Is creating a PC version after console exclusivity a practical solution to said exclusivity?

[Forrestfield]

Once per 2 or 3 years. Considering lower game prices, it'll still be cheaper then consoles.

Upgrading every two to three years is honestly overkill. I'd recommend upgrading every five years, unless an actual leap in technology occurs. Sure, graphical fidelity will suffer as you get further in, but it's likely that it'll be at least on par with what ever the console puts out at that point in time.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Well Dark Souls 1 had the worst of its issues resolved by modders, so as others have said, there's always that aspect to a PC that can be an advantage. Of course that doesn't justify any developer lazing on their game/port with the knowledge that modders will fix it, but it's there if that does ultimately occur.

If anything, I feel more for console players who receive bad ports, since they're kind of stuck up shit creek if the developers don't pull a finger out about it.

 

[clippen05]

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I disagree there El Comandante (also, do you hate the letter "e" or something? "Obsolete" and "Console" doesn't take much more effort.....)

I looked into getting a gaming PC instead of a next gen console last November and found the following;
1) no. It isn't cheaper. Not by a long shot. Not if you want the same capabilities as a modern next gen console. (That's what I found anyway. I can already hear the furious protestors looking up specs and equivalent parts)
2) it's waaaaay more hassle. PS3; disc in, press start. PC. Start up, install software, calibrate settings, run antivirus, windows 8 hates me again so have to reboot, the list goes on.
3) constant upgrades. With PC, you have to eventually upgrade your PC to run the newer games, as a lot of games have different and constantly increasing running requirements. With consoles the game has been optimised for the machine, not the other way around. Of course, until the next one comes out, but I would be surprised if a PC owner hasn't upgraded his PC at least twice in the time it takes for a new console generation.

granted, PC has nicer graphics, sound and smoother running with games being cheaper, especially thanks to the likes of steam. But for my (rather limited) money, I'm going for the simpler, cheaper low effort option. If I had the money then sure, I'd love to play some dark souls 2 or sonic generations on a high powered gaming PC, but I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't go back to console for the sheer simplicity of it all.

Oh, and I love my sega mega drive. Emulators be damned you can't get the same feeling when you don't have to blow into the cartridge to get it working

I don't know how much you 'looked into' getting a gaming PC but nearly all of what you posted is incorrect. A perfectly capable gaming PC can be built for $600, and while yes, that is more than both consoles, you forget the fact that 1: You don't have to pay for online multiplayer, 2: Game prices are universally cheaper whether through sales or cd-key websites and 3: It's a PC. It's not just a thing that plays games. Yes, it costs $200 more initially, but it comes with 100% more utility than what a console can do. I don't know of consoles that can be programmed on, run word processors and excel, run photoshop, etc etc, and especially being able to do this all at the same time. Considering most people need a PC for day to day living, it is not cost-prohibitive to get a $600 PC rather than a $400 console and a $200 PC. Anyway, yes, a console might be cheaper on Day 1, but that is most certainly not true when looking up the price of gaming you've done on it 2 years later.

2: It's not waaaaay more hassle. You put in disk/download game and click install? I fail to see the hassle. All updates these days are handled through Steam/Uplay/origin and are done automatically upon launching a game if you are not up-to-date, just like any console. I have no idea why 'running anti-virus' is considered a step, once that is installed, there is literally nothing you have to do with it. The list does not really go on since you so terribly fail to present an argument that there is any hassle in the first place.

3: Constant upgrades. Wrong again. The ONLY thing that any PC gamer 'has' to upgrade is a GPU, which is a $250 upgrade every 2-3 years at most. Considering that you don't necessarily have to upgrade if you get a higher end GPU in the first place or accept playing at lower settings, I'd say this is not that bad of a scenario; especially when you consider that low settings on a PC are still greater than or at least equal to console. And considering that most gaming is cheaper on PC, the $250 you spent on higher game prices and PSN/XBL will easily cover any upgrades. The difference is, upgrading your GPU actually brings tangible benefits will paying for XBL/PSN is basically a ransom that you have to pay to unlock things that you have already paid for. Unless you bring up the free games for gold and whatnot. Sure those 'free' games are nice, but its not like the same doesn't happen on steam. L4D2, Portal, Sniper EliteV2, Red Orchestra 2 have all been given up by Gaben for free. And in this case, these games aren't 'free' with subscription, they are completely and entirely free if you got them at the right time.

