ok first off i dont think gears of war should ever of been ported to pcs but thats my opinion. As to the rest of your list the 360 aint getting any RTS games that will actualy work as to your list, halo 3 sucked and those that followed would not do well on a pc, fable 2 wasnt ported because it was too expensive to do so, and alan wake from what i here isnt all that good ether. I think you should take a chill pill go play one of the many great games for the pc (hell most of the realy good games are on the pc)and leave Microsoft alone.coldalarm said:
Lionhead Still Working on Fable III for PC
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
...Nope. I'm sorry, but I much prefer mouse-and-keyboard to any sort of gamepad; not to mention that by now the PC's hardware has far outstripped that of the consoles, and said consoles are now officially the graphical bottleneck for multiplatform releases... but what really kills me is that, in order to play every game on the market, you have to buy a PS3, an Xbox 360, AND a wii... which comes to about $700. Then you have to pay $60 a pop for the games, plus whatever more for Kinect and a Move, if you're including those accessories... and that's over just five years! In contrast, I can get by with upgrading my graphics card to a model a generation behind every two years for about $150; even more rarely if I'm willing to put some settings on medium. I haven't upgraded my PC since 2008; it's running a Geforce 9650 GT, and it handles pretty much everything just fine, thankyouverramuch.RyanKaufman said:
But anyway. I'm pretty sure it's Microsoft's fault here - they want the console-owners to shell out $60 first, then sell the PC game at $50 to whoever's left. It's always about the money... and the people who are willing to pay the most get catered to at the expense of everyone else.
I think that what's getting on people's nerves (mine, at least) is that Microsoft, the supposed proprietor of BOTH Xbox and Windows, is repeatedly not porting their own, first-party titles! They're demonstrating just how much they care about one platform in relation to the other, which makes those of us that spent hundreds of dollars on an MS operating system (Including through a retail PC purchase!) feel severely slighted. Basically, they're not living up to their end of things, preferring to intentionally limit and work against their PC audience in order to coerce the purchasing of more Xboxes - and more $60 games. And THAT, my friend, is not only discomfiting, but (I believe) dishonest.ecoho said:
Pffft how much do you want to bet when it comes out "if it does at all" it will be a more or less direct port with little to no added content and at a full or an even higher price-tag with a bunch of new glitches that weren't in the X-box version or already patched for that version. MS does not give two shits about there PC gamer market or I would at least be playing HALO 3 on my PC right now almost 4 years after it's release not to mention many others. I would switch to MAC if they weren't such tight-asses about third party software and mostly game deficient.
So I'm guessing you would be fine if they had postponed the X-box release indefinitely and released they PC version on time? it's a mater of principle and this is not the first game that they have done this to there is a very long string of broken promises and canceled PC games from Microsoft so keep your trollish comments to yourself they are not welcome. Also this forum was made more or less for people to vent their frustrations why are you even here?mad825 said:
Tbh I'm not really looking forward to the "upcoming DLC" The DLC was released on day 1 and quickly removed in order to release it later (I assume to make people think it wasn't day 1 dlc) http://lionhead.com/forums/t/293159.aspx?PageIndex=1
Not to mention cutting out the black dye in order to sell it as dlc is just a major rip off. Way to support the fans, Lionhead.
Not to mention cutting out the black dye in order to sell it as dlc is just a major rip off. Way to support the fans, Lionhead.
your point? If you have so little hope for a PC version why then do people whine like a five year old brat? simply enough, if you ain't expecting it to come out then keep the gob closed.....simple as that.Firsteye said:
me? trolling? no. I'm merely pointing out the irrational attitude.
A month ago, I would tell you I'd die to play this game, but after the reviews started to pop up, I no longer have that desire. First, because as much as I enjoyed the first two Fables and the first one was the PC version mind you, I found another masterpiece in Fable's PC abscence and it's called The Witcher, wich is by far, much, much better in my opinion. Although you don't get to fart in the face of your enemies, it's my RPG of the year so far.
I know it's a 2 year old game and I don't care, I just don't want to play Fable III anymore.
I know it's a 2 year old game and I don't care, I just don't want to play Fable III anymore.
ok in a perfect world yes they would port every first party title they release to to PC but think about it, it cost a hell of alot more to put something on the PC(right) then it is to put it on a console. Add in the fact that the majority of people dont have top end computers and as such cant play said games that were ported. In the long run man its not that they dont want to its just not cost effective. Take both those points and then consider that there are many 3rd party compenies that already cover the majority of the PC market such as steam, and you find that in the long run man its the best choice for them. Now they have made it alot easier to get a 360 so that now for the price of upgradeing your PC you can get one, Which they didnt have to do (playstation has proved this if you have good games people will pay what they have to.)omicron1 said:
...uh... NO?ecoho said:
Why should it cost more to put something on PC? All the source code is written on PC; every game released on console has at least a mostly-complete build already on the PC, albeit not compatible with PC graphics drivers. Porting, then, is a matter of rewriting the mid-level graphics code, updating the interface to work with mouse-and-keyboard, and changing the tutorial/menu options text! It represents a fraction of the game's total cost, and opens up an entire new platform.
