I don't really give a damn what people think. FPS games do not belong on consoles. Auto-aim assisted gun play is counter productive to developing the skills to do so yourself.

Chaos Marine:
I don't really give a damn what people think. FPS games do not belong on consoles. Auto-aim assisted gun play is counter productive to developing the skills to do so yourself.

You don't need auto aim for consoles you know.

because macs are better

crazy-j:
because macs are better

Filthy iconoclast!

Mr_Czar:

crazy-j:
because macs are better

Filthy iconoclast!

lol i am just screwing around

Eggo:
It's funny that some form is almost always included though.

Why is that?

Because people do like that option. But it doesn't say much when you realize that these developers are incompetent. Only incompetent programmers create the southpaw settings seen in most games that even support the option at all.

http://www.edge-online.com/news/study-claims-pc-market-largest

This article claims that the PC game market is worth $20 BILLION this year alone, and that nearly three times as many "gaming" PCs have been sold over the past three years as have consoles. Now, as the PC gaming market is, by its nature, much more difficult to track than the console market, how do these numbers hold up? It seems like for the past, well, long-ass time we've all operated under the assumption that the console market is much larger the PC market. Of course, this being only one study, I can't really put 100% faith in it. But... the numbers are intriguing...

Actually, I also wanted to speak on one other point quickly. I really think that we need to put this "PCs are more expensive than consoles" debate to bed. (Before everyone kills me, I own consoles too, and play games on both.) Console gaming has come to a point where to get maximum enjoyment you need to spend quite a lot of money on the console and the TV. It's awfully easy to forget that since a PC comes with the visual screen, that we should (in all fairness) include the cost of the visual screen of the console. To really enjoy 360 and PS3 games (even Wii games to an extent) you probably need some kind of HDTV. Not a hulking behemoth, but some semblance of one. Those are usually pretty expensive. Can't we all just agree that we all love the most goddamn expensive hobby on God's green Earth?

Indigo_Dingo:

Eggo:
The thing is that the PS3 hasn't exactly broken new ground in terms of graphics :p

But how can it when it's got the equivalent of a 7800GTX under the hood?

Actually, that was a joke. Like I said, the active active act of making an object more closely resemble its real-life counterpart (or at least, its approximate) is not in itself especially creative - any idiot can suggest it.

I don't know, those artists from the Renaissance would sure say that presenting the human form in the most realistic sense possible isn't creative would totally disagree...

Basically, what I'm saying is that Da Vinci would be a huge PS3 fanboy douche.

They will turn away sometimes because it's easier to use the console market but they will come back to the PC because of the amount of designs they they can play around with.

Well the developers will go to the consoles because it's easier to design the specifications. On the other hand the PC has the advantage of having a wide platform base to build and test gaming systems on them.

1. Piracy, perceived or otherwise, facts are, there's more piracy on PC than any other platform in gaming, it's just a shame the companies cant report something near the facts as the figures they report just make everyone think they're making everything up and ignore the fact that there is a problem. 6000 seeds on a popular torrent site does not equal 60 million illegal downloads, if it does, you need to set up some lawyers in Rwanda and the like, because with those number kids who cant get enough flour to eat are burning off a few copies of Crysis daily. Fact is, tho, its a problem, and if they can get paid for say 85% of PC games that get played, and 98% of console games, they're gonna lean towards consoles.

2. Popularity of consoles, sure there's more PCs out there than consoles, there's also more microwaves. Fact is there's more consoles out there than gaming pcs ready to play what's coming out. Note I researched the figures by staring at the wall for a few seconds before pulling them out of my ass, but it works for FOX, so now I'm a journalist, right?

3. Consoles, easier to program for. Ok, stop typing, sure they're harder to program for originally, but once they're used to it, they're writing it for the PS3 and 360 in the main. Not 4000 different PC specs.

4. Console gamers are easier to please and generally less knowledgeable. Note I'm not calling console gamers idiots, far from it. Pc gamers however are far more likely to complain about a lazy port or lacking features that a lot of console gamers wouldn't even know could have existed. I'm not talking about Escapist console owners, hell I am one, but there's a LOT of casual gamers out there who bought a 360/ps3 for the new Fifa, Madden, WWE game and are quite happy. Console gamers (in general, the masses, I KNOW there's exceptions) are far more easily pleased with a game that's 'quite good', whereas a game has to be amazing to get any respect on the PC.

5. Support, No need to support a console game, once its on the disc, you're essentially locked down. No need to offer patches or bug fixes, if they don't like it, they just need to wait for the sequel. No need to offer forums, helplines, dev kits, etc. No need to provide any form of community.

6. While I agree the consoles are less powerful than a half decent PC, they still LOOK really good on a big telly, and need less work to look too.

7. They can charge more per game. Seems people are happy to pay £55 for a Xbox version of whats £30 on the PC.

They are not turning away from PC development they are turning away from PC exclusive development which they are claiming is the result of PC piracy (glares at Crytek) which corrected should read more money from the console market as well as the PC market. Which of course leads to more dumbed down console garbage like Far Cry 2, but at least we get better graphics and added content on the recycled console **** we get. Just look at GTA 4 and what we PC gamers will get over consoles.

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=218942

Aries_Split:

Eggo:
Actually, I just checked and there's more than three times the number of people pirating Left 4 Dead for the Xbox 360 than the PC on that one torrent site. And in total, almost 2000 more people have downloaded the game for the Xbox 360 than the PC :lol:

Eggo, I agree with you, really I do, but most of the people saying the stupid things aren't going to be assed with looking at facts.