I hate to sound like an arsehole, but I just don't like misinformation spreading around. Consoles are fine, I don't use them much anymore, and they are no-less-relevant than PCs. It doesn't matter what you game on, but you shouldn't completetly lie about the pros and cons. They are certainly not cheaper than PCs or more user-friendly than PCs. Maybe 10 years ago, but not today.

 

[Evil Smurf]

Ahem...

<spoiler=definition of exclusive>ex·clu·sive (k-sklsv)
adj.
1. Excluding or tending to exclude: exclusive barriers.
2. Not allowing something else; incompatible: mutually exclusive conditions.
3. Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.
4. Not accompanied by others; single or sole: your exclusive function.
5. Complete; undivided: gained their exclusive attention.
6. Not including the specified extremes or limits, but only the area between them: 20-25, exclusive; that is, 21, 22, 23 and 24.
7. Excluding some or most, as from membership or participation: an exclusive club.
8. Catering to a wealthy clientele; expensive: exclusive shops.
9. Linguistics Of, relating to, or being a first person plural pronoun that excludes the addressee, such as we in the sentence Chris and I will be in town tomorrow, so we can stop by your office.
n.
1. A news item initially released to only one publication or broadcaster.
2. An exclusive right or privilege, as to market a product.

So yes, removing exclusivity would fix exclusivity. However it's the bread and butter of companies, If Nintendo sold Pokemon, and Zelda for PC, I'd have no Nintendo consoles.

 

[Vault101]

. I guess the overall question I'm getting at here is if it's a good thing for a PC release to come out with poor optimization over a nonexistent release for the platform. Opinions?

.....hmmmm I'd rather get the game then not get it...as long as its playable

I don't agree with that shit though, but what can you do?

If you can afford a dedicated gaming rig than a console should be chump change surely (you're listed as USA).

yeeeeeaaaah noooo....

that's still $500 I can't justify spending

[quote/]So do you get a sensation of abusing a hostage when you play a PC exclusive or something? This hostage bunkum is pretty much only said by PC[/quote]

it kinda depends

there are legitimate technical reasons as to why some games couldn't or shouldn't make it to console....now that doesn't mean console games are [b/]obligated[/b] to come to PC at all porting takes time and money, and I wouldn't expect an "actual" exclusive like Infamous or uncharted to be on PC

however something like destiny...it feels a bit like a middle finger...

or don't even get me started on tomb raider

 

[SadisticFire]

The problem with poor optomization/lock up for games is that (and maybe i'm spoiled) is that I don't get mods. And also sometimes it's a poor port beyond playing(I bought mass effect 2.. only to realize it has no controller support (????????)) so I end up never playing it or getting bored. There's been one exception and that's the dead rising games. Mod devs are actually hosting a competition for the first person to crack the code so to say and start making an API, I think it's at ~150 dollars, because of the niche of it. But on topic
I guess its better than having nothing but why can't I have a non locked up game?

 

[Rozalia1]

yeeeeeaaaah noooo....

that's still $500 I can't justify spending

So its that old unfair adage than. People who talk of high PC prices are wrong because if you look around you'll find cheap parts. Consoles? Full price, no ifs, no buts, full price forever.

it kinda depends

there are legitimate technical reasons as to why some games couldn't or shouldn't make it to console....now that doesn't mean console games are obligated to come to PC at all porting takes time and money, and I wouldn't expect an "actual" exclusive like Infamous or uncharted to be on PC

however something like destiny...it feels a bit like a middle finger...

or don't even get me started on tomb raider

As you said there is no obligation. A company like Gust having no desire to put its games on platforms it has no support, not to mention wasting valuable money while slowing their future products means no one who isn't completely unreasonable should lambaste them for it.

As for Destiny. Look there is no marking out going on there, they aren't doing it because they hate PC gamers or anything like that. They take business decisions and if they believe having a PC version isn't worth doing than that is that.