I'm sorry, your argument is invalid. Console ports generally target a middle-of-the-line PC nowadays, simply because the consoles represent a static target. Anything you build for a console will be possible to run using a high-end computer from 2006 - if it's properly optimized for the platform. Even severe optimization deficiency does not make that much difference overall; hence my middle-of-the-road computer with a mainstream graphics card from 3 generations back can run pretty much any modern console port without problems.
Consider that Steam alone tends to represent upwards of a million sales for any high-profile game that lands there (even the absurdly-overpriced Call of Duty titles). And Steam is only one of several digital distribution services, which themselves make up only about half of the PC market. The potential profits from a port, properly executed and released while the hype is hot, FAR outweigh the cost of porting.
And again, the problem is that in order to play all the good games (for a random sampling, Monster Hunter Tri, Uncharted 2, and Halo Reach), you have to get three consoles. Plus accessories. The total cost is equivalent to buying a BRAND-NEW PC!
You want to know what the reason for xbox exclusives is, I'll tell you. Microsoft doesn't make much, if any, profit on the xbox 360s they sell. So they make up for it through game licensing fees - about 7% of a game's total cost goes straight to the console manufacturer. So the more games they sell on their locked-down platform, the more money they make. They can't get that money from PC games, so they are even willing to PAY developers to make exclusives!... money that can come in very handy when you're making a game and haven't seen the profits from it yet.
Where this analogy breaks down is when you have a first-party title. MS acts as the publisher for these, and so makes a good 20+% of the cost no matter what platform they come out on. So MS releasing first-party exclusives only on xbox 360 is almost certainly because they make more money per sale on console than on PC - due to the higher console sale price. Nonetheless, they would make more money total by releasing ports, so the lack of action on their part is nothing more than misdirected greed.
omg please go look up the cost of makeing a good pc game and then look up the cost for a good 360 game. it takes about 1 million more to make a good pc game then a console because PCS CHANGE CONSTANTLY! Also most computers you buy out of the box cant play the big titles as well as a 360 and lets face it if you cant play something the way it was ment to be why buy it? Let me also cover the statment about haveing to buy every system to get all the good games. Pick a dam system get games for it play it till you can afford the next one that simple. I worked my ass off to buy my consoles and my dam computer, if i can do it you sure as hell can as a pc gamer! Now please stop blameing microsoft for something that is very hard to do and has a limited market. the only good ports ive ever seen for a PC from an xbox are halo and the mass effect, even those got bashed for not being "The best" on the pc. so tell me why the hell would they port a game to people who not only are a small number of people but flat out hate the games they do port?omicron1 said:
BTW microsoft is not responsible for fable 3 being delayed for PC its lionhead that wants to keep it back (to make it a good port i asume
so lay off.
Ok, I'm going to be brief and only address a couple of issues:ecoho said:
1. 1 million dollars is pocket change compared to most game budgets... and considering that said prices are most likely for games developed from scratch for a particular system, have little to no relation to the cost of porting. And while PC hardware does change constantly, this has become a relative nonissue in recent years for ports - because PC hardware is universally more powerful than console hardware, it gives the developers a bit of slack with regards to how much optimization/hardware-specific coding they have to do. And I'm sorry, but your comment about how "most computers you buy out of the box" can't play modern releases is just plain false. Any modern PC that costs more than a few hundred dollars (this one, for example: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883241024) is more than capable of playing modern console ports! Heck, I could probably build a computer for $400 that can run COD:BLOPS at full detail. And if you go for one of the cheapo $300 microPCs, you should be able to buy an equivalent graphics card for about $60 and stick it in (assuming the power block is strong enough and the case/MB large enough, of course)
2. Please stop spouting corporate-line gibberish about "hard to do" and "limited market." It's not and it's not, respectively. The PC market is thriving (for numerical proof, please see Steam's average concurrent user count of ~2 million users - this being just the number of people on one of many digital download services (which make up about half the market) at any given time!) and is comparable to the market sizes for the consoles!
Nor do we hate a well-done port. What we hate is games that are ported as an afterthought - with xbox or playstation buttons referenced in the tutorial; with no mouse control; or with crippling limitations like UbiDRM or GFWL. So... yeah.