Just be happy you and I are part of the Godly PC Gaming Master Race, and scoff at the console peasants.

In reality, Developers don't like the PC because with the PC they know they are expected to support their games.

They KNOW that PC gamers aren't stupid and won't pay for extra maps. They know that we expect patches at LEAST 1 a month, and most of all, they know that we expect quality.

very VERY true.

oh, and not all PC gamers are martini drinking elitst sacks of crap. some of us are tea drinking elitist paragons of humanity.
[paranoid]i think they might be using piracy as an excuse for DRM to drive people away from PC games so that good support and quality products cease to be an expectation in the games industry[/paranoid] wait... that actually makes sense, weird.

From my point of view, PCs aren't built for gaming.

That is, they aren't built for NORMAL gaming. If you're an obsessive-compulsive douchebag who has his joystick, mouse and keyboard custom-built to the EXACT specifications of his hand and has 20K to blow on a super-computer, then PC gaming is most definitely the way to go.

If, on the other hand, you are NOT said douchebag, said douchebag will ruin your day. Because you're running a standard, non-overclocked computer that also gets used for storing your 30 gigs of iTunes, your holiday photos, your university coursework and the eighteen thousand porno images you think your parents don't know about, then you can't compete.

The requirements to compete on equal terms in Console gaming are as follows:

> Have a half-decent internet connection.
> Be better than the other guy.

When I go on Metal Gear Online, I don't slaughter everyone because I overclocked by PS3, or have some fancy Intel Outside 2849000lol driver that can download every episode of the Simpsons ever made in two minutes flat. I win (when I do win) because I'm better at the game than the other guy. It comes down to skill, and a bit of luck as well. It's fair.

And that's without bringing up EA's inspiring methods of alienating the fanbase.

Don't get me wrong, I do love playing Rome: Total War. I'd also love to play Medieval II: Total War, except it was a steaming pile of Lag and I couldn't run it. If it were a PS3 game, that would not have happened.

SenseOfTumour:

5. Support, No need to support a console game, once its on the disc, you're essentially locked down. No need to offer patches or bug fixes, if they don't like it, they just need to wait for the sequel. No need to offer forums, helplines, dev kits, etc. No need to provide any form of community.

I want to correct this - with the new generation of consoles (or at least the PS3; I really wouldn't be shocked if this didn't happen on the 360) patches do take place. The ones I know of include Metal Gear Online (received a bugfix some months ago) and Mercenaries 2 (ditto - minor bug-fixes).

Since the PS3 does work rather like a PC in that you "install" the game rather than running it straight off the disk, it can be patched much like a PC can. It's also clear from places like the Mercs 2 forum that console gamers DO expect patches to fix bugs and so on - at least, they do now the gaming companies have the ability to do so.

SenseOfTumour:

3. Consoles, easier to program for. Ok, stop typing, sure they're harder to program for originally, but once they're used to it, they're writing it for the PS3 and 360 in the main. Not 4000 different PC specs.

I don't think that's how it works. This is just my hashed knowledge of it, but I'm pretty sure that DirectX/Open GL act as the 'middlemen' between the hardware and the software, instead of it being.

Graphics Card A-45634 @ 2ghz effective
Graphics Card A1-1367 @ 0.1ghz
Graphics Card D4-000123 @ 1.2 ghz
etc..

It becomes

Graphics card fast
Graphics card slow
Graphics card medium

... I think. When they say they need to cater for different specs, they mean different levels of system, not exact specificiations.

Anyway:

Eggo:
http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/02/steam-reaches-1.html

Hooray for Steam!

Shameless punt, I know:
Misconceptions about PC gaming.

It's a tad out of date though, I'll fix it eventually. Damn i7 cores screw it all up.

Wargamer:
*snip*

First of all, don't make assumptions about things you don't know about.
Now I think we both know that's not true. The only possible difference hardware could make when you're playing a game is if you are playing it above the settings appropriate for your set-up, in which case it would slow you down.
Just because someone is playing on High detail doesn't mean they see more, it's just what they see is more detailed.
Except in the Crytec games, where it's actually harder for them to see stuff through the millions of bushes that pop up as you crank up the graphics. Or in the battlefield games where cranking up the detail means that explosions make more smoke, so it's harder to see.
In fact I think the only situation it may give an advantage in is when you increase your draw distance, but most games have that fixed for fairness.

Skillful edit, by the way.

Wargamer:

That is, they aren't built for NORMAL gaming. If you're an obsessive-compulsive douchebag who has his joystick, mouse and keyboard custom-built to the EXACT specifications of his hand and has 20K to blow on a super-computer, then PC gaming is most definitely the way to go.

These sorts of comments really don't help your case, considering it's really just as easy to come up with an equally exaggerated stereotype for your average console gamer. Especially since you aren't adding anything to the conversation with that.

Since Crysis seems to be brought up here, I'm finding it very interesting that the comments seem to be around the lines of "I can't run Crysis, so I'll forget that there are plenty of other games that I can run" and then the same folks seem to be complaining how the game sucks without even having played it (for more than the 5 minutes they tried at a friend's house). If it sucks so much, then why do you even care about not being able to run it?

As for developers turning away from the PC...as long as the PC is an open platform, there'll be PC games. It's as simple as that, really. I wouldn't even mind if PC games stopped selling in retail, since I haven't bought them that route for a smidgen over a year now.