Alright.

I've seen this "PC Exclusive" thing pop up a few times, and now I have to ask.

How many games that were actually exclusive to PC's were viable on consoles?

Most of these "PC Exclusives" are on PC, because PC is the only platform with the flexibility of control-input required (like DCS A-10C Warthog, which is a 100% simulation, buttons and all of the actual A-10 aircraft. Do you think a console, any console could play DCS on any degree of realism?).

All games on consoles can in theory be played on a PC (now more than ever because you can easily hook up a controller to the PC). I've yet to see a Proper flightsim, or a large scale RTS being played on a Console.

PC exclusives, are mostly exclusive because of hardware, not a business deal.

So those indie games exclusive to PC are oh so hard to get running on consoles. Let me give you a hint, there is a reason for such things...which is in most cases ultimately why PC doesn't get certain third party exclusives. Indie company doesn't have the money to put it on X? Fine. Small studio who has produced exclusives on PlayStation long term don't have the money to put it on PC.
The double standard that PC exclusives should be excused while console exclusives are some great sin is absurd. More so is the claim that most of "PC exclusives" are impossible on console. Minecraft was "impossible" on console, its on there.

 

[LaochEire]

No console, no buy!

Just wanted to see what that feels like seeing as no PC no buy makes up 25% of most forum posts.

I don't know how much you 'looked into' getting a gaming PC but nearly all of what you posted is incorrect. A perfectly capable gaming PC can be built for $600, and while yes, that is more than both consoles, you forget the fact that 1: You don't have to pay for online multiplayer, 2: Game prices are universally cheaper whether through sales or cd-key websites and 3: It's a PC. It's not just a thing that plays games. Yes, it costs $200 more initially, but it comes with 100% more utility than what a console can do. I don't know of consoles that can be programmed on, run word processors and excel, run photoshop, etc etc, and especially being able to do this all at the same time. Considering most people need a PC for day to day living, it is not cost-prohibitive to get a $600 PC rather than a $400 console and a $200 PC. Anyway, yes, a console might be cheaper on Day 1, but that is most certainly not true when looking up the price of gaming you've done on it 2 years later.

2: It's not waaaaay more hassle. You put in disk/download game and click install? I fail to see the hassle. All updates these days are handled through Steam/Uplay/origin and are done automatically upon launching a game if you are not up-to-date, just like any console. I have no idea why 'running anti-virus' is considered a step, once that is installed, there is literally nothing you have to do with it. The list does not really go on since you so terribly fail to present an argument that there is any hassle in the first place.

3: Constant upgrades. Wrong again. The ONLY thing that any PC gamer 'has' to upgrade is a GPU, which is a $250 upgrade every 2-3 years at most. Considering that you don't necessarily have to upgrade if you get a higher end GPU in the first place or accept playing at lower settings, I'd say this is not that bad of a scenario; especially when you consider that low settings on a PC are still greater than or at least equal to console. And considering that most gaming is cheaper on PC, the $250 you spent on higher game prices and PSN/XBL will easily cover any upgrades. The difference is, upgrading your GPU actually brings tangible benefits will paying for XBL/PSN is basically a ransom that you have to pay to unlock things that you have already paid for. Unless you bring up the free games for gold and whatnot. Sure those 'free' games are nice, but its not like the same doesn't happen on steam. L4D2, Portal, Sniper EliteV2, Red Orchestra 2 have all been given up by Gaben for free. And in this case, these games aren't 'free' with subscription, they are completely and entirely free if you got them at the right time.

I hate to sound like an arsehole, but I just don't like misinformation spreading around. Consoles are fine, I don't use them much anymore, and they are no-less-relevant than PCs. It doesn't matter what you game on, but you shouldn't completetly lie about the pros and cons. They are certainly not cheaper than PCs or more user-friendly than PCs. Maybe 10 years ago, but not today.

You're just as guilty as he is at spreading misinformation. He might be living with a rose tinted view on consoles, but you're doing the same with PC. He's gone to one negative extreme on PC gaming and you've gone to exact opposite where everything is ever so rosy in PC Land.

