in terms of direction and ideas on consoles, I don't see the point of even digital games (ie Steam) as I was born/raised on consoles and just flail at the idea of keyboard/mouse shenanigans versus controllers.
You'll -never- have a strategy game on a console that has as much depth as one on the PC. It's just not possible. Nor will you ever be able to aim as precisely, or as quickly on a controller over mouse/keyboard.
For those reasons, those genres of games on consoles are always second class citizens compared to those on a PC.
:)
And, as far as steam goes - I've never had an issue with steam billing. I don't have an issue with the company either. Developers publishing over steam have FAR more opportunity than they have -ever- had. Digital distribution has made indie studios flourish - can the same be said about stuff like XBLA/PSN titles (which are still fairly limited with releases)? As far as big companies dealing with Steam that decide to withdraw a majority of their games so they can launch their own service? Screw em. My loyalty is towards the platform, not the publisher. Especially when the competing software sucks horrendously.
tl;dr:
PC gaming will always have areas that will always be better than consoles, and Steam has been the best thing for PC gaming and indie studios.
Halo Wars is a game I regard as a successful strategy game for the console, but it's obviously shallow when you compare it to games of the same genre on the computer. I'd have to agree that different genres fit better on different medium.
The reality is that companies are in the business to make money, and right now shooters are the best money makers and hence why there's a lot less adventure/platformers/strategy/what-have-you compared to the one dominant genre. Shooters are generally a lot more simple too in my opinion as you don't need a lot of buttons for them (Unlike strategy as an example). They work well on the console, and PC versions of the game generally don't add much, you just need movement, crouching, reloading, grenades, and maybe a few other doodads and gimmicks depending on the particular game.
Dude, PC gaming is WAYYYY worse than consoles. You spend a tonof money to just RUN new games, and due to pirating, most companies steer clear of PC ports. That being said, I far prefer retro since they focused more on single player and they had good multiplayer added on, not the other way around.
: einsman March 04, 2012, 01:06:35 -07:00
Dude, PC gaming is WAYYYY worse than consoles. You spend a tonof money to just RUN new games, and due to pirating, most companies steer clear of PC ports. That being said, I far prefer retro since they focused more on single player and they had good multiplayer added on, not the other way around.
You don't have to spend tons of money comparatively to a console.
Your standard console (new) will run you about $500 and by PC standards is about a mid to mid-upper range for the time it is release, so maybe a $700 pc at most if we only include what comes with a console (board, drives, video card, processor, case and controller).
As the years progress, your console will be locked to the stats it had when it was first released, so games built on newer technologies will start to look poor on your console. On the other hand, for a minimal investment, you can spruce up your PC to take advantage of newer graphics, maybe an upgrade of your RAM and video card, or to a faster processor on your board type. Everything else can remain constant.
Now, when next generations's console is dropped on your lap and you're forced to shell out another $500 for it new, whereas you could spend the same amount on a board, ram and video card and start edging up to the higher-end specs, compartively beginning to outpace the console market.
Also, the great thing about a PC is that you don't really have to worry about backwards compatibility (for the most part). I still play games from the 90's on my machine today.
I just miss good 3D platformers on consoles. That's all I want. ; A ; bring back the era of Banjo Kazooie and Rayman
I'm of two minds about this.
First is that the PS3, arguably the most powerful of the current console generation, has what amounts to a pair of GeForce 7800 cards SLI'd together (the RSX processor). The Xbox 360 makes do with less. And let's not talk about the Wii. I recently picked up a 360 and hooked it up to my 23" 1080p computer monitor, and am disappointed by the graphics quality (which looked way better on a low-res tube TV, go figure). However, yes, all the hardware is compatible, so more time is spent playing games and less time is spent on jiggery pokery, drivers, updates, tweaking, etc. It's plug it in and go.
Second, though, is that a year ago I had what would be called a "decent" gaming rig. It was a budget HP with 4GB of ram, a three core AMD processor, and a GTS450 overclocked card in it. On the same monitor as mentioned above, it rocked. Most games could be played with all the important sliders cranked at 1080p with almost no frame drops. The detail, especially when it came to anti-aliasing and textures, was vastly superior to what the 360 is putting out. So a computer allows for constant upgrades of power, which allows developers to constantly push the envelope. Any game that gets put out for PCs and consoles is almost certainly watered down on the console port for this reason. However, at the end of the day, you need a Windows license, anti-virus software because of Windows, twice the amount of cash or more for hardware outlay, and some patience if you're going to get everything set up properly.
I'd say after playing in both camps I prefer PC gaming, for the reasons above and most of Pat The Fox's post. That said, I can see the benefits in either method.