1. The price between PC and console is tiny these days. PC gamers always say initial cost is higher, but it's cheaper in the long run. They forget that the initial base cost of the unit may only be $600, but what about upgrades? How long a PC last for at $600? Not a snide question, I'm genuinely curious.

2. You're right, it's not waaaaay more hassle, but it's more hassle than a console. Again, another rose tinted view that STEAM/Uplay/Origin all behave themselves, which is never the case. I can't play EU IV without crashing when I reload a save. Steam will not update Fallout so I need to delete and redownload. Uplay has been a cancer on PC gaming and booted me from my single player when I dropped connection (in the past) and I was just playing Anno 1404 and Uplay will not download every update when you boot the game. Only one patch at a time. Every time I've booted that game this week, there's been a patch.

3. Only a GPU upgrade is another very simplistic view of it. If you're at a point where you are forced to upgrade graphics card then you're more than likely going to bottleneck it unless you've got your build almost perfect. Also, this is the one comment that annoys me most; you say the cost of upgrade covers the cost of games on PSN/XBL. You know they have sales, right? You know that consoles still allow games to be bought from other places? I know PC games are always on sale and console games are always full price. Makes me feel like Amazon made a mistake when I bought Metro Redux brand new at launch, that included both games, for £25, on PS4, when Steam wanted £40

You're most accurate statement is this: "It doesn't matter what you game on"

You were right to challenge his views on PC, but at least be impartial, yeah?

 

[Zipa]

No console, no buy!

Just wanted to see what that feels like seeing as no PC no buy makes up 25% of most forum posts.

I don't know how much you 'looked into' getting a gaming PC but nearly all of what you posted is incorrect. A perfectly capable gaming PC can be built for $600, and while yes, that is more than both consoles, you forget the fact that 1: You don't have to pay for online multiplayer, 2: Game prices are universally cheaper whether through sales or cd-key websites and 3: It's a PC. It's not just a thing that plays games. Yes, it costs $200 more initially, but it comes with 100% more utility than what a console can do. I don't know of consoles that can be programmed on, run word processors and excel, run photoshop, etc etc, and especially being able to do this all at the same time. Considering most people need a PC for day to day living, it is not cost-prohibitive to get a $600 PC rather than a $400 console and a $200 PC. Anyway, yes, a console might be cheaper on Day 1, but that is most certainly not true when looking up the price of gaming you've done on it 2 years later.

2: It's not waaaaay more hassle. You put in disk/download game and click install? I fail to see the hassle. All updates these days are handled through Steam/Uplay/origin and are done automatically upon launching a game if you are not up-to-date, just like any console. I have no idea why 'running anti-virus' is considered a step, once that is installed, there is literally nothing you have to do with it. The list does not really go on since you so terribly fail to present an argument that there is any hassle in the first place.

3: Constant upgrades. Wrong again. The ONLY thing that any PC gamer 'has' to upgrade is a GPU, which is a $250 upgrade every 2-3 years at most. Considering that you don't necessarily have to upgrade if you get a higher end GPU in the first place or accept playing at lower settings, I'd say this is not that bad of a scenario; especially when you consider that low settings on a PC are still greater than or at least equal to console. And considering that most gaming is cheaper on PC, the $250 you spent on higher game prices and PSN/XBL will easily cover any upgrades. The difference is, upgrading your GPU actually brings tangible benefits will paying for XBL/PSN is basically a ransom that you have to pay to unlock things that you have already paid for. Unless you bring up the free games for gold and whatnot. Sure those 'free' games are nice, but its not like the same doesn't happen on steam. L4D2, Portal, Sniper EliteV2, Red Orchestra 2 have all been given up by Gaben for free. And in this case, these games aren't 'free' with subscription, they are completely and entirely free if you got them at the right time.

I hate to sound like an arsehole, but I just don't like misinformation spreading around. Consoles are fine, I don't use them much anymore, and they are no-less-relevant than PCs. It doesn't matter what you game on, but you shouldn't completetly lie about the pros and cons. They are certainly not cheaper than PCs or more user-friendly than PCs. Maybe 10 years ago, but not today.

You're just as guilty as he is at spreading misinformation. He might be living with a rose tinted view on consoles, but you're doing the same with PC. He's gone to one negative extreme on PC gaming and you've gone to exact opposite where everything is ever so rosy in PC Land.

1. The price between PC and console is tiny these days. PC gamers always say initial cost is higher, but it's cheaper in the long run. They forget that the initial base cost of the unit may only be $600, but what about upgrades? How long a PC last for at $600? Not a snide question, I'm genuinely curious.

2. You're right, it's not waaaaay more hassle, but it's more hassle than a console. Again, another rose tinted view that STEAM/Uplay/Origin all behave themselves, which is never the case. I can't play EU IV without crashing when I reload a save. Steam will not update Fallout so I need to delete and redownload. Uplay has been a cancer on PC gaming and booted me from my single player when I dropped connection (in the past) and I was just playing Anno 1404 and Uplay will not download every update when you boot the game. Only one patch at a time. Every time I've booted that game this week, there's been a patch.

3. Only a GPU upgrade is another very simplistic view of it. If you're at a point where you are forced to upgrade graphics card then you're more than likely going to bottleneck it unless you've got your build almost perfect. Also, this is the one comment that annoys me most; you say the cost of upgrade covers the cost of games on PSN/XBL. You know they have sales, right? You know that consoles still allow games to be bought from other places? I know PC games are always on sale and console games are always full price. Makes me feel like Amazon made a mistake when I bought Metro Redux brand new at launch, that included both games, for £25, on PS4, when Steam wanted £40

You're most accurate statement is this: "It doesn't matter what you game on"

You were right to challenge his views on PC, but at least be impartial, yeah?

1. It depends on what you expect, a $600 PC can still be more than capable of playing games for the current lifespan of this gens consoles. You won't be running them on Max/Ultra settings with a 4K monitor though.

2. All good points though consoles also have problems of this nature, put a disk in and play is not a thing any longer, day one patching is now a thing console or PC. Plus there is also joyous things on the console side like an update bricking your console like the one that is doing it to some peoples PS4s with Destiny.

3. Unless you are upgrading from a CPU thats very old then bottlenecking is not going to be a thing, unless you are doing something like running a modern (last 2-3 years) graphics card on a old single or dual core from 2003 you won't run into this as much nowadays. Games rarely utilize more than a couple of processor cores anyway.

Its more likely that someone into PC gaming is going to want to upgrade at some point though as new technologies becomes available, like the new Haswell-E processors that is one the first to use DDR4 RAM, or the upcoming upgrades to USB-C.

 

[LaochEire]

snip

There's nothing wrong with your points, what I'm trying to get across is there is no right or wrong way to game. Both have their positives and negatives. I did take exception to somebody accusing another of misinformation before going on to do the exact same thing.

I will say something about point 2 you made, which is fair, but I still believe console still holds the simplicity. On the PS4 it took 12 secs to install Killzone and I can play my PS4 games when they're patching and installing in the background. Also, I don't get the hate with patches. I've seen it used as an argument, but would you prefer a simpler times like on PS2/PS1 when there was no patching? May have been somewhat nice, but the amount of games that had game breaking bugs that prevented them from being finished is something I can live without.

All I can go by is my own experiences. PC games I find too finicky (see EU IV). I've been playing Metro Redux and it took 15ses to install and I was in game within 1 minute. That's not to say there's anything wrong with PC. Many PC gamers have EU IV and it runs perfectly fine. I'm a minority.

Your point about consoles being bricked; the figure for that was so tiny and those machines are not permanently bricked they just need to be reformatted from what I've read. It's annoying, I know, but it's made out that you're PS4 is dead, when it's not.

Edit: I still use my PC to game as well. It's just not my primary gaming device.

 

[Zipa]

snip

There's nothing wrong with your points, what I'm trying to get across is there is no right or wrong way to game. Both have their positives and negatives. I did take exception to somebody accusing another of misinformation before going on to do the exact same thing.

I will say something about point 2 you made, which is fair, but I still believe console still holds the simplicity. On the PS4 it took 12 secs to install Killzone and I can play my PS4 games when they're patching and installing in the background. Also, I don't get the hate with patches. I've seen it used as an argument, but would you prefer a simpler times like on PS2/PS1 when there was no patching? May have been somewhat nice, but the amount of games that had game breaking bugs that prevented them from being finished is something I can live without.

All I can go by is my own experiences. PC games I find too finicky (see EU IV). I've been playing Metro Redux and it took 15ses to install and I was in game within 1 minute. That's not to say there's anything wrong with PC. Many PC gamers have EU IV and it runs perfectly fine. I'm a minority.

Your point about consoles being bricked; the figure for that was so tiny and those machines are not permanently bricked they just need to be reformatted from what I've read. It's annoying, I know, but it's made out that you're PS4 is dead, when it's not.

Edit: I still use my PC to game as well. It's just not my primary gaming device.

I'm with you there, there is no right or wrong way to game, as long as you enjoy yourself who cares? As for patches yeah they are a good thing, I remember the days when the only hope of a patch was getting them free with magazines like PC Gamer. Digital distribution of patches has done everyone a favour, PC or console.

I've never played any of the EU games so I can't speak for how finicky they can be but there are always games that a are problematic to get running. It's an unfortunate side effect of open nature of the PC, there are too many hardware and software configurations that even the best developer with infinite money couldn't test them all.

I wasn't aware of the details of the Destiny patch severity, I just saw some people on twitter complaining about it. It doesn't sound so bad if it is just a reformat, I have had games bork my Windows install to the point of a reinstall before so its far from a console only issue.

While i'm a mostly PC gamer now I am far from anti console, I have been both a console and a PC gamer so I realise there are pros and cons for both sides.

 

[Pink Gregory]

however something like destiny...it feels a bit like a middle finger...

Is Destiny not a first party title?

I thought it was, being Bungie and all...

 

[Vault101]

So its that old unfair adage than. People who talk of high PC prices are wrong because if you look around you'll find cheap parts. Consoles? Full price, no ifs, no buts, full price forever.

I'm pretty sure its not right to say

"if you can afford to spend $1400 on PC then you can afford to spend an extra $500 on a console"

uhhh no, and that's assuming the console is worth it...I don't [I/]like[/I] playing things on a console, and even if P paid $100 for the console lets say there areonly two exclusives I want and I can get them at $20 each...that's $140 for two games...I don't think so


[quote/]The double standard that PC exclusives should be excused while console exclusives are some great sin is absurd. More so is the claim that most of "PC exclusives" are impossible on console. Minecraft was "impossible" on console, its on there.[/quote]
its not a claim...sometimes its a fact in terms of both technical reasons or the type of game it is

 

[Rozalia1]

I'm pretty sure its not right to say

"if you can afford to spend $1400 on PC then you can afford to spend an extra $500 on a console"

uhhh no, and that's assuming the console is worth it...I don't like playing things on a console, and even if P paid $100 for the console lets say there areonly two exclusives I want and I can get them at $20 each...that's $140 for two games...I don't think so

There being two games total you'd like to play is your problem, not the manufacturers. Also my statement isn't incorrect actually no, if you can spend the amount you listed (1400) than yes you can buy a console no problem. If buying the PC put you heavy into debt meaning you can't actually buy the console as you have no income and no one will give you a further loan than...why should I even be taking this into account? That person shouldn't even have the PC in the first place if in such a situation.

its not a claim...sometimes its a fact in terms of both technical reasons or the type of game it is

I'll not just repeat Minecraft as while valid there is something I like to use far more. You willing to repeat that whilst looking at RE2 on Game.com? It laughs at your claim.

 

[Vault101]

I'll not just repeat Minecraft as while valid there is something I like to use far more. You willing to repeat that whilst looking at RE2 on Game.com? It laughs at your claim.

I don't get it....I'm gonna assume resident evil 2 was ported to....that thing which looks like a bad gameboy knock off?

you know back in the day when they had those tiger electronic watch games....they had some street figher ones? that didn't make those games a true street fighter experience, the only enjoyment you might have gotten out of those was the fact it had street figher on the outside

 

[Rozalia1]

I don't get it....I'm gonna assume resident evil 2 was ported to....that thing which looks like a bad gameboy knock off?

you know back in the day when they had those tiger electronic watch games....they had some street figher ones? that didn't make those games a true street fighter experience, the only enjoyment you might have gotten out of those was the fact it had street figher on the outside

Technical issues don't make it impossible was the point. You want to port something, you find a way.
Its not impossible in the slightest.

 

[Rozalia1]

Except it is not the same anymore.

Just say it as it is.
A different game with a similar storyline and the same/almost same name. That is what you get.

It doesn't have all that shrubbery, oh well. It involve Raccoon City? Leon? Umbrella? Survival? Horror? Zombies?

If fluff makes it impossible than you take out the fluff, simple. Fluff is no reason not to port something if you intend to port it.

 

[EXos]

I think for a lot of publishers the PC market is getting more interesting as it seems the Console market is good for an immediate return; Sales are high at launch.
While with the PC it's not as high at launch but it lasts for years (Through sales, active modding community, bundles etc.) it creates a 'steady' cash-flow that can last decades (Look at the success of GoG).

The active steam accounts (Logged in at least once a month) is 76 Million. Any publisher would love to get a share in that and the Digital distribution venues that are available on PC are a big reason why.

 

[Dr. Crawver]

There should only be games made for PC´s and no ports to consols at all!
Now that I have your anger let me explain .
Well to me a consol is totaly obsolet, because it is a PC. In a perfect world we would not have consols! Not because of arian PC-Msterrace, but because a console is just a PC with less functions. I can understand why someone would want that, it´s easy and most of the time it just works. I like that myself, but it´s easy to make a normal PC like that!
But what stops a good port most of the time is just the software. In my eyes it´s just an artificial barrier to secure a part of the market. A PC has all the ports to use yout beloved gaming gear, and it can be small and cheap just like a consol, a still have the same power. If you just want to watch films and play some Games, buy a small PC for less than an Xbone.
Development would take longer of course, a lot more different hardware-options. But that is not the reason why there are consols. I realy hope for the death of consols, that will sadly most likely not happen.
Till that glorious day I will also take a bad port, sometimse mods will fix it.

"Well to me a consol is totaly obsolet[sic]" And there in lies the flaws of your argument. To you it's obsolete. I own a PC and an xbox 360, and I prefer playing games on my console. I still play games on the PC, but to expect company's to change their practices to benefit you at the cost of millions of others, have fun with that because it isn't going to happen any time soon. I get tired at how often gamers forget just how many people play games and how wide the audience is now. No individual is the center of attention, and nor should any of them be.

 

[t00bz]

If you can afford a dedicated gaming rig than a console should be chump change surely (you're listed as USA).

That's so inaccurate that it makes me sick. You can build a dedicated gaming rig for about the same amount of money as a next-gen console. Stop spreading these lies about PC being more expensive that it actually is.

Just calm down and buy a console if you want those exclusives as most of them you'll just not be getting otherwise. Plus if you don't get all you need than it'll funk up your tastes in the long run.

No. No, no, no, no, no. Why the hell should someone drop $400 on a device for a couple of games? That is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. Also, how the in fuck will it 'funk up' his tastes if he doesn't get to play the 1% of games that won't appear on PC?

For example today survival horror exists more on PC but to someone who played them in their golden age they are simple substandard to me. Had I not a console way back when than I'd either not play SH at all, or I'd god forbid think today's meager offerings as actually being *gasp* excellent.

Okay, what SH games have you played recently? Have you played Outlast or either of the Amnesia games? Or do you just have a massive nostalgia boner for Silent Hill and Biohazard(The latter of which has never really been all that good of a series)?

Your question is odd. In what world would not getting the game at all be in any way superior than a diminished version?
Additionally you have an xbox tag so... why are you even bringing this up?

It's not odd at all. The odd thing are people like you, who get a substandard version of a game(that is more expensive that the PC version btw) and think it's the second coming of Christ. Take a game like Dead Rising 3. I would love to play it, but I'm not going to in it's current state of being locked to 30 fps(which is dreadful garbage) and is so poorly optimized that even when fiddled with and unlocked to 60 fps, it cannot hold a steady frame rate. I would rather not play the game at all than try to play a shit version of it.